Roster Slots - weigh in please

[rwren 3]

I'm a long time commissioner and each year I evaluate our rules to see what is in the best interest of our league. I take in feedback from all my owners and implement things from time to time. Our current roster rules are  1qb, 2 rb, 2wr, 1te, 2 flex(rb/wr/te) and 1 def.  -- Some in our league want to move to 3 WRS and to PPR (Currently at .5 ) - I feel both of those are too big a jump and I'm a believer in smaller incremental changes. That said, I'm open to many ideas. Have thought about changing 1 flex to rb/wr and the 2nd flex to wr/te. That would give teams the ability to start up to 4 WRs if they choose. Also , would prevent teams from starting 4 RBs.  Some of this comes from the auction prices where RBS are going in the 50-80 dollar range so the thought is that these changes would reduce RB value.   

Would love to hear your thoughts and suggestions. Thanks in advance!

[weepaws 3,062]

Vote. 

[AxeElf 787]

They can already start up to 4 WRs--2 WR and 2 Flex.

Your idea to make one Flex limited to WR or TE means that you're just turning one Flex slot into a 3rd WR (at least the vast majority of the time, unless someone has a TE2 that can regularly outscore WR3s).

So if you do that, you might as well just go to 3 WRs and 1 Flex, because that's essentially what will happen anyway.

[rwren 3]

50 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

They can already start up to 4 WRs--2 WR and 2 Flex.

Your idea to make one Flex limited to WR or TE means that you're just turning one Flex slot into a 3rd WR (at least the vast majority of the time, unless someone has a TE2 that can regularly outscore WR3s).

So if you do that, you might as well just go to 3 WRs and 1 Flex, because that's essentially what will happen anyway.

True, not attempting to emphasize WR as much as deemphasize RB. In other words, under my idea they can start 3 RBs max. 

[AxeElf 787]

56 minutes ago, rwren said:

True, not attempting to emphasize WR as much as deemphasize RB. In other words, under my idea they can start 3 RBs max. 

Going to PPR from Half-PPR will also de-emphasize (most) RBs.

[easilyscan 747]

2 hours ago, rwren said:

Some in our league want to move to 3 WRS and to PPR (Currently at .5 )

How many is some & how many teams in your league ?

 

 

[rwren 3]

15 hours ago, easilyscan said:

How many is some & how many teams in your league ?

 

 

10 team league. Maybe 2-3 owners. Most owners in our league don't really care one way or another when it comes to rule changes.  But that's not really the point. When considering rule changes, I want to weigh the pros and cons so I want to get feedback from different people. 

[rwren 3]

16 hours ago, AxeElf said:

Going to PPR from Half-PPR will also de-emphasize (most) RBs.

That's true for sure. Of course, in some formats, you can do 1 PPR for WR/TE and .5 PPR for RB. So that's a consideration. I've never really liked full PPR. I think that's too much value to a reception. because not all receptions are equal. Another idea I had was bonus points for 1st down receptions. 

[weepaws 3,062]

Agree with that, I’d rather be a 1/2 point or non ppr.  Not a fan of a full ppr.  

[rwren 3]

6 minutes ago, weepaws said:

Agree with that, I’d rather be a 1/2 point or non ppr.  Not a fan of a full ppr.  

The more I think about it, the less inclined I am to change scoring. I'm leaning toward increase the RB supply by reducing the max position limit and lineup. Currently we allow 6 Rbs on a roster and because they get injured more often than WRs do, owners load up on them. I'm thinking that maybe going with 2 rb and 3 wr and no flexes in combination with reducing the position limit from 6 to 4 may be the way to go. 

[weepaws 3,062]

I prefer a flex.  

[Showboat 250]

To each their own, but in general I prefer more flex positions, especially if there are a larger number of teams (12, 14 , 16).  Why require every team to field a TE when there are only a handful that are really viable every-week starters?  Why require teams to start two running backs when we know they get injured forcing teams to hoard any potential decent ones?  Even the NFL has gone the flex route with players like Deebo and Cordarrelle essentially playing RB.  The positional distinction invites further shenanigans when player positions don't really match their function (and pretty much all of the decent TEs are really performing the function of a receiver).  So if someone can accumulate 4 or 5 RBs they want to start - more power to them.  Just don't make the rest of the league scrounge for the remaining RBs - let them counter with 4 or 5 top flight receivers.  

[rwren 3]

23 hours ago, Showboat said:

To each their own, but in general I prefer more flex positions, especially if there are a larger number of teams (12, 14 , 16).  Why require every team to field a TE when there are only a handful that are really viable every-week starters?  Why require teams to start two running backs when we know they get injured forcing teams to hoard any potential decent ones?  Even the NFL has gone the flex route with players like Deebo and Cordarrelle essentially playing RB.  The positional distinction invites further shenanigans when player positions don't really match their function (and pretty much all of the decent TEs are really performing the function of a receiver).  So if someone can accumulate 4 or 5 RBs they want to start - more power to them.  Just don't make the rest of the league scrounge for the remaining RBs - let them counter with 4 or 5 top flight receivers.  

Good thoughts. So basically a lineup of 1 qb, 5-6 flex spots, and a defense would be an example.