Random hypothetical about drafting (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

Had an interesting question posed to me this afternoon. Suppose you play in a pretty standard league, starting 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 FLEX (RB/WR/TE), 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 D/ST. 12 team league. Here's the catch: Reggie Bush can only be played at the flex position. You can't play him at RB or at WR: he is only eligible for the flex position. To avoid this getting into a thread about Reggie Bush (and whether he is awesome or just the normal amount of sweet), it might help to consider whatever RB you have at RB10 (where FBG projections have him) as the "flex" guy.

You can also assume that Bush would be a first round pick if he can play any position (as there are almost always at least 10 RBs taken in the first round).

Where would you draft Bush?

 

[bostonfred]

Had an interesting question posed to me this afternoon. Suppose you play in a pretty standard league, starting 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 FLEX (RB/WR/TE), 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 D/ST. 12 team league. Here's the catch: Reggie Bush can only be played at the flex position. You can't play him at RB or at WR: he is only eligible for the flex position. To avoid this getting into a thread about Reggie Bush (and whether he is awesome or just the normal amount of sweet), it might help to consider whatever RB you have at RB10 (where FBG projections have him) as the "flex" guy.

You can also assume that Bush would be a first round pick if he can play any position (as there are almost always at least 10 RBs taken in the first round).

I feel like there should be some kind of question here.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Had an interesting question posed to me this afternoon. Suppose you play in a pretty standard league, starting 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 FLEX (RB/WR/TE), 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 D/ST. 12 team league. Here's the catch: Reggie Bush can only be played at the flex position. You can't play him at RB or at WR: he is only eligible for the flex position. To avoid this getting into a thread about Reggie Bush (and whether he is awesome or just the normal amount of sweet), it might help to consider whatever RB you have at RB10 (where FBG projections have him) as the "flex" guy.

You can also assume that Bush would be a first round pick if he can play any position (as there are almost always at least 10 RBs taken in the first round).

I feel like there should be some kind of question here.

Oops. OP edited.

 

[bostonfred]

Had an interesting question posed to me this afternoon. Suppose you play in a pretty standard league, starting 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 FLEX (RB/WR/TE), 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 D/ST. 12 team league. Here's the catch: Reggie Bush can only be played at the flex position. You can't play him at RB or at WR: he is only eligible for the flex position. To avoid this getting into a thread about Reggie Bush (and whether he is awesome or just the normal amount of sweet), it might help to consider whatever RB you have at RB10 (where FBG projections have him) as the "flex" guy.

You can also assume that Bush would be a first round pick if he can play any position (as there are almost always at least 10 RBs taken in the first round).

Where would you draft Bush?

1.4

 

[Driver]

Had an interesting question posed to me this afternoon. Suppose you play in a pretty standard league, starting 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 FLEX (RB/WR/TE), 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 D/ST. 12 team league. Here's the catch: Reggie Bush can only be played at the flex position. You can't play him at RB or at WR: he is only eligible for the flex position. To avoid this getting into a thread about Reggie Bush (and whether he is awesome or just the normal amount of sweet), it might help to consider whatever RB you have at RB10 (where FBG projections have him) as the "flex" guy.

You can also assume that Bush would be a first round pick if he can play any position (as there are almost always at least 10 RBs taken in the first round).

Where would you draft Bush?

Is this related to the stud TE (Gates) discussion?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Had an interesting question posed to me this afternoon. Suppose you play in a pretty standard league, starting 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 FLEX (RB/WR/TE), 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 D/ST. 12 team league. Here's the catch: Reggie Bush can only be played at the flex position. You can't play him at RB or at WR: he is only eligible for the flex position. To avoid this getting into a thread about Reggie Bush (and whether he is awesome or just the normal amount of sweet), it might help to consider whatever RB you have at RB10 (where FBG projections have him) as the "flex" guy.

You can also assume that Bush would be a first round pick if he can play any position (as there are almost always at least 10 RBs taken in the first round).

Where would you draft Bush?

1.4

 

[trader jake]

1.4

Without RB eligibility the #10 RB (in this case a FLEX only player) shouldn't even sniff the first round...let alone 1.04.

 

[videoguy505]

Right, I'd put him at the middle to end of the second round, maybe, but I wouldn't try and grab him. You'd (almost) always prefer the flex guy to be another RB every week. But part of the reason for that is that it's always good to have 3 starting-quality RBs on the roster because it gives you a lot of options throughout the season. If one guy gets hurt or whatever you have a quality guy there instead of having to search the waiver wire. It'd be easier to put your 3rd RB in the RB2 slot and just pick up another WR should you need to.

Anyway, to sort this out I'd just consider Bush a slot-specific guy and rank him like a TE in that he offers little roster flexibility. So he'd rate ahead of Gates and I'd figure he'd go for a mid to late 2nd, but I wouldn't want to be the guy that drafts him there. Much like I don't want to be the guy that goes RB-TE in 1 and 2 to land Gates. If he's there in the third I'd consider him, but I wouldn't expect him to be. If Draft Dominator was out I'd just change Bush's position to TE and see where it places him.

 

[bostonfred]

I'd draft Bush 1.4 right now. I see no reason to drop him down my charts in this hypothetical. If him 1.10, I'd probably take him 1.10. The reason I like top ten running backs is not their RB eligibility, it's the fact that they'll score more points than the other RBs or WRs I'd take there. In a flex league, I'm virtually always going to draft three running backs, and while I'd prefer to have the positional eligibility to use a receiver as a flex once in a while, it's not enough to get me to take a lower scoring player in the first round. I'm only giving up a handful of points by selecting a running back in the middle rounds over a receiver, so unless I have another player very, very close to Bush, it's not worth passing on him for a lower scoring player just to get the position eligibility.

 

[bostonfred]

1.4

Without RB eligibility the #10 RB (in this case a FLEX only player) shouldn't even sniff the first round...let alone 1.04.

That doesn't make sense. I would gladly take more running backs on my roster. Let me ask you this: if you could draft your #10 receiver, but you had to play him at RB instead of receiver, would that raise or lower his value?

 

[trader jake]

I'd draft Bush 1.4 right now. I see no reason to drop him down my charts in this hypothetical. If him 1.10, I'd probably take him 1.10. The reason I like top ten running backs is not their RB eligibility, it's the fact that they'll score more points than the other RBs or WRs I'd take there. In a flex league, I'm virtually always going to draft three running backs, and while I'd prefer to have the positional eligibility to use a receiver as a flex once in a while, it's not enough to get me to take a lower scoring player in the first round. I'm only giving up a handful of points by selecting a running back in the middle rounds over a receiver, so unless I have another player very, very close to Bush, it's not worth passing on him for a lower scoring player just to get the position eligibility.

You forgot to add :X at the end bostonfred.

 

[NoFBinLA]

This might be off topic -- so you can PM with an answer if you want Chase -- but WHY is reggie a flex only player? What determines that?

That might play into my thinking a bit -- if they are scored differently or have other things affecting the scoring. or who my other choices might be later if I wait to fill the flex....

 

[trader jake]

That doesn't make sense. I would gladly take more running backs on my roster.

Exactly. That's why Reggie Bush (in this scenerio) doesn't warrant a selection that high.

 

[bostonfred]

1.4

Without RB eligibility the #10 RB (in this case a FLEX only player) shouldn't even sniff the first round...let alone 1.04.

I would gladly take more running backs on my roster.

Exactly. That's why Reggie Bush (in this scenerio) doesn't warrant a selection that high.

If I draft Reggie Bush in a 2 RB/1 FLEX league, I can only start two more running backs, right? One at flex, one at the RB2 slot? If I draft him in a league that requires me to use him as a flex, how many more running backs can I start? Still two? Am I missing something here? Are you allowed to start Bush at WR today or something?

 

[bostonfred]

Right, I'd put him at the middle to end of the second round, maybe, but I wouldn't try and grab him. You'd (almost) always prefer the flex guy to be another RB every week. But part of the reason for that is that it's always good to have 3 starting-quality RBs on the roster because it gives you a lot of options throughout the season. If one guy gets hurt or whatever you have a quality guy there instead of having to search the waiver wire. It'd be easier to put your 3rd RB in the RB2 slot and just pick up another WR should you need to.Anyway, to sort this out I'd just consider Bush a slot-specific guy and rank him like a TE in that he offers little roster flexibility. So he'd rate ahead of Gates and I'd figure he'd go for a mid to late 2nd, but I wouldn't want to be the guy that drafts him there. Much like I don't want to be the guy that goes RB-TE in 1 and 2 to land Gates. If he's there in the third I'd consider him, but I wouldn't expect him to be. If Draft Dominator was out I'd just change Bush's position to TE and see where it places him.

This doesn't make sense. If you changed Bush's position to TE, the draft dominator would say he was the #1 overall pick by a mile.

 

[trader jake]

If I draft Reggie Bush in a 2 RB/1 FLEX league, I can only start two more running backs, right? One at flex, one at the RB2 slot? If I draft him in a league that requires me to use him as a flex, how many more running backs can I start? Still two? Am I missing something here? Are you allowed to start Bush at WR today or something?

Of course not, but losing the ability to start your 1st round selection at RB is a huge loss. If one of your two starting RB's goes down you're in real trouble replacing them. This is the same problem that owners run into when they spend their 1st round selection on Peyton Manning...and you're spending that selection on a flex player to boot.No matter how much depth you may have on your team it won't matter because your 1st round FLEX player will always be in your starting line-up.Your starting RB's and WR's will fall victim as you select them as well. For example: 2nd and 3rd round RB's...4th, 5th, and 6th round WR's...a QB in the 7th and a TE in the 8th? That team would get blown away by a "normal" draft strategy. Your position flexibility would really be exposed during bye weeks and if/when injuries occur.

 

[bostonfred]

If I draft Reggie Bush in a 2 RB/1 FLEX league, I can only start two more running backs, right? One at flex, one at the RB2 slot? If I draft him in a league that requires me to use him as a flex, how many more running backs can I start? Still two? Am I missing something here? Are you allowed to start Bush at WR today or something?

Of course not, but losing the ability to start your 1st round selection at RB is a huge loss. If one of your two starting RB's goes down you're in real trouble replacing them. This is the same problem that owners run into when they spend their 1st round selection on Peyton Manning...and you're spending that selection on a flex player to boot.No matter how much depth you may have on your team it won't matter because your 1st round FLEX player will always be in your starting line-up.Your starting RB's and WR's will fall victim as you select them as well. For example: 2nd and 3rd round RB's...4th, 5th, and 6th round WR's...a QB in the 7th and a TE in the 8th? That team would get blown away by a "normal" draft strategy. Your position flexibility would really be exposed during bye weeks and if/when injuries occur.

Are you in a league where points scored by flex players don't count? Let's say I project Bush to score 200 points, McGahee to score 180, and Adrian Peterson to score 150. If those are my first three draft picks, will I score fewer points if McGahee and Peterson are my starting running backs and Bush is my flex, than I would if Bush and McGahee are my starting running backs and Peterson was my flex? That's not normally how it works in leagues I play in, but I can definitely understand your concern if that's how your league works. Is the issue that you can't take a receiver in the second round? That's not really a huge issue to me. I like starting RB/RB, and I would do that whether Bush was my flex player or my running back. Is the issue that you have to start out RB/RB/RB? Again, in a flex league, I'm generally hoping to do that anyways, although I'd pass on a running back if there were a higher scoring receiver in the third. I could still do that if Bush were my flex position, though, as long as I eventually took a capable #3 running back. What exactly is a "normal" draft strategy? Maybe that would help me understand your point.

 

[trader jake]

Are you in a league where points scored by flex players don't count? Let's say I project Bush to score 200 points, McGahee to score 180, and Adrian Peterson to score 150. If those are my first three draft picks, will I score fewer points if McGahee and Peterson are my starting running backs and Bush is my flex, than I would if Bush and McGahee are my starting running backs and Peterson was my flex?

The point totals project out fine. That's not the main drawback with selecting Bush at 1.04. How many points are you going to score at RB during McGahee and Peterson's bye weeks? How much will your team be effected if one of those two gets injured?The main benefit with selecting RB-RB-RB in a start 2 RB+flex league is that your starting 2 RB requirement is almost guaranteed to be filled with 2 productive starters. Selecting Bush as a flex ONLY and then taking 2 RB's really hinders your team during your two starting RB bye weeks and could end any playoff hopes if either of those RB's gets injured.Selecting FLEX only at 1.04 also all but guarantees your team of having below average production at the other positions. Under this scenerio, the benefit of having a stud FLEX is easily outweighed by the negatives of doing so imo. Of course, if you draft extremely well, your team could overcome this but the risk/reward makes this a poor draft strategy imo.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

Agreed with bostonfred at first, but I can see the other side now.

If you go RB-RB-RB chances are you're not taking another RB for a little bit. If one of your two starting RBs goes down, and you can ONLY play Bush at flex, you're kind of screwed. Chances are you won't be able to find a good replacement. If Bush COULD be moved out of the flex, however, you could insert a capable WR or TE in the flex. That way you have Bush/RB2 and WR/WR2/WR3 starting rather than RB2/RB4 and Bush in the flex.

It really comes down to having the option of starting someone other than your number 4 RB in the event one of your top 2 RBs goes down.

If Bush HAS to be in the flex, if one of your two starting RBs (RB2 or 3 assuming Bush is one) goes down you are now FORCED to start your RB2. If Bush can play at RB and your RB3 goes down, you have the option of playing RB4 and having the same roster you would have had if Bush was in the flex (only now Bush and RB4 are switched in where they are starting), but you can also start your WR3 or TE2 in the flex.

IMO, being locked to start your RB4 in your RB2 slot rather than having your pick of RB4, WR3 or TE2 in the flex is a major disadvantage.

 

[bostonfred]

Agreed with bostonfred at first, but I can see the other side now.

If you go RB-RB-RB chances are you're not taking another RB for a little bit. If one of your two starting RBs goes down, and you can ONLY play Bush at flex, you're kind of screwed. Chances are you won't be able to find a good replacement. If Bush COULD be moved out of the flex, however, you could insert a capable WR or TE in the flex. That way you have Bush/RB2 and WR/WR2/WR3 starting rather than RB2/RB4 and Bush in the flex.

It really comes down to having the option of starting someone other than your number 4 RB in the event one of your top 2 RBs goes down. IMO, being locked to start your RB4 in your RB2 slot rather than having your pick of RB4, WR3 WR4 or TE2 in the flex is a major disadvantage.

I agree that it's a disadvantage. Help me quantify how major a disadvantage we're talking about. Is your RB4 going to be worth 10 VBD points less than your WR4? 20? 100? How many points should you be willing to give up by passing on Reggie Bush for a player you like less, just to be able to start your WR4 or TE2? I'd argue that it's not so many points that you should drop Bush by a full round like most people are suggesting. It isn't enough to drop him one pick in my projections, but I willingly conceded earlier that it does reduce his value a small amount.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

Agreed with bostonfred at first, but I can see the other side now.

If you go RB-RB-RB chances are you're not taking another RB for a little bit. If one of your two starting RBs goes down, and you can ONLY play Bush at flex, you're kind of screwed. Chances are you won't be able to find a good replacement. If Bush COULD be moved out of the flex, however, you could insert a capable WR or TE in the flex. That way you have Bush/RB2 and WR/WR2/WR3 starting rather than RB2/RB4 and Bush in the flex.

It really comes down to having the option of starting someone other than your number 4 RB in the event one of your top 2 RBs goes down. IMO, being locked to start your RB4 in your RB2 slot rather than having your pick of RB4, WR3 WR4 or TE2 in the flex is a major disadvantage.

I agree that it's a disadvantage. Help me quantify how major a disadvantage we're talking about. Is your RB4 going to be worth 10 VBD points less than your WR4? 20? 100? How many points should you be willing to give up by passing on Reggie Bush for a player you like less, just to be able to start your WR4 or TE2? I'd argue that it's not so many points that you should drop Bush by a full round like most people are suggesting. It isn't enough to drop him one pick in my projections, but I willingly conceded earlier that it does reduce his value a small amount.

My bad, it should be WR4. Thought the league started 2 WRs.Not sure where I'd quantify the disadvantage. You can't play off of favorable matchups from one week to the next, and as I said if you go RB-RB-RB you're probably not going RB again for a while and its pretty likely you're not gonna have much at RB4. I can see what you mean though about it not being enough of a difference to pass on Bush, I just think that the difference between Bush and the next guy isn't that great. I guess it all depends on how much the drafter likes Bush.

 

[bostonfred]

Agreed with bostonfred at first, but I can see the other side now.

If you go RB-RB-RB chances are you're not taking another RB for a little bit. If one of your two starting RBs goes down, and you can ONLY play Bush at flex, you're kind of screwed. Chances are you won't be able to find a good replacement. If Bush COULD be moved out of the flex, however, you could insert a capable WR or TE in the flex. That way you have Bush/RB2 and WR/WR2/WR3 starting rather than RB2/RB4 and Bush in the flex.

It really comes down to having the option of starting someone other than your number 4 RB in the event one of your top 2 RBs goes down. IMO, being locked to start your RB4 in your RB2 slot rather than having your pick of RB4, WR3 WR4 or TE2 in the flex is a major disadvantage.

I agree that it's a disadvantage. Help me quantify how major a disadvantage we're talking about. Is your RB4 going to be worth 10 VBD points less than your WR4? 20? 100? How many points should you be willing to give up by passing on Reggie Bush for a player you like less, just to be able to start your WR4 or TE2? I'd argue that it's not so many points that you should drop Bush by a full round like most people are suggesting. It isn't enough to drop him one pick in my projections, but I willingly conceded earlier that it does reduce his value a small amount.

My bad, it should be WR4. Thought the league started 2 WRs.Not sure where I'd quantify the disadvantage. You can't play off of favorable matchups from one week to the next, and as I said if you go RB-RB-RB you're probably not going RB again for a while and its pretty likely you're not gonna have much at RB4. I can see what you mean though about it not being enough of a difference to pass on Bush, I just think that the difference between Bush and the next guy isn't that great. I guess it all depends on how much the drafter likes Bush.

Let's assume you draft a starting team normally, as if Bush were a RB, except you have to start a RB at flex, and you have to have a solid RB4 during your RB2's bye weeks. That will cost you: 1) the difference between the player you would have started at flex, and the RB3 you took (which woulld be zero for a team that intended to start three backs)

2) the difference between the player you would have started at flex the weeks the RB2 and RB3 are hurt or on bye, and the RB4 you took (which, again, may be zero or a larger number).

3) the difference between the player you would have drafted if you didn't take a RB4, and the RB4 (which, again, may be zero or a larger number)

Trader Jake makes it sound like this would have a huge cascading effect on your whole team. But it wouldn't affect you any more than any other owner who took three running backs to start their team. It wouldn't change the fact that, after three rounds, you wouldn't have a receiver, and you'd need to draft three receivers, a TE and a quarterback after round four to fill those spots. Very little has changed here.

 

[bueno]

That doesn't make sense. I would gladly take more running backs on my roster.

Exactly. That's why Reggie Bush (in this scenerio) doesn't warrant a selection that high.

Will you play in a money league with me? Please?If you run your VBD analysis with a Flex position and plug Bush into the flex, he will still be early to mid second round. Reason is that there will likely be only 12 flex players that are starters. No wr will have th production of a Bush. So assumming all WRs and RBs are eligible for flex, but Bush is only eligible for flex, his relative position as a flex player will be exactly the same as if he were a rb.

 

[trader jake]

That doesn't make sense. I would gladly take more running backs on my roster.

Exactly. That's why Reggie Bush (in this scenerio) doesn't warrant a selection that high.

Will you play in a money league with me? Please?If you run your VBD analysis with a Flex position and plug Bush into the flex, he will still be early to mid second round. Reason is that there will likely be only 12 flex players that are starters. No wr will have th production of a Bush. So assumming all WRs and RBs are eligible for flex, but Bush is only eligible for flex, his relative position as a flex player will be exactly the same as if he were a rb.

Why would an owner select him at 1.04?...or even 1.10? (as the #10 RB/Bush example might suggest)How is my argument that the #10 RB (using a flex only criteria) should NOT be selected in the 1st round incorrect?

 

[trader jake]

Let's assume you draft a starting team normally, as if Bush were a RB, except you have to start a RB at flex, and you have to have a solid RB4 during your RB2's bye weeks. That will cost you:

1) the difference between the player you would have started at flex, and the RB3 you took (which woulld be zero for a team that intended to start three backs) NOT DURING STARTING RB BYE WEEKS, DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR INJURY RISK

2) the difference between the player you would have started at flex the weeks the RB2 and RB3 are hurt or on bye, and the RB4 you took (which, again, may be zero or a larger number). COULD BE NEGLIGIBLE BUT THE DOWNSIDE IS GREATER SELECTING FLEX ONLY PLAYER

3) the difference between the player you would have drafted if you didn't take a RB4, and the RB4 (which, again, may be zero or a larger number) SEE #2

Trader Jake makes it sound like this would have a huge cascading effect on your whole team. But it wouldn't affect you any more than any other owner who took three running backs to start their team. It wouldn't change the fact that, after three rounds, you wouldn't have a receiver, and you'd need to draft three receivers, a TE and a quarterback after round four to fill those spots. Very little has changed here.

Incorrect. The inherent risk of only having 2 starter worthy RB's on your roster when the starting requirements include 2 RB's is huge. It's an even bigger risk when neither of those two RB's would be selected in the 1st round (IE - NO #1 RB starting at RB). The advantage at FLEX would be nice but not for the risk asociated with the move.I think a reliance on a #4 RB in your bullet points only shows the poor value of selecting Bush in the 1st. Those three opportunity costs (your bullet points) are much, much greater in value than the benefits of having a stud flex that can not be played at any other position.

I'm thinking we're squarely in the "agree to disagree" stage. Interested to see what Chase had in mind when he posed this question?

 

[bueno]

That doesn't make sense. I would gladly take more running backs on my roster.

Exactly. That's why Reggie Bush (in this scenerio) doesn't warrant a selection that high.

Will you play in a money league with me? Please?If you run your VBD analysis with a Flex position and plug Bush into the flex, he will still be early to mid second round. Reason is that there will likely be only 12 flex players that are starters. No wr will have th production of a Bush. So assumming all WRs and RBs are eligible for flex, but Bush is only eligible for flex, his relative position as a flex player will be exactly the same as if he were a rb.

Why would an owner select him at 1.04?...or even 1.10? (as the #10 RB/Bush example might suggest)How is my argument that the #10 RB (using a flex only criteria) should NOT be selected in the 1st round incorrect?

I wouldn't pick him there. Obviously though, BF has him ranked as the 4th best rb. If he is the 4th best rb, he will also be the 4th best flex player and if all RBs are able to be played in the flex position, then he would still be the fourth best pick overall.I don't have Bush ranked as the 4th best RB, but if I did have him there, it would make no difference from a VBD POV whether ehe was only eligible for the flex position or not. The purpose of VBD is to compare the relative worth of players at different positions. Bush would be ranked in the flex positoin as highly as he is in the RB position. I have him ranked 11th, and would take him there as a flex player or as a RB.

 

[bueno]

Let's assume you draft a starting team normally, as if Bush were a RB, except you have to start a RB at flex, and you have to have a solid RB4 during your RB2's bye weeks. That will cost you:

1) the difference between the player you would have started at flex, and the RB3 you took (which woulld be zero for a team that intended to start three backs) NOT DURING STARTING RB BYE WEEKS, DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR INJURY RISK

2) the difference between the player you would have started at flex the weeks the RB2 and RB3 are hurt or on bye, and the RB4 you took (which, again, may be zero or a larger number). COULD BE NEGLIGIBLE BUT THE DOWNSIDE IS GREATER SELECTING FLEX ONLY PLAYER

3) the difference between the player you would have drafted if you didn't take a RB4, and the RB4 (which, again, may be zero or a larger number) SEE #2

Trader Jake makes it sound like this would have a huge cascading effect on your whole team. But it wouldn't affect you any more than any other owner who took three running backs to start their team. It wouldn't change the fact that, after three rounds, you wouldn't have a receiver, and you'd need to draft three receivers, a TE and a quarterback after round four to fill those spots. Very little has changed here.

Incorrect. The inherent risk of only having 2 starter worthy RB's on your roster when the starting requirements include 2 RB's is huge. It's an even bigger risk when neither of those two RB's would be selected in the 1st round (IE - NO #1 RB starting at RB). The advantage at FLEX would be nice but not for the risk asociated with the move.I think a reliance on a #4 RB in your bullet points only shows the poor value of selecting Bush in the 1st. Those three opportunity costs (your bullet points) are much, much greater in value than the benefits of having a stud flex that can not be played at any other position.

I'm thinking we're squarely in the "agree to disagree" stage. Interested to see what Chase had in mind when he posed this question?

Let us say you have picked Bush, Rudi Johnson, Deuce McAllister and Brandon Jacobs as your RBs. All four are eligible for the flex position, but only three are eligible for RB. Bush occupies the flex position every week except for his bye week. It means you rotate the other three in the RB position.Now imagine you don't take Bush and end up with a WR in his place. So maybe Rudi, Deuce and Jacobs start every week, but then there are three weeks in which you don't have a RB at the Flex position and you start your WR3 in the flex position.

Which scenario do you think will score the most points?

 

[LHUCKS]

Middle to late second.

 

[radballs]

Middle to late second.

Fred, do you think Bush is worth the 1.4 in a non PPR league to begin with, let alone a league that requires him to be slotted in the flex position?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Had an interesting question posed to me this afternoon. Suppose you play in a pretty standard league, starting 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 FLEX (RB/WR/TE), 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 D/ST. 12 team league. Here's the catch: Reggie Bush can only be played at the flex position. You can't play him at RB or at WR: he is only eligible for the flex position. To avoid this getting into a thread about Reggie Bush (and whether he is awesome or just the normal amount of sweet), it might help to consider whatever RB you have at RB10 (where FBG projections have him) as the "flex" guy.

You can also assume that Bush would be a first round pick if he can play any position (as there are almost always at least 10 RBs taken in the first round).

Where would you draft Bush?

1.4

You would draft RB10 and 1.04? On the whole, I agree with b-fred. The limitation you are accepting by drafting Bush is that instead of having a choice between starting (3 RBs and 3 WRs) and (2 RBs and 4 WRs), you must start 3 RBs and 3 WRs (as long as you start Bush). [Forget the 2 TE option.]

I don't think that's a huge deal. I'd normally want to start 3 RBs and 3 WRs anyway. I'd have to make sure I drafted plenty of depth at RB so that I'd always have two solid ones in addition to Bush. But that's something I'd want to do anyway as well.

There is a disadvantage associated with not being allowed to start 2 RBs and 4 WRs with Bush in the line-up, but I don't think it's all that major. Trying to quantify it would take more effort that is warranted in a hypothetical league, but my initial instinct is that it would drop him down about one or two spots.

If we were talking about RB50 instead of RB10, I'd drop him down a lot more. If I'm starting RB50, it means I'm probably weak at RB, which means I'd rather go 2 RBs / 4 WRs. So the limitation on RB50's flexibility would be a greater disadvantage than the limitation on RB10's flexibility.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Interesting posts here. BF's 1.04 shtick sidetracked things a bit, but I really don't care about thoughts on Reggie Bush. The idea here is whoever you have at RB10, now make him only available at flex.

I think there's a slight downgrade in value. I'm having a tough time exactly quantifying it. I can safely say two things.

1) He's not more valuable than before. There is no additional value gained by switching from "RB or FLEX" option to "FLEX only" option.

2) He's not exactly as valuable as before. This is because you would (normally) start 2 RBs and 4 WRs a nonzero amount of times.

Outside of that, I don't have a terribly strong grasp on where I'd put him.

 

[Cixelsyd]

Is this the I hate Reggie Bush league?

It's not an interesting question... But I'll bite....

If he couldn't be played at RB (which is a totally lame rule by the way) then I'd treat him as a WR in my VBD... Without looking, without PPR, at 10th overall... he'd probally be in the top 5 WR's... I'd assume he'd rank out at the end of the 2nd...

But, if Hypothetically this league was open for me to join, I'd have to decline... What if you could only play Peyton Manning as a Flex???

The point is, he's not the 10th rank RB anymore... he's a top 5WR now.... thats all you need to know...

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If he couldn't be played at RB (which is a totally lame rule by the way) then I'd treat him as a WR in my VBD...

That doesn't really work. Consider a league in which you get 10 points per rushing yard, 60 points for a rushing TD, 0.0001 points per receiving yard, and 0.000001 points per receiving TD.If you treat Bush as a WR for VBD purposes in that scoring system, he'll shoot up to the number one player in the draft by a mile, which is wrong. If he's RB10, he should be no higher than the tenth-ranked player overall.

What if you could only play Peyton Manning as a Flex???

That would increase Peyton Manning's value by quite a bit since it would allow you, and only you, to start two QBs.

 

[trader jake]

Interesting posts here. BF's 1.04 shtick sidetracked things a bit, but I really don't care about thoughts on Reggie Bush. The idea here is whoever you have at RB10, now make him only available at flex.

I think there's a slight downgrade in value. I'm having a tough time exactly quantifying it. I can safely say two things.

1) He's not more valuable than before. There is no additional value gained by switching from "RB or FLEX" option to "FLEX only" option.

2) He's not exactly as valuable as before. This is because you would (normally) start 2 RBs and 4 WRs a nonzero amount of times.

Outside of that, I don't have a terribly strong grasp on where I'd put him.

Difficult to measure but there would have to be a huge gap between RB10 (the flex player only) and RB 11 in my rankings for me to even consider drafting RB 10 in the 1st round. I'm guesstimating that the drop would be approximately 5-10 spots, thus making that RB10 a non-factor in the 1st round.

 

[bostonfred]

Middle to late second.

Fred, do you think Bush is worth the 1.4 in a non PPR league to begin with, let alone a league that requires him to be slotted in the flex position?

No, but I think he's worth 1.4 in a PPR league. Chase stipulated that it's a standard league, but didn't give a scoring system. Which makes sense, because the points he scores are irrelevant to the hypothetical - this exercise would have been a little better if he hadn't mentioned Bush's name because it's irrelevant to Chase's goal. If you want to talk about why I like Reggie Bush, we can do that. But for the purposes of this thread, the point is that the requirement that he play FLEX is not so restrictive that it should drop him much if at all.

 

[bostonfred]

Had an interesting question posed to me this afternoon. Suppose you play in a pretty standard league, starting 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 FLEX (RB/WR/TE), 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 D/ST. 12 team league. Here's the catch: Reggie Bush can only be played at the flex position. You can't play him at RB or at WR: he is only eligible for the flex position. To avoid this getting into a thread about Reggie Bush (and whether he is awesome or just the normal amount of sweet), it might help to consider whatever RB you have at RB10 (where FBG projections have him) as the "flex" guy.

You can also assume that Bush would be a first round pick if he can play any position (as there are almost always at least 10 RBs taken in the first round).

Where would you draft Bush?

1.4

You would draft RB10 and 1.04? On the whole, I agree with b-fred. The limitation you are accepting by drafting Bush is that instead of having a choice between starting (3 RBs and 3 WRs) and (2 RBs and 4 WRs), you must start 3 RBs and 3 WRs (as long as you start Bush). [Forget the 2 TE option.]

I don't think that's a huge deal. I'd normally want to start 3 RBs and 3 WRs anyway. I'd have to make sure I drafted plenty of depth at RB so that I'd always have two solid ones in addition to Bush. But that's something I'd want to do anyway as well.

There is a disadvantage associated with not being allowed to start 2 RBs and 4 WRs with Bush in the line-up, but I don't think it's all that major. Trying to quantify it would take more effort that is warranted in a hypothetical league, but my initial instinct is that it would drop him down about one or two spots.

If we were talking about RB50 instead of RB10, I'd drop him down a lot more. If I'm starting RB50, it means I'm probably weak at RB, which means I'd rather go 2 RBs / 4 WRs. So the limitation on RB50's flexibility would be a greater disadvantage than the limitation on RB10's flexibility.

Thanks. I agree that it might drop him a spot or two, but that's about it. I disagree that it would be an issue if he were RB50, though. If you have to start RB50, you're probably starting him as a flex anyways. I guess his value as a backup RB would be slightly lower, since you might be using him as your RB2 some weeks, but for a late round player like RB50, the limitation is pretty much irrelevant because you hopefully didn't intend to start him anyways.

 

[LHUCKS]

But for the purposes of this thread, the point is that the requirement that he play FLEX is not so restrictive that it should drop him much if at all.

It really depends on how much difference there is between your #10 RB and your #20RB, or where your tiers break...for me there isn't much difference which is why the hypothetical #10 RB drops a half round to full round.

 

[bostonfred]

Let's assume you draft a starting team normally, as if Bush were a RB, except you have to start a RB at flex, and you have to have a solid RB4 during your RB2's bye weeks. That will cost you:

1) the difference between the player you would have started at flex, and the RB3 you took (which woulld be zero for a team that intended to start three backs) NOT DURING STARTING RB BYE WEEKS, DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR INJURY RISK

2) the difference between the player you would have started at flex the weeks the RB2 and RB3 are hurt or on bye, and the RB4 you took (which, again, may be zero or a larger number). COULD BE NEGLIGIBLE BUT THE DOWNSIDE IS GREATER SELECTING FLEX ONLY PLAYER

3) the difference between the player you would have drafted if you didn't take a RB4, and the RB4 (which, again, may be zero or a larger number) SEE #2

Trader Jake makes it sound like this would have a huge cascading effect on your whole team. But it wouldn't affect you any more than any other owner who took three running backs to start their team. It wouldn't change the fact that, after three rounds, you wouldn't have a receiver, and you'd need to draft three receivers, a TE and a quarterback after round four to fill those spots. Very little has changed here.

Incorrect. The inherent risk of only having 2 starter worthy RB's on your roster when the starting requirements include 2 RB's is huge. It's an even bigger risk when neither of those two RB's would be selected in the 1st round (IE - NO #1 RB starting at RB). The advantage at FLEX would be nice but not for the risk asociated with the move.I think a reliance on a #4 RB in your bullet points only shows the poor value of selecting Bush in the 1st. Those three opportunity costs (your bullet points) are much, much greater in value than the benefits of having a stud flex that can not be played at any other position.

I'm thinking we're squarely in the "agree to disagree" stage. Interested to see what Chase had in mind when he posed this question?

Look at the stuff you bolded and capitalized. Your answer to 1 is actually double counting the comment I made in 2. Your answer to 2 and 3 completely agrees with me. Why are you saying I'm incorrect? What did you think you were correcting? The only thing it seems like we're disagreeing on is the value of 2 and 3. You're saying they're much much greater than the benefits of having a stud flex. I didn't say there was any benefit to having a stud flex, so the only place where we disagree is on how many points you lose over the course of the season from the above. I'm especially confused since you said it could be negligible.

 

[Cixelsyd]

If he couldn't be played at RB (which is a totally lame rule by the way) then I'd treat him as a WR in my VBD...

That doesn't really work. Consider a league in which you get 10 points per rushing yard, 60 points for a rushing TD, 0.0001 points per receiving yard, and 0.000001 points per receiving TD.If you treat Bush as a WR for VBD purposes in that scoring system, he'll shoot up to the number one player in the draft by a mile, which is wrong. If he's RB10, he should be no higher than the tenth-ranked player overall.

What if you could only play Peyton Manning as a Flex???

That would increase Peyton Manning's value by quite a bit since it would allow you, and only you, to start two QBs.

In his post, the scoring system is standard... so it would still work... but in your scoring setup, you are correct... I wouldn't list him as a WR...

 

[Cixelsyd]

But for the purposes of this thread, the point is that the requirement that he play FLEX is not so restrictive that it should drop him much if at all.

It really depends on how much difference there is between your #10 RB and your #20RB, or where your tiers break...for me there isn't much difference which is why the hypothetical #10 RB drops a half round to full round.

I've changed my mind on this... I agree he should drop at all... He should be drafted where he is ranked as a RB... because it's a FLEX position, you can just play it as it's a start 3RB, 2WR league... rather than get hung up on "FLEX"... So if I take that mindset... if he's the #10 RB, I take him at the #10 spot... or higher, if I he's higher in my rankings...

 

[bostonfred]

But for the purposes of this thread, the point is that the requirement that he play FLEX is not so restrictive that it should drop him much if at all.

It really depends on how much difference there is between your #10 RB and your #20RB, or where your tiers break...for me there isn't much difference which is why the hypothetical #10 RB drops a half round to full round.

That's a pretty good description of it. I think there's a huge difference betwen RB10 and RB15, let alone RB20, so to me that sounds like too far to drop him. But if you have a bunch of guys who are all clustered together with virtually the exact same projection, I can understand putting him at the bottom of the bunch because of this restriction.

 

[KING]

ok, what idiot league would even do this. the only position i could even remotely see having a problem with this is H back. is it a TE or RB. there havn't been very many H backs, and nonen have had much fantasy impact.

bush was drafted as a RB, is listed as a RB, and has a RB number.

 

[Chase Stuart]

ok, what idiot league would even do this. the only position i could even remotely see having a problem with this is H back. is it a TE or RB. there havn't been very many H backs, and nonen have had much fantasy impact.bush was drafted as a RB, is listed as a RB, and has a RB number.

This came out of a discussion of old baseball leagues. In fantasy baseball, you have a flex position (or two) and a 1B, 2B, 3B...but no DH position. So a DH can only be played at flex. Back in the day, Frank Thomas was a pretty incredible hitter, and most other DHs were pretty weak...so the question was what was the appropriate way to rank Frank Thomas, since he was valuable because he was an offensive force, but was locked into a flex position.

 

[KING]

ok, what idiot league would even do this. the only position i could even remotely see having a problem with this is H back. is it a TE or RB. there havn't been very many H backs, and nonen have had much fantasy impact.bush was drafted as a RB, is listed as a RB, and has a RB number.

This came out of a discussion of old baseball leagues. In fantasy baseball, you have a flex position (or two) and a 1B, 2B, 3B...but no DH position. So a DH can only be played at flex. Back in the day, Frank Thomas was a pretty incredible hitter, and most other DHs were pretty weak...so the question was what was the appropriate way to rank Frank Thomas, since he was valuable because he was an offensive force, but was locked into a flex position.

i would agree in baseball. baseball is an entirely different matter. players change positions quite frequently. arod was worth much more as an SS than a 3rd baseman. thats why there is generally a min gamed played rule from the previous season. that dosn't mean you can correlate it to football.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

Interesting posts here. BF's 1.04 shtick sidetracked things a bit, but I really don't care about thoughts on Reggie Bush. The idea here is whoever you have at RB10, now make him only available at flex.

I think there's a slight downgrade in value. I'm having a tough time exactly quantifying it. I can safely say two things.

1) He's not more valuable than before. There is no additional value gained by switching from "RB or FLEX" option to "FLEX only" option.

2) He's not exactly as valuable as before. This is because you would (normally) start 2 RBs and 4 WRs a nonzero amount of times.

Outside of that, I don't have a terribly strong grasp on where I'd put him.

articulated well, chase.

 

[Chase Stuart]

ok, what idiot league would even do this. the only position i could even remotely see having a problem with this is H back. is it a TE or RB. there havn't been very many H backs, and nonen have had much fantasy impact.

bush was drafted as a RB, is listed as a RB, and has a RB number.

This came out of a discussion of old baseball leagues. In fantasy baseball, you have a flex position (or two) and a 1B, 2B, 3B...but no DH position. So a DH can only be played at flex. Back in the day, Frank Thomas was a pretty incredible hitter, and most other DHs were pretty weak...so the question was what was the appropriate way to rank Frank Thomas, since he was valuable because he was an offensive force, but was locked into a flex position.

i would agree in baseball. baseball is an entirely different matter. players change positions quite frequently. arod was worth much more as an SS than a 3rd baseman. thats why there is generally a min gamed played rule from the previous season. that dosn't mean you can correlate it to football.

You would agree with what?

 

[Driver]

Interesting posts here. BF's 1.04 shtick sidetracked things a bit, but I really don't care about thoughts on Reggie Bush. The idea here is whoever you have at RB10, now make him only available at flex.

I think there's a slight downgrade in value. I'm having a tough time exactly quantifying it. I can safely say two things.

1) He's not more valuable than before. There is no additional value gained by switching from "RB or FLEX" option to "FLEX only" option.

2) He's not exactly as valuable as before. This is because you would (normally) start 2 RBs and 4 WRs a nonzero amount of times.

Outside of that, I don't have a terribly strong grasp on where I'd put him.

Difficult to measure but there would have to be a huge gap between RB10 (the flex player only) and RB 11 in my rankings for me to even consider drafting RB 10 in the 1st round. I'm guesstimating that the drop would be approximately 5-10 spots, thus making that RB10 a non-factor in the 1st round.

Very interesting thread. A thought-provoking problem, and excellent points made by several posters IMO.Unfortunately, only Trader Jake has been on the right track in this thread, but he was also wrong by concluding that the drop (for RB10 restricted to Flex only) would only be 5-10 spots -- I'm assuming he meant dropping from around 10th pick overall to around pick 15-20 overall.

The EV+ (or shark move) is to pick him 25th overall or higher, given the league requirements in the OP. From the discussion so far, it's apparent that RB10 would be drafted before 25th overall. Therefore, it's an example of the "winner's curse" striking again.

Question - In this case, is RB10 (restricted to Flex) more or less valuable than Gates? "Less" is the correct answer.

 

[Driver]

IMO, to understand the value of RB10 (restricted to Flex), it’s useful to compare his value to Gates’ value. There are similarities because (1) both Gates and RB10 can only be played in a single starting position (Gates as TE and RB10 as Flex), and (2) both Gates and RB10 are high-profile, stud players.

There are also key differences between their situations. First, in the TE position, Gates is competing against all other TEs only (and no other players), and he has averaged about 85 VBD pts during the past 3 years. Second, RB10 is competing against all other RBs, WRs and TEs in the Flex position which is very different than Gates’ competition. Third, it is necessary to start 2 other RBs each week, and RB10 cannot be one of these 2 RB starters.

Looking at it in this way, I hope it is now clear why Gates is more valuable than RB10? And why RB10 should not be drafted before 25th overall? Also why anyone drafting RB10 before 25th overall will be hit by the “winner’s curse”?

 

[trader jake]

Very interesting thread. A thought-provoking problem, and excellent points made by several posters IMO.Unfortunately, only Trader Jake has been on the right track in this thread

This guy knows things.

 

[bostonfred]

Interesting posts here. BF's 1.04 shtick sidetracked things a bit, but I really don't care about thoughts on Reggie Bush. The idea here is whoever you have at RB10, now make him only available at flex.

I think there's a slight downgrade in value. I'm having a tough time exactly quantifying it. I can safely say two things.

1) He's not more valuable than before. There is no additional value gained by switching from "RB or FLEX" option to "FLEX only" option.

2) He's not exactly as valuable as before. This is because you would (normally) start 2 RBs and 4 WRs a nonzero amount of times.

Outside of that, I don't have a terribly strong grasp on where I'd put him.

Difficult to measure but there would have to be a huge gap between RB10 (the flex player only) and RB 11 in my rankings for me to even consider drafting RB 10 in the 1st round. I'm guesstimating that the drop would be approximately 5-10 spots, thus making that RB10 a non-factor in the 1st round.

Very interesting thread. A thought-provoking problem, and excellent points made by several posters IMO.Unfortunately, only Trader Jake has been on the right track in this thread, but he was also wrong by concluding that the drop (for RB10 restricted to Flex only) would only be 5-10 spots -- I'm assuming he meant dropping from around 10th pick overall to around pick 15-20 overall.

The EV+ (or shark move) is to pick him 25th overall or higher, given the league requirements in the OP. From the discussion so far, it's apparent that RB10 would be drafted before 25th overall. Therefore, it's an example of the "winner's curse" striking again.

Question - In this case, is RB10 (restricted to Flex) more or less valuable than Gates? "Less" is the correct answer.

The Shark Move is to take Tomlinson in the third this year, too.