Flex position poll

[fatmenace]

OK, per Krall we have a poll. Pick which flex position you want. There's been enough debate already, so go!

[fatmenace]

Krall convinced me, so I changed my vote to option 2.

[mayor]

I voted option 2.

[gk]

Get on the bus!

btw. We should probably figure this out today, no?

[tornadorider]

I am flip flopping back and forth between option 1 and 2. Today, at this time, I voted option 1. But ask me in a couple of hours and ... So I'll be happy with either choice.

[grubbi]

I went option 3. Please don't let me be alone.

[finkle]

i don't mind option 3....but i hate option 2, and since option 1 right now is the only thing that can catch option 2, i'm voting 1

[gk]

John is employing filibuster tactics now.

I'm ok with the status quo since it's so close to the draft. But I'd like to get a better explanation of why you have such an aversion to having that flex be RB/WR/TE.

My arguments are thusly, please refute them.

1) More positions = more options = more fun. Always a good thing (does not apply to kickers and defenses).

2) RB-by-committees. This season and future seasons will see a shift towards RB-by-committees that give two running backs 13 carries a game, rather than one running back get 26 carries a game. And this allows you to capture some of the value in that Leon Washington type back.

3) What's the difference if you allow RBs to be a Flex? By the time you get to that third RB or third WR, running backs and receivers are essentially equal in value (see previous post about Ted Ginn). (side note: in fantasy - and real - baseball, you're allowed to make any player you want to be the DH. You want Dan Uggla to be your DH? Go right ahead. That's what the Flex is: a designated scorer)

4) SCARCITY IS A GOOD THING. The vibe I'm picking up is that you're afraid that there won't be enough running backs to go around. And you're right: there are only maybe eight teams that have a full time running back, so they have a ton of value. But so does Andre Johnson. There's already a scarcity of elite wide receivers - probably moreso than running backs. And you know what: THAT'S WHAT MAKES FANTASY FOOTBALL FUN! For the same reason that 10-team leagues suck a$$, having to find that extra RB or WR is what separates teams. Nothing sucks worse than the team that picks up some guy off waivers in week one and that person explodes and destroys the whole league. More scarcity means less reliance on waiver wire pickups. That's a GOOD thing.

So to recap: it's more fun, makes the draft more important, makes teams study harder, takes out some of the waiver wire-pickup-of-destruction BS, it allows you to customize your team more, and in the end, doesn't make a ton of difference whether the player is a running back or a wide receiver.

[finkle]

i like flex positions (well, sorta)

i just don't like 3RB because of the numbers thing. grant did good job w/the math, but it's a little odd that in fantasy football, 2 RB has always been the norm when most teams have only 1 RB.

i'd be perfectly happy with the following being options for starting lineups (1 QB, 1 K and 1 D all being standard):
2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE
1 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE
1 RB, 2 WR, 2 TE

this is option 3, and in it the RB position isn't harder to fill than the others.

oh, and guess what? we're a suck-ass 10 team league again this year. the empire can't strike back anymore, and to make things even, my mom volunteered to step back. unless of course, we have a last-minute option.....

[fatmenace]

Wow, I actually like ten team leagues. More talent. I mean, I don't like losing the Empire or your mom, but as a whole I prefer ten teams.

Wait, we didn't REALLY vote out Empire, did we?

[fatmenace]

Krall is right though. Most teams are now employing multiple RBs. Dallas has 3 legitimate backs. I think the time for a flex has come. FF should change with the times too.

[finkle]

let's all (well, geoff, chad and me...unless someone else is paying attention) count how many viable RB we think there are.....then come back and compare notes

[finkle]

i'm looking at projections for a site that i use:

i took the projections and calculated touches for the top 50 RB (rushes plus receptions)
4 - 20+/game
8 - 18-20
11 - 15-18
9 - 12-14
7 - 10-12
11 - 7.5-10

i dunno.... i don't like it, but perhaps with only 10 teams, this is the year we could afford trying it. on a probationary basis -- sorta like jerry's pleasure palace

[gk]

Wait, we have 10 teams??

[finkle]

empire had to bail....that left us w/11.....one team had to drop and shechitah offered