Lineup requirements: How many starters at a position are too many? (1 Viewer)

[Lambert]

My current 14 team league (currently 1QB / 2RB / 3WR / 1TE / 1K / 1DEF) is considering adding 1 or even 2 RB/WR/TE flex starters. I'm wondering if that's just fine or if perhaps it's too many RBs and/or too many WRs for NFL player depth, but I'm also trying to figure out more generally, for leagues of varying sizes, how to determine what works best and when you've crossed the line and the starting lineup requirements are simply too large.

Obviously, when it comes to QB (putting aside lineups with special flex positions that include QB/RB/WR together) and K and DEF, any league with 12 or more teams can't have 2 required starters at any of these positions and still have every team be able to fill out an entire lineup each week given the byes.

But when it comes to RBs and WRs, and particularly RB/WR/TE flex positions, it obviously gets a lot more complicated, and particularly so given the increase in NFL teams using a RBBC approach. With QB, K, and DEF, you have a finite and pretty exact number of players seeing action on any given week, all of which will have at least some minimal value. But at RB/WR/TE, you've got a lot of guys actually playing every week even though they don't have any real value at all.

We want to reward teams for quality depth drafting, but at the same time, we don't want the average team forced to start Carey Davis (FB-PIT) or Brad Hoover (FB-CAR) every week either. The flex positions obviously lessen the strain, since some teams can bulk up on one position and others can bulk up at other positions ... but even with the flex, at some point you hit the limit.

Any thoughts on how you draw the line?

Thanks in advance!

 

[cstu]

Probably makes more sense if the league is PPR since in non-PPR it seems like there would be too much demand on RB's. In PPR you should be fine since the WR's will be roughly equal to the RB's (25th+ RB's and 43rd+ WR's).

 

[massraider]

So it would be possible for a team to start 4 RBs, in that format? I'd run in the other direction from that league. Xavier Omon would be a 2nd round rookie pick in that format. No thanks.

 

[Lambert]

So it would be possible for a team to start 4 RBs, in that format? I'd run in the other direction from that league. Xavier Omon would be a 2nd round rookie pick in that format. No thanks.

It would be 4 only if the league went with 2 flex RB/WR/TE slots instead of 1. And it's certainly possible the league could stick with its current format. But is even 1 flex spot too many? And how do you draw the line in general?

 

[nittanylion]

Is your League 'anti' the idea of including QB in your Flex? That's certainly something you could bring up.

You don't mention your Scoring System. That info might help the discussion along.

Here's a configuration I developed for larger than 12-Team Leagues that I think is pretty much the be-all, end-all. For starters, you might also want to adjust the configuration of your 'Base Lineup'. Let's leave PK, D/ST out of the discussion because it's rare, if ever that those Positions are incorporated into Flex.

Base Lineup: 1QB / 1RB / 2WR / 1TE

Once you get over 12 Teams, I think it helps the League along to allow Teams to HAVE to start only 1 RB if they choose...you just have to make sure your Scoring System allows for an equity between the Positions. That means that all 4 Positions have their own individual systems that allow it to make sense NOT to hoard RB's and make other options just as attractive.

Flex Options: TWO Flex Positions, spread across all 4 Positions...however you CANNOT 'double up' on QB or TE.

So, although you COULD choose to start 3RB or 4WR, you cannot start more than 2QB or 2TE.

It would be entirely possible to exclude QB from the Flex, and allow for Teams to double up at TE as well, if they choose.

If your Scoring System is configured to develop a relatively equal distribution across Positions, especially a PPR Format that increases the value of both WR and TE (and TE more than WR), you'd really have an interesting Draft, with plenty of options for each Owner to build his/her own Team in their Own image and likeness...

...just some random thoughts...

 

[Lambert]

Is your League 'anti' the idea of including QB in your Flex? That's certainly something you could bring up.

It's actually a good idea ... unfortunately, our league website host doesn't allow the option of including QB in a flex.

You don't mention your Scoring System. That info might help the discussion along.Here's a configuration I developed for larger than 12-Team Leagues that I think is pretty much the be-all, end-all. For starters, you might also want to adjust the configuration of your 'Base Lineup'. Let's leave PK, D/ST out of the discussion because it's rare, if ever that those Positions are incorporated into Flex.Base Lineup: 1QB / 1RB / 2WR / 1TEFlex Options: TWO Flex Positions, spread across all 4 Positions...however you CANNOT 'double up' on QB or TE.So, although you COULD choose to start 3RB or 4WR, you cannot start more than 2QB or 2TE.It would be entirely possible to exclude QB from the Flex, and allow for Teams to double up at TE as well, if they choose.If your Scoring System is configured to develop a relatively equal distribution across Positions, especially a PPR Format that increases the value of both WR and TE (and TE more than WR), you'd really have an interesting Draft, with plenty of options for each Owner to build his/her own Team in their Own image and likeness......just some random thoughts...

Interesting. As for our league scoring, it's not PPR, but the league gives 1 pt for 10 rec yds vs. 1 pt for 15 rushing yds to try to even out RB vs WR/TE somewhat.

 

[massraider]

Is your League 'anti' the idea of including QB in your Flex? That's certainly something you could bring up.

It's actually a good idea ... unfortunately, our league website host doesn't allow the option of including QB in a flex.

You don't mention your Scoring System. That info might help the discussion along.

Here's a configuration I developed for larger than 12-Team Leagues that I think is pretty much the be-all, end-all. For starters, you might also want to adjust the configuration of your 'Base Lineup'. Let's leave PK, D/ST out of the discussion because it's rare, if ever that those Positions are incorporated into Flex.

Base Lineup: 1QB / 1RB / 2WR / 1TE

Flex Options: TWO Flex Positions, spread across all 4 Positions...however you CANNOT 'double up' on QB or TE.

So, although you COULD choose to start 3RB or 4WR, you cannot start more than 2QB or 2TE.

It would be entirely possible to exclude QB from the Flex, and allow for Teams to double up at TE as well, if they choose.

If your Scoring System is configured to develop a relatively equal distribution across Positions, especially a PPR Format that increases the value of both WR and TE (and TE more than WR), you'd really have an interesting Draft, with plenty of options for each Owner to build his/her own Team in their Own image and likeness...

...just some random thoughts...

Interesting. As for our league scoring, it's not PPR, but the league gives 1 pt for 10 rec yds vs. 1 pt for 15 rushing yds to try to even out RB vs WR/TE somewhat.

if you have a concern about the importance of Rb versus any position, then increasing the number of possible RB starters will only make it worse.It seems as though it was a concern, if you addressed it in the rules. In that case, I would recommend NOT adding a flex, or just doing it TE/WR. Otherwise, everyone just loads up on RBs, and in dynasty leagues, Ryan Torain is going before Devin Thomas or James hardy in rookie drafts.

I like that, if you have only 2 RBs starting, teams can win in other ways. With 3 RB starting, you have to have good RBs.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Is your League 'anti' the idea of including QB in your Flex? That's certainly something you could bring up.You don't mention your Scoring System. That info might help the discussion along.Here's a configuration I developed for larger than 12-Team Leagues that I think is pretty much the be-all, end-all. For starters, you might also want to adjust the configuration of your 'Base Lineup'. Let's leave PK, D/ST out of the discussion because it's rare, if ever that those Positions are incorporated into Flex.Base Lineup: 1QB / 1RB / 2WR / 1TEOnce you get over 12 Teams, I think it helps the League along to allow Teams to HAVE to start only 1 RB if they choose...you just have to make sure your Scoring System allows for an equity between the Positions. That means that all 4 Positions have their own individual systems that allow it to make sense NOT to hoard RB's and make other options just as attractive.Flex Options: TWO Flex Positions, spread across all 4 Positions...however you CANNOT 'double up' on QB or TE.So, although you COULD choose to start 3RB or 4WR, you cannot start more than 2QB or 2TE.It would be entirely possible to exclude QB from the Flex, and allow for Teams to double up at TE as well, if they choose.If your Scoring System is configured to develop a relatively equal distribution across Positions, especially a PPR Format that increases the value of both WR and TE (and TE more than WR), you'd really have an interesting Draft, with plenty of options for each Owner to build his/her own Team in their Own image and likeness......just some random thoughts...

For a Penn Stater, these are great ideas - who woulda thunk it? Nittany's described my thoughts on this almost exactly: Start out with a base lineup ratio of 1QB-to-1RB-to2WR. Then add in flexes at any positions you feel comfortable with. Play around with scoring parameters until you get a reasonably equitable system that allows as many of your available positions for flex to be a viable play as possible.In my local redraft (12 teamer), we have all positions (QB,RB,WR,TE,K,D/ST) available to be used in the flex spot. Our base starting lineup is: 1-1-2-1-1-1, with two flex players. However, we cap both the QB & RB spots at 2 max. I don't think we need to cap it anymore, really, but this is a pretty conservative league & they tend to err on the side of caution (the worry about hoarding & not having enough starters at QB & RB, in this case). Anyway, we rarely have anyone use a flex spot on TEs & Ks, though both instances happened more than once last season. Ds get used more, but we have really quirky D/ST scoring that can allow for huge point explosions - and can also penalize you big-time should your D have a bad day.So, most of the flex spots get used at QB, RB, & WR. Our scoring is pretty close to basic for them, with a few little tweaks:4 pt passing TD6 pt rush/rec TD1/10 yds rush/rec1/30 yds passing1ppr for WR & TE onlyThe 1/30 yds passing keeps the QB scoring down so they're not automatically the dominant flex spot & the ppr for WR/TEs-only bring the receivers into play as legit flex players. Leaving aside using TEs/Ks/Ds as flexes, we use 72 players a week at the Big 3 spots. And usually - at year's end - our desired ratio of 1QB-to-1RB-to-2WR holds pretty close for the top 72 scorers at those 3 spots. Last year was skewed as RBs were down, but there's been other years where more finished high too. I think we've been about 5 or 6 years in this system & I really should combine the data just to see where we are overall.Anyway, all of this is a long-winded way of saying that our drafts are a blast. No more 20-of-the-1st-24-players-picked-are-RBs. We've had guys go QB/QB with their 1st two picks and WR/WR is almost as commonplace as RB/RB. The 20th RB might not get picked until round 5. Stud WRs go VERY high - Moss went #1 one year & TO/Harrison have also gone top 3. I had a year where I rolled with Dunn & someone else (Staley or Garner maybe; not a stud) as the only 2 RBs on my roster. Still, about half of the 1st round will be RB (old habits are hard to break) but there's not that extreme pressure on the position that there are in RB-dominated leagues.I've actually toyed with the idea of having a base of 2-2-4-2-2-2 & then adding 2 flexes, but I don't know if I could sell that to my guys

 

[Captain Hook]

NFFC and NBC are 14 team leagues; 18 man rosters that start QB, 2RB, 3 WR, TE, Flex (RB/WR/TE), K and DST

 

[GregR_2]

I think there are some nice benefits to having a flex which is QB/RB, and another flex which is just WR/TE. I realize you just said your website can't handle that. Bummer, because it works well. QB becomes as valuable as RB, and you almost always want to start a QB over a RB... but you don't have the problems of straight 2 QB leagues where there aren't enough NFL starting QBs so everyone can have a 3rd one to be their backup... you can always start a RB if you don't have a backup QB.

As for how many players get used, it certainly isn't an issue at WR or TE. My 12 team league starts 4 WR, 2 TE, and 1 flex WR/TE (almost always a WR), for a total of about 60 WR and 24 TE, and I don't think we deplete the NFL players too much at those positions. You may be scraping the barrel on a bad bye week at WR, but we use most teams #1 and #2 WR, and many of the NFL WR3s too. I think that's a good thing.

 

[shader]

A 14 team league changes things but here are my thoughts:

I think you should be at 2 QB's. I know alot of people disagree, but the one QB league in my book is just absolutely dumb. Makes no sense why you bench the majority of the QB's each week.

As for RB and WR: You currently start 3 WR and 2 RB. That's a large percentage of the good players, before injuries and bye weeks come into play. If you add another flex spot with a 14 team league, you're going to get into some pretty crappy players playing.

I manage a ten team league, and we have 1 RB, 1 WR and 4 flex spots. I think that works great for a ten team league.

I prefer to only require a team to have one of each and make the rest of the spots flex.

I think you'd find things opened up if you made it one RB, one WR, and 3 flex.

Just a suggestion.

 

[FUBAR]

So it would be possible for a team to start 4 RBs, in that format? I'd run in the other direction from that league. Xavier Omon would be a 2nd round rookie pick in that format. No thanks.

Maybe, but it sure wouldn't be me picking him. Just because you CAN start 4 RBs doesn't mean you should. If you take care to see that the scoring is balanced pretty well, historically, the value of RBs won't be as distorted as many think. Or, maybe they will be drafted highly and the savvier owners will get better value with other positions.

 

[massraider]

So it would be possible for a team to start 4 RBs, in that format? I'd run in the other direction from that league. Xavier Omon would be a 2nd round rookie pick in that format. No thanks.

Maybe, but it sure wouldn't be me picking him. Just because you CAN start 4 RBs doesn't mean you should. If you take care to see that the scoring is balanced pretty well, historically, the value of RBs won't be as distorted as many think. Or, maybe they will be drafted highly and the savvier owners will get better value with other positions.

You're probably right, and I have fallen into the trap of chasing RBs before. The big question I always have whenever I consider changes to leagues, or a different format is: Why? Why make the change? Is this a change that will enhance everyone's experience? Starting lineups that can insert 4 RBs, I see more negatives than positives. I also have never played in leagues like that, so I am ready to be corrected. I'd love to see leagues like that, and see what the good teams looked like. I would be willing to bet they have a bunch of strong RBs.

 

[FUBAR]

So it would be possible for a team to start 4 RBs, in that format? I'd run in the other direction from that league. Xavier Omon would be a 2nd round rookie pick in that format. No thanks.

Maybe, but it sure wouldn't be me picking him. Just because you CAN start 4 RBs doesn't mean you should. If you take care to see that the scoring is balanced pretty well, historically, the value of RBs won't be as distorted as many think. Or, maybe they will be drafted highly and the savvier owners will get better value with other positions.

You're probably right, and I have fallen into the trap of chasing RBs before. The big question I always have whenever I consider changes to leagues, or a different format is: Why? Why make the change? Is this a change that will enhance everyone's experience? Starting lineups that can insert 4 RBs, I see more negatives than positives. I also have never played in leagues like that, so I am ready to be corrected. I'd love to see leagues like that, and see what the good teams looked like. I would be willing to bet they have a bunch of strong RBs.

I was in one last year, but it also allowed 2 QBs and up to 6 WRs (2/2/2/1 with 2 RB/WR and 2 WR/TE). I don't remember the winning team's makeup, but I do recall he had Tom Brady and Adrian Peterson, but was otherwise weak at RB (I tried offering him some of mine for his 3rd QB). Scoring makes a big difference, this was PPR and had good scoring for return points, which seemed to enhance WRs more than RBs.

 

[Lambert]

Aside from the specific case of 4 RBs though (which may not end up the case because we might only add 1 flex rather than 2, or possibly none at all), what if any method do you use to determine that 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 RBs or WRs or flex positions or whatever is too many?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Aside from the specific case of 4 RBs though (which may not end up the case because we might only add 1 flex rather than 2, or possibly none at all), what if any method do you use to determine that 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 RBs or WRs or flex positions or whatever is too many?

FWIW... as long as there are flex positions, IMO what's important is the total number of RB/WR/TE that have to start each week. By the time you're starting 95-100 you're digging pretty deep for bye week and injury fillers (figure there will be 110-115 RB/WR/TEs rostered as starters).

 

[FUBAR]

Aside from the specific case of 4 RBs though (which may not end up the case because we might only add 1 flex rather than 2, or possibly none at all), what if any method do you use to determine that 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 RBs or WRs or flex positions or whatever is too many?

FWIW... as long as there are flex positions, IMO what's important is the total number of RB/WR/TE that have to start each week. By the time you're starting 95-100 you're digging pretty deep for bye week and injury fillers (figure there will be 110-115 RB/WR/TEs rostered as starters).

I honestly don't think there is a magic #, it depends on the league. One of my favorite leagues was large, we had to dig deep for starters, as we had around 126 RB/WR/TE starting each week. Contrast that with the relatively "normal" 2/3/1 and a flex, with 12 teams - that's 84. However, if your leaguemates aren't up on FF, they can get creamed. You have to dig deeper than the usual sites, and even this one, will provide for sleepers and matchups. That's exactly why I enjoy it though, some of the intrigue is lost when you can simply log into a FF site and set your lineup based on what they say. The simple answer - how informed are your owners?Highly - go as deep as you want, although when you get deeper I see an increased benefit in adding more flex spots and the return game. Informal, fun leagues - stick with the basics, per NFL team: 1 QB, 1.5 RBs (remember RBBC's, est 1/2 the teams have a decent 2nd RB going), and 3 WRs. Total: 32 QBs, 48 RBs, and 96 WRs, providing for bye weeks (so 16 QBs, etc.) Clear as mud?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

our two main leagues...5 possible starting lineup combinations (all include one QB/K/D)

1. Run-n-Shoot: RB/WR/WR/WR/WR/TE

2. Pro Set: RB/RB/WR/WR/WR/TE

3. Full House: RB/RB/RB/WR/WR/TE

4. Double Tight: RB/RB/WR/WR/TE/TE

5. Double Tight 3 Wide: RB/WR/WR/WR/TE/TE

we found that allowing this flexibility helps with bye weeks/injuries and that being able to play two TE's sometimes was helpful (although not used often)....and this didn't seem to be too many starters

eta: we do .33 per reception

 

[coachjim]

In a total score league that has an entry fee of $1000 we must start 1-QB, 3-RB, 3-WR, 1-TE, 1-PK and 1 DEF. We give WR and TE's 1 point per reception but nothing for RB receptions. This is the only league that I have seen that must start 3 RB's. Believe it or not I think this really puts a premium on drafting nd managing your team. I like this format.