daullaz wrote:The Lung wrote:Flex Spots Rarely Flex: In most cases, a flex spot will either be a RB/WR or sometimes a WR/TE. Now think about this logically. If you have a second tier starting running back and a first tier 2nd or 3rd option receiver; who are you going to start 90% of the time? If you picked the WR, you’re officially an idiot. Most people with any sense pick the RB and with good reason.
I guess that I and most everyone else I play with are officially idiots then.
I'm in several 1 point-per-reception leagues where we can start 4 WRs and 2 RBs, or 3 WRs and 3 RBs. I would say that not a majority of time, but quite often, managers in these leagues start a 4th WR instead of a 3rd RB. In a PPR league, when you look at the math, it just pays off to start that 4th WR, especially if he is a PPR dynamo like Wes Welker, Derrick Mason, Hines Ward, etc. And these are not Yahoo public leagues with newbies - these are dynasty leagues comprised of hard core & expert fantasy football managers who have been playing fantasy football for over a decade.
I'm not sure I agree with many of the other points made either. Roster vultures and killing the waiver wire are directly proportional to bench size. A league that has 10 bench spots vs. 6 bench spots has a much bigger effect on what you're talking about. One flex spot hardly makes a difference.
Thanks for the article and if you've got one thing, it's conviction. But I just don't agree with the premise of the article of flex spots as poison. And I also don't think referring to your readers and fellow fantasy football enthusiasts as "idiots" is really necessary.
I was hoping that this article would garner a potentially well-thought out rebuttal, which is what this post is shading towards. Care to write a retort for the front page?
Oh No please! That would just further aggravate the issue. I believe most of the members/readers would appreciate it if you would care to edit, specifically REMOVE that insulting portion of the article. Thanks.