The Flex discussion

[finkle]

We've got 3 options, I think:

Option 1 -- Status Quo -- 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 DEF
Option 2 -- Allows 3rd RB, 3rd WR or 2nd TE -- 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 Flex, 1 K, 1 DEF
Option 3 -- Allows 3rd WR or 2nd TE -- 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 Flex, 1 K, 1 Def

I tend to prefer the status quo, but could live with Option 3. Option 2 makes the RB pool too thin.

12 teams, 1 starter.....32 starting QB in league..... approx 1/3 ratio
12 teams, 2 starters.....approx 34 viable RB....... approx 2/3
option 2 means that at least 24 RB will be started....possibly up to 30 or so......bye weeks are horrible.

with option 3, you're going to have some teams choosing to run a 1 QB, 1 RB, 3 WR type of offense.....it levels the playing field a little so it's not a "grab two stud RB or else" type of league.

i think i'm talking myself into option 3

["Redneck" Johnson]

My preference is option 1. I can live with option 3.

I really dislike option 2- a 3rd RB really changes the dynamics of the league.

[gk]

I don't buy that a 3rd RB is going to totally skew the league. Please tell me who is this third back that you'll be able to pick up and be a dominant fantasy force.

Contrarily, after you get past the first 10 or so RB, every team past that is going to have two featured backs. You're going to see no more than five backs that gain more than 1300 yards. On the other hand, you'll see a ton rush for 700-1000 yards.

[fatmenace]

I guess option two is fine. Just let everybody put the flex where they want. If people skewer towards RBs, won't that balance itself out with better WRs available?

[gk]

For comparison's sake, last year's 35th best running back was the immortal Tim Hightower with 112 points.

The 35th best WR was Ted Ginn with 103. So that's 9 points of difference over the course of a season. And this season I'd be willing to bet that the 35th WR will score MORE than the 35th RB.

How exactly is having a third running back so much of an advantage over a third WR?

[gk]

Aug 27, 2009 19:49:07 GMT -6 fatmenace said:

I guess option two is fine. Just let everybody put the flex where they want. If people skewer towards RBs, won't that balance itself out with better WRs available?

Yes, you're right chad. Feel free to pick up Derrick Ward everyone and I'll help myself to some Desean Jackson.

The more pertinent reason for not wanting to change is that it's a couple days before the draft. I understand if everyone's been preparing (preparing?) for the standard 2RB/2WR/1TE and that's why they want to keep it.

[grubbi]

Option 3.

["Redneck" Johnson]

My general dislike of 3 RBs in the league comes from the fact that the position is scarcer than the WRs. Each NFL team typically starts 1 RB and at least 2 WRs. With 12 teams in the league, just to fill the 2 RB positions we have to draft the starting RBs from 67% of the league just to fill their starting positions. Filling 2 WR slots per team only takes 38% of the starting receivers in the league. If we had a third flex position that's for WR/TE, we would still only take up 50% of the WR, whereas a third RB for each team means every starter will be taken.

RBs will typically get the ball at least 15 times a game, which means they're a more reliable source of points at the position. The WRs have a little higher risk- they've got other WRs competing for the ball, and it is possible their number of catches may be limited by the team gameplan involving other receivers. But this is something of a strategy- you need to find the WR who always seem to get open, or who the team is building their offense around, to be successful. And you have to build a balance between the positions.

If we have a third flex position that allows running back, it places more value on the position and changes the balance. Running Backs typically produce more solid numbers than receivers, as they're specifically given the ball several times in the game. The change also places less value on WRS because of the relative scarcity of RBs- there is less reason to take a wide receiver (of which there will be many available) in earlier rounds because they're more likely to be available later. Running backs (especially the starting ones) disappear quickly. And there are typically a decent number of WRs who go undrafted who have fantastic years and are great FA pickups- there are far fewer RBs who are this way.

Krall also brings up a good point that we're about 16 hours from draft time. That's kinda late in the game to make changes.

This is personal opinion- with the change everyone still has the same options and available and has to adjust their strategy. But I think the flex position boosts RB and hurts WR, and to me that seems like it gives teams fewer strategic options and less fun.