What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

Superflex Question - Restriction on QBs? (1 Viewer)

zamboni

zamboni

Footballguy
Sorry if this should be in another forum - here is where it's at in the offseason.

My league (deep keeper) is contemplating moving to SF in which we are eliminating the kicker and replacing it with another flex spot. 

So 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 DEF and 2 flexes (but only one of these two flexes can be a QB).

In discussing the switch, a few league members are concerned that teams may hoard QBs with only 32 starting options out there, thus holding QB needy teams at ransom. I don't share these concerns, but it is what it is. Some have mentioned a max of 3 QBs.

Question for those who use SF: do you have any restrictions on how many QBs can be owned by a roster? And if you don't have any restrictions, do you find any issues in competitive balance?

 
I play in a 16 team SF league. We have a 2 QB limit per team which doesn't include the Taxi Squad. Taxi squad rules allow up to 3 guys playing any position in their 1st 2 years in the league that have never started a game for the team they are now on.  I favor competition over allowing teams to stockpile resources and hold big advantages over many years as leagues that don't allow teams to crawl back into competition usually die from that, and this 2 QB rule helps a lot in stoppig QB stockpiles, but gives room to develop kids while remaining competitive.

 
Catbird said:
I play in a 16 team SF league. We have a 2 QB limit per team which doesn't include the Taxi Squad. Taxi squad rules allow up to 3 guys playing any position in their 1st 2 years in the league that have never started a game for the team they are now on.  I favor competition over allowing teams to stockpile resources and hold big advantages over many years as leagues that don't allow teams to crawl back into competition usually die from that, and this 2 QB rule helps a lot in stoppig QB stockpiles, but gives room to develop kids while remaining competitive.
Click to expand...
In a 16 Team league, this actually makes some sense. I won't argue with it in a league this big.

 
Catbird said:
I play in a 16 team SF league. We have a 2 QB limit per team which doesn't include the Taxi Squad. Taxi squad rules allow up to 3 guys playing any position in their 1st 2 years in the league that have never started a game for the team they are now on.  I favor competition over allowing teams to stockpile resources and hold big advantages over many years as leagues that don't allow teams to crawl back into competition usually die from that, and this 2 QB rule helps a lot in stoppig QB stockpiles, but gives room to develop kids while remaining competitive.
Click to expand...
I can see a case limiting QBs with 16 team leagues.

I should have added that I'm in a 10 team league and it would be start 1 QB with the option to flex another. Even though it effectively becomes a start 2 QB league when you're allowed to flex QB.

 
I've been in a few SF leagues with QB limits (used to be more common, most places don't have them anymore) and in almost every case they were almost universally hated by league members and eventually done away with.

As someone above mentioned, you don't HAVE to start a QB in the SF spot.  Plus what QB limits really punishes is not someone hoarding a bunch of starters, but rather having room to hold developmental QBs.

Besides, if someone wants to try and hoard QBs you can let them.  It rarely works out.  It's all part of the strategy.

Bottom line, personally, I would not even consider joining a league that had QB limits. 

 
I would not want a limit. HOWEVER, since this is an existing league, I wouldnt have an issue having a limit for say, the next two years. 

If it was a new draft, I would feel differently. 

 
zamboni said:
I can see a case limiting QBs with 16 team leagues.

I should have added that I'm in a 10 team league and it would be start 1 QB with the option to flex another. Even though it effectively becomes a start 2 QB league when you're allowed to flex QB.
Click to expand...
Regarding the bolded - that's a different issue then, as if your scoring is such that QBs score that much more than other positions so that it becomes a de facto start 2 QB league, you may as well just make it a start 2 QB league. If your league is making such a big change like adding in a SF, it may also be a good time to examine the scoring to see if some tweaks there are in order to make the flex spot something that is a possible value to start more than just a 2nd QB

 
I am strongly against positional limits. Are there limits on any other positions? We look at the team with 5+ top 24 RBs or WRs and say what great depth they have. Do they not have an advantage because of that, even if they have more than they can use in a starting lineup?

The QB position should not be micro-managed unless all other positions are likewise limited. There are opportunity costs associated with team building and owners should have their choice in how they want their team to be constructed. As this is an existing league that is moving to superflex rather than a startup, I could see there being a limit on how many QBs a team can protect while transitioning from the season without SF to the one with SF but that should be in the rules before the decision on when the transition occurs.

 
acarey50 said:
Regarding the bolded - that's a different issue then, as if your scoring is such that QBs score that much more than other positions so that it becomes a de facto start 2 QB league, you may as well just make it a start 2 QB league. If your league is making such a big change like adding in a SF, it may also be a good time to examine the scoring to see if some tweaks there are in order to make the flex spot something that is a possible value to start more than just a 2nd QB
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think we'll get there, but this is baby steps to placate those that still have a hard time letting go of the traditional flex. 

 
zaner75 said:
I am strongly against positional limits. Are there limits on any other positions? We look at the team with 5+ top 24 RBs or WRs and say what great depth they have. Do they not have an advantage because of that, even if they have more than they can use in a starting lineup?

The QB position should not be micro-managed unless all other positions are likewise limited. There are opportunity costs associated with team building and owners should have their choice in how they want their team to be constructed. As this is an existing league that is moving to superflex rather than a startup, I could see there being a limit on how many QBs a team can protect while transitioning from the season without SF to the one with SF but that should be in the rules before the decision on when the transition occurs.
Click to expand...
There are no limits on other positions, but that makes sense given that there are only 32 starting QBs and tons of RB and WR.

Your bolded statement is spot on - we keep 8 and in our transition year we are allowing teams to keep only one QB because teams did not have a chance to prepare for it. Sucks for me, as I have Allen, Burrow and Hurts on my roster, but hopefully I can move at least one of them.

 
There are a lot of RBs and WRs but starting roster requirements account for the difference. People have backup RBs and/or handcuffs on their bench because if the starter gets injured, they have now have a usable player. Should be the same for QB. Someone like Hurts wouldn't have even been rostered in a league with a positional limit. Then the owner with the most FAAB or highest waiver priority lucks into a starting QB rather than someone with foresight to take a risk and stash a backup QB much like stashing a high-upside/injury away RB.

Likewise in drafts, if Lance sits all year behind Garoppolo, he is not helping in 2021 but his upside is worth a top 4 pick in rookie drafts. Having a positional limit punishes the owner who wants to take a long-term view at building QB. Hopefully the fear of the new doesn't overcome rational thinking in your league. Best of luck to you.

 
Also, in a 10 team league that's a max of 20 QBs that can be started. Compare with 30-40 RB and 40-50 WR. If someone paints themself into a corner by not having 2 QBs, I would say that's their own doing.

 
As has been stated many times so far, this is not a start 2 QB league so you don't have to start two.  No limits should be required but if the scoring is that skewed towards QB it may be time to adjust to bring it in line with other positions so a SF isn't basically a 2QB by a different name.  

 
zamboni said:
There are no limits on other positions, but that makes sense given that there are only 32 starting QBs and tons of RB and WR.

Your bolded statement is spot on - we keep 8 and in our transition year we are allowing teams to keep only one QB because teams did not have a chance to prepare for it. Sucks for me, as I have Allen, Burrow and Hurts on my roster, but hopefully I can move at least one of them.
Click to expand...
Wait, you only keep 8 players?  AND it's only a 10 team league?

Yeah there is absolutely zero reason to have QB limits in that format.  Well really there is zero reason to have QB limits in any format but especially in this.  If some fool wants to use 5 of their 8 keeper slots on QBs when there are still 27 more QBs available for the other 18 QB starting spots (actually 9, with 9 spots that don't have to be a QB) then let them ruin their team.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL said:
Wait, you only keep 8 players?  AND it's only a 10 team league?

Yeah there is absolutely zero reason to have QB limits in that format.  Well really there is zero reason to have QB limits in any format but especially in this.  If some fool wants to use 5 of their 8 keeper slots on QBs when there are still 27 more QBs available for the other 18 QB starting spots (actually 9, with 9 spots that don't have to be a QB) then let them ruin their team.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I’ve said but some people just don’t get it - or want to get it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 Absolutely no reason to limit number of QBs in a 10 team superflex. There are plenty of QBs to go around.

Even in 12 team leagues, there are enough to go around for the most part. Four teams will be short a third QB by default, but since you don't have to start 2 QBs, you just cover the byes/injuries with a RB or WR that week. One or two teams might try and horde QBs, but rarely do they get the trade bump they think they will get out of it.

Something not mentioned yet is in superflex leagues it can be somewhat important to handcuff your QBs. So you wouldn't want to limit the number of QB spots if you go that route. You don't see QB handcuffing in traditional 1 QB start leagues, but a good number of teams do it in superflex.

 
Catbird said:
I play in a 16 team SF league. We have a 2 QB limit per team which doesn't include the Taxi Squad. Taxi squad rules allow up to 3 guys playing any position in their 1st 2 years in the league that have never started a game for the team they are now on.  I favor competition over allowing teams to stockpile resources and hold big advantages over many years as leagues that don't allow teams to crawl back into competition usually die from that, and this 2 QB rule helps a lot in stoppig QB stockpiles, but gives room to develop kids while remaining competitive.
Click to expand...
I play in multiple 16-team SF leagues and none of them have a QB limit.

The only league where I've ever seen one was in a 32-team league.

 
zamboni said:
Sorry if this should be in another forum - here is where it's at in the offseason.

My league (deep keeper) is contemplating moving to SF in which we are eliminating the kicker and replacing it with another flex spot. 

So 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 DEF and 2 flexes (but only one of these two flexes can be a QB).

In discussing the switch, a few league members are concerned that teams may hoard QBs with only 32 starting options out there, thus holding QB needy teams at ransom. I don't share these concerns, but it is what it is. Some have mentioned a max of 3 QBs.

Question for those who use SF: do you have any restrictions on how many QBs can be owned by a roster? And if you don't have any restrictions, do you find any issues in competitive balance?
Click to expand...
So my 20yr big league is almost identical to yours (keeper, same starting roster spots,etc). We moved over to SF 5/6 yrs ago and it’s been great.  No QB hoarding issues but we’re a “short” bench style league, only 6 bench spots and IR’s, so that likely helps any hoarding as if someone does it leaves them extremely short somewhere else.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
So my 20yr big league is almost identical to yours (keeper, same starting roster spots,etc). We moved over to SF 5/6 yrs ago and it’s been great.  No QB hoarding issues but we’re a “short” bench style league, only 6 bench spots and IR’s, so that likely helps any hoarding as if someone does it leaves them extremely short somewhere else.  
Click to expand...
We have slightly bigger rosters (20) but I think the hoarding concerns are overblown as mentioned above. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JohnnyU
Help me understand Superflex with regards to mediocre QBs
Replies
24
Views
676
Tonycarpenter
Tonycarpenter
S
Unusual 8 team "superflex" league question
Replies
1
Views
451
pinequick
pinequick
Hot Sauce Guy
Superflex Vs Standard - Let’s Talk About It
Replies
37
Views
1K
msudaisy26
msudaisy26

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top