Flex

Route Collectors · Post by **Route Collectors** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 8:40 am

Originally posted by Dyv:
quote: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 [/QUOTE]I'll agree to disagree on this one unless something more than opinion comes into play.

Anyone besides Greg have any experience with this?

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:14 am

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 [/QB]The point is not that we can better use the stategy, the point is that a weaker team will be helped more by having more options.

This would provide for more STARTING talent to weaker teams. Currently, leagues are won in the middle rounds and the sleepers. It is the either WR3/4 or the RB2/3 that essentially makes a winning team. The people who research these areas will do better to fill the flex position than the person coming in holding their magazine. So giving them an "out" with another QB to start only helps them, not us.

btw- I would rather have a QB2 than RB3 or WR4 in the flex position.

Using pure numbers from 2004, and taking away the top spots in each position to cover the mandatory starting positions (14 QBs, 28 RBs and 42 WRs) this is what we are left with with the next 14 spots in each position...

QBs 15-29, scoring ranged from 281 to 160
RBs 29-37 scoring ranged from 159 to 83
WRs 43-50 scoring ranged from 153 to 108

So the best remaining RBs or WRs does not beat the 28th ranked QB

So basically, the flex would just be a 2nd QB spot. Why would you want to give your opponent more options?

I can see the thread now after a team drafts 5/6 starting QBs preventing their opponents from getting a strong flex player. (We need to change the rules because someone found a loophole)

disclaimer, I just used the raw nunbers from last year and did not take into account injuries. playing time or anything else...

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:17 am

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
So basically, the flex would just be a 2nd QB spot. Why would you want to give your opponent more options?perhaps you missed the QB "rule" for the flex spot...

If someone chose to use a QB at Flex, their flex QB score would only count 50% (of the actual pts he scored).

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:36 am

reduced by 50% - So when did you lose your essense of fantasy sports?

I can see it now teams are tied going into Monday night, Farve (in flex) throws 200 ys and 2 TDs (11 points), the opponent has Dorsey Levens who plays one play and has 1 catch for 50 yards for a TD (11.5 points)....

Remember when fantasy sports used to be exciting... Let's here it for parity.

[ August 06, 2005, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Vega$ Gambler$ ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 11:46 am

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
reduced by 50% - So when did you lose your essense of fantasy sports?

I can see it now teams are tied going into Monday night, Farve (in flex) throws 200 ys and 2 TDs (11 points), the opponent has Dorsey Levens who plays one play and has 1 catch for 50 yards for a TD (11.5 points)....

Remember when fantasy sports used to be exciting... Let's here it for parity. you haven't said anything new. your post doesn't hurt the QB flex option at all. try again

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 12:17 pm

I didn't realize I needed to say something new to have a valid point, sorry.

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:50 pm

As long as a team has healthy #2 or #3 QBs on their roster, one of those QB will most likely be started ahead of the K or D at the flex, even with 50% point reduction. As VG explains, this will give the weaker teams an "out" whenever they run out of Flex options from their RB or WR positions. GG and Dyv, I agree that adding these positions to the flex increases some draft/roster strategies, but overall it does not help the more skilled owner. If the two of you don't agree with this and believe the opposite to be true, that is obviously your opinion and I dont have the facts to tell you you're wrong, but I will definitely tell you that you're in the minority.

PS. I also wanted to add that as it stands now, in this 14 team league setup, the hardest thing to do (IMO) is to find consistent production out of your flex spot. The talent is spread so thin, this production usually separates the average teams from the Championship contenders. Again, giving these average teams another option to start at this coveted Flex spot is leveling the playing field.

[ August 07, 2005, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Nag' ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:05 am

Originally posted by Nag':
As VG explains, this will give the weaker teams an "out" whenever they run out of Flex options from their RB or WR positions. GG and Dyv, I agree that adding these positions to the flex increases some draft/roster strategies, but overall it does not help the more skilled owner. If the two of you don't agree with this and believe the opposite to be true, that is obviously your opinion and I dont have the facts to tell you you're wrong, but I will definitely tell you that you're in the minority.listen to what you're saying...(correct me if I'm wrong) if there are more flex options available to your starting lineup, you're saying a non-skilled owner would be able to utilize that stratgy better than YOU? why couldn't you have a better flex player than them?

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:48 am

You're spinning it Gekko. The less skilled owner will not have MORE options, he will have ONE surefire option to start as the flex with the QB as noone will ever be starting a K or D, I promise you - if they are, they're dead anyway. As a admitted, there would certainly be changes in draft strategies with regards to the QB position if these rules was implemented, but don't think these strategies are somehow top secret and won't be immideately revealed, even to the "less skilled" owner we keep referring to. QBs will get a slight (or more than slight) bump in the drafts but everyone should still be able to draft a decent starter and backup, so everyone will have the QB to fall back on, should they not have a good enough RB or WR to start at the flex.

Anyhow, this is my stance on this issue. You're welcome to yours, and you're welcome to believe you're right and everyone else is wrong, as you normally do. It's all a moot point since this rule will not be getting implemented in the near future, at least not here.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:55 am

Originally posted by Nag':
noone will ever be starting a K or D, I promise you - if they are, they're dead anyway. you're mistaken. weekly matchups would dictate who you play....as it does now