New (?) flex idea - position usage limits (1 Viewer)

[titusbramble]

Just reading something in the assistant coach forum and it reminded me of a concept that came to mind a bit ago which I have no idea if it's new or not.

Basically, it's an attempt to create an in between between superflex and normal flex, in that you can fill the spot with any player you want, but you can only use a given position in that spot a certain number of times per season - prior to the season expansion the obvious breakdown would be 4 each of QB/RB/WR/TE, but given a typical 17 week fantasy season these days, the specifics would be league dependent.

For me this adds a fair bit of additional depth when it comes to strategy - how do you plan your draft/auction given what is a much more variable lineup than standard leagues? How do you gauge your edge (or lack of) on any given week in terms of what position you want to use? Do you try to save the QB spots for the playoffs, or burn through them earlier to increase your playoff chances and maybe make late season roster management more comfortable?

The obvious problems I see are that it is one additional thing that needs to be administered (although I don't think it would be that horrible for a provider to code, or for a commish to manually track), and it becomes potentially complicated if we get a Cordarelle Patterson, Taysom Hill, Marques Colston etc in the future who's eligible in more than one position.

Thoughts on the viability of the concept?

 

[Mitchie]

I really dislike it, mainly because it changes the competitive balance, some teams will play teams when they have the QB in superflex and other teams will play them when they have a TE is their superflex.

 

[TheWinz]

Any new idea for FF is something to consider. I kinda like it because it changes the balance. Imagine losing when you a 2nd QB vs a 2nd TE? It would suck, but be funny.

 

[Birdie048]

I really dislike it, mainly because it changes the competitive balance, some teams will play teams when they have the QB in superflex and other teams will play them when they have a TE is their superflex.

While I might not be a big fan of the idea, I think it does create a new level of strategy when looking at your season schedule & matchups, for when to use the QB as a SF role vs putting a lower scoring option.
Not sure I would be in favor, but I see the merits of the idea.

 

[fightingillini]

I think it would just add another luck element to FF. There isn't a huge difference between teams where you would clearly use your TE flex over QB flex.

And season schedule can change on a dime. Teams change. Injuries happen. An easy matchup at the BOY could be a lot tougher at the EOY.

So I don't like it.

 

[Gally]

I really dislike it, mainly because it changes the competitive balance, some teams will play teams when they have the QB in superflex and other teams will play them when they have a TE is their superflex.

It only changes the competitive balance if your scoring system is set up to heavily favor one position over another. If your scoring is balanced where you truly have multiple ways to fill your SF position then it just adds another dimension.

If the scoring was that skewed it would make the SF essentially a 2QB league because you are forced to play a QB due to the scoring imbalance.

 

[Gally]

I think this would be something that could work well if your scoring system was set up in a way where all positions scored similarly across the tiers. However, if that wasn't the case you could be setting yourself up for some forced imbalance which could be a negative to the competitive balance of the league.

I know I have been in baseball fantasy leagues that had game or innings caps for the year but that is generally in an attempt to make daily lineups balance out so you can't stream pitchers for that advantage. I am not sure how well that works for football.

Definitely something worth trying to see what happens. I have thought about starting a league that tries all types of strange/weird rules throughout the year to see what works and doesn't. Basically a league where you know going in that there could be some inconsistency or imbalance week to week but knowing ahead of time that it is part of the league. I think it would be very interesting but just haven't pulled the trigger or found a big enough group to try it.

 

[titusbramble]

I think this would be something that could work well if your scoring system was set up in a way where all positions scored similarly across the tiers. However, if that wasn't the case you could be setting yourself up for some forced imbalance which could be a negative to the competitive balance of the league.

Kind of the point of the suggestion is that positions DON'T score similarly full stop. Most superflex leagues are for all intents and purposes 2QB leagues because of the sheer number of points they score. We only see TE premium leagues because a lot of them don't do much of anything when they're not getting in the end zone. The general point of what I'm suggesting is that within a week to week decision making process, you can use moderate imbalances within a given week to try to drive home an advantage, take your foot off the gas if you think the result is secure one way or the other, give yourself a boost if you think you're only a small underdog to push you over the edge or in a must win late season game, or more comfortably navigate bye week issues.

As an aside I'm clearly not saying this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, more that it's something that:

a) Adds an additional level of depth which might be of interest to many players (although given the seemingly rising interest in best ball, maybe I'm off the mark in that, although I think in that specific example I think many are attacking that from a sports betting perspective)

b) Offers a middle ground between 1QB and 2QB leagues

 

[wlwiles]

I really dislike it, mainly because it changes the competitive balance, some teams will play teams when they have the QB in superflex and other teams will play them when they have a TE is their superflex.

We have one guy in our league who for 3 years now always manages to face the Mahomes team on the KC bye week. Luck of the schedule plays a huge role. For instance, if I had to face the Mahomes/Kelce stack twice (Week 2 and Week 15), while my league rival was only scheduled to play them once and he caught them on the KC bye week. I don't see this as any different...

 

[massraider]

b) Offers a middle ground between 1QB and 2QB leagues

I have a commish friend who started a few leagues I am in. He had scoring with bonus points, bonus for 300 yard games, bonus for big plays, bonus for 100 yards rush/rec, etc, etc.

We all complained over the years for all the reason people complain about arbitrary bonus cutoffs. Legit complaints, by the way.

However, one of the unintended consequences of his wacky scoring system is that the top QBs really separate themselves. You will have a tough time in the playoffs with the QB12.

I'll never play superflex, no interest. Completely change the league infrastructure because some guys thought the QBs weren't important enough? lol

 

[Mitchie]

I really dislike it, mainly because it changes the competitive balance, some teams will play teams when they have the QB in superflex and other teams will play them when they have a TE is their superflex.

We have one guy in our league who for 3 years now always manages to face the Mahomes team on the KC bye week. Luck of the schedule plays a huge role. For instance, if I had to face the Mahomes/Kelce stack twice (Week 2 and Week 15), while my league rival was only scheduled to play them once and he caught them on the KC bye week. I don't see this as any different...

That's unavoidable, this isn't.

 

[Gally]

I'll never play superflex, no interest. Completely change the league infrastructure because some guys thought the QBs weren't important enough? lol

I assume the reason you won't do SF is because it swings the value of QB way to far the other way. This doesn't have to be the case. If scoring systems are set up properly (IMO) it provides similar point totals for every position across tiers. QB1 = RB1 = WR1= TE1. This way all positions are equally valuable to play in the SF spot thereby not making QB all powerful.

To each there own and playing around with scoring systems to represent how you want a league to be is part of the fun. My only caution is to not make knee jerk reactions year to year in changing the scoring because the NFL has variations year to year in the way things happen that you can swing thing unintentionally too far one way or the other based on a single year outcome.

 

[massraider]

I'll never play superflex, no interest. Completely change the league infrastructure because some guys thought the QBs weren't important enough? lol

I assume the reason you won't do SF is because it swings the value of QB way to far the other way. This doesn't have to be the case. If scoring systems are set up properly (IMO) it provides similar point totals for every position across tiers. QB1 = RB1 = WR1= TE1. This way all positions are equally valuable to play in the SF spot thereby not making QB all powerful.

To each there own and playing around with scoring systems to represent how you want a league to be is part of the fun. My only caution is to not make knee jerk reactions year to year in changing the scoring because the NFL has variations year to year in the way things happen that you can swing thing unintentionally too far one way or the other based on a single year outcome.

Succinctly: SuperFlex was an answer to a problem I did not have.

I was not bothered when I started playing fantasy football, and if you got two stud RBs you were a lock for the playoffs. I was not bothered when QB value slipped, and you could 'wait' on QB. And now that there's like 6 decent RBs in all of fantasy, I am not bothered. Adapting the the changing league is part of the challenge.

When QBs were 'losing their value', the argument for Super Flex was that the QBs are more valuable in real life, so this mirrors their real life value. Soooooooo in order to be as realistic as possible, we gonna start two QBs. Once I heard that logic, I was out.

 

[Gally]

Succinctly: SuperFlex was an answer to a problem I did not have.

I was not bothered when I started playing fantasy football, and if you got two stud RBs you were a lock for the playoffs. I was not bothered when QB value slipped, and you could 'wait' on QB. And now that there's like 6 decent RBs in all of fantasy, I am not bothered. Adapting the the changing league is part of the challenge.

When QBs were 'losing their value', the argument for Super Flex was that the QBs are more valuable in real life, so this mirrors their real life value. Soooooooo in order to be as realistic as possible, we gonna start two QBs. Once I heard that logic, I was out.

I can totally relate to this approach. I like variation like that and figuring out a way to adapt. I don't like when RB scarcity requires everyone to draft three RB's from the start because it limits strategy to some degree.

I do like balanced scoring across all positions so that each owner can figure out the best way to build a team and try and get advantages as they appear.