What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Moving away from a 2RB Fantasy System (1 Viewer)

TheMathNinja

Footballguy
There have been a number of solutions proposed for the fact that RB's are way overvalued in the standard fantasy format of 1 QB, 2 RB, 1 RB/WR (or FLEX), 2 WR, 1 TE.

Some leagues add a 3rd WR, some leagues go PPR, etc. But I actually like my fantasy football to resemble real football, and truth is that in the NFL, most teams feature at least two backs, but quite a few (Minnesota and Washington being two of the more obvious examples) do not.

All the talk of this year's fantasy draft (see http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=9285867) is how thin the RB position is and how deep the QB and WR position is this year. Am I the only one who thinks this is not so much about this year as it is about how the NFL is evolving? It's gotten to the point where we could be seeing RB's selected with the first 18 picks in fantasy drafts this year. Here's what has me scratching my head...why is it that when the NFL is valuing Running Backs less and less, that Fantasy Football ends up valuing them more and more? The mathematical surface answer is obvious: feature running backs are becoming more scarce, as is the running game in general, and therefore the few RB's left on teams that still utilize this system are fantasy must-haves in a very thin field. But does this seem a bit arbitrary to anyone else?

To me, it seems like the obvious breakdown here is that fantasy systems force my hand at starting 2 RB's when there simply aren't enough "feature backs" to go around...making me scramble to fill my second RB slot with the closest thing to a feature back...ultimately making the position way over-valued. What I want to suggest is another option (in addition to PPR and a 3rd starting WR) that can help restore balance, but also has the added benefit of giving you flexibility in what kind of offensive scheme you want your fantasy team to run. This involves a starting offensive format that basically replaces the traditional 2nd RB with a RB/WR option:

1 QB

1 RB

1 RB/WR

2 WR

1 TE

1 FLEX (RB/WR/TE)

What I like about this system:

It lets you customize starting positions in a way that actually mimics real NFL teams. Want to run a Minnesota-like system that features 1 RB, 4 WR, and 1 TE? You can do that. How about a San Diego system that features 3 RB's, 2 WR's and a TE? You can do that too. What about New England's 2 RB, 2 WR, 2 TE system? Go for it. The fact that current fantasy systems don't allow me to have just a single feature back, and instead force my hand into two RB's not only robs my team of the flexibility of looking like any kind of real NFL team I choose, but it also pressures me into grabbing that second RB in the second round, when in reality, that second RB isn't that great of a player (which of you would seriously draft Stevan Ridley above Aaron Rodgers or Brandon Marshall as a GM in a real NFL re-draft scenario?)

Admittedly, without scoring tweaks like PPR or leagues of 14+, this system doesn't change much, since (according to last year's non-PPR season final fantasy stats) 10 of the 12 teams in a standard 12-team league will choose to fill the RB/WR slot with an RB anyway, making it look a lot like the old system. But with PPR involved, it becomes much more interesting, and even without PPR...the added flexibility for those two teams still makes for a fun alternative option for some teams.

Is the above starting line-up a little bit more to get your head around? Yes. Does it more accurately resemble the schema options real NFL teams face in what kind of offensive system they're going to run? Yes. Does it restore much-needed value to QB's, WR's, and TE's (especially in bigger leagues) without having to alter your scoring rules? Yes. And for those reasons, I really like it.

 

EBF

Footballguy
I don't think the NFL has significantly changed the way that it values running backs. We saw three taken in the first round last year, including one in the top three. I think the reason none went that high this year is because there were no guys with the right talent level. The high achievers (like Ball and Bell) generally had bad workout numbers. The workout warriors generally weren't great college players (Christine Michael). A player usually has to check off both of those boxes to get picked in the top 32.

Putting that aside, I agree that there are ways to balance FF leagues a bit more than the conventional 1 QB, 2 RB, 2-3WR, 1 TE systems.

There are only 32 teams in the NFL. With a few exceptions, those teams only have 1 starting RB and 1 starting QB. That means there are basically 32 starters at each of those positions. On the flipside, teams usually have two WRs who are on the field for the majority of the downs. So there are approximately 64 starters at that position. TE is a bit trickier with the rise of the multiple TE formation in today's NFL, but for the sake of simplicity we'll say that each team only has 1 starting TE.

Looking at all the positions, that gives you this many starters:

32 QB / 32 RB / 64 WR / 32 TE

A good starting QB is just as scarce in the NFL as a good starting RB, but the typical fantasy football format requires only 1 starter at QB and multiple starters at RB. So you end up with a weird paradox where solid NFL QBs like Roethlisberger, Cutler, and Eli Manning are nearly worthless while equivalent RBs like Ridley, Lynch, and Murray are highly coveted.

I think the simple solution is to adjust the starting requirements so that they reflect the ratio of starting players in the NFL. That would give you a starting point of...

1 QB / 1 RB / 2 WR / 1 TE

That would be a balanced league, but the shallow rosters would make it less challenging and introduce more variance and luck in the results. In a 10-14 team league, I would double those lineup requirements and go with...

2 QB / 2 RB / 4 WR / 2 TE

This is probably the most balanced format. The deep lineups would reward skill and eliminate the arbitrary inflation of RB value in FF.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mario Kart

Footballguy
You are way over thinking every new concept you are writing about. The 2RB system has been talked about moving away from it for the past ten years. Footballguys had free lance articles about the same time that had people writing articles about it. I should know because I wrote one extensive one about it.

In order to "solve" the 2RB question, you don't add starting positions or points per reception, instead you need to add parameters to the lineups. As long as there is an option to start RB's, the RB's will be over valued due to the amount they get the ball. It's just the nature of the game.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=90937&hl=

The above is how I first wrote about this. In 2004. Some of the ideas written within have come to realization since 2004 but that is due to a variety of innovations with online scoring and stuff. Some of it has to do with varying draft strategies and the increasing amount of PPR (as well as the weighted PPR you see now).

The parameters of which I speak are in the formations of the article. You can increase the value of the formations, for example, or do other things to decrease the value of the RB but you could make WR TD's worth 1,000 points each but that would still not devalue the RB position.

 

cstu

Footballguy
I'll never be in another 2RB league again. They're all a challenge in some way but I don't like being forced (by relative scarcity) to put so much emphasis on acquiring RB's.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Run It Up

Footballguy
I'll never be in another 2RB league again. They're all a challenge in some way but I don't like being forced (by relative scarcity) to put so much emphasis on acquiring RB's.
Not even 2RB ppr leagues?Just curious as I also hate how restrictive the 2RB format is, but my solution was to add a 3rd WR a 2nd TE and make it PPR - its worked out flawlessly for a few years now.2x RB3x WR

2x TE

1x Flex (RB/WR/TE)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

cobalt_27

Footballguy
...you could make WR TD's worth 1,000 points each but that would still not devalue the RB position.
Whoa. So, you might want to rethink this one a bit. Try it out and see how many people draft RB-RB-WR. The answer is zero. RB would definitely be devalued.
 

Dez

Footballguy
I am in 2 dynasty 1 RB leagues don't really like the 1 RB much it devalues the position too much.

I prefer a 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 2 Flex with TE's at 1.25 or 1.5 PPR

Also by moving to 1 RB it really takes away from their trade value you always have to decide do you want 3-5 years of stud RB or 7-8 years of a stud WR.

If you only have to start 1 RB there isn't much of a decision.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Doubledown1313

Footballguy
2 QB2 RB3 WR1 TE4 RB/WR/TE2 DL3 LB2 DBPPR10 team league. To me it's all about getting to the point of position scarcity. No matter what the position is there are big point drop offs which add to strategically managing your team. We also looked at 3 years worth of data and made small scoring changes. We ended up with the top player at any position having close to the same amount of points. The drop off between the top rated player and the 20th rated player at any position is also close.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mentos

Footballguy
2 QB2 RB3 WR1 TE4 RB/WR/TE2 DL3 LB2 DBPPR10 team league. To me it's all about getting to the point of position scarcity. No matter what the position is there are big point drop offs which add to strategically managing your team.
I could get behind a league with those starting requirements.
 

BigSteelThrill

Footballguy
The answer is....

people who started to implement PPR to fix the RB overvalue scenario... missed a bit and created some different problems. But they tried and it was better then nothing in a typical "2RB" league.

... Make RB requirements Ø. With WR (TE) available to fill all 4 or 5 starting positions and no-ppr.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mr Non Sequitur

Footballguy
QB/RB/2WR/TE/Flex solves this issue. I like a small roster of about 14 in a 12 team league works well if you limit the number of starters. Always nice to hit a couple of redrafts set up this way.

 

Borden

Footballguy
Flex only adds value to running backs, you should all know this.

What about basing scoring on Yards Per Carry?

Maybe... (YPC*5) + (TDs/YPC*10)

That way every down backs don't reign supreme. They would still hold value since they would have more chances (carries) to score and get big plays and you know that they will get the ball every game but committee backs might still be playable.

 

Leonidas

Footballguy
Flex only adds value to running backs, you should all know this. .
That's how I see it.

As previously stated RB's tend to get the ball more than the other skill positions, especially the (now relatively rare) stud/bellcow RB's. They aren't so valuable because you have to start two, they are so valuable because you CAN start two. T

 

Yenrub

Footballguy
My league has had 4 starting lineup options since about 2004

Game day roster can be one of the following...
1QB - 2RB's - 2WR's - 1TE - 1DEF/SPTM - 1K (Traditional Set)
1QB - 1RB - 3WR's - 1TE - 1DEF/SPTM - 1K (3 Wide Set)
1QB - 1RB - 2WR's - 2TE - 1DEF/SPTM - 1K (Big Set)
1QB - 2RB's - 1WR - 2TE - 1DEF/SPTM - 1K (Heavy Jumbo Set)

 

Holy Schneikes

Footballguy
I'm in a couple of bigger leagues with heavy WR requirements (but still multiple slots for RBs). RBs don't rule the roost at all in those because good WRs are even more scarce. This value stuff is VERY relative as many have mentioned.

There are a hundred desired value balances, and a thousand ways to get to each of them. Starting requirements are the easiest and quickest way to get there, and scoring has some impact as well of course (not as much as some used to think, but that thinking has largely been abandoned by this community at this point).

It's all good. Some folks prefer "traditional" style leagues where RBs rule and some don't.

The only thing I really care too much about is whether the scoring makes "sense" to me. I've never liked PPR for example, as I think there are much better ways to accomplish the goals that the system is pretending to accomplish (originally to add value to receivers vs backs). 10 catches for 0 yards being worth the same as 100 rushing or receiving yards is absolutely ridiculous. That said, most of my leagues still use a form of it. Oh well.

 

Tackling Dummies

Footballguy
Starting a league up in the next few days, 12 team, 25 roster, tiered PPR, start 10:

1 QB

1-4 RB

2-5 WR

1-3 TE

1 K

1D

 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheMathNinja

Footballguy
I'm in a couple of bigger leagues with heavy WR requirements (but still multiple slots for RBs). RBs don't rule the roost at all in those because good WRs are even more scarce. This value stuff is VERY relative as many have mentioned.

There are a hundred desired value balances, and a thousand ways to get to each of them. Starting requirements are the easiest and quickest way to get there, and scoring has some impact as well of course (not as much as some used to think, but that thinking has largely been abandoned by this community at this point).

It's all good. Some folks prefer "traditional" style leagues where RBs rule and some don't.

The only thing I really care too much about is whether the scoring makes "sense" to me. I've never liked PPR for example, as I think there are much better ways to accomplish the goals that the system is pretending to accomplish (originally to add value to receivers vs backs). 10 catches for 0 yards being worth the same as 100 rushing or receiving yards is absolutely ridiculous. That said, most of my leagues still use a form of it. Oh well.
I agree; I'm not a fan of how arbitrary PPR scoring is. A 5-yard reception valued the same as a 15-yard run? No thanks. And I don't like valuing Yards Per Carry either (as it can over-value backs who don't get on the field much); I'd much rather give a slight deduction to rushing attempts & targets, and then reward yards more greatly.

It seems like most of you tried to resolve the issue with keeping 2 RB and starting more WR's, TE's, and/or QB's. While I think this is great for balance and the additional depth can make things more fun and challenging, it just throws away the meaning of "starter". No NFL team "starts" 2 QB's, 2 RB's, 3 WR's, and a TE, or some high-number combination like that because it would make their offensive line a paltry 3 guys. I want my fantasy roster to be balanced, use scoring that makes sense, AND actually resemble the flexibility and size of a real NFL team. While I think many of the above proposals achieve two of those objectives, I still haven't been sold on another format that achieves all 3 like the 1QB, 1 RB, 1 RB/WR, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 FLEX option.

 

Run It Up

Footballguy
I agree; I'm not a fan of how arbitrary PPR scoring is. A 5-yard reception valued the same as a 15-yard run? No thanks. And I don't like valuing Yards Per Carry either (as it can over-value backs who don't get on the field much); I'd much rather give a slight deduction to rushing attempts & targets, and then reward yards more greatly.
Rushing Attempts in my league are 0.2 pts, and RBs receive full value for a reception. I think its more than fair since they get 20+ touches a game.

 

TheCommish

Footballguy
TheMathNinja said:
1 QB

1 RB

1 RB/WR

2 WR

1 TE

1 FLEX (RB/WR/TE)

What I like about this system:

It lets you customize starting positions in a way that actually mimics real NFL teams. Want to run a Minnesota-like system that features 1 RB, 4 WR, and 1 TE? You can do that. How about a San Diego system that features 3 RB's, 2 WR's and a TE? You can do that too. What about New England's 2 RB, 2 WR, 2 TE system? Go for it. The fact that current fantasy systems don't allow me to have just a single feature back, and instead force my hand into two RB's not only robs my team of the flexibility of looking like any kind of real NFL team I choose, but it also pressures me into grabbing that second RB in the second round, when in reality, that second RB isn't that great of a player (which of you would seriously draft Stevan Ridley above Aaron Rodgers or Brandon Marshall as a GM in a real NFL re-draft scenario?)
This is pretty much how my league has operated for 10 years now. We start 9 offensive players and 9 IDPs. On offense, you have to start 1 QB and 1 K. The other 7 starters can be any combination of RB/WR/TE you want, but you have to start at least 1RB/2WR/1TE and cannot start any more than 3RB/5WR/2TE. It gives us six line-up options, and we love it, especially when bye weeks or injuries hit hard.

 

Leonidas

Footballguy
I agree; I'm not a fan of how arbitrary PPR scoring is. A 5-yard reception valued the same as a 15-yard run? No thanks. And I don't like valuing Yards Per Carry either (as it can over-value backs who don't get on the field much); I'd much rather give a slight deduction to rushing attempts & targets, and then reward yards more greatly.
Rushing Attempts in my league are 0.2 pts, and RBs receive full value for a reception. I think its more than fair since they get 20+ touches a game.
You receive 0.2 pts per attempt in your leauge?

Or the player gets -0.2 pts per attempt?

The latter seems to be what MathNinja is referring to.

 

FUBAR

Footballguy
Flex only adds value to running backs, you should all know this. .
That's how I see it.

As previously stated RB's tend to get the ball more than the other skill positions, especially the (now relatively rare) stud/bellcow RB's. They aren't so valuable because you have to start two, they are so valuable because you CAN start two. T
this seems more of a scoring issue than positions.

For example, one of my league's top 100 scorers for 2012 breaks down to

QB - 26

RB - 15

WR - 23

TE - 10

LB - 24

S - 2

Only 3 RBs are in the top 30, 7 WRs are in the top 30. Sure, ADP, Martin and Foster are valuable, but only on par with the top WRs.

 

CokeZero

Footballguy
Interesting topic. 12-team PPR dynasty IDP league, going on 12th year, I believe. Although we still start 7 offensive/7 defensive, we moved away from traditional lineups to utilizing ANY and ALL of the lineup options available within MFL.com. Reasoning was injuries, bye weeks, and the evolution of NFL lineups that devalue the RB position. Last season was the first using the system and there is no marked advantage that I can see. Still compiling data, but contrary to some owner's opinions a 3 RB lineup did not dominate, nor did a 0/5 lineup. Most teams stuck to a 2/2/1 or 1/3/1 format but on various weeks implemented a 1/4 or 0/5 lineup. Personally I think the best part is it increases the strategy and also allows you to field a lineup that plays to your strengths. If your RB position got massacred by injury, no longer were you forced to search the waiver wire for a mediocre fill-in, or make a trade out of desperation. It became simply plugging in your best players and going 0/5 or 04/1 lineup until your RB position healed up. I would say our trades as a league dropped dramatically from 50+ in 2011 to 30+ in 2012, and our waiver wire transactions decreased as well.

 

CalBear

Footballguy
NFL teams aren't using RBs less. There were three backs with over 330 carries in 2012, and the #10 back had 276, the most seen there since 2007. Sort 2011 and 2012 by number of carries and you'll see a huge increase in 2012 all the way down the line. (The #10 back in 2011 had 260 carries).

2RB is silly; there's no reason for it and it places extra value on crappy just-above-replacement-level backs. The various flex options all are better than start-2-RB.

Flexing absolutely does not increase the value of RBs; do the VBD math.

 

mjr

Footballguy
I've been in a league for the last 5 or 6 years where we only start 1 at each position with 3 flex spots (up to 3 RBs, 4WRs, 4TEs).

None of the positions are really devalued. We've had owners win the league using all sorts of combinations. Last year the winner started 3 RBs most weeks. In the first season, the winner started 3-4 TEs most weeks.

Just let people build teams/starting rosters the way they want to (within reasonable limitations of course) and the problem takes care of itself. Some GMs will value RBs more, some will value WRs more, others QBs and TEs. And over the years they'll tend to switch it up sometimes as well.

 

Shutout

Footballguy
I have been playing in a league that requires only 1 RB in a dynasty league for 10 years now and I can tell you that reducing the number of starters is not the answer; people still horde RBs because A) THey get hurt more often, B)they wear out quicker, and C)you still need at least one and as long as you need one, most dynasty owners translate that into meaning "I need 5" (one to start, one to backup my starter, one to have just in case I'm wrong about my backup, one to have young as my older ones age, and one to rape some team with that doesn't have a RB...because I have 5).

In the end, it is supply and demand, pure and simple. It is really no different thatn start 2 Qb leagues and some people LOVE those, despite that being the most artifically value-inflating system there is. Play what you like, don't play what you don't.

 

TheMathNinja

Footballguy
Interesting topic. 12-team PPR dynasty IDP league, going on 12th year, I believe. Although we still start 7 offensive/7 defensive, we moved away from traditional lineups to utilizing ANY and ALL of the lineup options available within MFL.com. Reasoning was injuries, bye weeks, and the evolution of NFL lineups that devalue the RB position. Last season was the first using the system and there is no marked advantage that I can see. Still compiling data, but contrary to some owner's opinions a 3 RB lineup did not dominate, nor did a 0/5 lineup. Most teams stuck to a 2/2/1 or 1/3/1 format but on various weeks implemented a 1/4 or 0/5 lineup. Personally I think the best part is it increases the strategy and also allows you to field a lineup that plays to your strengths. If your RB position got massacred by injury, no longer were you forced to search the waiver wire for a mediocre fill-in, or make a trade out of desperation. It became simply plugging in your best players and going 0/5 or 04/1 lineup until your RB position healed up. I would say our trades as a league dropped dramatically from 50+ in 2011 to 30+ in 2012, and our waiver wire transactions decreased as well.
Though I think this added flexibility certainly makes things "easier", do you at all mind the loss of realism? The truth of the matter is that when an NFL team's RB's get decimated by injury, they actually are forced to search the waiver wire or make a desperation trade...I can't think of any situations where I saw a team go to a 0-RB set for an entire game simply because they got hit by injury. Part of me likes having to make desperate roster moves like real NFL teams do. I personally wouldn't like having decreased trade and waiver-wire activity; I think that's some of the spice & fun of fantasy football.

 

BigSteelThrill

Footballguy
Interesting topic. 12-team PPR dynasty IDP league, going on 12th year, I believe. Although we still start 7 offensive/7 defensive, we moved away from traditional lineups to utilizing ANY and ALL of the lineup options available within MFL.com. Reasoning was injuries, bye weeks, and the evolution of NFL lineups that devalue the RB position. Last season was the first using the system and there is no marked advantage that I can see. Still compiling data, but contrary to some owner's opinions a 3 RB lineup did not dominate, nor did a 0/5 lineup. Most teams stuck to a 2/2/1 or 1/3/1 format but on various weeks implemented a 1/4 or 0/5 lineup. Personally I think the best part is it increases the strategy and also allows you to field a lineup that plays to your strengths. If your RB position got massacred by injury, no longer were you forced to search the waiver wire for a mediocre fill-in, or make a trade out of desperation. It became simply plugging in your best players and going 0/5 or 04/1 lineup until your RB position healed up. I would say our trades as a league dropped dramatically from 50+ in 2011 to 30+ in 2012, and our waiver wire transactions decreased as well.
Though I think this added flexibility certainly makes things "easier", do you at all mind the loss of realism? The truth of the matter is that when an NFL team's RB's get decimated by injury, they actually are forced to search the waiver wire or make a desperation trade...I can't think of any situations where I saw a team go to a 0-RB set for an entire game simply because they got hit by injury. Part of me likes having to make desperate roster moves like real NFL teams do. I personally wouldn't like having decreased trade and waiver-wire activity; I think that's some of the spice & fun of fantasy football.
0 RB sets are real. Very much so.

 

CalBear

Footballguy
BigSteelThrill said:
TheMathNinja said:
Interesting topic. 12-team PPR dynasty IDP league, going on 12th year, I believe. Although we still start 7 offensive/7 defensive, we moved away from traditional lineups to utilizing ANY and ALL of the lineup options available within MFL.com. Reasoning was injuries, bye weeks, and the evolution of NFL lineups that devalue the RB position. Last season was the first using the system and there is no marked advantage that I can see. Still compiling data, but contrary to some owner's opinions a 3 RB lineup did not dominate, nor did a 0/5 lineup. Most teams stuck to a 2/2/1 or 1/3/1 format but on various weeks implemented a 1/4 or 0/5 lineup. Personally I think the best part is it increases the strategy and also allows you to field a lineup that plays to your strengths. If your RB position got massacred by injury, no longer were you forced to search the waiver wire for a mediocre fill-in, or make a trade out of desperation. It became simply plugging in your best players and going 0/5 or 04/1 lineup until your RB position healed up. I would say our trades as a league dropped dramatically from 50+ in 2011 to 30+ in 2012, and our waiver wire transactions decreased as well.
Though I think this added flexibility certainly makes things "easier", do you at all mind the loss of realism? The truth of the matter is that when an NFL team's RB's get decimated by injury, they actually are forced to search the waiver wire or make a desperation trade...I can't think of any situations where I saw a team go to a 0-RB set for an entire game simply because they got hit by injury. Part of me likes having to make desperate roster moves like real NFL teams do. I personally wouldn't like having decreased trade and waiver-wire activity; I think that's some of the spice & fun of fantasy football.
0 RB sets are real. Very much so.
Certainly more real than 2-halfback sets.

 

cstu

Footballguy
TheMathNinja said:
Interesting topic. 12-team PPR dynasty IDP league, going on 12th year, I believe. Although we still start 7 offensive/7 defensive, we moved away from traditional lineups to utilizing ANY and ALL of the lineup options available within MFL.com. Reasoning was injuries, bye weeks, and the evolution of NFL lineups that devalue the RB position. Last season was the first using the system and there is no marked advantage that I can see. Still compiling data, but contrary to some owner's opinions a 3 RB lineup did not dominate, nor did a 0/5 lineup. Most teams stuck to a 2/2/1 or 1/3/1 format but on various weeks implemented a 1/4 or 0/5 lineup. Personally I think the best part is it increases the strategy and also allows you to field a lineup that plays to your strengths. If your RB position got massacred by injury, no longer were you forced to search the waiver wire for a mediocre fill-in, or make a trade out of desperation. It became simply plugging in your best players and going 0/5 or 04/1 lineup until your RB position healed up. I would say our trades as a league dropped dramatically from 50+ in 2011 to 30+ in 2012, and our waiver wire transactions decreased as well.
Though I think this added flexibility certainly makes things "easier", do you at all mind the loss of realism? The truth of the matter is that when an NFL team's RB's get decimated by injury, they actually are forced to search the waiver wire or make a desperation trade...I can't think of any situations where I saw a team go to a 0-RB set for an entire game simply because they got hit by injury. Part of me likes having to make desperate roster moves like real NFL teams do. I personally wouldn't like having decreased trade and waiver-wire activity; I think that's some of the spice & fun of fantasy football.
I don't think it makes it easier since you still need to predict production. The difference is that you aren't forced to acquire RB's at any cost to compete. Plenty of activity in the leagues I'm and I don't think having to grab every RB off the waiver wire in hopes of hitting on one makes the league any better or more enjoyable.

 

msudaisy26

Footballguy
Why do people always try to make fantasy football more like NFL football? Other than using the same players for scoring purposes they are nothing a like.

 

hotboyz

Footballguy
We have a starting lineup that consists of

1 QB

1 RB

1WR

1 TE

1 K

1 DEF/ST

3 Flex RB/Wr

So you only have to start 1 RB

 

Run It Up

Footballguy
We have a starting lineup that consists of1 QB1 RB1WR1 TE1 K1 DEF/ST3 Flex RB/WrSo you only have to start 1 RB
I've always had a problem with this kind of line up, and it seems to be popular with people in this thread who also think 2RB is flawed.If you limit WR AND RB and then overload on flex spots, you are doing the opposite of what you were trying to accomplish. Why would anyone start a WR over a RB in this system? The scoring system would have to be reweighted.

 

CalBear

Footballguy
We have a starting lineup that consists of1 QB1 RB1WR1 TE1 K1 DEF/ST3 Flex RB/WrSo you only have to start 1 RB
I've always had a problem with this kind of line up, and it seems to be popular with people in this thread who also think 2RB is flawed.If you limit WR AND RB and then overload on flex spots, you are doing the opposite of what you were trying to accomplish. Why would anyone start a WR over a RB in this system? The scoring system would have to be reweighted.
Because decent WRs score more than crappy RBs. RB25 (Vick Ballard) scored 117 points in 2013; 33 WRs scored more than that in FBG scoring, and a bunch more than that if you're playing PPR. And the RBs drop off steeply, too; RB30 (Ryan Mathews) scored 98 points and was outscored by 45 WRs.

 

Run It Up

Footballguy
We have a starting lineup that consists of1 QB1 RB1WR1 TE1 K1 DEF/ST3 Flex RB/WrSo you only have to start 1 RB
I've always had a problem with this kind of line up, and it seems to be popular with people in this thread who also think 2RB is flawed.If you limit WR AND RB and then overload on flex spots, you are doing the opposite of what you were trying to accomplish. Why would anyone start a WR over a RB in this system? The scoring system would have to be reweighted.
Because decent WRs score more than crappy RBs. RB25 (Vick Ballard) scored 117 points in 2013; 33 WRs scored more than that in FBG scoring, and a bunch more than that if you're playing PPR. And the RBs drop off steeply, too; RB30 (Ryan Mathews) scored 98 points and was outscored by 45 WRs.
,,, and since you only have to start one that means there are plenty of RBs left to flex. FBG scoring is dynamic ppr right? 0.5 for rb, 1 for wr and 1.5 for te? Like I said, you would have to reweight the scoring system.

 

hotboyz

Footballguy
We have a starting lineup that consists of1 QB1 RB1WR1 TE1 K1 DEF/ST3 Flex RB/WrSo you only have to start 1 RB
I've always had a problem with this kind of line up, and it seems to be popular with people in this thread who also think 2RB is flawed.If you limit WR AND RB and then overload on flex spots, you are doing the opposite of what you were trying to accomplish. Why would anyone start a WR over a RB in this system? The scoring system would have to be reweighted.
Because decent WRs score more than crappy RBs. RB25 (Vick Ballard) scored 117 points in 2013; 33 WRs scored more than that in FBG scoring, and a bunch more than that if you're playing PPR. And the RBs drop off steeply, too; RB30 (Ryan Mathews) scored 98 points and was outscored by 45 WRs.
,,, and since you only have to start one that means there are plenty of RBs left to flex. FBG scoring is dynamic ppr right? 0.5 for rb, 1 for wr and 1.5 for te? Like I said, you would have to reweight the scoring system.
This setup helps us because it gives u flexibility in ya drafting strategy we've had guys win by loading up on wrs. I personally went to playoffs and missed championship game by 3 Pts ( thanks Brady!!) I didn't draft a RB until the 5th rd
 

Run It Up

Footballguy
We have a starting lineup that consists of1 QB1 RB1WR1 TE1 K1 DEF/ST3 Flex RB/WrSo you only have to start 1 RB
I've always had a problem with this kind of line up, and it seems to be popular with people in this thread who also think 2RB is flawed.If you limit WR AND RB and then overload on flex spots, you are doing the opposite of what you were trying to accomplish. Why would anyone start a WR over a RB in this system? The scoring system would have to be reweighted.
Because decent WRs score more than crappy RBs. RB25 (Vick Ballard) scored 117 points in 2013; 33 WRs scored more than that in FBG scoring, and a bunch more than that if you're playing PPR. And the RBs drop off steeply, too; RB30 (Ryan Mathews) scored 98 points and was outscored by 45 WRs.
,,, and since you only have to start one that means there are plenty of RBs left to flex. FBG scoring is dynamic ppr right? 0.5 for rb, 1 for wr and 1.5 for te? Like I said, you would have to reweight the scoring system.
This setup helps us because it gives u flexibility in ya drafting strategy we've had guys win by loading up on wrs. I personally went to playoffs and missed championship game by 3 Pts ( thanks Brady!!) I didn't draft a RB until the 5th rd
Whats your scoring system? FFS.

 

CalBear

Footballguy
We have a starting lineup that consists of1 QB1 RB1WR1 TE1 K1 DEF/ST3 Flex RB/WrSo you only have to start 1 RB
I've always had a problem with this kind of line up, and it seems to be popular with people in this thread who also think 2RB is flawed.If you limit WR AND RB and then overload on flex spots, you are doing the opposite of what you were trying to accomplish. Why would anyone start a WR over a RB in this system? The scoring system would have to be reweighted.
Because decent WRs score more than crappy RBs. RB25 (Vick Ballard) scored 117 points in 2013; 33 WRs scored more than that in FBG scoring, and a bunch more than that if you're playing PPR. And the RBs drop off steeply, too; RB30 (Ryan Mathews) scored 98 points and was outscored by 45 WRs.
,,, and since you only have to start one that means there are plenty of RBs left to flex. FBG scoring is dynamic ppr right? 0.5 for rb, 1 for wr and 1.5 for te? Like I said, you would have to reweight the scoring system.
FBG scoring (or at least, profootballreference scoring, which I think is the same) is no PPR.

You have to start four RB+WR, instead of two RB and two WR. In a 12-team league you have 48 slots to fill, instead of 24 RB and 24 WR slots. Your hypothesis is that without reweighting the scoring system, the league would start more than 24 RBs in a 3-flex system.

But why would you start RB25 over WR33 (or WR25-32) if those WRs score more?

 

hotboyz

Footballguy
We have a starting lineup that consists of1 QB1 RB1WR1 TE1 K1 DEF/ST3 Flex RB/WrSo you only have to start 1 RB
I've always had a problem with this kind of line up, and it seems to be popular with people in this thread who also think 2RB is flawed.If you limit WR AND RB and then overload on flex spots, you are doing the opposite of what you were trying to accomplish. Why would anyone start a WR over a RB in this system? The scoring system would have to be reweighted.
Because decent WRs score more than crappy RBs. RB25 (Vick Ballard) scored 117 points in 2013; 33 WRs scored more than that in FBG scoring, and a bunch more than that if you're playing PPR. And the RBs drop off steeply, too; RB30 (Ryan Mathews) scored 98 points and was outscored by 45 WRs.
,,, and since you only have to start one that means there are plenty of RBs left to flex. FBG scoring is dynamic ppr right? 0.5 for rb, 1 for wr and 1.5 for te? Like I said, you would have to reweight the scoring system.
This setup helps us because it gives u flexibility in ya drafting strategy we've had guys win by loading up on wrs. I personally went to playoffs and missed championship game by 3 Pts ( thanks Brady!!) I didn't draft a RB until the 5th rd
Whats your scoring system? FFS.
Ppr6pt for all Td under 40 PTS 9PTS for all Td over 40 YDS bonus for milestones 100 yd rush or rec 300 YDS passing. .01 for every yd rush/Rec .04 for passing YDS 1 ppr
 

Run It Up

Footballguy
Ppr6pt for all Td under 40 PTS 9PTS for all Td over 40 YDS bonus for milestones 100 yd rush or rec 300 YDS passing. .01 for every yd rush/Rec .04 for passing YDS 1 ppr
A lot more balanced then I was expecting, a lot of people keep listing their starting reqs and then leaving out the scoring system, the two go hand in hand.

 

NCPanthersFan

Footballguy
We moved to:

1 QB

0-2 RB

3-5 WR

1 K

1 D

Up to 5 wide!
Love the topic.

12 Team

PPR + Performance Bonus

My league has been doing a very similar lineup for 12 years now. In addition we have raised the value of QB's to help mirror their importance (as it is n a real game.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top