Boards Fantasy NFL : Positions

TO.

Discussion and Poll for next Seasons Positions. So far we use:

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR , TE, K, DEF.

The suggestions from the Fantasy thread were:

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

or

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE, K, DEF

poldebruin

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

I had been an advocate of the flex or wr/te combo before but no more.

I'm taking part in another Boards league that is using the flex, and I have to admit, it makes team choice every week a complete no brainer. Never a decision to be made, I can always slot in my "next best player" and feels very samey every week.

Also, any incentive to put 2 TE or more on the bench should be discouraged. More than any position the talent/points/tiers for that position fall off very quickly. In today's league you should be able to acquire a serviceable stable of WRs from week to week.

Dodge

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE, K, DEF

I voted for the offensive flex.

FWIW if both flex votes reach more than the current system, I think the vote should be "run off" between 2 top vote getters

i.e. I think if more people vote for change than the status quo, I think it should be allowed happen

Mr. Guappa

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

Voting to keep the status quo. Running Backs and Tight Ends are scarce enough in a 16 team league as it is, so I don't see the sense in giving the option to field more of them. You will always find it easier to pick up a serviceable WR.

In Exile

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

I've gone status quo too. I love having to FA deep dive to try find a differential. No better feeling when your WR 3 scores 10 points when you were only hoping to score more than 0.1!

Adamcp898

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

Voted to keep it the way it is, the amount of available talent available at each position would mean the majority would end up playing a WR at flex anyway essentially making the change moot.

That being said I do have Shady, Le'Veon, Forsett, and Ingram in another league and I'd be lost without the flex position

TO.

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

Dodge wrote: »

I voted for the offensive flex.

FWIW if both flex votes reach more than the current system, I think the vote should be "run off" between 2 top vote getters

i.e. I think if more people vote for change than the status quo, I think it should be allowed happen

Honestly no I don't agree. All 3 are separate votes. The majority option wins plain and simple.

eagle eye

I'm totally against the flex option. In a 16 team league is difficult enough to find to good RBs, a flex option is going to mean players will struggle to draft two semi-decent running backs due to demand.

If I could vote again I'd vote for the current system just to make sure we don't end up with flex. Imo it will ruin the leagues.

D3PO

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

totally agree eagle eye could you imagine the bench being increased as a vote in aswell how that would screw things up !!

Im very much of the view if it aint broken don't fix it. Only change I have voted for is the scheduling one because I think it is a good one without it inherently changing the game that said I wouldn't be upset if that was voted down either.

TO.

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

D3PO wrote: »

totally agree eagle eye could you imagine the bench being increased as a vote in aswell how that would screw things up !!

Im very much of the view if it aint broken don't fix it. Only change I have voted for is the scheduling one because I think it is a good one without it inherently changing the game that said I wouldn't be upset if that was voted down either.

One of my biggest gripes with Fantasy over the years is that people want to try and change thing to make it "Easier" or more "Fun" for themselves. The problem is Fun and Easier are things that come down to to each their own.

Personally I find no problems with any system used as I use strategies to counter act the differences. Sometimes they work sometimes they don't and then luck factors in.

What I love about the Boards league is that they for me are the last remaining league that uses the default settings the old school way the hardest way to play and this makes it more fun for me. Too many leagues are moving to the flex and extra positions because people don't have the time to put the effort in.

nasty_crash

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE, K, DEF

tbh i went for the flex option - yeah there is not a lot of depth already in 18-20 man league - but i fell with the flex it will even out the leagues a lot more - you may be rb strong - or wr strong and you can load up on them! think it would only be a good thing to change - but if it stays the same then so be it!

D3PO

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

a vote for flex basically kills any prospect of trades in the boards leagues. if your wr or rb strong your not going to trade when you can put them in as a flex.

I really hope the current system prevails. A flex option is a really retrograde step IMO.

TO.

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

D3PO wrote: »

a vote for flex basically kills any prospect of trades in the boards leagues. if your wr or rb strong your not going to trade when you can put them in as a flex.

I really hope the current system prevails. A flex option is a really retrograde step IMO.

I have a feeling the flex will win out as will the 5 man bench and the reset every week on the waiver wire making the leagues in my eyes a sh1t show.

JaMarcusHustle

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

I think Flex will destroy any hope of getting a serviceable fill-in running back on bye weeks or in case of injuries.

TO.

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

I think Flex will destroy any hope of getting a serviceable fill-in running back on bye weeks or in case of injuries.

I agree. What I dont get is why others don't see that as an issue. Watch people moan in threads when they lose their backs Especially with a 5 man bench and Resetting waiver wire. Going to put a lot of stock in backs in draft.

eagle eye

Am I allowed to change my vote from WR/TE to the way it is at the moment? I'd like to change it, never thought before I voted that flex would garner so many votes.

TO.

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

eagle eye wrote: »

Am I allowed to change my vote from WR/TE to the way it is at the moment? I'd like to change it, never thought before I voted that flex would garner so many votes.

Dont think so unless a mod can do it

D3PO

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

eagle eye wrote: »

Am I allowed to change my vote from WR/TE to the way it is at the moment? I'd like to change it, never thought before I voted that flex would garner so many votes.

im sure a mod can. pm the mods and see what they can do.

eagle eye

Please read this before you vote

Guys, I'm begging you all not to vote for the flex option. It will ruin the our fantasy football because it will make it impossible for everybody to draft enough running backs.

We will end up with a situation where some teams will not be able to field two running backs.

If the flex option wins this vote it could end the whole league system we have because people will become disinterested which would be very sad imo.

Please, please, please vote for the option to remain the same as it is now.

Dodge

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE, K, DEF

Bit of an overreaction. I'd be starting WRs as flex nearly all the time if we had a choice

eagle eye

Dodge wrote: »

Bit of an overreaction. I'd be starting WRs as flex nearly all the time if we had a choice

You think so? Can you explain to me how the draft is going to go with a flex position. I know for sure that my target would be to have four RBs in the first eight rounds rounds and I think everybody would be looking at it the same way.

Mr. Guappa

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

Dodge wrote: »

Bit of an overreaction. I'd be starting WRs as flex nearly all the time if we had a choice

Maybe so, but teams will hoard RBs with the Flex. Due to a lack of RB's, I had to roll with Benny Cunningham as my RB2 in the Premier League for the last 4/5 weeks of the season. That situation will be far more common if the Flex wins this vote - I know that I would draft RB in 3 of the first 4 rounds, and probably another couple in the next 4 rounds too.

Dodge

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE, K, DEF

eagle eye wrote: »

You think so? Can you explain to me how the draft is going to go with a flex position. I know for sure that my target would be to have four RBs in the first eight rounds rounds and I think everybody would be looking at it the same way.

Well then loads of value at wide receiver for others. The draft will go the same as usual. Players have different strategies

poldebruin

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

Dodge wrote: »

Well then loads of value at wide receiver for others. The draft will go the same as usual. Players have different strategies

The flex does not pose problems with the draft or with player selection week to week, but it does curtail "management" type activity during the season. It is the management aspect that interests me the most in FF. Sure the tracking stats and winning weekly matchups is good, but if I'm honest, it's reading up about players and trying to nab them before they hit that gives me the most fun.

-We will all adjust tactics in the draft, but in reality it devalues the draft as well. There is less tactical drafting when you have a catch all position.

-No need to try and get extra depth via a trade for a surplus star player on the bench - you get to play him every week.

-WR/RB/TE on a bye? No problem play whichever one of the three replacements you want to cover.

-Worried your team is RB/WR/TE heavy, leaving you exposed? No problem plug whatever you have into the flex position.

-Short at RB but rich in WR? No need to rebalance your team through waivers or trades, flex to the rescue, Sit tight.

-Injury bug hit your team? Flex bails you out again.


.....and this is the same for every team in the league, so there is no competitive advantage to you at all.

eagle eye

Dodge wrote: »

Well then loads of value at wide receiver for others. The draft will go the same as usual. Players have different strategies

Might be loads of value at WR but its a lot easier to pick up serviceable WRs than it is RBs.

There are 32 teams in the league and most have one decent RB for fantasy purposes. 24 RBs have averaged more than 7.5 points per week. We have 16 team leagues with 2 RBs required every week and that is without a flex. Do the math, if there is a flex and some of us draft three RBs in the first four rounds then teams will be starting the likes of Turbin, Randle etc. every week as their starter.

Dodge

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE, K, DEF

eagle eye wrote: »

Might be loads of value at WR but its a lot easier to pick up serviceable WRs than it is RBs.

There are 32 teams in the league and most have one decent RB for fantasy purposes. 24 RBs have averaged more than 7.5 points per week. We have 16 team leagues with 2 RBs required every week and that is without a flex. Do the math, if there is a flex and some of us draft three RBs in the first four rounds then teams will be starting the likes of Turbin, Randle etc. every week as their starter.

I don't think you understand me. I simply don't care if you think it's harder.

If teams want to draft 4 RBs in the first 7 rounds, I'll happily take better WRs instead

eagle eye

Dodge wrote: »

I don't think you understand me. I simply don't care if you think it's harder.

If teams want to draft 4 RBs in the first 7 rounds, I'll happily take better WRs instead

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

I'm not saying its harder, I'm saying it will ruin the league because lots of teams will not be able to compete due to having no depth at RB for the two RB positions.

If you are unlucky enough that your premium RB goes on IR you can forget about signing up his handcuff because he will have been drafted.

D3PO

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

regardless of your argument on which side you fall re RB talent being hoarded or not.

The fact is the change will seriously impede on the whole functionality of player trades and weather your see it as a pro or a con it will impact on drafts to the point it will arguably make things more competitively uneven, yes some people will adapt well to the draft but many will not and a change like this is likely to make the gap between the top and bottom teams in a league larger.

that in my view is a negative because the likely consequence of that is more players giving up mid season and potentially a drop off in people entering the boards leagues.

most of us are in other leagues outside the boards one that run flex options, why would you want to change this one to be a cookie cutter of another one your in ? Personally I have no interest in playing in diff leagues with the same setup.

I'm in 3 leagues all run different setups and for me that's interesting to me. If two of them become samey that's no longer interesting and im likely to drop out of one.

Dodge

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE, K, DEF

eagle eye wrote: »

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

I'm not saying its harder, I'm saying it will ruin the league because lots of teams will not be able to compete due to having no depth at RB for the two RB positions.

If you are unlucky enough that your premium RB goes on IR you can forget about signing up his handcuff because he will have been drafted.

Here's who I had this year starting at RB.

Jamaal Charles
DeAngelo Williams
Danny Woodhead
Lorenzo Taliaferro
Branden Oliver
Jerick McKinnon
Knile Davis

All of them have helped me win games. I think you're overestimating the importance of RBs in fantasy football now

eagle eye

Dodge wrote: »

Here's who I had this year starting at RB.

Jamaal Charles
DeAngelo Williams
Danny Woodhead
Lorenzo Taliaferro
Branden Oliver
Jerick McKinnon
Knile Davis

All of them have helped me win games. I think you're overestimating the importance of RBs in fantasy football now

In a two back league that is fine. Now imagine a league where people want three RBs to start. You would have Jamaal Charles, Taliaferro and Davis/McKinnon. No much good to you for the first eight or so weeks.

D3PO

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

Dodge wrote: »

Here's who I had this year starting at RB.

Jamaal Charles
DeAngelo Williams
Danny Woodhead
Lorenzo Taliaferro
Branden Oliver
Jerick McKinnon
Knile Davis

All of them have helped me win games. I think you're overestimating the importance of RBs in fantasy football now

if you believe the role of the RB has diminished why would you be arguing to vote for one less WR spot to become a flex spot where realistically your going to be plugging in a RB if you don't stay with the status quo ?

what exactly is your point in voting for the change ......

you just shat on your whole argument

TO.

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

I play in 2 other 16 man leagues with the flex position. The two main probelms in the league:

Fook all RB if you get injuries and Fook all TE if you get injuries.

Not only do RB zap up in the league so do TE. Now people will say why would we depend on our RB or putting too much value in them. I will tell you why because that extra 5-10 point you could have scored extra per game with a decent RB, Which could have been the difference of a win in a competitive league. As for TE you lose your starting TE in a 16 man Flex league forget about finding a serviceable backup. That is another 5-10 points lost every game.

So if you end up in both situations of losing your starting back and TE you could potentially lose 10-20 a game. For me that is a big loss. Some might say its not but in competitive leagues were games run close that is a big margin.

D3PO

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

TO. wrote: »

I play in 2 other 16 man leagues with the flex position. The two main probelms in the league:

Fook all RB if you get injuries and Fook all TE if you get injuries.

Not only do RB zap up in the league so do TE. Now people will say why would we depend on our RB or putting too much value in them. I will tell you why because that extra 5-10 point you could have scored extra per game with a decent RB, Which could have been the difference of a win in a competitive league. As for TE you lose your starting TE in a 16 man Flex league forget about finding a serviceable backup. That is another 5-10 points lost every game.

So if you end up in both situations of losing your starting back and TE you could potentially lose 10-20 a game. For me that is a big loss. Some might say its not but in competitive leagues were games run close that is a big margin.

totally agree. I think this is the most pertinent post in this whole thread. somebody in a 16 man league with a flex who has direct experience of its implications.

people should read and double read this. People can argue what they want but nothing trumps direct experience of the situation.

Dodge

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE, K, DEF

D3PO wrote: »

totally agree. I think this is the most pertinent post in this whole thread. somebody in a 16 man league with a flex who has direct experience of its implications.

people should read and double read this. People can argue what they want but nothing trumps direct experience of the situation.

Ha ha. Do you think he's the only one? Come on now...

TO.

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

Dodge wrote: »

Ha ha. Do you think he's the only one? Come on now...

haha Definitely not the only one but my take on the situation either way given what was previously posted.

D3PO

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

Dodge wrote: »

Ha ha. Do you think he's the only one? Come on now...

Where did I say that .....

Dodge

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE, K, DEF

D3PO wrote: »

Where did I say that .....

So would you encourage people to read and re-read my posts as they come from someone who plays in a 16 team league with flex?

TO.

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

Dodge wrote: »

So would you encourage people to read and re-read my posts as they come from someone who plays in a 16 team league with flex?

Does it really matter though? If he feels strongly towards the current system that is up to him. Lets not turn this thread into cat fight. Personally anyone voting should read every post and make their own mind up whether they choose to take the advice on board or not.

What I would say to anyone on either side of the coin write up your experiences also playing in 16 man leagues with the flex if you feel strongly about your own vote. That way you are informing the voters on how its going to be when the flex comes in or doesnt come in.

Dodge I would encourage you and others to give your experience of it.

eagle eye

TO, the voice of reason, whats the world coming to?!:D

D3PO

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

Dodge wrote: »

So would you encourage people to read and re-read my posts as they come from someone who plays in a 16 team league with flex?

you didn't make any pertinent posts in that regard but yeah I would. im not really sure where your going with this ? you need a hug or something ? :rolleyes:

Dodge

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE, K, DEF

TO. wrote: »

Does it really matter though?

No, you're right. It doesn't

The thing is I don't even feel that strongly on the issue! I'd prefer the flex (as I enjoy having options) but I've said I'm more than happy if no changes happen to the league at all.

Apologies for the high-hosedness lads!

fisgon

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE, K, DEF

Dodge wrote: »

Well then loads of value at wide receiver for others. The draft will go the same as usual. Players have different strategies

Exactly.

There has been quite a bit of hyperbole and scaremongering about the introduction of a flex position. If we are to believe certain posters, the very future of Boards leagues is in jeopardy if we go for a flex.

I also have played in 16 team leagues with a flex, and the sky doesn't fall in. RBs may be a slight premium, but because there is more depth at WR, most people are playing a WR at flex anyway. There may be four or five extra RBs owned in the league, but then that means that there are four or five better WRs available too. It all balances out, if teams stock up on RBs they will lose out on WRs, just as now. As now, you have to weigh up where to put your priorities.

And as for teams scoring 5-10 fewer points, that makes no sense. Exactly the same number of points are scored in a league with a flex as without.

The advantage of the flex is, as the name suggests, it gives you more flexibility, especially during bye weeks or if you have a big injury. It is by far the best option for a 16 team league.

TO.

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

fisgon wrote: »

Exactly.

hyperbole and scaremongering .

Hyperbole and scaremongering what? People are not allowed voice their opinion or concerns based on their own experience without it being called scaremongering and hyperbole? Fair enough great way to offer a counter argument. Nonsense.

fisgon

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE, K, DEF

TO. wrote: »

Hyperbole and scaremongering what? People are not allowed voice their opinion or concerns based on their own experience without it being called scaremongering and hyperbole? Fair enough great way to offer a counter argument. Nonsense.

I actually made a few clear arguments in my post, but of course it is easier to just dismiss an opinion you don't like as "nonsense", rather than accepting that someone has a different opinion to you.

And let's look at some of the things said on this topic...
"I'm begging you all not to vote for the flex option. It will ruin the our fantasy football"...
and ...
"If the flex option wins this vote it could end the whole league system"
and ...
"you could potentially lose 10-20 a game"
(this of course is simply not true, no-one loses 10-20 points a game because of a flex)

So yes, absolutely, hyperbole and scaremongering.

We should be able to discuss this topic without descending into exaggeration, apocalyptic forecasts of doom and the end of Boards FF as we know it.

TO.

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

fisgon wrote: »

We should be able to discuss this topic without descending into exaggeration, apocalyptic forecasts of doom and the end of Boards FF as we know it.

Edit: Fair enough that is your opinion and my apologies for using the word nonsense probably too harsh

D3PO

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

fisgon wrote: »

I
"you could potentially lose 10-20 a game"
(this of course is simply not true, no-one loses 10-20 points a game because of a flex)

So yes, absolutely, hyperbole and scaremongering.

.

Your a muppet. Don't take part of a quote I make and call it hyperbole. Post the whole fu(king thing. Where I explained a scenario where flex could contribute to that in contrast to how the same situation would play out in the current setup.

its pathetic that you need to go take a few words and quote them out of context to make an argument. If you cant properly rebut somebodies opinion then don't bother.

poldebruin

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, K, DEF

fisgon wrote: »

The advantage of the flex is, as the name suggests, it gives you more flexibility, especially during bye weeks or if you have a big injury.

This is the crux of the issue. This is all flex does. It does not ruin a draft, affect scoring or competitiveness in the league. It just makes it easier by giving you more flexibility.

Now if you want FF to be easier, or don't like the management aspect of it then flex would be your preference. This is the opposite of what I enjoy in fantasy, and why I'm so opposed to it. It's like stabilisers on a bike for a child.

fisgon

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE, K, DEF

poldebruin wrote: »

This is the crux of the issue. This is all flex does. It does not ruin a draft, affect scoring or competitiveness in the league. It just makes it easier by giving you more flexibility.

Now if you want FF to be easier, or don't like the management aspect of it then flex would be your preference. This is the opposite of what I enjoy in fantasy, and why I'm so opposed to it. It's like stabilisers on a bike for a child.

I take your point, but I would question whether a flex makes things easier. Other people have made the point here that RBs are more scarce with a flex position, which is true to a certain extent, so it is a little harder to find a good RB, and probably easier to get a good WR. There are swings and roundabouts. Trickier in some respects, maybe easier in others.

I don't think it gets rid of the management aspect either, it changes it sure, but you still have to carefully manage your team, whatever setup we use. Whatever the rules we have, it is always going to be a challenge to put out a good starting lineup in a 16 team league.

eagle eye

If you lose your no.1 running back in flex you are in a pretty big hole.

The reason for this is that every backup will have been drafted. Basically your season is over if you lose your top running back unless you have had an incredible draft.

Dodge

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, WR/TE, K, DEF

eagle eye wrote: »

If you lose your no.1 running back in flex you are in a pretty big hole.

The reason for this is that every backup will have been drafted. Basically your season is over if you lose your top running back unless you have had an incredible draft.

I love how some saying having flex makes it too easy while others think it could make it too hard

eagle eye

Dodge wrote: »

I love how some saying having flex makes it too easy while others think it could make it too hard

I didn't say hard, its just about luck with the flex option. As I said if you lose your top running back you are in trouble, there are no ifs or buts about it.

Its not hard, its not easy its just senseless to have a flex option in a 16 team league.

There is actually a good chance I would do very well in it because I'll be taking running backs in every round until I'm happy I have enough of them. I'll worry about the rest of my team then.