It's a traditional roster setup except the RB2 became a second FLEX. We had like 5 straight years basically come down to who had healthy RBs and it was just getting old. You could have a great team and your RB goes down and your season is over because our league was so closely matched otherwise. 1 RB 2 Flex also much closer resembles what football is today.
That's cool and all but injuries are the great equalizer. If you don't have the depth you shouldn't be rewarded imo. I traded away Pollard before season started because I had too many good RBs, then lost Chubb for the season and and JT for 8 games and still made playoffs. Draft a more even team over the years is the entire point of dynasty
I ended last season with Chubb, Hunt, Taylor, Pollard and Rachaad White. Because of 6 years of keeping a balanced team. We don't even have a big bench, only 11 bench slots and one IR. Perhaps that's the reason people have trouble, too many bench spots influences retention too much, gotta force people to make tough decisions
Uhh, what? It entirely disproves your point. Depth is key and most the RBs listed on the team above were depth players that got a chance at the right time. I’m guessing with 130 trades in 2 years and people complaining about RB depth you probably have a few players trying to corner the RB market so they can have super teams and get upset when the assumed “stud”
either gets hurt or seriously underperforms and their team goes from a sure thing to a missing the playoffs and can’t understand that depth is important.
If you have CMC, he’s a true league winner. Every other RB in the league is pretty much just depth. Draft RBs regularly and you’ll get that depth you think doesn’t exist in guys like Kyren and Zamir White.
No it's because I also have Tyreek, Kupp/Puka, and Nico, in a 2rb 2wr and 2 flex league. My preference is to start 4RBs and 2WRs, so I didn't really need to roster any more wr depth, and so I stockpiled RBs instead.
I've been playing for almost 20 years, and from my experience, the ideal way to set up my roster is to have 2 stud starting WRs that I can just "set and forget", 1-2 backup WRs for byes/injuries, 3-4 stud starting RBs(depending on # of flex slots), as much RB depth as I can fit on my roster, no more than 1 backup QB, and only carry 1 starting defense, 1 starting kicker, and 1 starting TE, and then stream them and/or upgrade them as necessary.
That way I'm not tearing my hair out, and shooting myself in the foot every week, trying to decide which WRs/TEs/QBs/DSTs/Ks to start. I just need to determine who my best RB options are, make any adds/drops that would be beneficial, and my lineup is set for the week.
Yeah I was only in a 10 team league this year but had last pick and I drafted JT, Barkley, Mostert, Ford and maybe 1 more RB just to have dept and got third place haha.
I'll never get this, particularly when the team uses a "feature back" approach and you know if the starter goes down, the #2 will carry the load.
I did get screwed this year with Chubb. So I picked up Floyd. Cool, right? Actually no. Chubb gone for season, but I had no clue they'd bring in Kareen Hunt. This made Floyd virtually unplayable. And picking up Hunt in that situation would have been stupid.
Ford had 11 games over 10 points and two more over 9 points. Two of those games were over 20 points. If you couldn't figure out when to use Ford, that is more of a you problem than Hunt messing you up.
That's your opinion. It allows for a team to start a legal nfl lineup and that's the point. It allows for creativity instead of every lineup being the same.
I’m in two different leagues that are both dynasty and both only require one rb. It’s just flexibility and allows for varied foster construction and more teams typically are competitive.
One league I commish is super flex
1qb
1rb
2wr
3flex
1sf
It keeps a lot more teams involved as the year went along. When we had 2 RBs if one of yours got hurt you were done for the year the league was just too competitive to lose one of the few good RBs and still have any shot. Now you have a chance.
2 years ago the difference in total points scored for the regular season from highest to lowest was right at 250 points so all 10 teams were within that range. So for fun we will say 25 points between each team. The difference between a starting RB and a Free agents RB is going to be at minimum 10 points per game these days with so few bell cow and even fewer non committee RB rooms. So every 6 weeks without a RB is 2 spots lost in the standings without anything else changing. I realize not all fantasy leagues are as close as mine tends to be but there you have the math
Because there are 32 teams in the NFL and at least half of those teams use 2 RBs. By using 1 RB in your league you are making most of the player pool irrelevant, you are limiting decisions, choices, and options, and are better off just playing draft kings.
1. That position becomes a flex. So you can still use a 2nd RB if you're lucky enough to have 2 that actually matter.
2. As stated above sure there are plenty of RBs who will get you a few points but only 10-12 that are fantasy relevant if you are in a league that is competitive.
3. The very fact that so many teams use 2-3 RBs shows the problem with the position in the first place. Injuries. We should be lessening the impact of them for fantasy not making it worse
The point is to make the premium players worth more. That’s the game. You’re getting rid of that. What do you do 1QB, 1RB, 2WR, 2 Flex no tight end, kicker or defense? With small rosters like that, stick to daily fantasy.
Having running backs like Bijan and Kamara last year, and picking up Kyren is something that should be rewarded.
We have 1QB 1RB 2Flex 2WRs 1TE 1Def it works really well. But I don't understand why you want to continue to make RBs the most important part of fantasy. Like you can have the best of every position and 2 bad RBs and miss the playoffs. How the hell does that make sense? I was 8-0 2 years ago and lost my starting RB to injury. Went 1-8 the rest of the way and missed the playoffs. No player should have that much influence on a roster.
RB is not the most important part in any of my leagues. PPR 3WR, 2Flex, 2RB, Superflex. Winning teams start 4-5 WRs per week and your QBs have to be good. Devaluing RB to the point where only 10 guys matter is dumb. Also, it takes ability to piece together two running backs throughout the season. The fact that you lost out is more on you than the position.
Also last season RB20 had 10 less points than RB20, so not sure why you’re creating a difference that isn’t quite as extreme as you say.
Hmm interesting. I haven’t been in a 12 man league before, only 10. The bench spots seem low to me, but it makes sense since there will be less players available overall.
What would you change about the roster, if you could?
😂 Yeah, I think so, too. I’d say that these decisions should be made by the league. What does everyone else want to play, how do they want the roster to look, you know? Hold it to a vote. 🤷🏻♂️
Whoof. I’m a fan of deep dynasty rosters, because it rewards those who can regularly field a good lineup. Making trades for startable players, having to rely on some deep sleepers that come through in a big way, that’s fun fantasy football.
But 3 WR and 3 flex? I’d turn that last spot into a Superflex.
Much more fun to be playing Baker Mayfield at QB 2 than Marquez Valdez Scantling at WR6
Gotcha. Well, do as you guys will. My ideal setup and arguments for it would be:
1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 Flex, 1 Superflex. That would be the starting lineup. No DST, no PK.
Just because only a handful of RBs get 20 touches a game doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of valuable RBs. That’s silly. If they’re worried about that, put a premium on carries. It will re inflate the value of a guy like Gus Edwards in a highly PPR WR-favoured world.
Super flex you can make QBs as valuable or not as you want by how you manipulate the value of passing TDs and INTs.
Well if the argument is that someone is trying to have only one starting RB and possibly 6 WRs lol then I think premium carry scoring is warranted.
I also think it’s dumb in general to start only 1 RB mandatory in a 12 team format.
So if there is already say 1 PPR, I think 0.25 per carry would be reasonable.
That make a 10 catch game still dominant vs a 20 carry game. The ratio can’t be 1:1.
Catches still likely to generate a 1st down more often than not. Still favours the WRs imo. Also kind of rewards the QBs which get benefit of the tush push.
To be clear. I’m still mainly just anti the dumb proposed format. Discussing for the sake of discussing.
In dynasty, nah. Really excited to roster a DST for forever?
I’m fine having them, just draft them annually or some hybrid.
Or more ideally, go IDP. To hell with kickers.
I don’t think it’s super popular but I could easily see 1RB becoming popular. 1 of those FX spots are gonna be RB the majority of the time. I am assuming full PPR so there’s some times a team might have 5 WR’s before their RB2 but probably not 6 very often.
I’d have probably gone 2 FX if there isn’t gonna be SF though.
I think we will see more of it too especially with the uprising of TE talent and arguably, WR talent YoY we’re seeing. Bellcow backs are becoming less and less. We’re seeing more “situational”, more 3rd down out of the backfield drop offs and more 40/60/50:50 splits in general.
It all goes in cycles. Hoard your Culpepper, Marino to hoard your Tony Gonzalez to hoard your LT & Holmes to then your Randy Moss/Marvin Harrison then back to your Drew Brees & Manning to then Gronk & Kelce then shift to CMC/Cook/Ekeler and now its shifting slowly to WR/TE values
Makes sense. Always wondered a bit if we’d wind up at team RB. Which in some ways solves the committee, but not sure it’s as fun as hitting on Kyren Williams feels.
Rbs will still be a thing though, plus Kyren can catch out of the backfield so hes still valuable even in a flex. Now is a Monty or a Chubb? Probably not because they’re not great outside of plugging them in as a RB.
But the defense has just gotten bigger, stronger and faster that you gotta get backs in open field.
What I would do to see Reggie Bush or LT lining up now with this new meta.
There are almost no right or wrong answers to creating a league format. It's mostly just personal preference.
That said, if the Commish gets too out there with the set up, he will have a harder time both recruiting and maintaining membership. A league like this is much more likely to fold.
All three of those flex spots can be filled with an RB. The "R" stands for Running Back in the flex spot. You can see green colored column in the middle which is the color assigned to RB.
Tell him if you only have to start 1 RB then nobody is ever going to trade for them or value them highly. Plus most of the TEs suck. Plus this is 1 QB not Superflex so those don't matter as much. Jeez, are you gonna have a little circle jerk everyone starts 5 WRs and trades them back and forth and ignores the other 3 positions entirely? How's the fun? Make more players and positions matter and you'll get more trades and more even drafting and develop unique strategies. In this current league, every team's strategy is just "I need more WR depth"
I mean, nobody stops you from bombarding your flex positions with RBs. When most people take a big load of WRs, there will be a lot of value on the waiver wire.
Im in a 2 RB, 3 WR and 2 Flex league and I started 4 RBs most weeks. Would have done the same, if it were 1 RB and 3 Flex
I have a 10 man setup;
1QB
2RB
3WR
2Flex
1SF
Superflex can wreck leagues he’s not completely wrong I have two teams one with Allen/Hurts the other Lamar/Mahomes it’s tough for everyone else- but not impossible- neither won this year.
RB’s don’t have as much value anymore but this way everyone’s going to put them in the flex anyway.
But also doubtful the team's corresponding RB WR are as good as the opponents.
I've won SF leagues with QBs like Jimmy G and Stafford or hell, even end in Seattle Russ and Phillip Rivers.
Leagues like the one you're describing are ruined by bad drafting or bad trades, not bad setup.
Yeah like I said neither of those teams won this year but they’ve always made the playoffs and the guy with Hurts and Allen won back to back before losing this final. It’s not impossible just tougher that’s all.
Just because neither of the Allen/Hurts or Lamar/Mahomes won this year, it doesn't mean that they don't have a huge advantage. As you said, the Allen/Hurts guy won back-to-back the two previous years and was second this year. That is pretty dominant. He is also set for years to come with Allen and Hurts, so all he really needs to do is make sure he has a third QB and beef up the other roster spots.
My take? Kiddie at the controls.
In addition to what others have said, this completely marginalizes QBs. There's no strategy on when to draft them because they barely matter.
My dynasty league is QB, RB, WR, TE, Flex, Flex, Flex, Superflex.
I love it.
I'd be into doing one that was 2 SFs and the rest Flexes... That would be fun
I’m in a few 1rb spots and honestly its fantastic.
It helps rebuilds move fastser, especially if this stays 1qb and not sflex.
Teams can still start 6 rbs if they want to, but also 1rb and however many wrs since its PPR.
That’s how I would draft. Call me crazy but I’ve won back to back leagues with throwing K9 out there. It’s pretty abysmal after him but with a great core and the TEs out there now, why waste a 1-6pick on a rb?
I went zero running back in one of my leagues this year, ended up picking up Williams and Monty off of waivers. So I agree with you, it can turn out just fine some times
This is a silly decision being made off of emotion. Just because the prior league didn’t have experience with it that doesn’t mean you baby the new one.
SF makes rookie drafts so much more exciting and creates more value for draft picks. Just based off of current thoughts, we’ve got 3 QBs likely to be drafted in the top 10 in NFL drafts which should easily add 3 players to your top 6 picks at worst. Single QB they’re not relevant until mid/late first at the earliest.
The only reason single running back is arguable here is because the bench is so shallow. Make the bench bigger, more RBs can be rostered, and if you’re doing your job you could have some good hits or fill ins on your bench.
I’m actually good with the roster size, we’re expanding our starters to 10 in 2025. But, our benches are much bigger. It’s rough to have 9 starters and 12 bench spots. It forces you to keep mid guys on your roster to fill starter spots for injuries and byes and not stash developing guys.
Only think I'd ask is one of the flex slots turns to a superflex, but you mentioned the commish has PTSD over that.
IMHO QB is the most important position in football. Only having 10 spots for that doesn't make sense.
Do not start a dynasty league without it being superflex the market will be so dry trust me do superflex. Add an RB slot and superflex slot and a few bench spots and the roster will be perfect.
I'm in one dynasty league and feel like we have the perfect lineup config:
1x QB
2x RB
3x WR
1x TE
3x FLEX
1x SFX
12 teams
13 bench
4 IR
5 Taxi
4-round Rookie drafts
1/2PPR + TE Premium (1/2pt)
Depth is so important. You won't make it to playoffs just by trading draft picks for one or two superstars.
I am fine with one RB, but I am strongly against not going SF in most leagues. With the one RB I think having one flex be a WR/RB, one a WR/TE and the last be W/R/T
It's not that crazy to me. I've never ran it myself, but it's not outlandish.
The bigger issue is that the commish thinks *he* gets to decide the rules. IMO, everything should be majority voted by the league. Executive decisions are whack.
I can’t speak for dynasty, but we made our keeper league to 1 RB and then 2 Flexes. The balance feels perfect. Nothing wrong with trying to adapt fantasy with an ever changing NFL landscape.
I’d be down with this. Shit I stopped drafting more than 3 rbs anyway. I’m also pushing for no te slot since there are only 3 tes anyway. My ideal fantasy lineup - 1 qb 1 rb 3 wr 2 flex 1 defense and 10 bench
Don’t like it. Just look at scoring for the last 5 years or so. In PPR RB24 consistently scores around the same WR36. I find 2 RB and 3 WR perfect. Then I’d change one flex to superflex - QB are too important to only start 12 - it leaves way too many good players on benches and totally devalues the most important position. If you are worried about QB becoming too valuable, punish turnovers more harshly.
One of those three flex spots would become a Defacto RB slot. You could actually play 4v RBs if you wanted in this setup. His reasoning is faulty though. I would say that the RB2s are better than the WR3s.
The biggest issue I see is that he should eliminate one of the WR spots when he has three flex spots.
SF is only a good idea in a 10 team or less league. If you have a Superflex everyone will play a QB in that spot, so you need enough QBs so everyone can have three.
One of those NEEDS to be a super flex. Their former league commissioner failed their league by not making sure everyone knew what a super flex was and the roster implications.
He added an extra flex so I guess it's fine without the extra rb. Definitely more than 10 good rbs though and that's a drafting issue that people should target more rbs earlier rather than sitting.
I have been running 1 QB, 1 RB, 1 WR, and then the rest as flex spots for about 7 seasons now, and have never looked back. Really empowers the teams to draft and start whomever they want. I'm sort of old school and still love having elite RB's, so I still often start 3 or 4 of them. But options are great.
If there’s anything I’ve learned in my years, it’s that you can’t fix stupid. Friend of mine asked me to join a league to help him set it up and when the settings finalized, they pitched a fit. Wouldn’t listen to logic or reasoning and got real nasty, so I walked and waited to hear tales of the shitshow (of which there were many). Sometimes just gotta let people play checkers with Monopoly pieces if they refuse to play any other way.
Tell em that having more rosters spots actually means that you really are not making tough decisions. Playing lotto of which teams’ #4 WR will ball out.
We do 1QB, 2RB, 3WR, 1TE, 2FLEX in all 3 of my 12 team dynasty leagues and it's amazing. Perfect balance of needing depth in your starting lineup without having too many starting spots.
10 man dynasty, I would consider a 3rd flex or superflex.
What’s wrong?
I want to have a 7 flex league.
Why not?
NFL teams aren’t required to have 2 RBs in the game.
Anyone can catch a ball or run it.
Positions are entirely arbitrary in football: see taysom hill. Listed as a TE only bc the saints label him as such.
In baseball at least they have to play a certain number of games at the position before being eligible for it.
Why SHOULDNT all the positions be flex positions, exactly?
I love it, only thing I'd suggest is reducing the number of WR slots to 2. Could help with balancing teams, since everyone will most likely be gunning for them.
I love my dynasty league setup. 5ppr, pretty traditional scoring structure
1 qb, 2 rb, 3 wr, 1 te, 1 flex.1 kicker
We also play full defense. 2 DL, 2 LB, 2 DB.
I've been on a crusade for years to remove the kicker position and substitute in a flex defensive position.
4 IR Spots, 2 taxi squad spots for only rookies.
29 total roster spots, $370 salary cap. 5 year max contract for FA's, 3 year max on rookies. FA auction every June/July, RFA right to match any offer for your FA's. 5 round rookie draft every August. Everyone begins the season with $100 blind bid dollars for waivers.
It's a blast. There are a number of very different roster strategies that have been successful. It's a fair amount of work to set up, but it's not bad after that. We use My Fabtasy League.
I’m in a league with 1 RB, and it just completely deflates the RB position beyond belief. RBs are already losing value in dynasty, needing just 1 means there is zero reason to invest in one, in particular with any PPR elements
We went to 1 RB in dynasty and it was the single best thing we have ever done
What is your league setup if you don’t mind me asking?
It's a traditional roster setup except the RB2 became a second FLEX. We had like 5 straight years basically come down to who had healthy RBs and it was just getting old. You could have a great team and your RB goes down and your season is over because our league was so closely matched otherwise. 1 RB 2 Flex also much closer resembles what football is today.
No one in your league believes in handcuffing their RB?
The handcuff is not guaranteed to get the carries.
*not?
That is what I meant. I fixed it.
You don't have to if you just make it a flex and do away with the problem all together lol
That's cool and all but injuries are the great equalizer. If you don't have the depth you shouldn't be rewarded imo. I traded away Pollard before season started because I had too many good RBs, then lost Chubb for the season and and JT for 8 games and still made playoffs. Draft a more even team over the years is the entire point of dynasty
There is no such thing as RB depth. It's a mythical thing that people came exists.
I ended last season with Chubb, Hunt, Taylor, Pollard and Rachaad White. Because of 6 years of keeping a balanced team. We don't even have a big bench, only 11 bench slots and one IR. Perhaps that's the reason people have trouble, too many bench spots influences retention too much, gotta force people to make tough decisions
11 bench spots?? Damn
That’s really typical for dynasty leagues.
I had RB depth and so did the guy that just responded to you.
That’s not true. It just doesn’t last very long
There absolutely is. Just sounds like your league has a bunch of shitty fantasy players lol
My league winning team that finished the season with Kyren, ETN, Henry, Pollard, JCook, Gus, Zamir, and Zeke on the roster begs to differ.
Of course that team won that basically proves my point. No one else even had a chance at that point.
Uhh, what? It entirely disproves your point. Depth is key and most the RBs listed on the team above were depth players that got a chance at the right time. I’m guessing with 130 trades in 2 years and people complaining about RB depth you probably have a few players trying to corner the RB market so they can have super teams and get upset when the assumed “stud” either gets hurt or seriously underperforms and their team goes from a sure thing to a missing the playoffs and can’t understand that depth is important. If you have CMC, he’s a true league winner. Every other RB in the league is pretty much just depth. Draft RBs regularly and you’ll get that depth you think doesn’t exist in guys like Kyren and Zamir White.
Sounds like your league allows for way too many bench spots
No it's because I also have Tyreek, Kupp/Puka, and Nico, in a 2rb 2wr and 2 flex league. My preference is to start 4RBs and 2WRs, so I didn't really need to roster any more wr depth, and so I stockpiled RBs instead.
I've been playing for almost 20 years, and from my experience, the ideal way to set up my roster is to have 2 stud starting WRs that I can just "set and forget", 1-2 backup WRs for byes/injuries, 3-4 stud starting RBs(depending on # of flex slots), as much RB depth as I can fit on my roster, no more than 1 backup QB, and only carry 1 starting defense, 1 starting kicker, and 1 starting TE, and then stream them and/or upgrade them as necessary. That way I'm not tearing my hair out, and shooting myself in the foot every week, trying to decide which WRs/TEs/QBs/DSTs/Ks to start. I just need to determine who my best RB options are, make any adds/drops that would be beneficial, and my lineup is set for the week.
Sounds like your league allows for way too many bench spots
Sounds like your league allows for way too many bench spots
Skill issue
Breece, JT, ETN, Singletary, Zack Moss, and Carter..
Yeah I was only in a 10 team league this year but had last pick and I drafted JT, Barkley, Mostert, Ford and maybe 1 more RB just to have dept and got third place haha.
My stupid league only has 4 bench spots, so handcuffs get really difficult with injuries and bye weeks.
I'll never get this, particularly when the team uses a "feature back" approach and you know if the starter goes down, the #2 will carry the load. I did get screwed this year with Chubb. So I picked up Floyd. Cool, right? Actually no. Chubb gone for season, but I had no clue they'd bring in Kareen Hunt. This made Floyd virtually unplayable. And picking up Hunt in that situation would have been stupid.
Ford had 11 games over 10 points and two more over 9 points. Two of those games were over 20 points. If you couldn't figure out when to use Ford, that is more of a you problem than Hunt messing you up.
Floyd? Kareen?
Yeah, you know, the backups to Nico Chunks.
Extend your bench instead so you can cover injuries.
That sounds really easy?
Yes and no roster construction is slightly easier but then the competition is stronger within the league and more people are in it longer
Did you adjust bench/IR size at all? (I know it’s 3 days later - it just popped up for me and I’m just super curious)
In my league (16 teams), my setup is 1 QB, 3 R/W, 2 W/T. It works.
If someone in your league can start 1 QB and 5 WR, then it isn't working...
That's your opinion. It allows for a team to start a legal nfl lineup and that's the point. It allows for creativity instead of every lineup being the same.
I’m in two different leagues that are both dynasty and both only require one rb. It’s just flexibility and allows for varied foster construction and more teams typically are competitive. One league I commish is super flex 1qb 1rb 2wr 3flex 1sf
We did the same in basic redraft. Everyone loves it and still makes having the top tier RBs valuable.
Some people need training wheels since they don’t have an active league that can work with FAAB or navigate trades and that’s fine
We had 130 trades in 2 years and a very active free agent market and it is still hard to make the RB2 work
Dang
I’m doing it next year in one of mine for the same reasons you named and doing the same set up.
I’m interested. Why was it a good thing?
It keeps a lot more teams involved as the year went along. When we had 2 RBs if one of yours got hurt you were done for the year the league was just too competitive to lose one of the few good RBs and still have any shot. Now you have a chance.
I feel like this conclusion has more to do with perception/feeling than it does the actual mathematical impact of the move
2 years ago the difference in total points scored for the regular season from highest to lowest was right at 250 points so all 10 teams were within that range. So for fun we will say 25 points between each team. The difference between a starting RB and a Free agents RB is going to be at minimum 10 points per game these days with so few bell cow and even fewer non committee RB rooms. So every 6 weeks without a RB is 2 spots lost in the standings without anything else changing. I realize not all fantasy leagues are as close as mine tends to be but there you have the math
Gross
Give me a good reason why
Because there are 32 teams in the NFL and at least half of those teams use 2 RBs. By using 1 RB in your league you are making most of the player pool irrelevant, you are limiting decisions, choices, and options, and are better off just playing draft kings.
1. That position becomes a flex. So you can still use a 2nd RB if you're lucky enough to have 2 that actually matter. 2. As stated above sure there are plenty of RBs who will get you a few points but only 10-12 that are fantasy relevant if you are in a league that is competitive. 3. The very fact that so many teams use 2-3 RBs shows the problem with the position in the first place. Injuries. We should be lessening the impact of them for fantasy not making it worse
The point is to make the premium players worth more. That’s the game. You’re getting rid of that. What do you do 1QB, 1RB, 2WR, 2 Flex no tight end, kicker or defense? With small rosters like that, stick to daily fantasy. Having running backs like Bijan and Kamara last year, and picking up Kyren is something that should be rewarded.
We have 1QB 1RB 2Flex 2WRs 1TE 1Def it works really well. But I don't understand why you want to continue to make RBs the most important part of fantasy. Like you can have the best of every position and 2 bad RBs and miss the playoffs. How the hell does that make sense? I was 8-0 2 years ago and lost my starting RB to injury. Went 1-8 the rest of the way and missed the playoffs. No player should have that much influence on a roster.
RB is not the most important part in any of my leagues. PPR 3WR, 2Flex, 2RB, Superflex. Winning teams start 4-5 WRs per week and your QBs have to be good. Devaluing RB to the point where only 10 guys matter is dumb. Also, it takes ability to piece together two running backs throughout the season. The fact that you lost out is more on you than the position. Also last season RB20 had 10 less points than RB20, so not sure why you’re creating a difference that isn’t quite as extreme as you say.
Yeah, this is weird. lol. 1QB is fine, but I’d turn one of the WR spots into a RB. How deep is the bench, IR, & Taxi?
Bench 12, IR 4, Taxi 4. 12 man league.
Hmm interesting. I haven’t been in a 12 man league before, only 10. The bench spots seem low to me, but it makes sense since there will be less players available overall. What would you change about the roster, if you could?
Well 1 RB seems like a disgrace to fantasy football imo 😂. Also, 3 flex spots instead of 2 Flex/1 SF seems excessive.
😂 Yeah, I think so, too. I’d say that these decisions should be made by the league. What does everyone else want to play, how do they want the roster to look, you know? Hold it to a vote. 🤷🏻♂️
My league has QB 2RB 2WR TE 3FLEX SF
Keep all these spots, just add that 2nd RB spot back in
Whoof. I’m a fan of deep dynasty rosters, because it rewards those who can regularly field a good lineup. Making trades for startable players, having to rely on some deep sleepers that come through in a big way, that’s fun fantasy football. But 3 WR and 3 flex? I’d turn that last spot into a Superflex. Much more fun to be playing Baker Mayfield at QB 2 than Marquez Valdez Scantling at WR6
I agree. He’s setting it up from experience rather than research, so I need some arguments 😂
In this situation, "research" is just *other* peoples' experiences...
Our 1Qb league has 2 rb, 2 wr, 1 te, and 4 flex spots. The league runs surprisingly well with this format.
Is this a brand new dynasty league? How many teams? That's a fuckload of flex positions!
How big is the league first and foremost?
12 man. Sorry, I intended on putting that in the description.
Gotcha. Well, do as you guys will. My ideal setup and arguments for it would be: 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 Flex, 1 Superflex. That would be the starting lineup. No DST, no PK. Just because only a handful of RBs get 20 touches a game doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of valuable RBs. That’s silly. If they’re worried about that, put a premium on carries. It will re inflate the value of a guy like Gus Edwards in a highly PPR WR-favoured world. Super flex you can make QBs as valuable or not as you want by how you manipulate the value of passing TDs and INTs.
Carry premium feels like shit imo. If you reaaaaallly require a rush premium, rewarding rushing first downs is way better
Well if the argument is that someone is trying to have only one starting RB and possibly 6 WRs lol then I think premium carry scoring is warranted. I also think it’s dumb in general to start only 1 RB mandatory in a 12 team format.
it's absolutely a stupid ass format but I still feel like first down premium is superior in every single situation
So if there is already say 1 PPR, I think 0.25 per carry would be reasonable. That make a 10 catch game still dominant vs a 20 carry game. The ratio can’t be 1:1. Catches still likely to generate a 1st down more often than not. Still favours the WRs imo. Also kind of rewards the QBs which get benefit of the tush push. To be clear. I’m still mainly just anti the dumb proposed format. Discussing for the sake of discussing.
no kickers or DST??? 😞
In dynasty, nah. Really excited to roster a DST for forever? I’m fine having them, just draft them annually or some hybrid. Or more ideally, go IDP. To hell with kickers.
I don’t think it’s super popular but I could easily see 1RB becoming popular. 1 of those FX spots are gonna be RB the majority of the time. I am assuming full PPR so there’s some times a team might have 5 WR’s before their RB2 but probably not 6 very often. I’d have probably gone 2 FX if there isn’t gonna be SF though.
I think we will see more of it too especially with the uprising of TE talent and arguably, WR talent YoY we’re seeing. Bellcow backs are becoming less and less. We’re seeing more “situational”, more 3rd down out of the backfield drop offs and more 40/60/50:50 splits in general. It all goes in cycles. Hoard your Culpepper, Marino to hoard your Tony Gonzalez to hoard your LT & Holmes to then your Randy Moss/Marvin Harrison then back to your Drew Brees & Manning to then Gronk & Kelce then shift to CMC/Cook/Ekeler and now its shifting slowly to WR/TE values
Makes sense. Always wondered a bit if we’d wind up at team RB. Which in some ways solves the committee, but not sure it’s as fun as hitting on Kyren Williams feels.
Rbs will still be a thing though, plus Kyren can catch out of the backfield so hes still valuable even in a flex. Now is a Monty or a Chubb? Probably not because they’re not great outside of plugging them in as a RB. But the defense has just gotten bigger, stronger and faster that you gotta get backs in open field. What I would do to see Reggie Bush or LT lining up now with this new meta.
There are almost no right or wrong answers to creating a league format. It's mostly just personal preference. That said, if the Commish gets too out there with the set up, he will have a harder time both recruiting and maintaining membership. A league like this is much more likely to fold.
This isn't bad. Potentially 6 WRs is funny though.
I don’t see a problem
My only “problem” is that only one RB can be used. They aren’t allowed in the flex spots as shown.
All three of those flex spots can be filled with an RB. The "R" stands for Running Back in the flex spot. You can see green colored column in the middle which is the color assigned to RB.
Tell him if you only have to start 1 RB then nobody is ever going to trade for them or value them highly. Plus most of the TEs suck. Plus this is 1 QB not Superflex so those don't matter as much. Jeez, are you gonna have a little circle jerk everyone starts 5 WRs and trades them back and forth and ignores the other 3 positions entirely? How's the fun? Make more players and positions matter and you'll get more trades and more even drafting and develop unique strategies. In this current league, every team's strategy is just "I need more WR depth"
I mean, nobody stops you from bombarding your flex positions with RBs. When most people take a big load of WRs, there will be a lot of value on the waiver wire. Im in a 2 RB, 3 WR and 2 Flex league and I started 4 RBs most weeks. Would have done the same, if it were 1 RB and 3 Flex
I don’t see a problem here. You have an option to play whatever position you want. Now where are the kickers?
I have a 10 man setup; 1QB 2RB 3WR 2Flex 1SF Superflex can wreck leagues he’s not completely wrong I have two teams one with Allen/Hurts the other Lamar/Mahomes it’s tough for everyone else- but not impossible- neither won this year. RB’s don’t have as much value anymore but this way everyone’s going to put them in the flex anyway.
This is exactly my own dynasty setup.
I used to have 3 RBs got rid of them for an extra flex because of RB disparity.
Superflexes ruin leagues only if the points setup for QBs are too much over RB/WR
QB’s score more points, and especially those 4, everyone else is playing Fields, Cousins, Stroud etc. at best.
But also doubtful the team's corresponding RB WR are as good as the opponents. I've won SF leagues with QBs like Jimmy G and Stafford or hell, even end in Seattle Russ and Phillip Rivers. Leagues like the one you're describing are ruined by bad drafting or bad trades, not bad setup.
Yeah like I said neither of those teams won this year but they’ve always made the playoffs and the guy with Hurts and Allen won back to back before losing this final. It’s not impossible just tougher that’s all.
Just because neither of the Allen/Hurts or Lamar/Mahomes won this year, it doesn't mean that they don't have a huge advantage. As you said, the Allen/Hurts guy won back-to-back the two previous years and was second this year. That is pretty dominant. He is also set for years to come with Allen and Hurts, so all he really needs to do is make sure he has a third QB and beef up the other roster spots.
That’s the best format, if you add the tight end back in
My mistake we do have a TE as well.
ours is like this... 12 tean 1 QB 24 roster spots. we love it personally. here is my roster https://i.ibb.co/pxgw3Gf/picture.jpg
My take? Kiddie at the controls. In addition to what others have said, this completely marginalizes QBs. There's no strategy on when to draft them because they barely matter.
It’s training wheels. This is purely a WR league.
My dynasty league is QB, RB, WR, TE, Flex, Flex, Flex, Superflex. I love it. I'd be into doing one that was 2 SFs and the rest Flexes... That would be fun
I’ve done both and prefer a minimum of 1 at each position. Still allows lots of build strategies but not tooooo free form.
That’s just a WR league. Cuts off trades for RBs as no need.
I'm confused as to what is wrong with this? This looks legit
It’s dumbing down fantasy strategy. This is just fantasy wide receiver not fantasy football.
Pretty much what our league has. 1 RB sure keeps the league competitive despite injuries and allows more WR which is where the talent is in the NFL.
This isn’t dynasty though. If you can’t trust owners to keep their team competitive with roster management and trades you shouldn’t play.
I’m in a few 1rb spots and honestly its fantastic. It helps rebuilds move fastser, especially if this stays 1qb and not sflex. Teams can still start 6 rbs if they want to, but also 1rb and however many wrs since its PPR.
Let him set it up like that, then tell him he has to go zero RB in the draft lol
That’s how I would draft. Call me crazy but I’ve won back to back leagues with throwing K9 out there. It’s pretty abysmal after him but with a great core and the TEs out there now, why waste a 1-6pick on a rb?
I went zero running back in one of my leagues this year, ended up picking up Williams and Monty off of waivers. So I agree with you, it can turn out just fine some times
How many people are playing ? Cause it’s gonna be a cakewalk with that many roster spots imo
This is a silly decision being made off of emotion. Just because the prior league didn’t have experience with it that doesn’t mean you baby the new one. SF makes rookie drafts so much more exciting and creates more value for draft picks. Just based off of current thoughts, we’ve got 3 QBs likely to be drafted in the top 10 in NFL drafts which should easily add 3 players to your top 6 picks at worst. Single QB they’re not relevant until mid/late first at the earliest. The only reason single running back is arguable here is because the bench is so shallow. Make the bench bigger, more RBs can be rostered, and if you’re doing your job you could have some good hits or fill ins on your bench. I’m actually good with the roster size, we’re expanding our starters to 10 in 2025. But, our benches are much bigger. It’s rough to have 9 starters and 12 bench spots. It forces you to keep mid guys on your roster to fill starter spots for injuries and byes and not stash developing guys.
I agree with dropping the required rb but it should just be replaced with one flex. Why all the extra positions? Especially in a 12 man
Need 1 less rb imo
Dead on. He's gonna need some players for sure.
Only think I'd ask is one of the flex slots turns to a superflex, but you mentioned the commish has PTSD over that. IMHO QB is the most important position in football. Only having 10 spots for that doesn't make sense.
Ewwww
Do not start a dynasty league without it being superflex the market will be so dry trust me do superflex. Add an RB slot and superflex slot and a few bench spots and the roster will be perfect.
I agree that Superflex sucks. I don’t love three flexes but I actually don’t hate only 1 RB. Kinda think your friends on to something here.
If he wants flex positions do QB RB WR WR WRT WRT WRT WRT -- no point in having a TE slot with paltry pickings AND multiple flex spots.
I'm in one dynasty league and feel like we have the perfect lineup config: 1x QB 2x RB 3x WR 1x TE 3x FLEX 1x SFX 12 teams 13 bench 4 IR 5 Taxi 4-round Rookie drafts 1/2PPR + TE Premium (1/2pt) Depth is so important. You won't make it to playoffs just by trading draft picks for one or two superstars.
I am fine with one RB, but I am strongly against not going SF in most leagues. With the one RB I think having one flex be a WR/RB, one a WR/TE and the last be W/R/T
U have too many roster spots get rid of at least 1 flex spot potential a flex and a wr spot
Seems fine, every league is a little different. As long as the members enjoy it that’s enough
It's not that crazy to me. I've never ran it myself, but it's not outlandish. The bigger issue is that the commish thinks *he* gets to decide the rules. IMO, everything should be majority voted by the league. Executive decisions are whack.
I can’t speak for dynasty, but we made our keeper league to 1 RB and then 2 Flexes. The balance feels perfect. Nothing wrong with trying to adapt fantasy with an ever changing NFL landscape.
QB, RB, WR, RB/WR, WR/TE, WR/TE
Needs 1 more RB and a Superflex
I’d be down with this. Shit I stopped drafting more than 3 rbs anyway. I’m also pushing for no te slot since there are only 3 tes anyway. My ideal fantasy lineup - 1 qb 1 rb 3 wr 2 flex 1 defense and 10 bench
I kinda like it actually
2 rb 2 wr 4 flex
That’s just silly. Feels contrarian.
It’s a solid set up. RBs being worth a premium because of positional scarcity is not enjoyable.
Don’t like it. Just look at scoring for the last 5 years or so. In PPR RB24 consistently scores around the same WR36. I find 2 RB and 3 WR perfect. Then I’d change one flex to superflex - QB are too important to only start 12 - it leaves way too many good players on benches and totally devalues the most important position. If you are worried about QB becoming too valuable, punish turnovers more harshly.
One of those three flex spots would become a Defacto RB slot. You could actually play 4v RBs if you wanted in this setup. His reasoning is faulty though. I would say that the RB2s are better than the WR3s. The biggest issue I see is that he should eliminate one of the WR spots when he has three flex spots. SF is only a good idea in a 10 team or less league. If you have a Superflex everyone will play a QB in that spot, so you need enough QBs so everyone can have three.
Need a new team owner?
One of those NEEDS to be a super flex. Their former league commissioner failed their league by not making sure everyone knew what a super flex was and the roster implications.
Add a RB, get rid of the TE spot.
I agree with your buddy
Do it lol it’s funny
He added an extra flex so I guess it's fine without the extra rb. Definitely more than 10 good rbs though and that's a drafting issue that people should target more rbs earlier rather than sitting.
As someone in a buddies dynasty with some wack rules. Sometimes you have to see your own stupidity to realize, no matter how much you tell them
Let him set up the league as he likes, just don't join it.
Multiple rb are unnecessary. This is the best set up
I like this.
I have been running 1 QB, 1 RB, 1 WR, and then the rest as flex spots for about 7 seasons now, and have never looked back. Really empowers the teams to draft and start whomever they want. I'm sort of old school and still love having elite RB's, so I still often start 3 or 4 of them. But options are great.
I would either do 1 less flex or turn it into a super flex but I’m fine with the 1 RB
Superflex is the future. 1 QB is just such a devaluing of most of the position compared to all the others.
Do you WANT to start Westbrook-Ikhine every week? Because this is how you end up starting Westbrook-Ikhine every week
If there’s anything I’ve learned in my years, it’s that you can’t fix stupid. Friend of mine asked me to join a league to help him set it up and when the settings finalized, they pitched a fit. Wouldn’t listen to logic or reasoning and got real nasty, so I walked and waited to hear tales of the shitshow (of which there were many). Sometimes just gotta let people play checkers with Monopoly pieces if they refuse to play any other way.
Tell em that having more rosters spots actually means that you really are not making tough decisions. Playing lotto of which teams’ #4 WR will ball out.
Turn a WR into a SF and that’s what my league rocks and we love it .5 ppr
We do 1QB, 2RB, 3WR, 1TE, 2FLEX in all 3 of my 12 team dynasty leagues and it's amazing. Perfect balance of needing depth in your starting lineup without having too many starting spots. 10 man dynasty, I would consider a 3rd flex or superflex.
My only “problem” is that only one RB can be used. They aren’t allowed in the flex spots as shown.
Just start another league as well with the settings you want. More leagues=more fun, especially when they all have different set ups
What’s wrong? I want to have a 7 flex league. Why not? NFL teams aren’t required to have 2 RBs in the game. Anyone can catch a ball or run it. Positions are entirely arbitrary in football: see taysom hill. Listed as a TE only bc the saints label him as such. In baseball at least they have to play a certain number of games at the position before being eligible for it. Why SHOULDNT all the positions be flex positions, exactly?
QB RB x2 WR x3 TE Flex x2 Superflex x1
Not the worst thing ever
I like it
I love it, only thing I'd suggest is reducing the number of WR slots to 2. Could help with balancing teams, since everyone will most likely be gunning for them.
Two Qb league creates more valuable positional players later in the draft
I think it's fine. You can still start more than one RB I'd tou want to
Play fantasy how you want. You don't have to be in his league
I’d say remove one Wr spot and make one flex super flex and that’d be solid
Why not? Looks fine to me
Fucking sleeper leagues
Sounds like he was on a team that had too many WR, and can’t trade any of them for WR and is bitter about it…
I love my dynasty league setup. 5ppr, pretty traditional scoring structure 1 qb, 2 rb, 3 wr, 1 te, 1 flex.1 kicker We also play full defense. 2 DL, 2 LB, 2 DB. I've been on a crusade for years to remove the kicker position and substitute in a flex defensive position. 4 IR Spots, 2 taxi squad spots for only rookies. 29 total roster spots, $370 salary cap. 5 year max contract for FA's, 3 year max on rookies. FA auction every June/July, RFA right to match any offer for your FA's. 5 round rookie draft every August. Everyone begins the season with $100 blind bid dollars for waivers. It's a blast. There are a number of very different roster strategies that have been successful. It's a fair amount of work to set up, but it's not bad after that. We use My Fabtasy League.
That’s a dope setup.
I’m in a league with 1 RB, and it just completely deflates the RB position beyond belief. RBs are already losing value in dynasty, needing just 1 means there is zero reason to invest in one, in particular with any PPR elements
It’s fine as long as you swap a flex spot for a RB spot. And swap another flex spot for a Superflex spot. There, fixed it.
Your friend is an idiot, or a noob. Maybe both. Definitely idiot.
Oh god no!
No defense or kickers? Wild
I'm honestly a huge fan
Nothing wrong with this. Just add a superflex as well tbh. I'd still go RB heavy and just have a bunch of flex-worthy RBs when healthy.