for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

NFT: Fantasy Football Discussion 7/27

pjcas18 : 7/27/2016 9:53 am
We have a guy in my league who is hell bent on changing shit every year.

this year, he wants to go to a 2-QB league. Apparently it's "the latest trend" and we have to do it.

No one else does, but slowly he's converting people.

I've been in two-QB leagues before with 10-team leagues and between bye weeks, injuries, and poor play I or others have wound up with guys like Cody Pickett as one of your QB's, sometimes even your #1 QB. Or simply had to take a 0 because one guy has 4 QB's on his roster and won't give them up.

I don't think we'll change it for this year, since we're a keeper league, but I could see him getting some traction for next year.

Anyone have thoughts on a 2-QB league in a 12-team league?

Seems like with byes, injuries and poor play teams will be forced to take a 0 or start a really bad QB. Obviously it changes everything from draft strategy to waivers and trades.

linked is the article he circulated last night.
Link - 2QBs - ( New Window )
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
RE: I have never played in a super flex league  
pjcas18 : 7/27/2016 10:47 am : link
In comment 13046727 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
But I know that QBs tend to score more than other players even with 4 points per TD. So, the scoring would really have to be tweaked in a way that the positions are somewhat even. If that is the case would a team ever start 2 TEs? Probably now. If I played in a league like this I would draft Cam Newton amd start him in the flex spot because he still gets rushing yards and rushing TDs worth 6 points.


I never have either, but even if QB's still dominate the leader board, then I think people's draft approach will change for QB's. I can see the superflex element adding a new dimension.

this year we switched to FAAB and that's new for all of us too to manage waivers.

I don't mind changes, but 2QB in 12-team seems like a non-starter.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Do people not understand basic math?  
pjcas18 : 7/27/2016 10:48 am : link
In comment 13046732 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
In comment 13046725 pjcas18 said:


Quote:


In comment 13046717 giants#1 said:


Quote:


In comment 13046680 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


If you start 2 QBs in a 10 team league then that is 20 starting QBs. You need a backup for bye weeks and injuries. That puts the number at 30. You know some teams will hoard QBs meaning teams cannot field a complete roster. It ruins the integrity of the league. There aren't 30 quality QBs in the league anyway so teams know they have no shot and give up on the season about midway through. Nothing like having a noncompetitive balance and owners giving up to keep a league going. Dumb, dumb, dumb.



I agree with this, but at least in a 10 team league everyone has the opportunity to grab 3 QBs and avoid a goose egg on byes. If some idiot wants to carry 5 QBs and prevent someone from getting a 3rd QB, that sucks, but the team with 5 QBs likely has shit everywhere else.

In a 12 team league however, I don't see how 2 QBs work. You're basically forcing 4 teams (minimum) to take a 0 at one position at least twice unless one of the teams lucky enough to get Geno Smith decides to drop him after their byes.



In my 10-team league we had a 4 QB roster limit.



But if 3 teams have 4 QBs then at least one team is getting a zero in a starting position. I am assuming this is not a super flex league.


I'm not even in that league any more it was before supeflex, but we had very short benches too maybe 5 spots or whatever is your standard minus 1 or 2.

so almost no one had 4 QBs most teams had 3 and it still presented problems with byes and injuries and poor play (in ten team).
2 qb's  
kporzee : 7/27/2016 10:49 am : link
I have never done 2 qb league, but I think that amount of quarterbacks these days makes it more doable than in the past.

Rotoworld rankings have Romo at 20, Tyrod at 21, Cutler at 22. That's not bad at all for a 2nd guy.

That said, I've never had the strong desire to do it, but I could see at some point.
RE: 2 qb's  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 10:54 am : link
In comment 13046743 kporzee said:
Quote:
I have never done 2 qb league, but I think that amount of quarterbacks these days makes it more doable than in the past.

Rotoworld rankings have Romo at 20, Tyrod at 21, Cutler at 22. That's not bad at all for a 2nd guy.

That said, I've never had the strong desire to do it, but I could see at some point.


But that is just starters. What about bye weeks? What about injuries? Are you willing to start a Matt Cassell or Hasselbeck or Osweiler or Garapolo, or Sanchez, etc.? That isn't very fun or strategic. It is just a waste of time.
RE: RE: 2 qb's  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 10:59 am : link
In comment 13046753 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
In comment 13046743 kporzee said:


Quote:


I have never done 2 qb league, but I think that amount of quarterbacks these days makes it more doable than in the past.

Rotoworld rankings have Romo at 20, Tyrod at 21, Cutler at 22. That's not bad at all for a 2nd guy.

That said, I've never had the strong desire to do it, but I could see at some point.



But that is just starters. What about bye weeks? What about injuries? Are you willing to start a Matt Cassell or Hasselbeck or Osweiler or Garapolo, or Sanchez, etc.? That isn't very fun or strategic. It is just a waste of time.


RBs/WRs don't have bye weeks or injuries? Are you willing to start Matt Asiata when AP gets hurt and hope he has a 3 TD game? Is that a waste of time?
Right  
kporzee : 7/27/2016 11:04 am : link
Everyone has bye weeks and everyone winds up starting lesser guys when the bye weeks hit with a bunch of good teams. I'm not sure that would be the reason not to do it.

To be clear, I do not do it but think it's doable.
RE: RE: RE: 2 qb's  
giants#1 : 7/27/2016 11:07 am : link
In comment 13046761 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
In comment 13046753 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


In comment 13046743 kporzee said:


Quote:


I have never done 2 qb league, but I think that amount of quarterbacks these days makes it more doable than in the past.

Rotoworld rankings have Romo at 20, Tyrod at 21, Cutler at 22. That's not bad at all for a 2nd guy.

That said, I've never had the strong desire to do it, but I could see at some point.



But that is just starters. What about bye weeks? What about injuries? Are you willing to start a Matt Cassell or Hasselbeck or Osweiler or Garapolo, or Sanchez, etc.? That isn't very fun or strategic. It is just a waste of time.



RBs/WRs don't have bye weeks or injuries? Are you willing to start Matt Asiata when AP gets hurt and hope he has a 3 TD game? Is that a waste of time?


But in a normal week, there are far more WRs and RBs that get touches making the pool of players much larger. Even the top RBs don't play 100% of the snaps. So even if your starting RBs/WRs are on bye, its relatively easy to find someone that will at least get you a few points with the potential to have a decent week if that player gets in the end zone.

With a 12 team/2 QB league, you're almost guaranteed to have some teams grabbing a backup (lets say Cle's backup) during a bye for one of their starters and "hoping" that Cle's starter either gets injured or benched that week.
and again, that's why if you want to do it in 12 team leagues  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 11:09 am : link
it needs to be a superflex, not must start 2 QBs
RE: RE: RE: 2 qb's  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 11:10 am : link
In comment 13046761 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
In comment 13046753 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


In comment 13046743 kporzee said:


Quote:


I have never done 2 qb league, but I think that amount of quarterbacks these days makes it more doable than in the past.

Rotoworld rankings have Romo at 20, Tyrod at 21, Cutler at 22. That's not bad at all for a 2nd guy.

That said, I've never had the strong desire to do it, but I could see at some point.



But that is just starters. What about bye weeks? What about injuries? Are you willing to start a Matt Cassell or Hasselbeck or Osweiler or Garapolo, or Sanchez, etc.? That isn't very fun or strategic. It is just a waste of time.



RBs/WRs don't have bye weeks or injuries? Are you willing to start Matt Asiata when AP gets hurt and hope he has a 3 TD game? Is that a waste of time?


Teams use multiple RBs and multiple WRs. Hiw many teams use multiple QBs? I don't get your point at all.
Anybody that plays in 2 QB leagues knows that you need two good QBs  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 11:13 am : link
To compete. This really isn't an argument.
RE: Anybody that plays in 2 QB leagues knows that you need two good QBs  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 11:18 am : link
In comment 13046792 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
To compete. This really isn't an argument.


So if you know you need 2 good QBs to compete, wouldn't you draft your team accordingly and not let other teams hoard the good QBs?
RE: RE: Anybody that plays in 2 QB leagues knows that you need two good QBs  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 11:20 am : link
In comment 13046805 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
In comment 13046792 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


To compete. This really isn't an argument.



So if you know you need 2 good QBs to compete, wouldn't you draft your team accordingly and not let other teams hoard the good QBs?


Oh my God. Hasn't that been what I was saying the whole time? However, that doesn't mean every owner in the league follows that approach and if they don't you have teams giving up. I am not just speaking out of my ass. I am talking from experience. What is so hard to understand about that?
And how do you control what other owners do during a draft?  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 11:24 am : link
That is nonsense.
RE: And how do you control what other owners do during a draft?  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 11:29 am : link
In comment 13046822 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
That is nonsense.


Why do you have to control other owners? If you don't have 2 good QBs yet and you see the list of available good ones dwindling, then maybe you should take one with your next pick? Just like you would at any other position?
And the whole argument of drafting many QBs makes you weak in  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 11:29 am : link
other areas is true but short-sighted. I would draft for value. If that value was a 4th QB then so be it and it would be great trade leverage to acquire another positional player.
and if you are that worried about it  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 11:30 am : link
add a rule that you can only draft 3 QBs.
RE: RE: And how do you control what other owners do during a draft?  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 11:30 am : link
In comment 13046839 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
In comment 13046822 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


That is nonsense.



Why do you have to control other owners? If you don't have 2 good QBs yet and you see the list of available good ones dwindling, then maybe you should take one with your next pick? Just like you would at any other position?


Are you serious? You are the one bringing this up and then changing your statement.
This is what you said.  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 11:32 am : link
Quote:

So if you know you need 2 good QBs to compete, wouldn't you draft your team accordingly and not let other teams hoard the good QBs?


How do you stop others from hoarding QBs?
RE: And the whole argument of drafting many QBs makes you weak in  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 11:33 am : link
In comment 13046840 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
other areas is true but short-sighted. I would draft for value. If that value was a 4th QB then so be it and it would be great trade leverage to acquire another positional player.


If you are grabbing a 3rd and 4th QB early, you are certainly sacrificing quality at other positions. If you are taking them later, then the other teams should have already gotten their 2 QBs so you are taking you're 3rd and 4th QBs from the Tyrod Taylor range and below.
RE: RE: RE: And how do you control what other owners do during a draft?  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 11:34 am : link
In comment 13046843 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
In comment 13046839 YAJ2112 said:


Quote:


In comment 13046822 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


That is nonsense.



Why do you have to control other owners? If you don't have 2 good QBs yet and you see the list of available good ones dwindling, then maybe you should take one with your next pick? Just like you would at any other position?



Are you serious? You are the one bringing this up and then changing your statement.


How am I changing my statement? You have to value the QB position more in a 2 QB/Superflex league, which means you need to draft them much earlier than in 1 QB league. That has been my position the whole time.
RE: This is what you said.  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 11:35 am : link
In comment 13046846 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:


Quote:



So if you know you need 2 good QBs to compete, wouldn't you draft your team accordingly and not let other teams hoard the good QBs?



How do you stop others from hoarding QBs?


By taking 2 QBs early to ensure you don't get shut out of the good ones?
YAJ  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 11:39 am : link
You are speaking generally and making blanket statements. Not everybody drafts the same and if you have ever been in a fantasy draft you know positioning means a lot. Sometimes you don't get opportunities that others do. Sometimes the draft falls a certain way and there are no qaulity RBs when you pick. Do you sacrifice value for need? Well some owners do and some owners don't. You cannot say everybody should draft QBs early. It doesn't happen. I think even you can agree with the fact when a team doesn't put out a competitive lineup it causes issues. Lets say you draft 3 QBs and 2 get hurt but because of your waiver system you weren't able to acquire another starting QB. Did that owner do anything wrong? No, but that is the way the chips fell.
read the link in the OP  
pjcas18 : 7/27/2016 11:41 am : link
these guys (who happen to have a website 2qbs.com or something like that) suggest you don't have to draft two QB's early in a 12-team two-QB league.

sounds ridiculous.
RE: RE: This is what you said.  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 11:45 am : link
In comment 13046856 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
In comment 13046846 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:




Quote:



So if you know you need 2 good QBs to compete, wouldn't you draft your team accordingly and not let other teams hoard the good QBs?



How do you stop others from hoarding QBs?



By taking 2 QBs early to ensure you don't get shut out of the good ones?


Drafting 2 goog QBs doesn't ensure you have 2 good QBs during the season. I am sure those owners that drafted Luck early last year thought they had a good QB too.
RE: YAJ  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 11:47 am : link
In comment 13046871 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
You are speaking generally and making blanket statements. Not everybody drafts the same and if you have ever been in a fantasy draft you know positioning means a lot. Sometimes you don't get opportunities that others do. Sometimes the draft falls a certain way and there are no qaulity RBs when you pick. Do you sacrifice value for need? Well some owners do and some owners don't. You cannot say everybody should draft QBs early. It doesn't happen. I think even you can agree with the fact when a team doesn't put out a competitive lineup it causes issues. Lets say you draft 3 QBs and 2 get hurt but because of your waiver system you weren't able to acquire another starting QB. Did that owner do anything wrong? No, but that is the way the chips fell.


If you choose not to draft QBs early while everyone else does, then you have no right to complain about not having good starting QBs. Again, that's the whole point in going to a 2 QB system - to make the QB position more valuable.

As for players getting hurt, that can happen at any position. If 2 of your 2 top draft picks get hurt, you likely are going to be in trouble regardless of what position they play. Again, you can institute a roster limit of 3 QBs to ensure that teams aren't going without QBs. You can do superflex to make sure you only have to start 1 so you aren't getting a 0. These are all easy solutions to the potential issues you keep citing.
RE: RE: RE: This is what you said.  
pjcas18 : 7/27/2016 11:47 am : link
In comment 13046887 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
In comment 13046856 YAJ2112 said:


Quote:


In comment 13046846 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:




Quote:



So if you know you need 2 good QBs to compete, wouldn't you draft your team accordingly and not let other teams hoard the good QBs?



How do you stop others from hoarding QBs?



By taking 2 QBs early to ensure you don't get shut out of the good ones?



Drafting 2 goog QBs doesn't ensure you have 2 good QBs during the season. I am sure those owners that drafted Luck early last year thought they had a good QB too.


Like me. Last year based on my draft position and other factors I got aggressive with QB and took Luck in the 2nd round in two leagues. what a disaster - in one QB.
RE: RE: YAJ  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 11:52 am : link
In comment 13046891 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
In comment 13046871 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


You are speaking generally and making blanket statements. Not everybody drafts the same and if you have ever been in a fantasy draft you know positioning means a lot. Sometimes you don't get opportunities that others do. Sometimes the draft falls a certain way and there are no qaulity RBs when you pick. Do you sacrifice value for need? Well some owners do and some owners don't. You cannot say everybody should draft QBs early. It doesn't happen. I think even you can agree with the fact when a team doesn't put out a competitive lineup it causes issues. Lets say you draft 3 QBs and 2 get hurt but because of your waiver system you weren't able to acquire another starting QB. Did that owner do anything wrong? No, but that is the way the chips fell.



If you choose not to draft QBs early while everyone else does, then you have no right to complain about not having good starting QBs. Again, that's the whole point in going to a 2 QB system - to make the QB position more valuable.

As for players getting hurt, that can happen at any position. If 2 of your 2 top draft picks get hurt, you likely are going to be in trouble regardless of what position they play. Again, you can institute a roster limit of 3 QBs to ensure that teams aren't going without QBs. You can do superflex to make sure you only have to start 1 so you aren't getting a 0. These are all easy solutions to the potential issues you keep citing.


You are still missing the point. The point isn't about having a right to complain if you are the team shit out of luck. It is about the integrity of the league. Owners become disinterested. Other owners fighting for playoff spots feel like they are getting screwed over when teams they are fighting with for a playoff spot are going up against owners not giving a fuck or unable to put out a starting lineup. I don't know how else to explain this to you without you coming up with some idealistic theory that is not practical.
RE: RE: RE: YAJ  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 11:55 am : link
In comment 13046903 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
In comment 13046891 YAJ2112 said:


Quote:


In comment 13046871 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


You are speaking generally and making blanket statements. Not everybody drafts the same and if you have ever been in a fantasy draft you know positioning means a lot. Sometimes you don't get opportunities that others do. Sometimes the draft falls a certain way and there are no qaulity RBs when you pick. Do you sacrifice value for need? Well some owners do and some owners don't. You cannot say everybody should draft QBs early. It doesn't happen. I think even you can agree with the fact when a team doesn't put out a competitive lineup it causes issues. Lets say you draft 3 QBs and 2 get hurt but because of your waiver system you weren't able to acquire another starting QB. Did that owner do anything wrong? No, but that is the way the chips fell.



If you choose not to draft QBs early while everyone else does, then you have no right to complain about not having good starting QBs. Again, that's the whole point in going to a 2 QB system - to make the QB position more valuable.

As for players getting hurt, that can happen at any position. If 2 of your 2 top draft picks get hurt, you likely are going to be in trouble regardless of what position they play. Again, you can institute a roster limit of 3 QBs to ensure that teams aren't going without QBs. You can do superflex to make sure you only have to start 1 so you aren't getting a 0. These are all easy solutions to the potential issues you keep citing.



You are still missing the point. The point isn't about having a right to complain if you are the team shit out of luck. It is about the integrity of the league. Owners become disinterested. Other owners fighting for playoff spots feel like they are getting screwed over when teams they are fighting with for a playoff spot are going up against owners not giving a fuck or unable to put out a starting lineup. I don't know how else to explain this to you without you coming up with some idealistic theory that is not practical.


Then 2 QBs/Superflex isn't for your league and I'm not trying to tell you that you have to have it. I'm just saying that plenty of other leagues work just fine with 2 QBs/Superflex without the issues you are bringing up.
Superflex is not what we have been discussing  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 11:58 am : link
We have been discussing 2 QB leagues. There is a difference and I already addressed the superflex earlier saying it is interesting but would need to have the scoring tweaked so that it is on par with positional players.
RE: Superflex is not what we have been discussing  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 11:59 am : link
In comment 13046913 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
We have been discussing 2 QB leagues. There is a difference and I already addressed the superflex earlier saying it is interesting but would need to have the scoring tweaked so that it is on par with positional players.


I've been talking about superflex from the top of the thread.
RE: RE: Superflex is not what we have been discussing  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 12:00 pm : link
In comment 13046916 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
In comment 13046913 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


We have been discussing 2 QB leagues. There is a difference and I already addressed the superflex earlier saying it is interesting but would need to have the scoring tweaked so that it is on par with positional players.



I've been talking about superflex from the top of the thread.


You are so difficult. You have been arguing with me over 2 QB leagues not superflex leagues.
and I've seen plenty of players be disinterested in 1 QB leagues  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 12:01 pm : link
when their teams are out of it. That's really not a 2 QB/superflex issue, that's just an issue with some players in general.
RE: RE: RE: Superflex is not what we have been discussing  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 12:04 pm : link
In comment 13046918 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
In comment 13046916 YAJ2112 said:


Quote:


In comment 13046913 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


We have been discussing 2 QB leagues. There is a difference and I already addressed the superflex earlier saying it is interesting but would need to have the scoring tweaked so that it is on par with positional players.



I've been talking about superflex from the top of the thread.



You are so difficult. You have been arguing with me over 2 QB leagues not superflex leagues.


I have been using them interchangeably, because I don't feel like typing superflex out every fucking time.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Superflex is not what we have been discussing  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 12:06 pm : link
In comment 13046924 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
In comment 13046918 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


In comment 13046916 YAJ2112 said:


Quote:


In comment 13046913 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


We have been discussing 2 QB leagues. There is a difference and I already addressed the superflex earlier saying it is interesting but would need to have the scoring tweaked so that it is on par with positional players.



I've been talking about superflex from the top of the thread.



You are so difficult. You have been arguing with me over 2 QB leagues not superflex leagues.



I have been using them interchangeably, because I don't feel like typing superflex out every fucking time.


So why chime in when we have repeatedly said that you have to have 30 QBs? You do not need 30 QBs in a superflex. You need 30+ QBs in a 2 QB league.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Superflex is not what we have been discussing  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 12:09 pm : link
In comment 13046929 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
In comment 13046924 YAJ2112 said:


Quote:


In comment 13046918 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


In comment 13046916 YAJ2112 said:


Quote:


In comment 13046913 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


We have been discussing 2 QB leagues. There is a difference and I already addressed the superflex earlier saying it is interesting but would need to have the scoring tweaked so that it is on par with positional players.



I've been talking about superflex from the top of the thread.



You are so difficult. You have been arguing with me over 2 QB leagues not superflex leagues.



I have been using them interchangeably, because I don't feel like typing superflex out every fucking time.



So why chime in when we have repeatedly said that you have to have 30 QBs? You do not need 30 QBs in a superflex. You need 30+ QBs in a 2 QB league.


Because if I'm in a 10 team superflex league, I will be planning on starting a QB in my superflex every week. I would assume that every team would plan on that, as QBs are more consistent scorers and even at 4 point TDs are more likely to outscore other flex options.
All I am saying is that there is a clear difference between the 2 type  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 12:15 pm : link
Of leagues and when I write things like "what happens when you draft 3 QBs, 2 get hurt and because of your waiver system you cannot get another QB and you are forced not to be able to put a full starting lineup out there" and you keep responding with ideal situations that are not realistic in a 2 QB league (non superflex) it makes it surely sound like you are not arguing for a superflex because this problem wouldn't be an issue in a superflex.
RE: All I am saying is that there is a clear difference between the 2 type  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 12:16 pm : link
In comment 13046945 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
Of leagues and when I write things like "what happens when you draft 3 QBs, 2 get hurt and because of your waiver system you cannot get another QB and you are forced not to be able to put a full starting lineup out there" and you keep responding with ideal situations that are not realistic in a 2 QB league (non superflex) it makes it surely sound like you are not arguing for a superflex because this problem wouldn't be an issue in a superflex.


If everyone can only have 3 QBs in a 2 QB or Superflex league and you lose 2 to injury, that means there are still 4 starters available to you on waivers regardless of your waiver system.
Why do you keep making all these assumptions?  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 12:19 pm : link
Who said you can only keep 3 QBs? I certainly didn't and not every league is the same.
RE: RE: All I am saying is that there is a clear difference between the 2 type  
pjcas18 : 7/27/2016 12:21 pm : link
In comment 13046950 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
In comment 13046945 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


Of leagues and when I write things like "what happens when you draft 3 QBs, 2 get hurt and because of your waiver system you cannot get another QB and you are forced not to be able to put a full starting lineup out there" and you keep responding with ideal situations that are not realistic in a 2 QB league (non superflex) it makes it surely sound like you are not arguing for a superflex because this problem wouldn't be an issue in a superflex.



If everyone can only have 3 QBs in a 2 QB or Superflex league and you lose 2 to injury, that means there are still 4 starters available to you on waivers regardless of your waiver system.


If....they're not a bye.

and I hadn't seen such strict roster limits, but I think you almost have to have them.

I think at best we'll do a Superflex, but from the sounds of the angry email thread from my league almost no one wants to do either 2 QB or Superflex and definitely not for 2016 except the guy who likes change for the sake of change and one other person.

thanks for the replies.
YAJ  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 12:21 pm : link
This conversation is going nowhere. Have a good day.
RE: Why do you keep making all these assumptions?  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 12:22 pm : link
In comment 13046955 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
Who said you can only keep 3 QBs? I certainly didn't and not every league is the same.


We are talking about a league potentially changing their setup. I've said repeatedly that if you are going to change, you should do a superflex as opposed to a strict 2 QB setup. I've also said multiple times you could also add a rule to limit teams from rostering more than 3 QBs to prevent "hoarding" as part of making this switch.
RE: and I've seen plenty of players be disinterested in 1 QB leagues  
BigBlueShock : 7/27/2016 12:27 pm : link
In comment 13046920 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
when their teams are out of it. That's really not a 2 QB/superflex issue, that's just an issue with some players in general.

At least in one QB leagues these "disinterested" owners can still put a legal lineup in every week. In 2 QB leagues, it's literally impossible for every team in the league to have 2 starting NFL QBs in their lineup each week. As Robbie said a million times, injuries, bye weeks and teams hoarding QBs makes it a miserable experience, and drafting QBs early doesn't matter in this at all. There are a ton of variables at play.

2 QB leagues just create a miserable experience for me. Too each their own, I suppose. It just seems these leagues bring out the worst in owners. You have owners that will literally obsess over acquiring as many QBs as they can, to screw other owners. To me, that's amateur hour. I just haven't had good experiences. Others may like it. It's not for me.
RE: YAJ  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 12:27 pm : link
In comment 13046958 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
This conversation is going nowhere. Have a good day.


It's going nowhere because I'm talking about generalities about potential league setups and you're talking specifically about the league you were in where it didn't work within that league's structure with that league's set of players.
RE: RE: and I've seen plenty of players be disinterested in 1 QB leagues  
YAJ2112 : 7/27/2016 12:28 pm : link
In comment 13046967 BigBlueShock said:
Quote:
In comment 13046920 YAJ2112 said:


Quote:


when their teams are out of it. That's really not a 2 QB/superflex issue, that's just an issue with some players in general.


At least in one QB leagues these "disinterested" owners can still put a legal lineup in every week. In 2 QB leagues, it's literally impossible for every team in the league to have 2 starting NFL QBs in their lineup each week. As Robbie said a million times, injuries, bye weeks and teams hoarding QBs makes it a miserable experience, and drafting QBs early doesn't matter in this at all. There are a ton of variables at play.

2 QB leagues just create a miserable experience for me. Too each their own, I suppose. It just seems these leagues bring out the worst in owners. You have owners that will literally obsess over acquiring as many QBs as they can, to screw other owners. To me, that's amateur hour. I just haven't had good experiences. Others may like it. It's not for me.


Again, I've detailed simple rule adjustments (max 3 QBs on a roster) and said that Superflex (over 2 QB) is the way to go. If everyone would quit ignoring those 2 major things, this thread could move along.
YAJ  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 12:34 pm : link
Nobody is ignoring them. They are good suggestions.

That wasn't the issue. I have been saying how 2 QB leagues suck. You were obviously not understanding what I was talking about because you use the 2 terms interchangeably when they are clearly different. Go back and read the thread and the way it transpired. You kept commenting to me under the assumption I was talking about a superflex league. I clearly wasn't.
RE: YAJ  
pjcas18 : 7/27/2016 12:37 pm : link
In comment 13046979 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
Nobody is ignoring them. They are good suggestions.

That wasn't the issue. I have been saying how 2 QB leagues suck. You were obviously not understanding what I was talking about because you use the 2 terms interchangeably when they are clearly different. Go back and read the thread and the way it transpired. You kept commenting to me under the assumption I was talking about a superflex league. I clearly wasn't.


I think you both made good points. Yaj was saying with 12 team you have to do superflex and he said that early on. In 10-team he was commenting on 2-QB or superflex.

In the end I'm glad my league doesn't look to be doing either.

I have been in 10-team 2-QB leagues and they're not fun to me. so naturally when someone suggested it for 12-team I got sort of surprised.

this thread, has been helpful even if a little contentious, thanks again for the replies.
I will see if this gets any responses  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 5:23 pm : link
I am in a one player keeper league. It is a 12 team PPR league. My keeper is Le'Veon Bell. I am not crazy about him long term. Can he be trusted? Will he be with the Steelers? He wants a new contract but I wouldn't give it to him. I would draft a RB in next year's draft and spend the money on the defensive side of the ball.

Anyway, I have the first pick of non-keeprs. After goikg through the other teams and checking out FAs I think this is a potentially possible pool of players I am looking at.

Elliot
Dez
Gronk
AP
Robinson
Jeffery
Nelson
Watkins

I think, as of now, I would go with Elliot. Imo, he would be a keeper and have huge trade value if I wanted to go that route. With Bell most likely missing 4 games this will be a tough year for me to really compete. I tried trading Bell before the news of his suspension for either David Johnson or Beckham and both owners sent back an emphatic no.

I like Gronk but not having Brady for 4 games could really hurt him. He also seems to have nagging injuries so he worries me in a keeper league.

AP is older and not as valuable in a PPR league.

Dez is a great WR but do I really want to tie that to Romo's health? Plus, Dallas is gonna run a ton this year so I don't expect a crazy amount of targets for Dez compared to the other top WRs.

I like Robinson but I heard that Jax wants to run more limiting Bortles' attempts.

Jeffery is a nice WR but he also always seems to be battling nagging injuries.

Watkins and Nelson are in the same boat of injury concerns.

What do you think?
I'd rank them this way  
pjcas18 : 7/27/2016 5:26 pm : link
Elliot
Gronk
Robinson
AP
Dez
Jeffery
Watkins
Nelson

I read today that an investigation into Eliott's DV case has been opened.
RE: I'd rank them this way  
robbieballs2003 : 7/27/2016 5:44 pm : link
In comment 13047445 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
Elliot
Gronk
Robinson
AP
Dez
Jeffery
Watkins
Nelson

I read today that an investigation into Eliott's DV case has been opened.


Thanks. I have to check into that. I haven't read anything about it since the day it became public.
I've done 2 qb league for 15 years  
dep026 : 7/27/2016 6:01 pm : link
That includes IDP... pretty long draft.

It's a 10 man league that's highly competitive. 15-17 qbs usually go within the first 35 picks. Everyone knows to draft 3. Everyone knows to draft 3 different bye weeks qbs as well. It works well now since a lot of shitty qbs put up decent stats.

If you are going to do it, be committed to it. Read up on how to draft them. One year I had the 10th pick and I took brees and newton back to back. Other years I waited and got fare on vikings and Eli 2009 year and won it.

Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner