The Case of the Dwindling RBBC (1 Viewer)

[cobalt_27]

So, someone remind me why we're still starting 2 RBs in most of our leagues? Oh, that's right--most NFL teams start 2 RBs, so we should as well.

Well.

Indeed, I do remember a time when the 2-RB set was in vogue. But, teams are relying much more on the 1-back set or utilizing a fullback, at best. We aren't seeing two fantasy-producing RBs in the same backfield. Not anymore.

Even if you like the 2 RB setup in your fantasy leagues, this still may be interesting information. I've taken all running backs since 1970 and teased out everyone that scored 100 or more fantasy points each year (based on your typical 1/10, 6/TD scoring system). Then, I counted all the teams that had TWO running backs score 100+ points in the same year. The following results are summarized by (a) decade and (b) # of teams w/2+ RBs > 100pts:

1970s 110

1980s 90

1990s 61

00-04 23

So, we've gone from 11 teams/year who had multiple producing RBs in the '70s to, now, less than 5 teams/year.

I did not control for injuries that required a NEW starter to come in and fill the primary RB role at some point in the season. But, just looking at the names from year-to-year, it's clear to me that the most recent teams who have had multiple backs scoring over 100pts was heavily determined by injuries; my guess is it's more heavily-weighted in that direction now than it was in the past.

We're talking about over a 50% reduction in teams utilizing a multiple-back set since the 1970s (far more if you factor in the number of teams playing now vs. back then).

Now, whether you like the 2RB setup in fantasy football or not, I don't think the argument holds anymore that it's done this way to emulate what's on the field in the NFL on any given Sunday. Those second backs...they ain't carrying the load...they're blocking for the primary ballcarrier.

But, it is this 2RB emphasis that has created the supply issue in most leagues--that, thus, dictates demand--and has totally diminished the values of other positions. As anyone who's ever read any of my posts on this topic, you know my bias and bewilderment over elite QBs getting passed over until the 2nd and 3rd rounds in favor of those mid-range RBs.

So, for those of you who are similarly frustrated that your drafts aren't even coming close to reflecting true talent value on the field, maybe you can take this data to your league commish and push for changes in the lineup structure that establish better equilibrium to your league's relative positional value.

 

[lebowski]

So, someone remind me why we're still starting 2 RBs in most of our leagues? Oh, that's right--most NFL teams start 2 RBs, so we should as well.

Well.

Indeed, I do remember a time when the 2-RB set was in vogue. But, teams are relying much more on the 1-back set or utilizing a fullback, at best. We aren't seeing two fantasy-producing RBs in the same backfield. Not anymore.

Even if you like the 2 RB setup in your fantasy leagues, this still may be interesting information. I've taken all running backs since 1970 and teased out everyone that scored 100 or more fantasy points each year (based on your typical 1/10, 6/TD scoring system). Then, I counted all the teams that had TWO running backs score 100+ points in the same year. The following results are summarized by (a) decade and (b) # of teams w/2+ RBs > 100pts:

1970s 110

1980s 90

1990s 61

00-04 23

So, we've gone from 11 teams/year who had multiple producing RBs in the '70s to, now, less than 5 teams/year.

I did not control for injuries that required a NEW starter to come in and fill the primary RB role at some point in the season. But, just looking at the names from year-to-year, it's clear to me that the most recent teams who have had multiple backs scoring over 100pts was heavily determined by injuries; my guess is it's more heavily-weighted in that direction now than it was in the past.

We're talking about over a 50% reduction in teams utilizing a multiple-back set since the 1970s (far more if you factor in the number of teams playing now vs. back then).

Now, whether you like the 2RB setup in fantasy football or not, I don't think the argument holds anymore that it's done this way to emulate what's on the field in the NFL on any given Sunday. Those second backs...they ain't carrying the load...they're blocking for the primary ballcarrier.

But, it is this 2RB emphasis that has created the supply issue in most leagues--that, thus, dictates demand--and has totally diminished the values of other positions. As anyone who's ever read any of my posts on this topic, you know my bias and bewilderment over elite QBs getting passed over until the 2nd and 3rd rounds in favor of those mid-range RBs.

So, for those of you who are similarly frustrated that your drafts aren't even coming close to reflecting true talent value on the field, maybe you can take this data to your league commish and push for changes in the lineup structure that establish better equilibrium to your league's relative positional value.

Good analysis... however, I kind of enjoy the challange that this creates when drafting and managing a good team. That is part of what make fantasy football fun IMO.

 

[Mario Kart]

I love seeing proof that the 2 RB requirement is old and out of realism. Every bit of info helps.

 

[cobalt_27]

I love seeing proof that the 2 RB requirement is old and out of realism. Every bit of info helps.

Here's a little more fuel for the fire. Below are all the running backs split into two groups: Primary = ranked 1st on their team in rushing for a given year

Second = ranked 2nd on their team in rushing for a given year

Here are the averages per game of these two "types" of backs:

Primary

Decade RUSHA RUSHY RUSHTD

1970s.....14.6.....60.3.....0.39

1980s.....15.2.....63.2.....0.44

1990s.....15.8.....64.0.....0.42

00-04.....17.5.....73.4.....0.51

Secondary

Decade RUSHA RUSHY RUSHTD

1970s.....9.8.....37.8.....0.26

1980s.....7.8.....30.9.....0.25

1990s.....6.7.....26.0.....0.19

00-04.....6.5.....26.0.....0.18

The primary backs have increased their production in each successive decade (increased rushing attempts, yards and TDs per game), while the secondary backs' numbers have dwindled substantially with each decade.

The primary backs in the 1970s produced about 35% more than the secondary backs. But, in this current decade, primary backs are outproducing their secondary peers by more than 64% (an 85% increase since the '70s).

All this points to is how rare teams are utilizing the RBBC approach these days, particularly when compared to its heyday in the 1970s. I think it's a totally overblown component that's discussed in these here forums.

So, draft your studs in confidence. And, if you care to change the rules of your league to a 1-start RB to keep values in line with other positions (you remember there are QBs and WRs that play in the NFL don't you?), that would be a much-added bonus to fantasy football...and civilization as we know it. The justification for starting 2 RBs was probably never valid to begin with; but, it certainly doesn't make any more sense than starting 2 QBs nowadays.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I play in a few leagues but the one that has become my favorite is the league where we start 1RB, 2WR and than 1 FLex...that flex can be a WR/TE/RB...we also start 1QB/TE mandatory.I like it. it loosens up the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds...however if you get a strong #2 RB and they end up in the top5 you have a HUGE advantage in that Flex position. No WR is gonna match up against you really.Cobalt, are you suggesting we start 1 FB? To make it more realistic? How bout the home teams gets an automatic 4 points added into their stats come Monday?

 

[Mario Kart]

Cobalt, are you suggesting we start 1 FB? To make it more realistic? How bout the home teams gets an automatic 4 points added into their stats come Monday?

Formation Based Football is the way to go DOWN WITH THE 2 RB REQUIREMENT!!!!

 

[John 14:6]

Good thread

Cobalt, are you suggesting we start 1 FB? To make it more realistic? How bout the home teams gets an automatic 4 points added into their stats come Monday?

This is an interesting point that I've thought about. Since a lot of NFL teams do start a fullback most of the time, maybe leagues could use a designation for the flex RB. One way would be to designate fullbacks and/or other #2 RBs (like 3rd down backs) in the preaseason. Another possibility would be to have a rule that your flex RB can't be averaging more than x carries per game. Of course these rules would cause nearly every team to go with a WR at the flex.I doubt there's any league management software out there that handles stuff like this...

 

[cobalt_27]

I play in a few leagues but the one that has become my favorite is the league where we start 1RB, 2WR and than 1 FLex...that flex can be a WR/TE/RB...we also start 1QB/TE mandatory.

Cobalt, are you suggesting we start 1 FB? To make it more realistic?

Nah, I don't think realism to what's theoretically on the field is terribly important. Just as I wouldn't suggest leagues using punters or placeholders or left guards. Really, just limit it to the major point producers.I think my point is that the tradition of the 2-RB leagues came about in the 80s when (a) they were primarily TD-only leagues (performance leagues didn't really grab hold until the late-80s/early-90s) and (b) there were still more remnants of a two-set backfield where the Christian Okoyes and Barry Words of the world (or Bo Jackson/Marcus Allen, if you like) were still relatively plentiful.

Be that as it may, they just don't exist in quite the volume as they once did. And, I think the unintended consequence of the 2-RB leagues is you get this insanity where the 10th-best RB is more "valuable" than the best QB on the shelf. And, this has to do with the supply/demand issue where you have to fill twice the RB slots as QB positions. And, I think that's just totally insane. And, I can't seem to find any rationale for it...other than, maybe, this historical thread.

I guess what I'm saying is I'd prefer my realism to reflect more the value of what's really out there on the field (because, truth be told Manning > K.Jones to his team no matter what draft order they're picked)--not an attempt to reflect a formation set that no longer exists in any meaningful way.

 

[Mario Kart]

Search in this forum for:Formation Based Footballor is nothing really comes up just search for threads started by me... good discussion about, near, this exact topic. Good stuff I tell you.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

NFL teams start FBs, so I guess we have to also right?There are two RBs in the backfield in the NFL on the majority of plays. So one of them usually isn't a viable fantasy option most of the time, so what? Most teams don't have 3 fantasy worthy WRs, but there are still plenty of leagues that start 3 WRs.

 

[Mario Kart]

NFL teams start FBs, so I guess we have to also right?

There are two RBs in the backfield in the NFL on the majority of plays. So one of them usually isn't a viable fantasy option most of the time, so what? Most teams don't have 3 fantasy worthy WRs, but there are still plenty of leagues that start 3 WRs.

You also want to start 2 RB's because "that is the way it has always been done" right? This post I am printing out and framing because it will someday be worth something due to its artistic form. I shall laugh everytime I walk past it too.

 

[cobalt_27]

NFL teams start FBs, so I guess we have to also right?

There are two RBs in the backfield in the NFL on the majority of plays. So one of them usually isn't a viable fantasy option most of the time, so what? Most teams don't have 3 fantasy worthy WRs, but there are still plenty of leagues that start 3 WRs.

Maybe the difference, as I see it, is two-fold with the WRs:1. WRs are generally getting the shaft on scoring systems based on their limited opportunities to produce--they just don't score near the same number of TDs or accumulate the yardage totals that are standard fare for fantasy leagues. Thus, one can prop up their value a bit by requiring more starters.

2. The difference between the 1st and 2nd WR on a team is negligible compared to RBs. And, this is because teams utilize one back over their next-best back to a far greater degree than how this gets split up on the WR front. On any given day, I can guarantee you with certainty (barring injury) who will get the most carries and yards on 30 of the 32 teams. You can't do this with WRs--they are a much more homogenous group.

For example, from 2000-2004, the 2nd-choice WRs gained nearly twice the yardage and scored twice the number of TDs than the 2nd-choice RBs...they are legitimately involved in the offense. There are simply more to choose from that actually produce. I'd have to look this up, but judging from the numbers I have, I think it's safe to say that the 2nd-best WRs on a given team are actually performing at the same level as the bottom-half of the 1st-tier RBs (the 17-32 group).

Whatever the case, I advocate either starting 1 at ea. position in larger leagues and 2 at ea. position in smaller leagues. This, with the caveat that the scoring systems should be designed to offer relatively equal value to each of the major three positions (QB, RB, WR). Anyone who's messed around with this understands, though, that the variance between positions is not the same (large variance in QB/RB performance, with smaller variance in the middle-tier of the WRs). That being said, any attempt to equilibrate the positions is a good start in my book.

 

[coachjim]

One of my leagues is a total score $600 entry league. Believe it or not we must start 3 yes three running backs as well as 3 WR each week. No flex. I have tried to get the league to go flex and most of the owners say that starting 3 RB's puts a premium on draft strategy. This is a 12 year old league with the same owners. Its tough but fair and does create a lot more work for draft day.

 

[parasaurolophus]

if you are ina ten team league and only start 1 qb 1 rb 2 wr 1 te 1 defense and 1 kicker the the luck factor is ridiculously high. What if your QB went down on the second play? The MORE people u can start the better. This allows you to make more decisions. The more decisions u have to make, the more skill is involved.Not to mention how large of a percentage Kicker and defense scoring become with such a small lineup. Is there any category involving more luck than K and def?with the 7th pick i took orlando pace. In my league we get 5 points per pancake block. we start all of the positions there are in the NFL, cuz we are all about being authentic.. I am weak at punter though.

 

[coachjim]

hburgers11, I am really glad I don't have to do the stats in your league. It must be a nightmare. Does one of the services really give you stats on pancake blocks?

 

[JSUF]

Cobalt, agree with your reasoning that RB value is out of whack and we shouldn't keep the same format 'just because'. However, I would take the exact opposite approach to handling the issue. Instead of 1 QB and 1 RB, make the league 2QB/2RB/3 or 4 WR, etc. Create scarcity everywhere and you have a real challenging league where each team must choose what they're going to sacrifice to be strong at a particular position. Starting 1QB/1RB/2WR/1Flex just seems very boring to me.

 

[cobalt_27]

Cobalt, agree with your reasoning that RB value is out of whack and we shouldn't keep the same format 'just because'. However, I would take the exact opposite approach to handling the issue. Instead of 1 QB and 1 RB, make the league 2QB/2RB/3 or 4 WR, etc. Create scarcity everywhere and you have a real challenging league where each team must choose what they're going to sacrifice to be strong at a particular position. Starting 1QB/1RB/2WR/1Flex just seems very boring to me.

Yeah, I agree. I think I was just saying that for larger leagues (18-20) the 1/1/1 setup works fine. But, if you're doing anything 16 and below, I'm totally with you...2/2/3 is the way to go.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

NFL teams start FBs, so I guess we have to also right?

There are two RBs in the backfield in the NFL on the majority of plays. So one of them usually isn't a viable fantasy option most of the time, so what? Most teams don't have 3 fantasy worthy WRs, but there are still plenty of leagues that start 3 WRs.

You also want to start 2 RB's because "that is the way it has always been done" right? This post I am printing out and framing because it will someday be worth something due to its artistic form. I shall laugh everytime I walk past it too.

Way to make a post that says exactly nothing. You didn't even respond to any of the points. Your first post was fair, this one makes you come off as a 3rd grader. I actually considered and thought about your original post for a while because it looked thought out, I'll make sure to avoid posts with your name next to them if they're all going to come out like this last one.

2. The difference between the 1st and 2nd WR on a team is negligible compared to RBs.

But we're not talking about the difference between the 1st and 2nd WR, but rather the 1st and 3rd WR, which for many teams is a very significant difference.So what exactly are you guys that are toting 1 RB proposing? That we start a "real" "formation" and have 1QB/1RB/2WR leagus? What a boring terrible league, everyone gets a stud at every position and an already luck filled game becomes nearly 100% based on luck. It's just who's studs don't get injured. It's like playing in a 4 team league, it's not even fun...

 

[cobalt_27]

NFL teams start FBs, so I guess we have to also right?

There are two RBs in the backfield in the NFL on the majority of plays. So one of them usually isn't a viable fantasy option most of the time, so what? Most teams don't have 3 fantasy worthy WRs, but there are still plenty of leagues that start 3 WRs.

You also want to start 2 RB's because "that is the way it has always been done" right? This post I am printing out and framing because it will someday be worth something due to its artistic form. I shall laugh everytime I walk past it too.

Way to make a post that says exactly nothing. You didn't even respond to any of the points. Your first post was fair, this one makes you come off as a 3rd grader. I actually considered and thought about your original post for a while because it looked thought out, I'll make sure to avoid posts with your name next to them if they're all going to come out like this last one.

2. The difference between the 1st and 2nd WR on a team is negligible compared to RBs.

But we're not talking about the difference between the 1st and 2nd WR, but rather the 1st and 3rd WR, which for many teams is a very significant difference.So what exactly are you guys that are toting 1 RB proposing? That we start a "real" "formation" and have 1QB/1RB/2WR leagus? What a boring terrible league, everyone gets a stud at every position and an already luck filled game becomes nearly 100% based on luck. It's just who's studs don't get injured. It's like playing in a 4 team league, it's not even fun...

I'll just take a pass on your hyperbole about 100% luck and simply ask:Your thoughts on 2/2/3 if you're so concerned about luck?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

NFL teams start FBs, so I guess we have to also right?

There are two RBs in the backfield in the NFL on the majority of plays. So one of them usually isn't a viable fantasy option most of the time, so what? Most teams don't have 3 fantasy worthy WRs, but there are still plenty of leagues that start 3 WRs.

You also want to start 2 RB's because "that is the way it has always been done" right? This post I am printing out and framing because it will someday be worth something due to its artistic form. I shall laugh everytime I walk past it too.

Way to make a post that says exactly nothing. You didn't even respond to any of the points. Your first post was fair, this one makes you come off as a 3rd grader. I actually considered and thought about your original post for a while because it looked thought out, I'll make sure to avoid posts with your name next to them if they're all going to come out like this last one.

2. The difference between the 1st and 2nd WR on a team is negligible compared to RBs.

But we're not talking about the difference between the 1st and 2nd WR, but rather the 1st and 3rd WR, which for many teams is a very significant difference.So what exactly are you guys that are toting 1 RB proposing? That we start a "real" "formation" and have 1QB/1RB/2WR leagus? What a boring terrible league, everyone gets a stud at every position and an already luck filled game becomes nearly 100% based on luck. It's just who's studs don't get injured. It's like playing in a 4 team league, it's not even fun...

I'll just take a pass on your hyperbole about 100% luck and simply ask:Your thoughts on 2/2/3 if you're so concerned about luck?

I played in one 2 QB league and it wasn't bad. I rarely ever mind additional starters, as I certainly prefer leagues with more.But now I'm afraid I'm missing your point. Personally I don't really care as much about how real life teams line up compared to FF, but I thought your whole point was that we should move away from 2 RBs because it's not common in the NFL anymore, but the number of teams using dual QBs (especially at the same time) is miniscule.

Personally I think that 10 years from now formation based FF may be the norm, as I haven't played a league with it yet but it certainly looks like an interesting spin on things, though even that isn't really "consistent" with todays NFL.

 

[cobalt_27]

NFL teams start FBs, so I guess we have to also right?

There are two RBs in the backfield in the NFL on the majority of plays. So one of them usually isn't a viable fantasy option most of the time, so what? Most teams don't have 3 fantasy worthy WRs, but there are still plenty of leagues that start 3 WRs.

You also want to start 2 RB's because "that is the way it has always been done" right? This post I am printing out and framing because it will someday be worth something due to its artistic form. I shall laugh everytime I walk past it too.

Way to make a post that says exactly nothing. You didn't even respond to any of the points. Your first post was fair, this one makes you come off as a 3rd grader. I actually considered and thought about your original post for a while because it looked thought out, I'll make sure to avoid posts with your name next to them if they're all going to come out like this last one.

2. The difference between the 1st and 2nd WR on a team is negligible compared to RBs.

But we're not talking about the difference between the 1st and 2nd WR, but rather the 1st and 3rd WR, which for many teams is a very significant difference.So what exactly are you guys that are toting 1 RB proposing? That we start a "real" "formation" and have 1QB/1RB/2WR leagus? What a boring terrible league, everyone gets a stud at every position and an already luck filled game becomes nearly 100% based on luck. It's just who's studs don't get injured. It's like playing in a 4 team league, it's not even fun...

I'll just take a pass on your hyperbole about 100% luck and simply ask:Your thoughts on 2/2/3 if you're so concerned about luck?

I played in one 2 QB league and it wasn't bad. I rarely ever mind additional starters, as I certainly prefer leagues with more.But now I'm afraid I'm missing your point. Personally I don't really care as much about how real life teams line up compared to FF, but I thought your whole point was that we should move away from 2 RBs because it's not common in the NFL anymore, but the number of teams using dual QBs (especially at the same time) is miniscule.

Personally I think that 10 years from now formation based FF may be the norm, as I haven't played a league with it yet but it certainly looks like an interesting spin on things, though even that isn't really "consistent" with todays NFL.

Yeah, I think you missed the point because I was arguing the exact opposite--that we shouldn't be so married to the idea of setting up our fantasy lineups to match what's on the field. I think it is this mindset that has created the 1/2/3 formations in most leagues, the by-product of which is to grossly over-value mid-level RBs. I'm fine with the 2:3 split on RBs:WRs because, while RBs tend to score more in raw points than WRs (top-20, at least), the additional WR increases their "value." It at least helps approach equilibrium (although, RBs are still more valuable for a variety of reasons).What I do have a problem with, however, is the 1:2 QB:RB split, where they tend to score equal raw points, but the supply/demand issue makes RB "value" far more than what they should be. The litmus test, I believe, is put yourself in the shoes of a GM whose sole purpose in life is to select the best offensive skill positions to fill a roster. Picking LT over Peyton Manning is defensible; Picking Priest Holmes over Manning is defensible; even Shaun Alexander is, at least, defensible. But, under no circumstances in any universe would a GM select Dom Davis or Rudi Johnson over Peyton Manning. And, yet, in our convoluted world of the 1:2 leagues, this is exactly what happens in far too many leagues. I'm not saying that's the wrong strategy--I'm saying it's a screwed up system that promotes it.

And, my only point of this analysis (aside from the fact that I think it's interesting to see the trend, even from a non-fantasy perspective) is to debunk the idea that some have used to defend the 2RB system that says, "Well, there are 2 in the field, so we should put 2 in our lineup." I think the data show that, while there is technical truth to what they're saying, the larger picture concludes that those 2nd RBs that ARE out on the field aren't doing much more than blocking for the primary tailbacks.

Ultimately, I think that the nature of most scoring systems and the equivalent scarcity of positions amongst QBs and RBs dictates that there should be an equal number of starting QBs as RBs in fantasy leagues.

 

[Mario Kart]

NFL teams start FBs, so I guess we have to also right?

There are two RBs in the backfield in the NFL on the majority of plays.  So one of them usually isn't a viable fantasy option most of the time, so what?  Most teams don't have 3 fantasy worthy WRs, but there are still plenty of leagues that start 3 WRs.

You also want to start 2 RB's because "that is the way it has always been done" right? This post I am printing out and framing because it will someday be worth something due to its artistic form. I shall laugh everytime I walk past it too.

Way to make a post that says exactly nothing. You didn't even respond to any of the points. Your first post was fair, this one makes you come off as a 3rd grader. I actually considered and thought about your original post for a while because it looked thought out, I'll make sure to avoid posts with your name next to them if they're all going to come out like this last one.

2. The difference between the 1st and 2nd WR on a team is negligible compared to RBs.

But we're not talking about the difference between the 1st and 2nd WR, but rather the 1st and 3rd WR, which for many teams is a very significant difference.So what exactly are you guys that are toting 1 RB proposing? That we start a "real" "formation" and have 1QB/1RB/2WR leagus? What a boring terrible league, everyone gets a stud at every position and an already luck filled game becomes nearly 100% based on luck. It's just who's studs don't get injured. It's like playing in a 4 team league, it's not even fun...

All I have to say is that you do a search using my name and the Shark Pool. If you do this successfully you will see what my thoughts are on about only starting 1 RB. That is all I will say because it is up to you to do the search. I believe cobalt knows about my previous thoughts so maybe you should too.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Or you could post your thoughts on 1 running back IN your thread about using less than 2 running backs, rather than expecting everyone that reads this thread to do a lifetime search on you. If this was a thread about fried chicken and it switched to a topic about 1 RB, then that would be one thing, but generally it makes sense to post your thoughts about the topic at hand when you're the one that started the thread about it.And based on the content of your last couple posts, I have no desire to do a search on your name so I can find more examples of you dodging the topic and responding with insults rather than insight.On to cobalt:I certainly see your point, and the more I think about it the more I'm leaning towards trying another 2 QB league this year. I'm extremely prejudice against QBs in FF drafts because of the general starting requirements, and I will admit that having those stud QBs be worth nearly as much as stud RBs is definitely appealing to me.So I would definitely consider 2 QB leagues, but I wouldn't do a 1 RB league because it just brings the starting requirements down too low for me.

 

[Mario Kart]

Who's alias are you anyway? Oh well, whatever. I did the oh so difficult task of bringing the threads in question here. Believe me it was difficult after all.

This one came up right away.

This is another good one.

Good analysis here.

The beginning of the discussion.

Sorry for the brief hijack cobalt but I had to give credence to my statements.

To our obtuse listener.

 

[SuperJohn96]

The one league I run has:1-QB1-RB1-WR1-TE2-FLEX (RB/WR/TE)1-PK1-DEFLast year we had 1 team with a really shaky running game, and he went with three stud WRs and just barely lost his Conference championship.That guy's brother took a cue from him and made some trades to have the following three keepers:WR-Randy MossWR-Marvin HarrisonTE-Tony GonzalezHe said his new strategy will be to look for some gems later in the draft rather than reaching for RBs like he does every year.If he can find just one RB late in the draft who can perform for him he will have a solid season.

 

[TBLCommish]

The one league I run has:

1-QB

1-RB

1-WR

1-TE

2-FLEX (RB/WR/TE)

1-PK

1-DEF

Last year we had 1 team with a really shaky running game, and he went with three stud WRs and just barely lost his Conference championship.

That guy's brother took a cue from him and made some trades to have the following three keepers:

WR-Randy Moss

WR-Marvin Harrison

TE-Tony Gonzalez

He said his new strategy will be to look for some gems later in the draft rather than reaching for RBs like he does every year.

If he can find just one RB late in the draft who can perform for him he will have a solid season.

That similar to the league I runWe start

1QB

1RB

1WR

1TE

1K

1Def

1HC

3Flex (RB,WR,TE

We have a 14 team dynasty league that allows for up to 30 man rosters, this allows teams to play their strengths of their team instead of filling "required" spots. This is a non traditional approach and many GMs will complain at first (in all honesty when switched to this format 4 years ago I was against it) but once you see how it makes your league better you will be glad you made the change. (I know I am)

 

[Blood Farmer]

How many teams are in your league? 32?Questions of relative worth of position is what makes fantasy football.Edit: Edit to add -- I hate flex!!!! Flex is anti-fantasy football. Flex is fantasy football light.

 

[smetankafanclub]

I don't know the flex I think is a key component of fantasy football. I think the decisions and strategy calls it lets you make from draft to trading during the season to the playoffs increases the level of competition as a whole in your league. It gives you different means to confront depth and matchups. And (god Forbid!) it makes the game much more than a Runningback lottery.

 

[j3r3m3y]

I'll just take a pass on your hyperbole about 100% luck and simply ask:

Your thoughts on 2/2/3 if you're so concerned about luck?

You propose that leagues that start 2 RB are "wrong" because no NFL teams have 2 viable fantasy producing RB's but then suggest 2 QB's?Your logic just jumped the track.

 

[j3r3m3y]

I don't know the flex I think is a key component of fantasy football. I think the decisions and strategy calls it lets you make from draft to trading during the season to the playoffs increases the level of competition as a whole in your league.

It gives you different means to confront depth and matchups. And (god Forbid!) it makes the game much more than a Runningback lottery.

In my experience (although it is limited) flex leagues are still a Runningback lottery as the owners who can get good RB's for their flex position will always outscore WR's and TE's.

 

[smetankafanclub]

I also play in a formation based league. I love it. My league moved away from the 2 RB starting requirement a year ago and we aren't looking back. The ability to have a system for your team and draft accordingly is cool, especially when you are playing another person with a different system.

Hey, it's my first post!

See removing the structural oppression known as the 2RB system is so powerful it moved a man to proclaim it to the message board for his very first post.Aside from that, the flex formations give you enough similarity to football and also representing the gambling/competition that goes on in Fantasy football. Simply, it gives you a means to attempt to reflect some portion of real football, while allowing strategy and option and decision making for the non football parts of the excercise. Does that one rule fully justify an attempt to make it more football like, or better competition, no of course not.

 

[j3r3m3y]

We use 1QB 2RB 3WR mandatory TE and K D/ST.While RB's are still a premium in our league as long as you have one top 10 RB you can close the gap in other ways (Last years champ had OK RB's and Gates at TE).When we first started we gave equal points for passing yards and TD as we did for rushing/recieving. The team with the dominant QB could not be countered. So then we dumbed them down to just about half the points. Since the disparity between QB3 and QB12 is not so great, QB's became not so important. Then we went to a flex lineup. The team with the best QB2 dominated. So we made flex mean WR/RB/TE. The team with the best RB2 dominated.So then we went with 3WR and TE. In our 12 team 3 keeper league RB's are still the shiznit but it seems to be better now than anything else we have tried.

 

[smetankafanclub]

I don't know the flex I think is a key component of fantasy football.  I think the decisions and strategy calls it lets you make from draft to trading during the season to the playoffs increases the level of competition as a whole in your league. 

It gives you different means to confront depth and matchups.  And (god Forbid!) it makes the game much more than a Runningback lottery.

In my experience (although it is limited) flex leagues are still a Runningback lottery as the owners who can get good RB's for their flex position will always outscore WR's and TE's.

At the top levels that may be true, and if you are lucky to get the most of any good players at any position in any league, you will have the best of it. But the value in the flex position to me is how it can effect owners that don't have the best of any given position. The difference is if I lose out on getting 3 good RB's I have the option of using a mix of receivers and Runningbacks to overcome that deficit.And of course it is how the league is set up, if you have 2RB with 2 WR 1 TE and a flex or if you have 1RB 2WR and 1TE with a flex it changes the dynamics of what it takes to win a league. It just gives you options to manage your roster thoughout the year if you don't strike it rich in the backfield.

But in either format, as long as you know the rules ahead of time, you should be fine,.

 

[jcjets]

I hate the 2 RB requirement, all it does is make RBs scare by the second round. But its how footballguys base thier charts and drafts so they will not change it. More and more leagues are moving to the 1 RB and a flex posisition for the second RB if they choose. Now drafting has a challenge to it. Do I go WR and get a second tier RB in round 3? Do I dare take Manning and go RB in round 2/3 or...many more possibilities.

 

[j3r3m3y]

At the top levels that may be true, and if you are lucky to get the most of any good players at any position in any league, you will have the best of it. But the value in the flex position to me is how it can effect owners that don't have the best of any given position. The difference is if I lose out on getting 3 good RB's I have the option of using a mix of receivers and Runningbacks to overcome that deficit.

Just my opinion but I think you have the illusion of using a mix of RB's and WR's to overcome that deficit. I mean in theory, sure sound great. In any implementation I have see the guy with 3 "good" RB's always beats the guy with 2 "good" RB's and one "good" WR.RB's just score more on average

But in either format, as long as you know the rules ahead of time, you should be fine,.

Agreed. I am not saying that "flex is bad", just that in reality it does not fix the "problem" everyone thinks it does.

 

[FFFIEND]

why 2 RBs ... because I like it.WRs just piss me off.

 

[j3r3m3y]

why 2 RBs ... because I like it.

WRs just piss me off.

This is actually a really good point. It is more fun watching your RB play IMHO because you know from the snap if he is likely to get the ball. If it is a hand off you could score, if he leaves the backfield it could be a screen or pass in the flat.If you are watching your WR the QB drops back, throws deep.... and maybe it is your guy.

RB's get more touches in general so they are more consistant.

 

[Mark G]

Who's alias are you anyway?

Heh...funny that you assume he's an alias. I know him from other boards and can confidently say that he's not another user "hiding" as Free Bagel in order to disagree with you.

 

[cobalt_27]

I'll just take a pass on your hyperbole about 100% luck and simply ask:

Your thoughts on 2/2/3 if you're so concerned about luck?

You propose that leagues that start 2 RB are "wrong" because no NFL teams have 2 viable fantasy producing RB's but then suggest 2 QB's?Your logic just jumped the track.

You're either not reading or not understanding correctly. I'm not saying the 2RB lineups are "wrong" because no NFL teams have 2 viable fantasy RBs...I'm saying that, because teams don't have 2 viable fantasy RBs, it's not necessary or warranted to have a 2RB lineup. Big difference.Those who support the 1:2:3 system (many of them, at least) have argued that lineups should reflect reality. My attempt was to debunk this idea--that these 2nd RBs are so meaningless from a production (i.e., fantasy) standpoint, that there's no reason to mirror this in fantasy lineups. Not sure how you contorted this all around, given that I've said it explicitly at least a half-dozen times now.

 

[cobalt_27]

Since the disparity between QB3 and QB12 is not so great, QB's became not so important.

See, now...where in the hell do you come up with this? Do you want to retract, or do you want me to jam reality down your throat with more data to debunk yet another myth?

 

[cobalt_27]

No need to wait. Let me address this false notion that QB12 is hardly different (i.e., "not so important") than QB3:

Since 1990, using a 6/25 scoring system for QBs and a 6/10 system for RBs, here are your average scores for those two positions and the 3rd and 12th ranking slots:

QB3 = 317 points

QB12 = 225 points

Diff = 92 points

RB3 = 269

RB12 = 186

Diff = 83 points

Arguably, it's pretty-much a wash. If anything, it's more important to get QB3 than RB3, if you're planning to select the other ranked at 12 (9pt difference).

 

[dmack4242]

In the league I commish, we have been trying different things to try to take the emphasis off of the RB. What we ended up with was you start 1RB, 1WR, 1TE, and then we have 3 flex positions. We also give WRs and TEs 1pt per reception and RBs .5pt per reception.The reception points I think help even out the postions quite a bit. I didn't run the data from last year, but in when I ran it last year for 2003, the top 12-15 RBs outscored the receivers, but form that point the receivers really caught up, and overtook the RBs. Is the system perfect? Nope. You still see many runningbacks go the first few rounds. But it has gotten better then when we ran the 2-3-1. You can still field a competitive team with only 1 good RB.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Wanted to bump this...there's been a lot of talk lately that "RBBC" is becoming more and more prevelant in the NFL.This thread disputes that.

 

[PeaceBringer]

Cobalt, are you suggesting we start 1 FB? To make it more realistic? How bout the home teams gets an automatic 4 points added into their stats come Monday?

Formation Based Football is the way to go DOWN WITH THE 2 RB REQUIREMENT!!!!

formations style play really is leagues above either "flex" or static lineup options.