FLEX...good or bad?

[RubeRiot]

Hey guys!
I joined a 10 team PPR keeper league this year and I've suggested they add a flex position to their starting line-up option. Right now they start...1Q, 3WR, 2RB, 1TE, 1K, 1DEF...but I'd really like to see them take that #3 WR spot and turn it into a flex RB/WR position.

What are your aguments FOR or AGAINST having a flex roster spot.

...so far, the resistance I've heard is that it gives an unfair advantage to teams who have 3 good RBs because that team would dominate because RBs score more points than WRs...but this is a PPR league, so I don't think that is true.

Thoughts?

[dream_017]

Check out this

[BrutallyHuge]

Are you talking for next year?

We just added a flex this year. Most people like it because it really helps on injuries/bye weeks. You can do matchups better.

I drafted RBs in the first 3 rounds. Having 3 solid RBs goes a long way. I got Holmes, Tiki, and LaMont. They've anchored my team so far.

[Cornbread Maxwell]

Not a big fan of the flex position myself - same with PPR. I prefer pretty standard formats.

[GreatestShowOnEarth]

I really like flex positions. I think it just adds more strategy and "flexibility" into fantasy football. I really dont understand why people are against it...

[RubeRiot]

Are you talking for next year?

We just added a flex this year. Most people like it because it really helps on injuries/bye weeks. You can do matchups better.

Yes, talking about next year. There is no way they'd change this mid season (even thought it would really help my team).

[Cornbread Maxwell]

I guess one reason Im against it is that I dont see the need to incorporate flexibility and I disagree with the theory that it increases strategy.

I like having set positions because that IMO is the ultimate in maximizing strategy. You cant fudge a position and make up for it as easily when you must start a RB or WR or TE.

[RubeRiot]

I guess one reason Im against it is that I dont see the need to incorporate flexibility and I disagree with the theory that it increases strategy.

I understand what you're saying, but I think starting 3 WRs is too many. If they don't want to add a flex, I'd rather see them eliminate that 3rd WR spot on the starting line-up.

[Matthias]

I guess one reason Im against it is that I dont see the need to incorporate flexibility and I disagree with the theory that it increases strategy.

I understand what you're saying, but I think starting 3 WRs is too many. If they don't want to add a flex, I'd rather see them eliminate that 3rd WR spot on the starting line-up.

i'm completely the other way. in the league i setup, we have 2 rb's, 3 wr's, and a flex. which i like because in a 12-team league, not everybody is going to have a 3rd startable rb. or a really great 3rd startable wr, for that matter. so it forces hard decisions in drafting and trading. it gets to the point where maybe you start a chris perry (it's been done in this league) or you look around and the best wr available is cedric wilson. i mean, really, anyone can luck into a winning starting lineup in a 8-team, 2-rb, 2-wr, no flex league.

basically, i'm all for creating real player scarcity without making it completely impossible to field a team. and so for that, the flex position is a nice compromise.

[Sixxgunn]

I prefer to give the option to get as close to a real NFL lineup as possible. Our league uses two flex spots to achieve this.


QB
RB
RB/WR
WR
WR
WR/TE
K
D

This seems to make everyone happy, and it allows you to make up for a mistake early in the draft if you do your homework. You can start up to 4 WR's in this setup, and if you grab studs like CJ and TO early, you can get guys like Caddy and Parker later and do relatively well.