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

[renesauz]

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 It's an outdated system that relies too heavily on a low-scoring position (RB) and not enough on the position featuring the best players in the game.

Your argument falls flat here. IN most (12 team) leagues, at least 24 RBs are started, but at least 50 earn significant touches or time on the field. Similarly, 36 WRs are started, while 100 earn significant playing time for their respective NFL teams. At Qb, it's 12 of 28-32 depending on bye weeks. Percentage wise, it's in line with the other positions. Two QBs required would mean 24 of 32 on a NON bye week, a % that dwarfs the others. It isn't reasonable. Have you ever heard anyone clamoring for start 2 TE leagues?

I think a TERRIFIC argument can be made for superflex in leagues of 8 or 10, and if set up well superflex can work fine at 12, but your argument here is less then sound. There's an argument to be made re. raising QB scoring to make QBs more important as well.

 

[[scooter]]

Your argument falls flat here. IN most (12 team) leagues, at least 24 RBs are started, but at least 50 earn significant touches or time on the field. Similarly, 36 WRs are started, while 100 earn significant playing time for their respective NFL teams. At Qb, it's 12 of 28-32 depending on bye weeks. Percentage wise, it's in line with the other positions. Two QBs required would mean 24 of 32 on a NON bye week, a % that dwarfs the others. It isn't reasonable. Have you ever heard anyone clamoring for start 2 TE leagues?

Of course not, but that's because TE production hasn't jumped in the way that QB production has jumped. (But if FF existed in the '50s, most leagues would probably start 2 TEs and 1 FB, and probably just 1-2 WRs.)

The fact that 100 WRs get significant playing time is not relevant, because the #100 WR is statistically meaningless from a fantasy perspective.

My point is basically that the #24 QB has become fantasy relevant. Therefore, fantasy football should adapt to accommodate it.

If you want to choose to continue playing in an old-fashioned league that just starts 1 QB, go right ahead. But those leagues are becoming more and more easy for guppies to come in and win because they were able to grab a top-10 QB or two with a late round pick or a waiver wire grab.

Once you go Superflex, you'll never want to go back. It's the future.

 

[kevinray]

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.

Yeah the format emphasizes building out your bench across positions. Its 1QB 2 RB 3 WR 1 TE 1QB/RB/WR/TE 1K 1DEF, 15 bench spots and you need 3 starting QBs to feel comfortable. You can get burned on injuries/byes by the flex rule but it happens less often than we thought it would. Concern over weak depth winds up spuring more trading.

The home team also has to weigh playing to their teams strength vs exploiting the away teams weakness so there's an added strategy angle.

 

[renesauz]

Of course not, but that's because TE production hasn't jumped in the way that QB production has jumped. (But if FF existed in the '50s, most leagues would probably start 2 TEs and 1 FB, and probably just 1-2 WRs.)

The fact that 100 WRs get significant playing time is not relevant, because the #100 WR is statistically meaningless from a fantasy perspective.

My point is basically that the #24 QB has become fantasy relevant. Therefore, fantasy football should adapt to accommodate it.

If you want to choose to continue playing in an old-fashioned league that just starts 1 QB, go right ahead. But those leagues are becoming more and more easy for guppies to come in and win because they were able to grab a top-10 QB or two with a late round pick or a waiver wire grab.

Once you go Superflex, you'll never want to go back. It's the future.

You're completely missing my point. The fact that that #24 QB is relevant isn't the argument...it's that the #33 QB DOESN'T EVEN SCORE. Meanwhile, the #70 WR and the #50 QB...heck even the #40 TE DO SCORE! You're fixing what you see as a problem by creating an entirely different problem. I'm suggesting that your argument make sense in a 10 team league, but that the scarcity created in 12 team or larger leagues makes for a bigger problem then the one you wish to solve.

BTW...SUPERFLEX is NOT the same as 2 QB league, so perhaps we're just talking past each other. (I've played in, and enjoyed, a 12 team superflex)