|
|
Post by gk on Aug 19, 2009 10:00:43 GMT -6
You know, one of those WR/RB/TE positions for DVR this year? With all the running backs splitting duties, it might allow for some players like, say, Lendale White to have value.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Aug 19, 2009 15:50:16 GMT -6
I've been saying flex instead of D for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by mayor on Aug 19, 2009 17:03:53 GMT -6
Change is always bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by grubbi on Aug 19, 2009 18:50:00 GMT -6
A flex position has its merits.
I would really like to do away with an offensive turnover score counting against the defense. It should be only what the defense allows not what the offense gives away.
|
|
|
|
Post by finkle on Aug 20, 2009 18:57:41 GMT -6
grubbi...i thought that's how we had it set up.
as for the initial question, i'm not sure that i think that change is always bad....but i'm not a huge fan of flex positions.
what are we talking about?
Current -- QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, K, D
Option1 - QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, Flex, K, D
Option 2 - QB, RB, WR, WR, TE, Flex, K, D
|
|
|
|
Post by grubbi on Aug 20, 2009 19:18:14 GMT -6
John, please check into the DEF. I want to say that that was the way it was in ANYDAY but not DVR. (John, I check on the DVR site and it says that points allowed by OFF count against DEF.)
Most would use the Flex on a RB. So option 2 would look like the Current. No change there really. Option 1 would allow the most change and a mad scramble for RBs in the beginning of the draft.
Option 1 could be fun to try and see how it works out.
|
|
|
|
Post by gk on Aug 20, 2009 19:31:31 GMT -6
I like option 1. And I wouldn't be so sure about Flex=RB. At least, not the way this year's shaping up. I'd bet no one gets 3 full-time running backs.
|
|
