Positional Change from 2 RB to 2 Flex - FAILED

[Bengals GM (David)]

This is a 32 team league that the starting requirements are 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1K, 1 R/W/T. This means there are at least 64 RBs that are expected to start week in and week out. For rebuilding teams, acquiring a RB can often be at a King's Ransom for a position that is extremely volatile.

If this rule passes, we will change the RB starting requirement to another R/W/T flex position.

[Buccaneers GM (Kevin)]

This makes sense in a small roster league

[Colts GM (Ben)]

I just don't like this because it takes away part of the challenge. Sure, not every team is going to have two good running backs, but that's part of the challenge of building a team here. Furthermore, it would kind of suck watching NFL games where having a running back is so important and then checking your matchup only to realize you don't even need a running back on the roster. Lastly, I think it creates a slippery slope that leads to offensive players and defensive players without any positional slots.

[Deleted]

Just to clarify on this, is it only one RB slot that will be changed to flex (starting requirements 1 RB + 2 flex), or both (0 RB + 3 flex)?

[Bengals GM (David)]

Changing a RB position to a Flex. So 1 RB and 2 Flex.

[Deleted]

I say no, we never have all 32 in it, and people always have weak spots in their line ups. There are enough 3rd down backs, receiving FB and special team contributors to put 64 RB in play every week and then some. Number 64 RB last year averaged 3.9 ppg. Even at 96 it's 1.8 ppg and people put zeros up all the time at other positions.

[Buccaneers GM (Kevin)]

Mar 30, 2017 12:22:29 GMT -6 @49ersgm said:

I say no, we never have all 32 in it, and people always have weak spots in their line ups. There are enough 3rd down backs, receiving FB and special team contributors to put 64 RB in play every week and then some. Number 64 RB last year averaged 3.9 ppg. Even at 96 it's 1.8 ppg and people put zeros up all the time at other positions.

With only 32 (maybe 34) roster spots it's difficult to roster those FB's and second/third string scat backs..

[Deleted]

Mar 30, 2017 16:03:39 GMT -6 Buccaneers GM (Kevin) said:

Mar 30, 2017 12:22:29 GMT -6 @49ersgm said:

I say no, we never have all 32 in it, and people always have weak spots in their line ups. There are enough 3rd down backs, receiving FB and special team contributors to put 64 RB in play every week and then some. Number 64 RB last year averaged 3.9 ppg. Even at 96 it's 1.8 ppg and people put zeros up all the time at other positions.

With only 32 (maybe 34) roster spots it's difficult to roster those FB's and second/third string scat backs..

not really an issue of roster spots, bruh, if they'd be in the starting lineup

[Colts GM (Ben)]

Apr 1, 2017 3:18:58 GMT -6 @49ersgm said:

Mar 30, 2017 16:03:39 GMT -6 Buccaneers GM (Kevin) said:

With only 32 (maybe 34) roster spots it's difficult to roster those FB's and second/third string scat backs..

not really an issue of roster spots, bruh, if they'd be in the starting lineup

I acquired Kyle Juszczyk about a month ago to be my 3rd RB. Still have most of my bench open and it will likely stay that way. Agreed, rostering these guys is no issue. I think the problem lies in people not wanting to roster FBs or non-workhouse RBs because they aren't studs, but they're serviceable players.

[Commanders GM (Kevin)]

I think it takes away from the challenge of the big roster league. Either way this rule isn't a big deal to me but the 2 flex seems easier

[Chargers GM (Greg)]

Polls are Open. Cast Your Votes.