NFFC Message Boards

Greg - Do you think there's any chance of expanding the use of the flex position to include QB, K, and Def in the 2006 NFFC? With one stipulation....If someone chose to use a QB at Flex, their flex QB score would only count 50%. For example, if someone uses D.Carr at flex and he scores 20 pts, only 10 would count.

I never played in a league like this but it seems to me this might only be helping weaker teams to fill out their starting roster. Why would you want that?

Originally posted by Nag':
I never played in a league like this but it seems to me this might only be helping weaker teams to fill out their starting roster. Why would you want that? 1) help teams who have significant injuries
2) increase owner strategy
3) specifically for QB, this would move their relative value up. much like starting 2 catchers in fantasy baseball leagues

i'm not 100% sold on the idea. i thought i'd throw it out and see greg's (and others) thoughts...

Originally posted by Nag':
I never played in a league like this but it seems to me this might only be helping weaker teams to fill out their starting roster. Why would you want that? My initial thought is in agreement with Nag, however I'm open to discussion as I haven't put any real time into this post.

two comments so far. both initially say something like it ..."helps weaker teams to fill out their starting roster"

1) i thought it would help all teams fill out their starting roster.

2) using the reverse logic, if the flex position was only able to be filled by let's say RB, would that mean that it only helps "stronger" teams fill out their starting roster?

I played in The Draft 2003 where they had QB included in the Flex position and honestly didn't like it (the rule; the event was great). Some teams took two QBs with their first three picks, which was wild. I'm not saying that it's bad, but for me it was wild. It's certainly not out of the realm to use K or D for Flex, although again I'm not sure we'd be adding a whole lot of options. The QB is the big one and right now I have no intentions of that in 2006 or beyond. But I always can be pursuaded with fact-filled arguments, you know that.

How about a league where you have to start 2 QBs, 4 WRs, 3 RBs, 2 TEs?

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
two comments so far. both initially say something like it ..."helps weaker teams to fill out their starting roster"

1) i thought it would help all teams fill out their starting roster.

2) using the reverse logic, if the flex position was only able to be filled by let's say RB, would that mean that it only helps "stronger" teams fill out their starting roster? In theory only - the larger the player pool, the more luck becomes a factor. You could shoot all kinds of holes in this theory but in it's simplified form I believe it gives you a greater margin for error. Again, in theory only, I think this helps weaker teams more.

I have more to add, but not on this thread. I'll shoot you an e-mail.

Originally posted by Route C:
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
two comments so far. both initially say something like it ..."helps weaker teams to fill out their starting roster"

1) i thought it would help all teams fill out their starting roster.

2) using the reverse logic, if the flex position was only able to be filled by let's say RB, would that mean that it only helps "stronger" teams fill out their starting roster? In theory only - the larger the player pool, the more luck becomes a factor. You could shoot all kinds of holes in this theory but in it's simplified form I believe it gives you a greater margin for error. Again, in theory only, I think this helps weaker teams more.

I have more to add, but not on this thread. I'll shoot you an e-mail. [/QUOTE]I totally disagree, RC - you give me more strategy and more options and more ability to manage and I bet I get more out of it than a weaker owner might.

D

Originally posted by Dyv:
I totally disagree, RC - you give me more strategy and more options and more ability to manage and I bet I get more out of it than a weaker owner might. D - this is getting odd how much we see things in the same light. are we the same person. muuhahaha!