There was a lot of talk that the QB differential would be minimal... (1 Viewer)

[Elevencents]

And it is turning out to be 100% true. Just took a quick gander at the stats in my league and other than Maholmes, the next ELEVEN QB's are within 30 points of one another. I did not draft a QB earlier than round 9 in any league and for once it has worked out for me. I cannot remember ever reaching for a QB, at least in my main league, in the 10+ years I have played. Some years it has backfired. 

 

[Chaka]

And it is turning out to be 100% true. Just took a quick gander at the stats in my league and other than Maholmes, the next ELEVEN QB's are within 30 points of one another. I did not draft a QB earlier than round 9 in any league and for once it has worked out for me. I cannot remember ever reaching for a QB, at least in my main league, in the 10+ years I have played. Some years it has backfired. 

Interesting thought. I haven't  checked for my league  but 30 points over 7/8 games seems like it could be the difference between multiple wins or losses.

What is the differential in your league at other positions?

 

[Hawkeye21]

It’s been proven time and time again that drafting a QB early rarely pays off in a regular redraft league. 

 

[[scooter]]

And it is turning out to be 100% true. Just took a quick gander at the stats in my league and other than Maholmes, the next ELEVEN QB's are within 30 points of one another. I did not draft a QB earlier than round 9 in any league and for once it has worked out for me. I cannot remember ever reaching for a QB, at least in my main league, in the 10+ years I have played. Some years it has backfired. 

This is why FF needs to evolve into the 2QB system. QBs are becoming as commonplace as kickers.

 

[renesauz]

This is why FF needs to evolve into the 2QB system. QBs are becoming as commonplace as kickers.

I'm a fan of superflex, but 2 QB leagues put TOO much stress on a limited pool. UNlike 2nd and 3rd string WR's and RB's, backup QBs don't see the field. Many of my dynasty leagues are 14 team leagues, meaning EVERY QB would need to be started most bye weeks. Obviously this would force a ton of trades, and forcing trades encourages unfair trades. That's not a reasonable setup at all. IN an 8 or 10 team league at least you could make the argument.

 

[[scooter]]

This is why FF needs to evolve into the 2QB system. QBs are becoming as commonplace as kickers.

I'm a fan of superflex, but 2 QB leagues put TOO much stress on a limited pool. UNlike 2nd and 3rd string WR's and RB's, backup QBs don't see the field. Many of my dynasty leagues are 14 team leagues, meaning EVERY QB would need to be started most bye weeks. Obviously this would force a ton of trades, and forcing trades encourages unfair trades. That's not a reasonable setup at all. IN an 8 or 10 team league at least you could make the argument.

Superflex is the answer in leagues with 12+ teams.

But it's just ridiculous that fantasy football has created a system where people scramble to roster the #45 RB while top-10 QBs regularly sit on the waiver wire.

 

[Deamon]

I'm a fan of superflex, but 2 QB leagues put TOO much stress on a limited pool. UNlike 2nd and 3rd string WR's and RB's, backup QBs don't see the field. Many of my dynasty leagues are 14 team leagues, meaning EVERY QB would need to be started most bye weeks. Obviously this would force a ton of trades, and forcing trades encourages unfair trades. That's not a reasonable setup at all. IN an 8 or 10 team league at least you could make the argument.

Superflex IS start 2 QBs.  If you're starting your 3rd WR or RB over even the worst starting QB in the  league, you're at a disadvantage. 

 

[Deamon]

Superflex is the answer in leagues with 12+ teams.

But it's just ridiculous that fantasy football has created a system where people scramble to roster the #45 RB while top-10 QBs regularly sit on the waiver wire.

when do top 10 qb's regularly sit on the waiver wire?  You're reaching here.  In any average league, teams roster at LEAST 1.5 QB's per team (and that's being modest, most teams have 2).  That would mean 18 qbs rostered and the top 10 qbs will for sure be rostered.  To say theyr'e regularly not is hyperbole.

 

[[scooter]]

Superflex is the answer in leagues with 12+ teams.

But it's just ridiculous that fantasy football has created a system where people scramble to roster the #45 RB while top-10 QBs regularly sit on the waiver wire.

when do top 10 qb's regularly sit on the waiver wire?  You're reaching here.

I'm exaggerating, but only slightly.

Kirk Cousins, DeShaun Watson, Ben Roethlisberger, Jared Goff, Andrew Luck. All ranked around 10th (depending on scoring format) and yet all are available on the waiver wire in at least 6% of ESPN leagues.

Meanwhile, there are 19 RBs and 18 WRs that are owned by at least 94% of fantasy players.

I suppose you could argue that the 6% represents a bunch of dead or noncompetitive leagues, but my point is that the whole 1-QB format creates a system where low-scoring RBs are more valued than high-scoring QBs. That's no fun.

Andrew Luck is the #3 QB in standard scoring, and he's only being started in 58% of leagues. COME ON!!

 

[FreeBaGeL]

After Thielen the next 10 WRs are within 30 pts of each other

 

[Deamon]

I'm exaggerating, but only slightly.

Kirk Cousins, DeShaun Watson, Ben Roethlisberger, Jared Goff, Andrew Luck. All ranked around 10th (depending on scoring format) and yet all are available on the waiver wire in at least 6% of ESPN leagues.

Meanwhile, there are 19 RBs and 18 WRs that are owned by at least 94% of fantasy players.

I suppose you could argue that the 6% represents a bunch of dead or noncompetitive leagues, but my point is that the whole 1-QB format creates a system where low-scoring RBs are more valued than high-scoring QBs. That's no fun.

Andrew Luck is the #3 QB in standard scoring, and he's only being started in 58% of leagues. COME ON!!

1.  6% qualifies for "regularly"?  Oof.  I"m sure some of those leagues are "dead" like you say or are 8 person leagues.
2.  a 2 QB format also creates a system where a guy like Dalton or Bortles is more valuable than an NFL starting RB.  In start 2qb leagues (also in SF), most teams will carry 3qbs to cover bye weeks.  That means 4 teams in your league are rostering (and starting during bye weeks/injuries) a QB that is holding a clipboard and not even on the field.  Sure, run it in 8-10 man leagues, but superflex makes zero sense for 12 team leagues.
3.  Those who drafted Luck, likely did so as a flier/backup and picked a top QB as well that they are starting weekly. 
 

 

[Deamon]

After Thielen the next 10 WRs are within 30 pts of each other

And it is turning out to be 100% true. Just took a quick gander at the stats in my league and other than Maholmes, the next ELEVEN QB's are within 30 points of one another. I did not draft a QB earlier than round 9 in any league and for once it has worked out for me. I cannot remember ever reaching for a QB, at least in my main league, in the 10+ years I have played. Some years it has backfired. 

Interesting thought. I haven't  checked for my league  but 30 points over 7/8 games seems like it could be the difference between multiple wins or losses.

What is the differential in your league at other positions?

Ya I think 30 is actually pretty substantial so not sure what the point of this is.  However, I think the main thing this year is that what was predicted (QB is deep and you can wait on one) is better shown by the fact that the top QBs vs the mid round QB's point differential is so small.  I'm assuming the top drafted qbs aren't 30 points on average higher than the middle round drafted qbs.  Still shows that waiting was good (getting qbs like mahomes, etc. over guys like wilson/watson), but it's actually still a pretty big QB differential this year.

 

[[scooter]]

1.  6% qualifies for "regularly"?  Oof.  I"m sure some of those leagues are "dead" like you say or are 8 person leagues.

That's why I compared the percentages to RBs and WRs. Fantasy football is at its best when all 3 positions have roughly equal value.

The #3 QB (Luck) is available in 6% of leagues. The #3 RB and the #3 WR are NOT available in 6% of leagues, even dead leagues.

Luck was the #9 QB drafted in 12-team leagues (link), so your theory about him being drafted as a backup is bunk.

 

[Deamon]

That's why I compared the percentages to RBs and WRs. Fantasy football is at its best when all 3 positions have roughly equal value.

The #3 QB (Luck) is available in 6% of leagues. The #3 RB and the #3 WR are NOT available in 6% of leagues, even dead leagues.

So you think the #1 QB should have the same value as the #1 RB?  (Mahomes would be drafted ahead of Gurley in a Redraft today if FF was "at its best")

And you think the #40 RB should have the same value as the # 40 QB?? 

Like you ACTUALLY think Taysom Hill should be as VALUABLE to a FF team as the #40 RB this year?  It doesn't work that way. 

 

[[scooter]]

That's why I compared the percentages to RBs and WRs. Fantasy football is at its best when all 3 positions have roughly equal value.

The #3 QB (Luck) is available in 6% of leagues. The #3 RB and the #3 WR are NOT available in 6% of leagues, even dead leagues.

So you think the #1 QB should have the same value as the #1 RB?  (Mahomes would be drafted ahead of Gurley in a Redraft today if FF was "at its best")

And you think the #40 RB should have the same value as the # 40 QB?? 

Like you ACTUALLY think Taysom Hill should be as VALUABLE to a FF team as the #40 RB this year?  It doesn't work that way. 

Calm down, I said "roughly".

Mahomes should have higher value. It's downright sad that the top players in fantasy football are often an afterthought on draft day. Drew Brees and Cam Newton were 5th round picks! (on average) That's bad for competition. It's just too easy to lazily ignore QBs and take a couple fliers in the later rounds. Why do we accept such an attitude for quarterbacks but not for RBs and WRs?

You've cited the #40 RB, but it actually tends to prove my argument. The #40 RB is owned in 90% of fantasy leagues!! Every single starting RB is owned in 90% of fantasy leagues, and every single #1 WR is owned in 90% of fantasy leagues. We regularly scramble to find waiver wire scrubs who might give us a few points.

And that's fine....but FF would be a lot better if the #24 QB was also owned by 90% of fantasy leagues.

Standard fantasy football is imbalanced. Standard fantasy leagues will start 63-75% of starting NFL RBs and 47-56% of starting NFL WRs, yet they'll only start 31-38% of starting NFL QBs. It's an outdated system that relies too heavily on a low-scoring position (RB) and not enough on the position featuring the best players in the game.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

My long-time 12 team redraft went to kind of a modified super-flex several years ago.

We start 1-QB, 1-RB, 2-WR, 1-TE, 1-PK, 1-D/ST, plus two more at any position with a max of 2 total starting at any position except WR (where you can start 4). We then damped down the QB scoring to 4 pt TDs and 1pt every 30 yds passing, so that one of the flexes isn't an automatic 2nd QB. Many start two anyway, but the scoring is generally close enough across positions that you're not necessarily at a disadvantage if you don't. This past week saw 18 QBs started. Some teams roster 3, but not too many (I think 4 teams do this year).

 

[Elevencents]

Ya I think 30 is actually pretty substantial so not sure what the point of this is.  However, I think the main thing this year is that what was predicted (QB is deep and you can wait on one) is better shown by the fact that the top QBs vs the mid round QB's point differential is so small.  I'm assuming the top drafted qbs aren't 30 points on average higher than the middle round drafted qbs.  Still shows that waiting was good (getting qbs like mahomes, etc. over guys like wilson/watson), but it's actually still a pretty big QB differential this year.

30 points over 8 games is roughly 4 points a week. My average team score is 215 per week. Not sure I would consider 2% substantial. 

 

[Arodin]

30 points over 8 games is roughly 4 points a week. My average team score is 215 per week. Not sure I would consider 2% substantial. 

Relevant comparison isn’t to total points.  How is 4 pts/week as a percentage of “margin of victory?”

 

[Deamon]

30 points over 8 games is roughly 4 points a week. My average team score is 215 per week. Not sure I would consider 2% substantial. 

Well for your league perhaps.  215 average is extremely rare though. In standard scoring single flex, average team scores are around 100.  Even in ppr it wouldn't be much more than 120 or so. 

So you're looking at an extra 5 percent of total score which is quite significant.  Assuming your qbs are scoring 21-42 ish ppg, that's 10-20 percent higher in qb scoring.  I'd be surprised if that differential is less than previous years at year end. 

We also just finished week 7 yesterday, not 8. 

 

[Deamon]

Calm down, I said "roughly".

Mahomes should have higher value. It's downright sad that the top players in fantasy football are often an afterthought on draft day. Drew Brees and Cam Newton were 5th round picks! (on average) That's bad for competition. It's just too easy to lazily ignore QBs and take a couple fliers in the later rounds. Why do we accept such an attitude for quarterbacks but not for RBs and WRs?

You've cited the #40 RB, but it actually tends to prove my argument. The #40 RB is owned in 90% of fantasy leagues!! Every single starting RB is owned in 90% of fantasy leagues, and every single #1 WR is owned in 90% of fantasy leagues. We regularly scramble to find waiver wire scrubs who might give us a few points.

And that's fine....but FF would be a lot better if the #24 QB was also owned by 90% of fantasy leagues.

Standard fantasy football is imbalanced. Standard fantasy leagues will start 63-75% of starting NFL RBs and 47-56% of starting NFL WRs, yet they'll only start 31-38% of starting NFL QBs. It's an outdated system that relies too heavily on a low-scoring position (RB) and not enough on the position featuring the best players in the game.

Again, where do you draw the line?  Should the #40 qb be drafted as high as the #40 rb? You're using the #9 vs #9 argument, so I'm assuming you think that's the case?  

They also only start 31-38% of starting kickers, and even less % of starting tight ends.  Is that an imbalance that should be adjusted too?  

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The #40 RB is owned in 90% of fantasy leagues!! Every single starting RB is owned in 90% of fantasy leagues, and every single #1 WR is owned in 90% of fantasy leagues. We regularly scramble to find waiver wire scrubs who might give us a few points.

And that's fine....but FF would be a lot better if the #24 QB was also owned by 90% of fantasy leagues.

Preach.  53 QBs rostered in my superflex dyno.

Make TEs a required position @ 1.5ppr and you make that position valuable too.

 

[NeverEnough]

Too much redraft talk in here

 

[voiceofunreason]

Superflex IS start 2 QBs.  If you're starting your 3rd WR or RB over even the worst starting QB in the  league, you're at a disadvantage. 

Yeah that's the whole point ofp having a superflex league. And starting your wr3 is better than taking a zero.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

30 points over 8 games is roughly 4 points a week. My average team score is 215 per week. Not sure I would consider 2% substantial. 

4 points per week is the difference between Zeke and Crowell. The difference between Julio and Lockett. 

It's a pretty substantial difference. 

 

[Gally]

Superflex IS start 2 QBs.  If you're starting your 3rd WR or RB over even the worst starting QB in the  league, you're at a disadvantage. 

Depends on your scoring system.  If you adjust to make all position equal when comparing tiers then Superflex is not and auto start 2 QB's.  Scoring system matters. 

 

[Deamon]

Depends on your scoring system.  If you adjust to make all position equal when comparing tiers then Superflex is not and auto start 2 QB's.  Scoring system matters. 

Very rare that it's not.  Of course there's exceptions and some leagues that do full ppr and 1 point for 50 passing yards.  But that is quite rare. 

 

[Gally]

Very rare that it's not.  Of course there's exceptions and some leagues that do full ppr and 1 point for 50 passing yards.  But that is quite rare. 

Seems like most of the discussion here is how to make QB's more relevant.  One good way is to change the scoring system and then go to a Superflex.  This opens up different strategies to build your team and will open up more flexibility in constructing your roster. 

 

[Deamon]

Seems like most of the discussion here is how to make QB's more relevant.  One good way is to change the scoring system and then go to a Superflex.  This opens up different strategies to build your team and will open up more flexibility in constructing your roster. 

Ya.  Again, I just hate it in 12 man leagues due to scarcity.  12 teams can't possibly have 3 usable qbs on their roster which you should have in these leagues. 

 

[Gally]

Ya.  Again, I just hate it in 12 man leagues due to scarcity.  12 teams can't possibly have 3 usable qbs on their roster which you should have in these leagues. 

If the scoring system is set up properly to make all positions equal across tiers then it is not a requirement that all teams have 3 usable QB's.  You don't need to start 2 QB's because other positions score similarly. 

 

[Deamon]

If the scoring system is set up properly to make all positions equal across tiers then it is not a requirement that all teams have 3 usable QB's.  You don't need to start 2 QB's because other positions score similarly. 

How do you make qbs and rbs score  similarly? Can you give me an example of scoring format?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

If the scoring system is set up properly to make all positions equal across tiers then it is not a requirement that all teams have 3 usable QB's.  You don't need to start 2 QB's because other positions score similarly. 

See my post above for an example of a league trying to do just that. We gave PPR to WR/TE and knocked back QB scoring so a team doesn't have to be handcuffed to starting a 2nd QB or risk being behind the curve. 

 

[Gally]

How do you make qbs and rbs score  similarly? Can you give me an example of scoring format?

QB Scoring:

3 pts for Passing TD (6 for Rushing)

1 pt per 50 yds passing - with a min of 150 yds to start scoring (you get 3 pts at 150 yds passing - nothing for 149 yds or below) 1 pt per 20 yds rushing

-1 for Int or fumble lost

RB/WR:

6 pts for TD rush or receiving

1 pt per 20 yds rushing or receiving. (goes down to every 10 yds after 140 yds)

-1 pt for fumble lost

TE:

6 pts for TD rush or receiving

1 pt per 10 yds rushing or receiving

-1 pt for fumble lost

K:

1 pt per xpt

1 pt for every 10 yds of FGM; drops to every 5yds starting at 45 yds

 

[[scooter]]

Again, where do you draw the line?  Should the #40 qb be drafted as high as the #40 rb? You're using the #9 vs #9 argument, so I'm assuming you think that's the case?  

They also only start 31-38% of starting kickers, and even less % of starting tight ends.  Is that an imbalance that should be adjusted too?  

In the olden days, the imbalance of the TE position was addressed through the draft. In other words, if you chose to spend a high pick on one of the 2-3 "elite" TEs, then you had to make sacrifices at the other positions.

But thanks to elevated QB play (and the regression of the RB position), players no longer have to make those sacrifices. There's much less risk these days with spending a high pick on a TE, because you know that you'll still be able to get an elite QB later in the draft.

In the olden days, you rarely saw TEs drafted at 1.1, but Kelce was absolutely worth the 1.1 spot if you played in a 1QB league, because it's just too easy to make up for the pick later in the draft.

Switching to Superflex will reduce the dominance of the TE position. It won't completely eliminate it, but it helps.

Fantasy football needs to evolve with the game. I've been around long enough to remember when people resisted the addition of yardage and PPR to the scoring formats, and now those things are commonplace. And they've made the game better. Superflex is no different.

As for kickers.....they need to be eliminated from FF or they need to be rolled in to the D/ST position. Period. Kickers are a waste of space.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Despite the huge runs at AT in the first  3-4 rounds in both my leagues, I again held out. 

League 1: Matt Ryan, 10th, Jameis Winston Round 15. Added Trubisky as a FA 2 weeks ago, mostly to play keep-away. 

League 2: Cam Newton 7.11, Andrew Luck 15.11 (IDP league skews ADP significantly,  it Cam was still a value pick - only about 8-10 IDP players are off the board by the 7th) 

seems to be working out well. 

 

[Deamon]

QB Scoring:

3 pts for Passing TD (6 for Rushing)

1 pt per 50 yds passing - with a min of 150 yds to start scoring (you get 3 pts at 150 yds passing - nothing for 149 yds or below) 1 pt per 20 yds rushing

-1 for Int or fumble lost

RB/WR:

6 pts for TD rush or receiving

1 pt per 20 yds rushing or receiving. (goes down to every 10 yds after 140 yds)

-1 pt for fumble lost

TE:

6 pts for TD rush or receiving

1 pt per 10 yds rushing or receiving

-1 pt for fumble lost

K:

1 pt per xpt

1 pt for every 10 yds of FGM; drops to every 5yds starting at 45 yds

So an average QB game (just looking at QB15's averages) of 275 yards and 2 TDs gives you 11 points.
An average RB game (RB15 averages) of 63 yards and 0.5 TDs gives you 6 points. 

Across the board, if you compare the #1 QB vs #1 RB, #2 QB vs #2 RB... all the way down, the QB outscores the RB every time in your scoring system.  So they aren't equal.

Also this scoring system is pretty rare.  But yes, IF, and only IF, your scoring system is something like the above (but should be adjusted even more to drop QB points actually) than SF can work.  The vast majority of SF leagues don't have scoring that makes qb and rb equal.

 

[FF Ninja]

4 points per week is the difference between Zeke and Crowell. The difference between Julio and Lockett. 

It's a pretty substantial difference. 

Those are pretty misleading comparisons. Crowell and Lockett are doing MUCH better than people assume based on name recognition. Also, the difference between Zeke and Crowell is over 5 points per game in 1PPR. Without the misleading names and incorrect number, this statement would read that 5 points per week is the difference between RB9 and RB20.

In a 1PPR league, 4 points is the difference between CMC (RB8) and DJ (RB15) or between James White (RB7) and Joe Mixon (RB11).

Similarly, Julio Jones is WR11 while Lockett is WR24 - such is the power of 0 TDs vs. 5 TDs. If you had said 4 points is the difference between Sanders and Hilton it wouldn't sound as surprising as Julio and Lockett.

 

[Hawkeye21]

Superflex is the answer in leagues with 12+ teams.

But it's just ridiculous that fantasy football has created a system where people scramble to roster the #45 RB while top-10 QBs regularly sit on the waiver wire.

Fantasy football did not create this.  I don't think Fantasy football has really changed all that much over the years other than the popularity of PPR format.  It's the way the NFL plays the game that's changed.  We no longer see bell cow RBs on most teams and that position has become one of the most replaceable.  Teams are passing more than ever which allows poor QB play to put up a lot of points in fantasy.

It's not fantasy football that's changed, it's real football that has.

 

[Deamon]

In the olden days, the imbalance of the TE position was addressed through the draft. In other words, if you chose to spend a high pick on one of the 2-3 "elite" TEs, then you had to make sacrifices at the other positions.

But thanks to elevated QB play (and the regression of the RB position), players no longer have to make those sacrifices. There's much less risk these days with spending a high pick on a TE, because you know that you'll still be able to get an elite QB later in the draft.

In the olden days, you rarely saw TEs drafted at 1.1, but Kelce was absolutely worth the 1.1 spot if you played in a 1QB league, because it's just too easy to make up for the pick later in the draft.

Switching to Superflex will reduce the dominance of the TE position. It won't completely eliminate it, but it helps.

Fantasy football needs to evolve with the game. I've been around long enough to remember when people resisted the addition of yardage and PPR to the scoring formats, and now those things are commonplace. And they've made the game better. Superflex is no different.

As for kickers.....they need to be eliminated from FF or they need to be rolled in to the D/ST position. Period. Kickers are a waste of space.

Kelce worth the 1.1 spot?  Over Gurley?

If you want to adjust rules to the game, than you need to remove PPR and SIGNIFICANTLY drop QB scoring.  Only then can you add a superflex.

Again, positions scarcity becomes an issue.  QBs just all get snatched up in 12 man SF leagues, as you want to avoid having to have Bortles as your weekly starter.  With EVERY team holding 2 qbs, and most holding 3, it becomes a huge disadvantage to have a backup nfl qb as your 3rd qb.  You are then FORCED to be at a disadvantage on your 2 bye weeks which is 15% of the regular season. 

Again, SF CAN work, but only in 10 man leagues, and/or leagues where you drop qb scoring.  1 for 50 yards isn't enough.

 

[-OZ-]

? :

.

As for kickers.....they need to be eliminated from FF or they need to be rolled in to the D/ST position. Period. Kickers are a waste of space.

I can totally get behind this in team defense / ST formats.

But in IDP? I'll keep kickers. I'd consider adding return specialists (would require working out details as many teams use starters on kr or pr)  and punters. 

 

[Gally]

So an average QB game (just looking at QB15's averages) of 275 yards and 2 TDs gives you 11 points.
An average RB game (RB15 averages) of 63 yards and 0.5 TDs gives you 6 points. 

Across the board, if you compare the #1 QB vs #1 RB, #2 QB vs #2 RB... all the way down, the QB outscores the RB every time in your scoring system.  So they aren't equal.

Also this scoring system is pretty rare.  But yes, IF, and only IF, your scoring system is something like the above (but should be adjusted even more to drop QB points actually) than SF can work.  The vast majority of SF leagues don't have scoring that makes qb and rb equal.

We are probably due to adjust our scoring since the NFL has gone pass happy and away from the bell cow RB.  This league has been in existence since 1985 with very little adjustments (we added negatives for turnovers and adjusted TE scoring to make them relevant).  It's probably due for a change to get with the times. 

The point is we set out to make an equal scoring format and for the most part it has served us well in the 30+ years of existence.  It has always been a superflex and it hasn't required playing 2 QB's to win.  That is shifting as you have pointed out due to the NFL changing so we need to adjust again to bring it back in line. 

 

[-fish-]

QB Scoring:

3 pts for Passing TD (6 for Rushing)

1 pt per 50 yds passing - with a min of 150 yds to start scoring (you get 3 pts at 150 yds passing - nothing for 149 yds or below) 1 pt per 20 yds rushing

-1 for Int or fumble lost

RB/WR:

6 pts for TD rush or receiving

1 pt per 20 yds rushing or receiving. (goes down to every 10 yds after 140 yds)

-1 pt for fumble lost

TE:

6 pts for TD rush or receiving

1 pt per 10 yds rushing or receiving

-1 pt for fumble lost

K:

1 pt per xpt

1 pt for every 10 yds of FGM; drops to every 5yds starting at 45 yds

So whoever has had Gronk won this league?   

 

[Deamon]

We are probably due to adjust our scoring since the NFL has gone pass happy and away from the bell cow RB.  This league has been in existence since 1985 with very little adjustments (we added negatives for turnovers and adjusted TE scoring to make them relevant).  It's probably due for a change to get with the times. 

The point is we set out to make an equal scoring format and for the most part it has served us well in the 30+ years of existence.  It has always been a superflex and it hasn't required playing 2 QB's to win.  That is shifting as you have pointed out due to the NFL changing so we need to adjust again to bring it back in line. 

Just swapping RBs and WRs to 1 for 10 yards no matter what their yardage is seems like the easy fix. 

 

[[scooter]]

Kelce worth the 1.1 spot?  Over Gurley?

I wouldn't personally pick Kelce over Gurley, but he's definitely worth a top-5 pick. You didn't say that about Gonzo or Gates because you didn't want to risk losing out on a top-tier RB or QB. But that was back in the day when there were only 2-3 QBs in the top tier. So if you picked Gonzo in the first round, you usually ended up with crappy RBs and a mediocre QB. But you don't have to make that sacrifice in 2018. You can grab Kelce in the 1st, then load up on RBs (hoping that 1-2 of them are solid), then wait until late in the draft to grab a couple QBs.

The QB position just doesn't mean as much as it used to. Superflex fixes that.

 

[Deamon]

So whoever has had Gronk won this league?   

Or Greg the Leg.  8 points for a 60 yard FG?  Dammmmmnn.  Means a single 60 yard fg is the same points as a RB going for 150 yards.  ?

 

[Hawkeye21]

I wouldn't personally pick Kelce over Gurley, but he's definitely worth a top-5 pick. You didn't say that about Gonzo or Gates because you didn't want to risk losing out on a top-tier RB or QB. But that was back in the day when there were only 2-3 QBs in the top tier. So if you picked Gonzo in the first round, you usually ended up with crappy RBs and a mediocre QB. But you don't have to make that sacrifice in 2018. You can grab Kelce in the 1st, then load up on RBs (hoping that 1-2 of them are solid), then wait until late in the draft to grab a couple QBs.

The QB position just doesn't mean as much as it used to. Superflex fixes that.

I don't think any TE is worth a pick higher than the 3rd round unless the scoring system favors TEs more.  Kelce isn't even the top TE so far this year and Gronk is never healthy enough to consider.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

Not going to argue that at end of year, differential between the top tier and middle tier isn't meaningful. I've always waited on a mid-tier guy around 6 or later for this reason -- happy to have guys reach for Brady or Wilson this year while guys like Rivers and Mahomes.

We are touching on how scoring definitely may change this view. What I also think the overall view does not take into account is that while end of year variance may not be huge, week to week variance can be. Looking at the data in aggregate can dismiss the fact that if, on a week-to-week basis, you can land a QB that has a more solid (i.e. smaller) variance with a higher floor, it may be worth moving on earlier.

This is where looking at the probable mode across weeks, rather than what a QB's simple point total or average/game, can be important.

 

[kevinray]

My leauge managed this with letting the home team pick the super flex for the week.  By midnight Wednesday the home team posts whether it's QB Rb wr or TE for the week and then both teams play that position for the super flex. If the home team forgets to post then each team plays what they want. For dynasty its worked really well because all starting QBs are valuable but there aren't 20 QBs playing each week. 

 

[Deamon]

My leauge managed this with letting the home team pick the super flex for the week.  By midnight Wednesday the home team posts whether it's QB Rb wr or TE for the week and then both teams play that position for the super flex. If the home team forgets to post then each team plays what they want. For dynasty its worked really well because all starting QBs are valuable but there aren't 20 QBs playing each week. 

Damn.  This is a significant advantage.  Sounds fun, but I don't like giving such an unnecessary advantage to one team before the week even starts.  Obviously if his opponent doesn't carry a good 2nd QB or has one on a bye, he can just say QB and have a huge leg up.

 

[Gally]

So whoever has had Gronk won this league?   

He has been a first round pick most of the last few years.  However, you don't have to play a TE.  Our starting requirements are different then any other league (again we started in 1985 and don't have people that like change).

Starting Lineup:

• QB
  
• K
  
• QB/K
  
• RB
  
• RB
  
• RB/TE
  
• WR/TE
  
• WR/TE
  
• WR/TE
  
• RB/WR/TE
  

So you can play 0 TE's or 5 TE's.  Lots of different strategies have been used and all have worked over the years. 

 

[Runnyb]

I've been playing in a 2qb league for almost 20 years. I enjoyed it so much that I cut out all other leagues and only play in this 2qb/3rb/3wr/1te league.

I decided going into the draft this year that the difference in qbs is minimal, and I'd load up the other positions. This has gone horribly wrong with Bortles/Smith and I've had the worst season in league history.

It's always a fun draft since it's always different, and never know when all the qbs get snatched up (before round 3 usually).

But there seems to be an enormous difference between a top 10 - 15 qb and a qb ranked 20+ going into the season. I think it's crucial to have at least one solid qb or the season is going down the tubes rapidly no matter how many other highly rated wrs/rbs you draft.