Why Note Have Backups?

[TradeStar28]

Originally posted by Ico Jones:
If a QB is a gametime decision and the gametime decision is that he can't play, does an NFL team have to play without a QB? Of course not. So why should a fantasy team have to.

What would be so bad about being able to designate a single backup for each position -- 1QB, 1 RB, 1 WR, 1 Flex, 1 K that is used in the event that a player does not play a single down in a given week's games? Probably wouldn't need a backup Defense.

Whenever I mention this idea, people always seem to hate it, so don't worry, you won't hurt my feelings. I think its a terrible idea and I am Ico Jones partner in NFFC...

If you suggested bikini clad Coors Lite girls at the draft in NYC...then maybe you would be onto something!

[JerseyPaul]

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
Not gonna happen. Okay, I'll expand on my previous lengthy response

To have a backup at each position would require 2 players on your roster for each position. For many teams that isn't a problem but for some, other strategies would not allow that. Why should teams with a standard strategy have that advantage. Conversely, why should the rules dictate roster strategy.

As for team QBs, that is less of an issue but again a team QB is the easy way out. Why should the Vick owner with a QB that is known to take more physical risks during a game have that risk mitigated (I know, big word for you guys) by knowing his backup will score points when he breaks his leg.

When you draft you need to consider all this stuff in your selection. Any rule that lessens risk also lessens the advantage of those that consider all factors.

You can't forecast injury but you can forecast injury risk based on history, physical characteristics and playing style.

Lastly, there is always the element of luck. Guys with no injury history can go down and "Fragile Freddies" can play 16 games and have career years, But I rather let luck and skill win this thing, and not try to diminish them with rules.

[Greg Ambrosius]

I think if you look at the Draft Masters League rules, you'll see that your idea is covered there. If your main quarterback goes down or has a bad game, one of your backups will end up scoring for you. We designed three different contests so that there are three different ways to play fantasy football. This proposed rule won't be possible this year in the NFFC, but those who want the safety net of backups, please check out the Draft Masters League rules and consider that contest as well!

[lichtman]

JP -- Every rule set has its own strategies. It doesn't give the guy who picks Vick an advantage -- it just changes Vick's value in a way that everyone is aware of before they draft (as if Detmer's presence would really soften the blow of Vick going down). I'll change my mind on this when the NFL stops letting head coached replace an injured QB.

Also, I disagree that luck shouldn't be minimized by rules. Luck should have as little to do with winning in fantasy football as possible. That's why I hate scoring systems that reward things like safeties, inflate long FGs to make them worth more than TDs and give arbitrary bonuses for yardage levels (that make a 100-yard game worth a lot more than a 99-yard game).

[Gordon Gekko]

Team QB is not the way to go for the main event. Sorry for those that support it.

[TamuScarecrow]

I see Team QB as an option for the Draftmasters League, but that's it. For $200,000, no.

[BONGIZMO]

As was noted, simply play in the Draftmasters event to have back ups spell your walking wounded. Another problem with having designated back ups is you are thus essentially idiot proofing the contest in that there will be less chance of an inattentive owner getting a goose egg for not moving the IR guy out or the bye person for that matter. Not gonna happen...