Thinking of implementing FLEX in my league (1 Viewer)

[Pittsburgh United]

I’ve been commissioner of a league for 9 years now. I’m thinking about proposing flex positions, which we’ve never before had. Our current roster requirements are:

2 QB

4 RB

4 WR

2 TE

2 K

2 DEF

The weekly starting lineup requirement is:

1 QB

2 RB

2 WR

1 TE

1 K

1 DEF

I don’t think the majority of coaches who attend our preseason meeting are going to be in favor of this change, especially since nobody has ever requested it. Chances are the idea will be shot down long before I even get a chance to propose it formally. I’m just thinking of throwing it out there for the heck of it, as I think it might spice up the league a bit. (One of the coaches has already told me it takes a bit of the challenge out of drafting, in his opinion.)

My question, just so I’m prepared for the ensuing discussion: for the purposes of the draft and the starting lineup, what’s the best way to implement the flex roster spot, given my current league structure.

Should we cut the roster requirement to:

2 QB

4 RB

4 WR

1 RB/WR

1 TE

2 K

2 DEF

Should we change the weekly lineup requirement to:

1 QB

2 RB

2 WR

1 FLEX

1 K

1 DEF

… thus eliminating TE?

I’d like to hear how you other guys do this in your leagues. Please offer suggestions on how I could amend the draft requirements and the roster requirements in order to introduce the FLEX category.

 

[-OZ-]

Roster requirements? I'm not a fan.

Keep the TE lineup requirement. I personally prefer 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 flex, but it's your league.

 

[Traders2001]

Roster requirements? I'm not a fan. Keep the TE lineup requirement. I personally prefer 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 flex, but it's your league.

What we do in our league is when we set up the schedule ( head to head ) ther is a visiting and receiving team , the advantage of the receiving team is they can change their starting lineup .Basic 1Qb2RB3WR1TE When you are the reciving team you can play with 3 RB's and 2 WR's : or 4WR's and 1 RB r if you are desperate you can use 2 TE's and remove a WR oa a RB.It s fun.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

How many teams in the league?

 

[Chaz]

One league that I'm in went to the flex position a few seasons ago. I absolutely hate it. Strategy for BYE week planning is gone and trade talks have dried up. There is no urgency to cover a guy who is out for a few weeks if you have a couple positions to choose from to do so.

IMO, adding a 3rd WR would do more for the league than adding a flex. With two WRs, everybody will have good starters. By adding a 3rd, there's more of a chance for strategy in how to build a team.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

How many teams in the league?

12 teams. Three divisions with four teams each. We play 14 weeks for the regular season. Each team plays their divisional opponents twice, and each other team once.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

Not sure if this is important for this discussion, but this is a redraft league.

 

[-OZ-]

Not sure if this is important for this discussion, but this is a redraft league.

for a couple reasons, yes.First, changing rules in a dynasty league is tough. Never to be done without the consensus of the league. Changing rules in redrafts is more acceptable.Second, I can see where the added strategy / challenge comes in play with a redraft. Dynasty leagues can be challenging enough and the extra rules get in the way.

 

[GregR_2]

...

My question, just so I’m prepared for the ensuing discussion: for the purposes of the draft and the starting lineup, what’s the best way to implement the flex roster spot, given my current league structure.

Should we cut the roster requirement to:

...

Yes, you should cut the roster requirement. It's a crutch to aid weak owners who can't determine on their own which position would be the most valuable to fill a roster spot with.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

Not sure if this is important for this discussion, but this is a redraft league.

for a couple reasons, yes.First, changing rules in a dynasty league is tough. Never to be done without the consensus of the league. Changing rules in redrafts is more acceptable.Second, I can see where the added strategy / challenge comes in play with a redraft. Dynasty leagues can be challenging enough and the extra rules get in the way.

I thought I made this clear in the original post, but we actually have an annual preseason meeting where a number of things are discussed, including any proposed amendment to the existing league policies or structure. Every coach present gets to vote on anything that is proposed. I would never implement a rule change without the consensus of all voting coaches. Personally, I'm not really sold on the idea of Flex positions myself. And since I was the one who was going to bring the topic up for discussion without any other coach ever mentioning it to me, I doubt there will be any real interest.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

...

My question, just so I’m prepared for the ensuing discussion: for the purposes of the draft and the starting lineup, what’s the best way to implement the flex roster spot, given my current league structure.

Should we cut the roster requirement to:

...

Yes, you should cut the roster requirement. It's a crutch to aid weak owners who can't determine on their own which position would be the most valuable to fill a roster spot with.

So someone can draft and start a team of 8 RBs if they want?

 

[-OZ-]

...

My question, just so I’m prepared for the ensuing discussion: for the purposes of the draft and the starting lineup, what’s the best way to implement the flex roster spot, given my current league structure.

Should we cut the roster requirement to:

...

Yes, you should cut the roster requirement. It's a crutch to aid weak owners who can't determine on their own which position would be the most valuable to fill a roster spot with.

So someone can draft and start a team of 8 RBs if they want?

Draft yes. Start no. That's why there's a lineup requirement.

 

[GregR_2]

...

My question, just so I’m prepared for the ensuing discussion: for the purposes of the draft and the starting lineup, what’s the best way to implement the flex roster spot, given my current league structure.

Should we cut the roster requirement to:

...

Yes, you should cut the roster requirement. It's a crutch to aid weak owners who can't determine on their own which position would be the most valuable to fill a roster spot with.

So someone can draft and start a team of 8 RBs if they want?

Draft yes. Start no. That's why there's a lineup requirement.

What he said. Why should the rest of the league care how someone chooses to use their bench positions? So long as they are starting a valid lineup each week, what benefit is there in making a team carry a backup kicker against the owner's wishes because he realizes the roster spot is better spent on another position?I'll answer my own question. What there is to gain is that the owner who wants to carry backup kickers in a league without roster requirements finds that later on the decent backup QB, RB and WR are on rosters that more wisely used their roster space. So rather than the owner cluing in that he's misjudged the value of those positions vs a kicker and adjusting how he uses his bench space, he favors a rule that forces all the other owners to conform to his poor valuations and use their roster space in the same exact manner.

Most people consider correctly valuing players and positions to be part of skill, and most people want skill to play as large a role as possible. Roster requirements do the opposite and keep the waivers stocked with players that the more skilled owner would have picked up, so the lesser skilled player can grab them when their original decision turns out to be poor.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

...

My question, just so I’m prepared for the ensuing discussion: for the purposes of the draft and the starting lineup, what’s the best way to implement the flex roster spot, given my current league structure.

Should we cut the roster requirement to:

...

Yes, you should cut the roster requirement. It's a crutch to aid weak owners who can't determine on their own which position would be the most valuable to fill a roster spot with.

So someone can draft and start a team of 8 RBs if they want?

Draft yes. Start no. That's why there's a lineup requirement.

What he said. Why should the rest of the league care how someone chooses to use their bench positions? So long as they are starting a valid lineup each week, what benefit is there in making a team carry a backup kicker against the owner's wishes because he realizes the roster spot is better spent on another position?I'll answer my own question. What there is to gain is that the owner who wants to carry backup kickers in a league without roster requirements finds that later on the decent backup QB, RB and WR are on rosters that more wisely used their roster space. So rather than the owner cluing in that he's misjudged the value of those positions vs a kicker and adjusting how he uses his bench space, he favors a rule that forces all the other owners to conform to his poor valuations and use their roster space in the same exact manner.

Most people consider correctly valuing players and positions to be part of skill, and most people want skill to play as large a role as possible. Roster requirements do the opposite and keep the waivers stocked with players that the more skilled owner would have picked up, so the lesser skilled player can grab them when their original decision turns out to be poor.

GregR and Oz nailed it, like they usually do.

Drafting strategy is also simplified with roster mandates. Once you have 1 QB, for example, and you are comfortable with the 24th QB in the league serving as your backup, suddenly he becomes your last pick - not because of strategy but because you know he has to still be there.

The same is true of the 48th RB or WR, 24th TE, etc.

The draft becomes a race to fill the earlier roster spots and then figure out which spot you're happy with the last player (or close to) available at the cutoff. That's not skillful at all.

I've played in leagues where the scoring is way tilted towards QB and RB. I drafted the bare minimum at every other position and loaded up at QB and RB as much as I could. Trade talks come to me, and once one player went down to an injury byes were easily covered.

Drop the roster requirements for scripted # of players per positions. Those who don't get why you draft 1 K and 1 D will soon learn.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

...

My question, just so I’m prepared for the ensuing discussion: for the purposes of the draft and the starting lineup, what’s the best way to implement the flex roster spot, given my current league structure.

Should we cut the roster requirement to:

...

Yes, you should cut the roster requirement. It's a crutch to aid weak owners who can't determine on their own which position would be the most valuable to fill a roster spot with.

So someone can draft and start a team of 8 RBs if they want?

Draft yes. Start no. That's why there's a lineup requirement.

What he said. Why should the rest of the league care how someone chooses to use their bench positions? So long as they are starting a valid lineup each week, what benefit is there in making a team carry a backup kicker against the owner's wishes because he realizes the roster spot is better spent on another position?I'll answer my own question. What there is to gain is that the owner who wants to carry backup kickers in a league without roster requirements finds that later on the decent backup QB, RB and WR are on rosters that more wisely used their roster space. So rather than the owner cluing in that he's misjudged the value of those positions vs a kicker and adjusting how he uses his bench space, he favors a rule that forces all the other owners to conform to his poor valuations and use their roster space in the same exact manner.

Most people consider correctly valuing players and positions to be part of skill, and most people want skill to play as large a role as possible. Roster requirements do the opposite and keep the waivers stocked with players that the more skilled owner would have picked up, so the lesser skilled player can grab them when their original decision turns out to be poor.

OK I think I'm with you here. So I suppose most leagues (redraft) simply require you to draft the minimum needed to field a valid starting lineup, (in my case 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 DEF), then you are free to do whatever you want with the other draft picks? And the same goes for the roster during the season? You have to maintain the necessary positions for the starting lineup, but can fill the rest of your roster out however you choose?

 

[Nemesis]

One league that I'm in went to the flex position a few seasons ago. I absolutely hate it. Strategy for BYE week planning is gone and trade talks have dried up. There is no urgency to cover a guy who is out for a few weeks if you have a couple positions to choose from to do so.

IMO, adding a 3rd WR would do more for the league than adding a flex. With two WRs, everybody will have good starters. By adding a 3rd, there's more of a chance for strategy in how to build a team.

With 12 fantasy teams in your league X 2 WR starters = 24 starting WRs in your league each week.

Compare that with 32 NFL teams X 2 WR starters on each team = 64 total possible to choose from.

Your league is barely scratching the WR surface and adding a 3rd starting WR would increase the strategy so owners on Sunday would have more to decide. (not to mention the increase in draft strategy for those teams that miss out on the top notch RBs and decide to "load up" on the WRs)

Merely adding a FLEX player would just increase the likelyhood that teams select only additional RBs.

And I second the suggestion of dropping roster reqmts altogether. Personally, I would never play in a league that had roster reqmts. Nobody wants to be forced to draft 2 kickers, 2 defenses, 2 TEs.

 

[coolnerd]

...

My question, just so I’m prepared for the ensuing discussion: for the purposes of the draft and the starting lineup, what’s the best way to implement the flex roster spot, given my current league structure.

Should we cut the roster requirement to:

...

Yes, you should cut the roster requirement. It's a crutch to aid weak owners who can't determine on their own which position would be the most valuable to fill a roster spot with.

So someone can draft and start a team of 8 RBs if they want?

Draft yes. Start no. That's why there's a lineup requirement.

What he said. Why should the rest of the league care how someone chooses to use their bench positions? So long as they are starting a valid lineup each week, what benefit is there in making a team carry a backup kicker against the owner's wishes because he realizes the roster spot is better spent on another position?I'll answer my own question. What there is to gain is that the owner who wants to carry backup kickers in a league without roster requirements finds that later on the decent backup QB, RB and WR are on rosters that more wisely used their roster space. So rather than the owner cluing in that he's misjudged the value of those positions vs a kicker and adjusting how he uses his bench space, he favors a rule that forces all the other owners to conform to his poor valuations and use their roster space in the same exact manner.

Most people consider correctly valuing players and positions to be part of skill, and most people want skill to play as large a role as possible. Roster requirements do the opposite and keep the waivers stocked with players that the more skilled owner would have picked up, so the lesser skilled player can grab them when their original decision turns out to be poor.

OK I think I'm with you here. So I suppose most leagues (redraft) simply require you to draft the minimum needed to field a valid starting lineup, (in my case 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 DEF), then you are free to do whatever you want with the other draft picks? And the same goes for the roster during the season? You have to maintain the necessary positions for the starting lineup, but can fill the rest of your roster out however you choose?

Actually many leagues don't require drafting a certain amount at any position...i.e. only require a usable line-up by opening kick-off week 1. Often an fantasy owner will not draft a def or kicker in favor of picking up a longshot prospect or two. This allows him to see if he strikes gold because of injury or opportunity while seeing where defensive injuries are. There are other strategies to use, but no requirement at all adds to the options even more.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

OK guys, great stuff so far. Thanks! Here's another question I have - our league currently has a waiver wire in place and on top of that, we limit a coach to 12 roster moves throughout the season. How do you see this policy fitting in with the new no-roster-requirements structure? I mean, we implemented the roster move limit because some guys were getting out of hand with their free agent pickups. I definitely like limiting the moves. I'd like to hear how other leagues handle this in light of having a structure with no roster requirements.

 

[inca911]

The benefit of adding a flex position will also depend on your scoring system. I like a WR/RB flex, provided the scoring for the two positions is relatively similar which prevents everyone from having to go with a second RB just to stay competetive (BTW, 1 ppr for the WRs and 0 pr for RBs usually gets the scoring close using standard scoring systems).

Option #1:

1 RB

3 WR

1 WR/RB flex

vs.

Option #2:

2 RB

3 WR

Option #1 allows a team to avoid the overpriced RBs and win via top tier WRs. Option #1 also allows more BYE week flexibility which is good for deeper leagues. Option #1 does not require any less skill than Option #2.

I agree with those above that you need to add WR#3 as a required starting position.

I also agree with those above that you need to drop the mandatory roster requirements. Playing matchups with 6 mediocre RBs should be an option.

Rather than giving up on TEs as required starters, you could also go with WR/TE flex positions using 2ppr for TE and 1 ppr for WRs. Makes for some interesting lineups (I've seen 3 TE starters for one team in one week).

My personal favorite (RBs, WRs, TEs only):

1 RB

1 RB/WR/TE flex

3 WR/TE flex

(RBs 0 ppr, WR 1 ppr, TE 2 ppr)

This option gives the league a lot of variety and gives owners many different ways to win.

 

[inca911]

OK guys, great stuff so far. Thanks! Here's another question I have - our league currently has a waiver wire in place and on top of that, we limit a coach to 12 roster moves throughout the season. How do you see this policy fitting in with the new no-roster-requirements structure? I mean, we implemented the roster move limit because some guys were getting out of hand with their free agent pickups. I definitely like limiting the moves. I'd like to hear how other leagues handle this in light of having a structure with no roster requirements.

What benefit is gained from limited the waiver wire moves? "Guys getting out of hand" is your personal opinion and highly active owners are often good for a league. I would not put limits on waiver wire acquisitions unless there is a specific problem you are trying to solve.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

OK guys, great stuff so far. Thanks! Here's another question I have - our league currently has a waiver wire in place and on top of that, we limit a coach to 12 roster moves throughout the season. How do you see this policy fitting in with the new no-roster-requirements structure? I mean, we implemented the roster move limit because some guys were getting out of hand with their free agent pickups. I definitely like limiting the moves. I'd like to hear how other leagues handle this in light of having a structure with no roster requirements.

What benefit is gained from limited the waiver wire moves? "Guys getting out of hand" is your personal opinion and highly active owners are often good for a league. I would not put limits on waiver wire acquisitions unless there is a specific problem you are trying to solve.

Well back before we implemented the limits a couple years ago, we had situations where someone's team by week 6 looked completely different from the team he drafted. It's almost like the draft was irrelevant. And since waiver wire spot was determined by league standing, a guy who had a terrible draft and totally sucked for the first six weeks could end up with the best team in the league and make a playoff run. We felt like the draft should have a greater impact. So we changed the waiver order to start as an extension of the draft and change only as people made pickups. League standing would never impact position. We also thought it would be a good idea to limit the total number of moves a guy could make. I'm thinking, though, that roster move limits might be incompatible with a no-roster-requirements league structure. Is that the experience of others as well?

 

[coolnerd]

OK guys, great stuff so far. Thanks! Here's another question I have - our league currently has a waiver wire in place and on top of that, we limit a coach to 12 roster moves throughout the season. How do you see this policy fitting in with the new no-roster-requirements structure? I mean, we implemented the roster move limit because some guys were getting out of hand with their free agent pickups. I definitely like limiting the moves. I'd like to hear how other leagues handle this in light of having a structure with no roster requirements.

What benefit is gained from limited the waiver wire moves? "Guys getting out of hand" is your personal opinion and highly active owners are often good for a league. I would not put limits on waiver wire acquisitions unless there is a specific problem you are trying to solve.

Well back before we implemented the limits a couple years ago, we had situations where someone's team by week 6 looked completely different from the team he drafted. It's almost like the draft was irrelevant. And since waiver wire spot was determined by league standing, a guy who had a terrible draft and totally sucked for the first six weeks could end up with the best team in the league and make a playoff run. We felt like the draft should have a greater impact. So we changed the waiver order to start as an extension of the draft and change only as people made pickups. League standing would never impact position. We also thought it would be a good idea to limit the total number of moves a guy could make. I'm thinking, though, that roster move limits might be incompatible with a no-roster-requirements league structure. Is that the experience of others as well?

I would say that if your league has a preference for the draft being the focal point of who wins and loses, then keeping your rules as is is the wise thing to do. The ideas that have been presented here really lessen the impact of what happens in the draft and becomes more about total year long management, which many of us assume is preferrable. I would say you have a look why other leagues are structure differently and are at least armed with the ability to make a decison which works best for the entire league.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

OK guys, great stuff so far. Thanks! Here's another question I have - our league currently has a waiver wire in place and on top of that, we limit a coach to 12 roster moves throughout the season. How do you see this policy fitting in with the new no-roster-requirements structure? I mean, we implemented the roster move limit because some guys were getting out of hand with their free agent pickups. I definitely like limiting the moves. I'd like to hear how other leagues handle this in light of having a structure with no roster requirements.

What benefit is gained from limited the waiver wire moves? "Guys getting out of hand" is your personal opinion and highly active owners are often good for a league. I would not put limits on waiver wire acquisitions unless there is a specific problem you are trying to solve.

Well back before we implemented the limits a couple years ago, we had situations where someone's team by week 6 looked completely different from the team he drafted. It's almost like the draft was irrelevant. And since waiver wire spot was determined by league standing, a guy who had a terrible draft and totally sucked for the first six weeks could end up with the best team in the league and make a playoff run. We felt like the draft should have a greater impact. So we changed the waiver order to start as an extension of the draft and change only as people made pickups. League standing would never impact position. We also thought it would be a good idea to limit the total number of moves a guy could make. I'm thinking, though, that roster move limits might be incompatible with a no-roster-requirements league structure. Is that the experience of others as well?

I would say that if your league has a preference for the draft being the focal point of who wins and loses, then keeping your rules as is is the wise thing to do. The ideas that have been presented here really lessen the impact of what happens in the draft and becomes more about total year long management, which many of us assume is preferrable. I would say you have a look why other leagues are structure differently and are at least armed with the ability to make a decison which works best for the entire league.

So do the majority of you not have roster move limits? How is your waiver order determined? How is it established at the beginning of the season, and what determines the order throughout the season?

 

[coolnerd]

OK guys, great stuff so far. Thanks! Here's another question I have - our league currently has a waiver wire in place and on top of that, we limit a coach to 12 roster moves throughout the season. How do you see this policy fitting in with the new no-roster-requirements structure? I mean, we implemented the roster move limit because some guys were getting out of hand with their free agent pickups. I definitely like limiting the moves. I'd like to hear how other leagues handle this in light of having a structure with no roster requirements.

What benefit is gained from limited the waiver wire moves? "Guys getting out of hand" is your personal opinion and highly active owners are often good for a league. I would not put limits on waiver wire acquisitions unless there is a specific problem you are trying to solve.

Well back before we implemented the limits a couple years ago, we had situations where someone's team by week 6 looked completely different from the team he drafted. It's almost like the draft was irrelevant. And since waiver wire spot was determined by league standing, a guy who had a terrible draft and totally sucked for the first six weeks could end up with the best team in the league and make a playoff run. We felt like the draft should have a greater impact. So we changed the waiver order to start as an extension of the draft and change only as people made pickups. League standing would never impact position. We also thought it would be a good idea to limit the total number of moves a guy could make. I'm thinking, though, that roster move limits might be incompatible with a no-roster-requirements league structure. Is that the experience of others as well?

I would say that if your league has a preference for the draft being the focal point of who wins and loses, then keeping your rules as is is the wise thing to do. The ideas that have been presented here really lessen the impact of what happens in the draft and becomes more about total year long management, which many of us assume is preferrable. I would say you have a look why other leagues are structure differently and are at least armed with the ability to make a decison which works best for the entire league.

So do the majority of you not have roster move limits? How is your waiver order determined? How is it established at the beginning of the season, and what determines the order throughout the season?

I have not seen a poll or thread on this issue in a long while, but I have not participated in a league with roster limits in probably three years nor do I see it advertised often. Long way, of saying I aassuming that most leagues are w/o move limits, but don't have hard data to support. In terms of pre-season waiver wire, the redrafts I am in are either FirstComeFirstServe or use the some waiver process as in the regular season which I am going to discuss below. Waiver wire are discussed more often and here are the set-ups I see most often (not a particular order)FCFS- from above all teams can sign as many players as possible, obviously favors people who work have constant computer access or at least access whenever the period starts. Blind bid- teams are allotted an amount of money for the season and bid for FA until that money is used gone. Whether the funds are tradeable varies from league to league.worst to first- obviously rewards bad teams. reserve order of draft- I think these are set at the beginning of the year(reserve draft order usually). A team moves up in priority after the teams above it choose FA.mixed system- Usually either blind bidding or worst to first followed by a period of FCFS. My personal favorite, but i don't have the preference that some do for either BB or WTF portion that others do.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

reserve order of draft- I think these are set at the beginning of the year(reserve draft order usually). A team moves up in priority after the teams above it choose FA.

This is what we do, except FA pickups do not affect waiver order, only waiver wire pickups.

 

[coolnerd]

reserve order of draft- I think these are set at the beginning of the year(reserve draft order usually). A team moves up in priority after the teams above it choose FA.

This is what we do, except FA pickups do not affect waiver order, only waiver wire pickups.

I used FA and WW pick-ups in an interchangeable manner meaning any player not rostered.

 

[inca911]

I have never played in a league with limits on number of moves. If an owner has ditched his draft players by week 6 for waiver wire players, I'm ok with that.

Waiver wire order is reverse of randomly determined auction order. If you acquire a player via waivers, your priority goes to the bottom. The waiver order doesn't change for a free agent acquisition. The order does not reset every week, so the worst team doesn't have a chance to pick up enough good players for a playoff run.

 

[ravnzfan]

OK guys, great stuff so far. Thanks! Here's another question I have - our league currently has a waiver wire in place and on top of that, we limit a coach to 12 roster moves throughout the season. How do you see this policy fitting in with the new no-roster-requirements structure? I mean, we implemented the roster move limit because some guys were getting out of hand with their free agent pickups. I definitely like limiting the moves. I'd like to hear how other leagues handle this in light of having a structure with no roster requirements.

What benefit is gained from limited the waiver wire moves? "Guys getting out of hand" is your personal opinion and highly active owners are often good for a league. I would not put limits on waiver wire acquisitions unless there is a specific problem you are trying to solve.

Well back before we implemented the limits a couple years ago, we had situations where someone's team by week 6 looked completely different from the team he drafted. It's almost like the draft was irrelevant. And since waiver wire spot was determined by league standing, a guy who had a terrible draft and totally sucked for the first six weeks could end up with the best team in the league and make a playoff run. We felt like the draft should have a greater impact. So we changed the waiver order to start as an extension of the draft and change only as people made pickups. League standing would never impact position. We also thought it would be a good idea to limit the total number of moves a guy could make. I'm thinking, though, that roster move limits might be incompatible with a no-roster-requirements league structure. Is that the experience of others as well?

I would say that if your league has a preference for the draft being the focal point of who wins and loses, then keeping your rules as is is the wise thing to do. The ideas that have been presented here really lessen the impact of what happens in the draft and becomes more about total year long management, which many of us assume is preferrable. I would say you have a look why other leagues are structure differently and are at least armed with the ability to make a decison which works best for the entire league.

So do the majority of you not have roster move limits? How is your waiver order determined? How is it established at the beginning of the season, and what determines the order throughout the season?

welcome to the United States of America, son where "free market economy" rules...and so it should be in your FF leagues, as well

just for the record, there was a roster rquirement in the very 1st league I played in 15 yrs ago---I hated it then, and I hate it today---after all, the NFL doesn't tell your favorite team how many QB's-RB's, etc they can roster, do they?

let the strength of the team drafted determine how many players/position you draft...and as Jeff said, 1 K/1D

should be allowed and not mandated, as most of those outside Balt/Chi-D's are really interchangeable parts

--on the flex position...we start 2RB-2WR/TE (don't require TE) in my leagues, and start 2 flex (any of RB-WR-TE)...needless to say, I like the "freedom" this allows an owner when drafting and submitting a l/u each week...(the guys love this flexibility to the point where we've grown to 13 leagues because of some of the unique features such as this multi-lineup option)

--on roster move limits...again--why strap a guy who might have drafted a couple guys that get injured, benched, etc?

first you've told me how many of a position I can draft, then you limit the number of moves I can make? I'm not very interested in a senario like that....allow owners the flexibility to add as many FA's as they deem neccessary, by using weekly "worst-to-first" FA requests thru Thurs midnight, followed by FCFS FA period until 1PM Sunday

waivers would be processed 12:01AM Friday morning in the order of the last place team-to-first, then the wire is open FCFS for everyone until the games start

(we use this process in my dynasty leagues, but is fine for redrafts)

or...if you must enforce a limit of sorts, use FA "currency" of say $1000/team w/a $20 minimum bid for FA's...if an owner wants to blow $500 on each of 2 moves, then that is his choice

or...an owner can bid on several players each week, depending on his "available credit"

(this is used in another dynasty league I'm in, but again, can work fine in a redraft)

a 3rd method, for those that like to play for a nice sized kitty, is "silent auction", where you bid real cash for a player...I play in a $$$ redraft each year where we pay a $200 entry, then must bid a minimum of $10 for a FA and if 2 or more bid on the same player, then a single "silent auction" bid from each owner must be submitted by midnight Thursday

high bid is awarded the player, for the cost in real dollars of the bid---this 12 teamer usually sees ~$3500 in the kitty by seasons end, once the FA money is collected---the loser has the option to add a player not bid on and available, for the $10 cost

so you have 3 different methods (and there are more out there--these are 3 I play with in leagues I'm in) for processing waivers and my thoughts on flex and roster limits

seriously--if you don't believe in this, don't even bring it up to the other owners....but if you feel the league can be better off for implementing some of these changes, I believe it will make for a better FF experience for all the owners

 

[hotboyz]

I have a question I like the idea of Dropping roster requirements, Right now my league has a roster requirement of 2qb's,3rb's,4wr's,2te's,2k's and a defense. Our starting requirements are 1qb 2rb 3wr 1te 1k and 1 def. My question is If you don't have roster Requirements how many rounds do you have in the draft. Oh yeah I run a 10 yr old Redraft league! Right now Our draft is 14 rounds and it takes us about 3hrs. How many rounds would you say we should use if we go to no Roster requirements??

 

[ravnzfan]

I have a question I like the idea of Dropping roster requirements, Right now my league has a roster requirement of 2qb's,3rb's,4wr's,2te's,2k's and a defense. Our starting requirements are 1qb 2rb 3wr 1te 1k and 1 def. My question is If you don't have roster Requirements how many rounds do you have in the draft. Oh yeah I run a 10 yr old Redraft league! Right now Our draft is 14 rounds and it takes us about 3hrs. How many rounds would you say we should use if we go to no Roster requirements??

14 man roster for a "start 9" league is alittle light, IMO....many leagues use "starters X 2" for roster, which in your case is 18 (my keep 4 league uses 17, for 9 starters....my "start 8" local redraft uses 16...my "start 9" dynasty leagues use 20, which is tight for dynasty because you keep players forever---many dynasty use 24+)16-17-18 is a good range for typical "start 9" leagues---have the owners vote, or look to expand the roster by 2 this season, to 16, and then revisit next off season

 

[hotboyz]

sorry i need to bump this

 

[notoriousbob]

We have the 1RB, 2 WR, 1 flex (RB/WR) setup now. We also start 1 QB, 1TE, K and Def. The flex gives more flexibility in your drafting in my opinion. You can choose to go with a more WR oriented team, or stick to the two RB theory. Unlike some of the other posters, I like the flexibility. The added flexibiility is also nice during the season to cover up bye and injury issues.

Ours is a 12 teamer like yours, and most teams still start the 2 RBs. I would say 25% of the time a team goes with 3wide. You can tell those guys that don't like it, just don't use it.

 

[inca911]

I have a question I like the idea of Dropping roster requirements, Right now my league has a roster requirement of 2qb's,3rb's,4wr's,2te's,2k's and a defense. Our starting requirements are 1qb 2rb 3wr 1te 1k and 1 def. My question is If you don't have roster Requirements how many rounds do you have in the draft. Oh yeah I run a 10 yr old Redraft league! Right now Our draft is 14 rounds and it takes us about 3hrs. How many rounds would you say we should use if we go to no Roster requirements??

~ #Starters*2 is a good rule of thumb, so 16-18 rounds should be fine. I'd move up to 16 initially and see how things go. This will leave some potential talent on the waiver wire for later action. The end rounds generally go very quickly so adding two rounds won't add much time at all.BTW, change to auction next year!

 

[coolnerd]

sorry i need to bump this

No need to apologize for this bump, there is actually good information in this thread.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

sorry i need to bump this

No need to apologize for this bump, there is actually good information in this thread.

Well, an update from me: I've got the majority of the league on board with me preliminarily as far as eliminating roster requirements beyond the necessary starting line-up. Some of the guys still think we need to have roster move limits. I think this is a bad idea and could end up being disastrous for some guys later in the season. I think I will be able to persuade the majority to see it my way by the time we actually vote.I am getting NO love in the league on the issue of opening up a flex spot.

 

[GregR_2]

I imagine the majority of flex spots is a flex RB/WR/TE, with probably the 2nd most popular being the same but with QB thrown in. That's just a guess.

But I really have come to dislike that kind of flex since playing in a league that had a flex QB/RB and a flex WR/TE. Having it like that helps out QB and WR against the value of RB, since you'll normally start another WR, and you'll normally start a 2nd QB. However, not every team can have a 3rd QB to start on a bye, at least not in a 12 team league... so the fact it's flex is really nice that a team can start their 3rd or 4th RB in there and at least get some points on their QBs' bye weeks.

In any event, if they didn't like the flex position you pitched, you could always try pitching the 2 flex spots that make it a QB/RB and a WR/TE and see what they say. They may just not like the idea of a flex... but if they are savvy owners they may also realize a RB/WR/TE flex favors the guy who can get 3 good RBs generally, and not like the idea of increasing the RB's value even more. If it's the latter, then this is a way of having flex spots that decrease RB value instead of increase it.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

OK here's an update. We had our league's annual pre-season meeting this past Saturday. I'll copy the minutes (regarding the changes) here:

We have added a FLEX position to our starting line-up. You will now start NINE positions every week, as follows:1 QB2 RB2 WR1 TE1 RB/WR/TE (FLEX)1 K1 DEFYour remaining 7 roster spots can be whatever you choose.There are no longer any limits on the add/drop roster moves you can make.Waiver wire order will continue to function as it has.

I'm happy with the way it turned out. All of these votes were either unanimous or with only one or two opposed. I think the league will be much more cut-throat and more wide open now. I'm curious to hear how many other leagues start nine players. This is a huge change for us, and obviously the scoring average will change quite a bit. I just couldn't get anyone on board with cutting the TE requirement and going WR/TE flex. But I am glad we did get that flex spot added as a ninth starter.Thoughts?PS - even better news, I got the #2 pick for the draft......

 

[Pittsburgh United]

Any insights from guys who start nine positions in their league?

 

[-OZ-]

I'm curious to hear how many other leagues start nine players. This is a huge change for us, and obviously the scoring average will change quite a bit. I just couldn't get anyone on board with cutting the TE requirement and going WR/TE flex. But I am glad we did get that flex spot added as a ninth starter.

I think you're better off keeping thr TE requirement. I'm in 2 dynasty leagues, one starts 8 on offense (typically 1 QB, 2 RB, 4 WR, 1 TE) + 1 PK, 1 HC, and a full defense (11 players in the usual configurations, + DT and CB required), so that's 21 starters. The other requires 6 IDP (2 each), and 9 offense. I like the depth a lot more than just starting studs. It requires a deeper understanding of lesser known players. ETA: if your league is 12 teams, you're still only talking about 84 players on offense starting. In the first league, we start 128 players on offense and 336 total.

 

[PsychoMan]

in my 12 team league, i've always had

1 QB

2 RB

3 WR

1 TE

1 K

1 DEF

i was thinking of adding a flex to this lineup requirement so team depth would be more rewarded. but in your case, you need a 3rd wide receiver before you need a flex. and yes, keep the TE requirement.