Revisiting the flex debate

[gk]

So my hypothesis for making a 'flex' spot where you can use either RB or WR (or TE I suppose) was that the ~35th best running back would be about the same as the ~35th best WR. And you should be able to just use your best guy. The argument against was that if you got three excellent running backs, you would dominate. That last part may be true, but I fail to see how that's a bad thing. Anyway, let's check in on the progress of those "tweener" RB/WR players.

35th best RB: Donald Brown, 38 pts.
35th best WR: Percy Harvin, 37 pts.

Doesn't get much more even than that.

[fatmenace]

I'm enjoying the flex position. I love how TE is an option. Two TEs will never be started. Ever.

[gk]

Actually TE isn't an option (I thought it was supposed to be). And there have been times where Chris Cooley would have been a nice flex play (Tony Gonzales starting TE). Scored more than Santana Moss last week - and has several weeks.