"Standard" Leagues Starting 2 WR instead of 3 (1 Viewer)

[rowediggy]

I would consider myself a veteran, but I've never seen so many leagues that used to be "standard"** switching to using 2 Starting WRs instead of 3.

(**Standard leagues shall be defined as your average workplace, or casual league, not crazy solid player leagues where any format goes... this is Typified by your average FREE Yahoo league: QB/WR/WR/WR/RB/RB/Flex/TheRest. 6 Pts TD/Rushing/Rec, etc, etc, etc... you all know this type of league. They can be insanely proftable--especially around the office --thus its important to torch these leagues for your yearly bottom line. --I'm fairly sure this is due to the soaring popularity of FF, 10 team leagues becoming 12, and scared commisioners inviting newbies who don't think they will be able to handle the 3x12 depth of starting, let alone bench WR)

So here's the strategy question-- crazy VBD formulas aside: What is the LOGICAL strategy adjustment going to 2 starting WR (assuming its still the best idea to draft 3 very nice RBs)?? I can see it two ways:

-Run away from 2nd/3rd round recievers, and load up on value! There will be fewer WR drafted. Thus there will be more solid WRs around.

OR

-2nd/3rd round recievers are KEY. Since you only have two starting WR, if you come to battle with a stud or two vs. 2 mediocore recivers, you have a massive advantage! There is no 3rd WR to average out the WR scoring, making it acceptable to bring 3 middle class recivers into a weekly firefight.

I guess I'm a smart guy but my brain can't find a reason both of these strategies are not legit. I'm leaning toward the "get stud WRs!" version of the strategy...

****bury me if this is a dupe, FBG search doesn't like any search terms I can throw at this, they are all 2 or 3 characters. Just flame me, and post a link to the previous discussion

 

[wannabee]

In start 2 WR leagues, there are two strategies I like. One is to take WRs in 2nd and 3rd rounds, after a RB in the first. I think this only works if you get a top RB in round one and both WRs in 2nd and 3rd round are top 10 WRs. By top 10, I mean these 10 (in no order): smith, CJ, Holt, Fitz, Boldin, Harrison, TO, Moss, Wayne, and Chambers.

The other strategy is to get a top WR in round two, assuming a top RB in round one. Then look for value WRs in rounds 4-6. I would target Driver, Mason, and Coles (if PPR). Having startign WRs of Harrison and Mason, for example, with Rbs in rounds one and three, would be a good start.

 

[delusional]

My league use 2 WR 1 TE 2 RB

Drafts are funky, TEs get 2pts 15yds recieving

My sig is my 12 man with that set up. We drafted on the 11th though :(

Went SA Fitz Gates Walker

 

[Da Guru]

Our league went from 2 to 3 about 5 years ago.

When watching the games you want as many players going as possible just for the enjoyment.

 

[wannabee]

In start 2 WR leagues, there are two strategies I like. One is to take WRs in 2nd and 3rd rounds, after a RB in the first. I think this only works if you get a top RB in round one and both WRs in 2nd and 3rd round are top 10 WRs. By top 10, I mean these 10 (in no order): smith, CJ, Holt, Fitz, Boldin, Harrison, TO, Moss, Wayne, and Chambers.The other strategy is to get a top WR in round two, assuming a top RB in round one. Then look for value WRs in rounds 4-6. I would target Driver, Mason, and Coles (if PPR). Having startign WRs of Harrison and Mason, for example, with Rbs in rounds one and three, would be a good start.

I want to add that, with fewer starters (2 WR instead of 3 WR), collecting studs at each position is important. I know this sounds basic. But, in a league where 36 WRs are started each week, you can use multiple WRs to cover the WR3 spot and play matchups. In a start 2 WR league, having two stud WRs is a big advantage.

 

[rowediggy]

I want to add that, with fewer starters (2 WR instead of 3 WR), collecting studs at each position is important. I know this sounds basic. But, in a league where 36 WRs are started each week, you can use multiple WRs to cover the WR3 spot and play matchups. In a start 2 WR league, having two stud WRs is a big advantage.

Yeah, this is what I was thinking would be optimal. However, based on part of your general comment about "fewer starters=>collect more studs", having someone like Gates at TE with one less fantasy spot, probably makes someone like him an excellent target? I'm not sure if this applies to QBs though. I'm pretty sure the "fewer starters=> more studs" thought you alluded to makes Gates value increase? Thus, is it fair to create the corrolary "The smaller the starting rosters, the higher the value of The Gates"? (getting off topic from the original pure WR discussion)

 

[wannabee]

I want to add that, with fewer starters (2 WR instead of 3 WR), collecting studs at each position is important. I know this sounds basic. But, in a league where 36 WRs are started each week, you can use multiple WRs to cover the WR3 spot and play matchups. In a start 2 WR league, having two stud WRs is a big advantage.

Yeah, this is what I was thinking would be optimal. However, based on part of your general comment about "fewer starters=>collect more studs", having someone like Gates at TE with one less fantasy spot, probably makes someone like him an excellent target? I'm not sure if this applies to QBs though. I'm pretty sure the "fewer starters=> more studs" thought you alluded to makes Gates value increase? Thus, is it fair to create the corrolary "The smaller the starting rosters, the higher the value of The Gates"? (getting off topic from the original pure WR discussion)

I was in a 16 teamer this weekend that started 2 RBs and 2 WRs, with no flex. I can tell you that I felt lucky to get LJ, Holt, and Moss in first three rounds. But, the DD, had 6 or 8 WRs weighted ahead of Gates. All leagues will be different depending on scoring. I do think the WRs gain importance in start 2, maybe moreso than Gates.

 

[sartre]

I know when we went from 2WR to 3WR a few years ago, it increased the relative value of WR's in the draft. I would think the converse would also be true. That is, take Torry Holt for example. I think his value in a start 3WR is higher than in a 2WR, and as such he should be drafted later in a start 2WR.

Bottom line is that I would opt for your first strategy.

 

[rowediggy]

I know when we went from 2WR to 3WR a few years ago, it increased the relative value of WR's in the draft. I would think the converse would also be true. That is, take Torry Holt for example. I think his value in a start 3WR is higher than in a 2WR, and as such he should be drafted later in a start 2WR.Bottom line is that I would opt for your first strategy.

Man, two completely opposite answers, which is exactly why I posted this thread. My logic agrees with wannabe, and the draft WR earlier strategy. However, DD agrees with you, switching the number of starting RBs to 3, jumps Chad Johnson up from 16 to 11 overall based on my projections... and the buck stops with DD.I really can't figure this into a digestable logical argument though....

 

[wannabee]

I know when we went from 2WR to 3WR a few years ago, it increased the relative value of WR's in the draft. I would think the converse would also be true. That is, take Torry Holt for example. I think his value in a start 3WR is higher than in a 2WR, and as such he should be drafted later in a start 2WR.Bottom line is that I would opt for your first strategy.

Man, two completely opposite answers, which is exactly why I posted this thread. My logic agrees with wannabe, and the draft WR earlier strategy. However, DD agrees with you, switching the number of starting RBs to 3, jumps Chad Johnson up from 16 to 11 overall based on my projections... and the buck stops with DD.I really can't figure this into a digestable logical argument though....

some depends on scoring and number of teams

 

[tangfoot]

Every one of my leagues has been 2 WR/Flex for a long time.

It gives you the option of going RB/RB/WR/WR or RB/WR/WR/WR, or even going with a 2nd TE if injuries/bye weeks hit you hard.

I've been under the assumption that this was "standard". Go figure.

 

[Wilk]

I know when we went from 2WR to 3WR a few years ago, it increased the relative value of WR's in the draft. I would think the converse would also be true. That is, take Torry Holt for example. I think his value in a start 3WR is higher than in a 2WR, and as such he should be drafted later in a start 2WR.Bottom line is that I would opt for your first strategy.

Man, two completely opposite answers, which is exactly why I posted this thread. My logic agrees with wannabe, and the draft WR earlier strategy. However, DD agrees with you, switching the number of starting RBs to 3, jumps Chad Johnson up from 16 to 11 overall based on my projections... and the buck stops with DD.I really can't figure this into a digestable logical argument though....

The reason is because you are raising the baseline reciever when you go from 3 to two recievers.To make the following example a little more simple, I'll use the "first non-starter" for my baseline in a 12 team league:If Lamont Jordan is 75 points better than the 25th best back, and Holt is 80 points better than the 37th best reciever, then Holt is more valuable then Jordan.If however, you change to 2 WR's, then your baseline reciever is the 25th best reciever and no longer the 37th. While Holt may be 80 points better than the 37th reciever, he may only be 60 points better than the 25th best reciever. Thus by changing the number of recievers, Jordan's VBD of 75 is now more valuable than Holt's 60.The many articles around here on VBD would explain this probably better than I just did.

 

[Wilk]

A better way of putting this may be that with only two recievers starting, it's easier to replace or trade for a WR who will get 900 yards and 7 tds who is available on the waiver wire or is wasting away on somebody's bench. With 3 WR's starting, those guys are starting in somebody's lineup and are more valuable/harder to obtain. Thus, in three wide reciever leagues, WR's in general are more valuable than in two WR leagues.

Same is true with QB's. In start 2 leagues, the QB position is way more valuable than in start 1 leages.

 

[Warhogs]

Every one of my leagues has been 2 WR/Flex for a long time.It gives you the option of going RB/RB/WR/WR or RB/WR/WR/WR, or even going with a 2nd TE if injuries/bye weeks hit you hard.I've been under the assumption that this was "standard". Go figure.

I too thought there were about as many leagues that started 2 WR? Oh well...We actually went to a start 1 RB, 2 WR and 2 flex positions this year. It was interesting as some teams loaded up on RB while others took stud WR and waited with a plan to start 1 RB. We will see how it works out.

 

[rowediggy]

Thus by changing the number of recievers, Jordan's VBD of 75 is now more valuable than Holt's 60.The many articles around here on VBD would explain this probably better than I just did.

Perfect, very layperson-ed out for me. Thanks man.