League Lineup - RBs too valuable - how to cure? (1 Viewer)

[GOroute]

I hear this debate a lot and I am seeing it in a few leagues and specifically in 1.

As it stands now we start:

1qb, 2rb, 4wr, 1te, 1rb/wr/te flex, 1de, 1k

Some people state owning 3 good rbs provides those owners a huge edge and it makes it hard for those w/ inj issues to compete and the separation is too easy.

Therefore, it was suggested we incorporate a super flex instead of flex meaning instead of rb/wr/te it would be qb/rb/wr/te. With this minus pts like ints, fumbles & sacks would be included. However, this is a mixed opinion. So the question is:

1) what other options can be done using the base of the lineup up top to make rb's not as valuable but still important?

2) do you like the superflex idea while taking away some points from rb?

I think this question could help a lot of leagues & commissioners build a strong, competitive & fair league.

The idea behind a large starting lineup is you must know your fant fball. Depth is key as that depth will play. Dont punish the good teams for having great depth as half their lineup sits. Play your guys.

Thx!!

 

[Benicio10]

My league does 0.5PPR and uses the following formation to combat your issue: 1QB, 1RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1RB/WR/TE flex, 1K, 1DEF

So you can go 2RB, 2WR, 1TE or go 1RB and 3WR, or even 2RB, 2WR, 2TE set.

 

[DoubleG]

You could also drop the flex completely or simply drop the RB portion of it out (a TE/WR flex). Another option would be to add PPR for WR & TE only (adding PPR and including RBs would serve to only drive the values of some RBs up even higher)

 

[cobalt_27]

Basic premise to obtain balanced value that is commensurate to what's actually on the field is 1:1:2:1 (QB:RB:WR:TE). Allow flex to be a QB.

Folks really need to let go of all the cosmetics that drive the 1QB:2RB model. It limits creativity and flexibility in building a team, which is partly why you see very little variance across drafts.

 

[Biabreakable]

Engineering your system to punish RB is not going to change the fact that only some of them will get the touches that causes them to dominate the rest of their contemporaries.

Top RB have combined touches of 300-400 compared to the top WR/TE who if very good will still only see 80-120.

Starting fewer RB will not change this PPR (if you include RB in that) will not change this. It does help to require more QB/WR/TE be started because that will even out the scarcity issue somewhat, and I think is the best option. But there will still only be a handful of RB who will get that volume of touches and they will be valuable no matter how much you devalue them.

 

[Touchdown There]

Basic premise to obtain balanced value that is commensurate to what's actually on the field is 1:1:2:1 (QB:RB:WR:TE). Allow flex to be a QB.

Folks really need to let go of all the cosmetics that drive the 1QB:2RB model. It limits creativity and flexibility in building a team, which is partly why you see very little variance across drafts.

I like the way you write Cobalt.

 

[GOroute]

Basic premise to obtain balanced value that is commensurate to what's actually on the field is 1:1:2:1 (QB:RB:WR:TE). Allow flex to be a QB.

Folks really need to let go of all the cosmetics that drive the 1QB:2RB model. It limits creativity and flexibility in building a team, which is partly why you see very little variance across drafts.

I like the way you write Cobalt.

Yes, I think i see what you are saying, but not sure. are you stating that people need to let go of real life football and allow superflex (qb flex) ideas to allow for differences & new strategies as opposed to the same old little variance drafting that we are seeing a lot these days?

 

[GOroute]

Starting fewer RB will not change this PPR (if you include RB in that) will not change this. It does help to require more QB/WR/TE be started because that will even out the scarcity issue somewhat, and I think is the best option. But there will still only be a handful of RB who will get that volume of touches and they will be valuable no matter how much you devalue them.

Agree on the top rb's will still hold great value no matter what the format unless only starting 1 rb each which is not the case. So do you like a qb flex? Do you think this drives qbs value too much?

 

[Leonidas]

I would first try simply dropping the RB option off of the flex spot.

Or get rid of the required RB2.

 

[Pwingles]

Drop it to 1 rb only, add a rb wr flex. Add a te wr flex. Give TEs 1.2-1.5 or so ppr.

So your starters would be

Qb rb rb/wr wr wr wr te/wr te etc...

Gives you like 5 different starting lineups all with their own merits

 

[Biabreakable]

Starting fewer RB will not change this PPR (if you include RB in that) will not change this. It does help to require more QB/WR/TE be started because that will even out the scarcity issue somewhat, and I think is the best option. But there will still only be a handful of RB who will get that volume of touches and they will be valuable no matter how much you devalue them.

Agree on the top rb's will still hold great value no matter what the format unless only starting 1 rb each which is not the case. So do you like a qb flex? Do you think this drives qbs value too much?

I have not played in any 2Qb or Qb flex option leagues yet. But I have been warming up to that idea and may try one at some point.

I do not think it is a problem having the Qb position be worth more. That actually reflects their real value to a team in football, it just hasn't been done in FF much because a team does not start 2Qb at the same time very often.

To even out scarcity at Wr you need to start 4 or 5 compared to 2 Rb. And for TE start 2 or 3.

Having the rb not be a flex option with the other positions being allowed is a good solution for the scarcity/baselines I think. You allow teams to start 3Rb and they will be coveted no matter what else you do. Limiting that to 2 does help that issue I think.

For those advocating only 1 RB that means your baseline is Rb 12. Everyone will have a very good one and this makes time share RB next to useless.

 

[moondog]

My league switched to a starting lineup of QB, 1RB, 2WR, 1TE, RB/WR/TE, WR/TE, K, D.

You can still start 2 RB's if you want but this lineup lessens the need to stockpile RBs.

 

[XFLcommish]

We ran into this years ago and took away the ability to start 3 RBs. Our line is now QB, RB, RB/WR, WR, WR, WR/TE, TE, PK, DL, DL, LB, LB, DB, DB, DL/LB/DB. Or listed another way...

Choose 8:

QB - 1

RB - 1-2

WR - 2-4

TE - 1-2

PK - 1

Choose 7:

DL - 2-3

LB - 2-3

DB - 2-3

 

[GOroute]

I kind of feel like if that flex is qb/rb/wr/te it gives teams options. but only if qb's dont score huge points.

very good input so far. appreciate it. interested to know what ppl think of:

1qb

2rb

4wr

1te

1superflex - qb/rb/wr/te

1de

1k

-3 pts for all tunrovers

-4 pts for pick 6's

-0.5 pts for sack

-no bonus pts for qbs as rbs & wrs get 1 or 2 pts for long tds and 2 pts for breaking 100 yard mark

 

[cobalt_27]

Basic premise to obtain balanced value that is commensurate to what's actually on the field is 1:1:2:1 (QB:RB:WR:TE). Allow flex to be a QB.

Folks really need to let go of all the cosmetics that drive the 1QB:2RB model. It limits creativity and flexibility in building a team, which is partly why you see very little variance across drafts.

I like the way you write Cobalt.

Yes, I think i see what you are saying, but not sure. are you stating that people need to let go of real life football and allow superflex (qb flex) ideas to allow for differences & new strategies as opposed to the same old little variance drafting that we are seeing a lot these days?

Yup. Although, I think my point isn't so much to let go of real life football, but try and model more closely real life value over the cosmetics of a weekly lineup, the latter of which is rooted in the 1980s when it was not uncommon to have Marcus Allen and Bo Jackson in the backfield at the same time (or Christian Okoye & Barry Word; Icky Woods & James Brooks, etc.) and hardly applies in today's 10, 11, and 12 personnel groupings. I've cited this example multiple times, but it's so absurd, I think it's worth revisiting again. Prior to his injury, Le'Veon Bell was rated higher by FBGs (and everywhere else) than Tom Brady and Andrew Luck. This is defensible only in a model that accentuates the need to draft one position (RB) over the most important position on the field (QB) by virtue of starting lineup requirements, alone.

Another way to put this into perspective: at present, the most valuable player at the most valuable NFL position is ranked, not #1 or #2 or even #5 or in the top-25; he is ranked 28th (by FBGs). But, because of the crazy "standard" lineup requirements, this is the reality of manufacturing supply:demand. And, the end product somehow leads us all to believe that Demarco Murray is more valuable than Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees.

This is so easily remedied by moving to a 2 QB system (or just making the starting requirements for QB and RB equal).

 

[Biabreakable]

I hear what you are saying Cobalt however I do not think the solution is to limit Rb but to expand Qb.

I still think a RB who gets 300-400 touches deserves to be properly valued for that workload. Some of them carry their team on their back, including the Qb with many dump off passes and should be valued as such for that. A time share rb will have touches more in line with top WR but still get more touches, just that the receivers will get more yards on their touches than the RB.

Look at the tone of the title of this thread. It considers the RB being a workhorse and focal point of the team as a disease that needs to be cured. I think players should be valued based on the level of their contribution to the team.

Everyone complains that too many RB are drafted in the early rounds. This has as much or more to do with the fact that most leagues are only using a third of the available Qb as starters. So you wait to draft your Qb because they are more available than will be drafted. It is not necessary to take a Qb early. Why are people not complaining about the wait on Qb strategy? No they always blame the Rb.

Similarly the depth of WR in an increasingly passing dominated league causes you to be able to wait on those as well. There are just so many of them who can be viable it is not needed to draft those early.

I would like people to stop blaming the Rb for getting so many touches. They deserve to be highly valued because of that. And to instead look at expanding starting requirements at the other positions in order to balance this out instead of engineering rules to punish the Rb. Such as PPR which completely skews peoples perceptions of which players are truely more valuable than others. PPR is a double dipping scoring system that unfairly rewards players for a catch, when that player was already going to get more yards on average than a player running with the ball. Similarly this causes pass catching Rb to be valued moreso than they should be just do to the volume of the PPR. It makes me sick honestly seeing players who make 5-6 catches a game matching another player who actually scores a TD. That garbage (that they already are getting more yards from than a typical run) is not deserving of the extra points. But it gets justified because people don't want the early rounds of the draft dominated by Rb who should be the top picks of the draft because they will touch the ball more than the rest.

 

[ponchsox]

It's quite simple, draft more quality RB. Don't play in the league if you can't adjust accordingly.

 

[cobalt_27]

It's quite simple, draft more quality RB. Don't play in the league if you can't adjust accordingly.

Irrelevant point to the discussion at hand.

 

[CalBear]

Look at the Anarchy leagues: 0PPR/1PPR/2PPR for RB/WR/TE shoves RB value way the heck down, if that's what you want. Or 0/0.5/1.0 for a less dramatic effect.

To increase QB value you pretty much need to start 2 or at least super-flex.

 

[cobalt_27]

Look at the Anarchy leagues: 0PPR/1PPR/2PPR for RB/WR/TE shoves RB value way the heck down, if that's what you want. Or 0/0.5/1.0 for a less dramatic effect.

To increase QB value you pretty much need to start 2 or at least super-flex.

Yup. Perfect post. i prefer 0.5/1.0/1.5 myself, but principle still applies.

 

[Biabreakable]

Oh yeah I forgot I do play 2QB league. Just not HTH.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Allow the 0 RB line-up option.