Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Over at Phenom's, Unlucky has "deep" leagues(30 rounds) where you start 2 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 2 flex RB/WR/TE, 2 K, and 2 D/ST. That definitely makes for an interesting draft. Sometimes it's fun to get out of routine of standard starting lineups.BTW there's still room in Alpha 43. It's a slow draft so it would be nice to fill that league up so we could get started.
Does that make me a TE guy? The two leagues I run have a QB, RB, RB, RB/WR, WR, WR, WR, TE, TE roster.
Our league which is a 10 team have the scoring that you mentioned but we are required to start: 2QB/2RB/3WR/1TE.I ended up drafting Brady in the 1st and Strafford in the 6th to win the league that year.Before that I ended up drafting my QB late usually around 9/10 as still able to win the league.
Well, yeah. The idea is to field a fantasy team, after all. We're fake GM's/head coaches trying to replicate the real thing as much as possible, right?If you want to accommodate the value of particular positions as they rise and fall over time, tweak the scoring. I see no logic in adding a second QB - or a fourth WR, second TE, etc - just because that position happens to be stronger at that period in time.
Yup.I don't see the point of having 2 QBs and then making pass TDs worth 3 pts. Why not just have one QB and all TDs 6?
In my league with 3 pt passing TDs, 9 of the top 10 scorers were still QBs (and 19 of the top 30). Any QB playing near a full season would beat out basically every other player with 6 pt passing TDs. Hell, Rodgers would have had double the points of the #1 RB in our league with 6pt passing TDs. Starting 2 QBs with 6pt TDs would make the rest of your roster virtually worthless if you didn't adjust the scoring. It also makes it tougher to draft/auction a complete lineup. On top of that, you need the extra in-season management to cover bye weeks in 12 team leagues.
My point was that instead of 2 QBs at 3 pt TDs why not just do 1 QB with 6 pts All TDs. 2 Qbs with 6 pts was not part of the equation.And the guppy comment. LMAO. Now we're playing the "my league scoring is superior to yours card."
Its okay. Some people will never get.
Exactly. Cheers
I'm in two, a 2QB dynasty and a QB-flex redraft.In the dynasty, starting QBs are worth so much it kind of works itself out. EG I traded Nicks, my WR1, in a package to get T-Rich as I had traded Peterson for Rivers and traded Turner for a 1st rd pick. Was hurting at RB before the trade and WR after. Despite Palmer not being a very hot item and long in the tooth, I got an offer of Wallace/Hunter for him and D. Brown within 6 hours of posting he was available. Just goes to show as long as people are willing to trade, you can do a 12-team dynasty 2QB league where everyone is decently competitive (well, except for the poor schlub who refused Palmer for Welker and Garrard who is now sitting their with P Manning and Kolb as his starters).In the redraft, despite having a second QB-flex spot, no team is allowed to carry more than 2 QBs at any time, which means that most weeks, there are 8 starting QBs on the WW. Eliminates hoarding and helps out the poor schmoes who wait too long on QB.I love both leagues, have been in both for years, and have always considered myself more of a RB guy.
I like that. If we were to go back to superflex (which I prefer over straight up 2QB), I'd definitely implement this rule.
I play all kinds of leagues and lots of 2 qb leagues. It lowers strategy imo. It's mainly just about the qbs. You have Rodgers and Stafford? Book your ticket to a top 3 team, and if you're in dynasty, for the the next 10 years. Pretty much no matter what the rest of your team is, you are guaranteed a playoff spot. I find a lot of people like them because guys are too stupid to adapt and draft the same as a 1 qb league. If people have a clue it's okay for a change, but not great imo. It also really makes having a top 3 pick in a redraft so much more important. It's hard to compete at the end of the first with someone who is getting Rodgers, Brady or Brees early. I really don't like it. Nothing is as bad as leagues I've seen giving points for completions but it's pretty bad.
Who is the starting center on your real fantasy football team?
My main league starts 2qbs, 3rbs, 4wrs, 2tes, 2k, 2d/st.
what don't you like about playing 2 opponents a week? I love it, just another game to follow..and if one opponent goes off, you still have a chance with the 2nd game. After playing2 games a week, I wouldn't go back.As for 2 QB's....I think a QB flex is the way to go. Owners have the option to draft very differently, just adds another twist.And while we are at it, I really don't understand why 10 team leagues don't go with 3 rbs. It just gives more RBs relevance and better for the owners whokeep up on everyone, not just the top guys.
Not necessarily true, but we fine-tuned scoring to make top players at other positions almost equal to QBS in scoring. 12 players other than qb finished in the top 25 last year, and obviously had more separation at their positions. I've won quite a few times without drafting QBs all that early.For instance this year I've got the 7th pick. The top 4 QBs will go before I pick (Newton is being kept), and I should have whoever is left of Rice, McCoy, and Foster. No way am I taking Eli manning or Mike Vick that high. Most likely one of Eli, vick, Ryan, cutler, or Roeth will be there on the way back, and if they aren't, I'm looking at someone like CJ or McFadden or Calvin or Julio there, and I wouldn't blink at one of those either. By this point more than half of the league has 2 QBs and can't take another. I can grab someone like Dalton/Palmer/P Manning/ in the next two rounds and then grab one of the top two rookies much later. Still get some upside and have grabbed truly dynamic difference makers in the first two rounds. I'd be surprised if cutler went before it came back to me in round two.
Teams do play with 4 wr's and 2 te's......
1 RB?...yuck'crazyleggs said:
Any big site has the option for 2 QBs.
Hint: Because it is fantasy football. You aren't really putting together and NFL team. You are playing a game based on numbers.
Then why bother with the formality of specifying how many players you can start at each position? Just have some number of total roster spots, which you can fill with whatever combination of positions you like - 10 RBs and two TEs, whatever. If the numbers work out, you win. Not very much fun, in my opinion.I come back to the idea that we should be building a simulated ("fantasy") NFL team, not just a random collection of positions. Do whatever floats your boat, but you're definitely straying from the original intent.
So you pick offensive linemen? Fullbacks? Punters? You can't simulate an NFL team without those guys. But I'm guessing you don't have those guys on your team.
No, but that's beside the point. If you can figure out a way to score each position on the field, offensive and defensive, go for it - I wouldn't play in that league, but I'd understand it. What I wouldn't understand is rolling out two centers and four safeties, which would be the logical extension of what's being discussed here.I'm really not trying to pick a fight. I think it's interesting to analyze why we run our leagues the way we do, and what choices we can make to make them more entertaining and competitive. I'd rather tweak scoring and other settings rather than add duplicate/extra positions.
It isn't beside the point. If you want it as realistic as possible, you should be using all the positions otherwise you are using a terribly flawed argument. Just don't like using 2 QBs? Fine. To each his own. Leave the bad arguments out of it. You're picking players to compile numbers. That's it. Your team in no way resembles an NFL team.
Yeah, I really don't get this. Half the starting QBs are on waiver wire but people are stashing 4th and 5th string RBs on their rosters.
Like I said, if we don't care that we're trying to emulate a team structure, if we just care about numbers, why bother with positions at all? Just draft the next guy on the overall rankings list, without worrying what position he plays. The reason we don't do that is it eliminates any draft strategy, which is half the fun. Limits on available positions are restrictions which require strategy to overcome. I prefer more limits, not fewer.
You can still draft as many QBs as you like in a start 1 QB league. Stash them all on your bench if you want. But what does it matter if some QBs go undrafted? You could say the same about every other position. Each team has the best players they could/wanted to draft at each position, so if a player is on the wire it's because they weren't valued enough at draft time. Why is that a problem?Again, if your goal is to account for the relative importance of one position over the other, in my opinion the ideal solution isn't to add more of that position, but to increase that positions's relative value by modifying its scoring.
