Add Flex Position to Starting Roster

[Commissioner]

We should add another flex (RB/WR/TE) to our starting lineup so we can encourage deeper roster building and it might cut down on price per players overall.

Commissioner's Note: To maintain fairness for all teams and strategies in progress, if passed this would not go into effect for 2020. It would go into effect TWO years from now starting in 2022 season because teams would have to adjust strategy and rosters to plan for this. Originally, I thought about being implemented one year out, but after careful consideration I think two years would be more appropriate. The reason being because we can trade draft picks two years out and draft picks are important for building out depth. If teams have already traded away any 2021 picks they would have less of a chance to prepare for this rule being implemented for the 2021 season.

The other option instead of adding a new flex spot (and we could implement this beginning this season if people wanted to) would be to convert our 3rd WR spot into a flex spot. We could do this in place of adding a new flex spot OR do this for the two years while we wait for the new flex spot to be implemented (and then this goes back to a 3rd WR spot only). Or we could simple make no changes and just wait two years for a new flex spot if people wanted to do that. Discuss below....

[tbparker]

Flex160 last year was Gerald Everett. That’s TE26 being a starter in week 1.

Even before byes weeks and injuries this position will be boom/bust players with 0 point floors. By way of example, Everett had 4 weeks over 12 points and 9 under 4.5. Rather than introducing additional skill or depth, in a 16 team league with rosters this large, this only introduces luck on what weeks your second flex hits and what week they don’t.

[bthoman]

Not sure why flex160 is relevant. If this were to pass, you would be starting a combination of 8 RB/WR/TE so it seems like flex128 would be more relevant.

Not disagreeing with your logic just didn't understand flex160

[bthoman]

Also, the Bengals would be starting James Conner in the new flex. I would be starting Guice or Shepherd. Those players do not have zero point floors.

[lukebroncos]

yall would start two guys from your IR?

[Bucs Freemann]

Adding the flex position adds additional strategy and value to late round picks, late free agent signings, etc. Players like Phillip Dorset, Willie Snead, etc gain immense value by having an additional flex position. I also think that the required depth will help drive free agency costs down (not drastically but slightly), as a team can’t field a deep enough roster with 30% of the cap invested with one player.

The 2022 start for this allows for teams without draft capital this and next year to get a “fresh start” for planning and it helps curb any advantage someone could have now.

[lukebroncos]

because everyone wants willie snead in their line ups

[Bucs Freemann]

League depth helps drive down FA prices and adds value to draft. Pretty simple

[lukebroncos]

It will drive up free agent prices of running backs. More bidders equals higher prices. 4 RB eligible spots means owners with 3 starters are more likely to be in competition for a 4th. Demand, scarcity, marginal utility etc etc. We JUST adjusted the pricing mechanism for bonuses with one flex roster structure in mind.

[Bucs Freemann]

Free agent prices for RBs aren’t going to drastically change bc the additional flex adds more value for WRs played. The RBs that you’d put in that position won’t see playing time on field.
This flex is essentially an additional WR/TE slot.

[lukebroncos]

It will increase their demand in fa and rookie drafts because of their scarcity and now their added utility with a 4th line up spot. Rbs are very scarce, wrs are not. Rbs are gold, wrs are Zimbabwe fiat.

[lukebroncos]

Think of it this way. If we transitioned to a super flex we are adding a line up spot for qbs. In this case we are adding a spot for rbs in a 16 team league with no limits. Good luck trading for rbs in the future. No one will be giving up their rbs.

[bthoman]

Terrible example. QB scoring is higher than RB scoring. RB and WR scoring is comparable in .75 ppr scoring. I don't understand why you think everyone would be wanting to try to start 4 RBs

I haven't made up my mind on this yet but I don't buy into the fact that it changes RB value. I think everyone would be starting WRs and TEs in the extra flex spot.

If my RB4 scores less than my WR4, I am going to play my WR

The only thing that would change the RB value is if you were to require teams to start 3 RBs. This wouldn't do that. You still only have to start 2 RBs.

The reason RBs are valuable in this league is because every team is required to start 2. Well we have 16 teams so there are 32 RBs being started every week and that is around the spot that RB value really starts to decline.

Adding a flex would have little to no impact on RB value.

[jamesosteen]

The standard starting roster size is 9 for 16 team leagues and we already go 1 over that with 10 spots...seems like the better middle ground would be to make 3rd WR a flex instead of adding an 11th starting spot. Gives managers more flexibility thus more strategy without changing something drastic like the starting roster size.

Depth is argued in two ways....a deep bench to cover injuries, byes, play best matchups versus having more starting spots to play players. You can have a deep league by allowing a deep bench without necessarily affecting the number of starters. Most leagues that start 9 have a bench of about 6-7. We have a bench of 14 PLUS a rookie practice squad for 10 more developing players. That's deep!

I think the way we have it deeper teams already get rewarded....look at my team for instance, no depth so I'm in trouble when injuries hit, byes hit, bad match ups hit. I cant look to my bench for help. But someone who has a deep roster can cover an injury, cover a bye, switch out guys for more favorable match ups. That's why we gave teams a deep bench ... so they could have flexibility with building their roster. All of that still gives value to later draft picks and deeper FAs, etc. Just because they aren't "starters" typically doesn't mean they aren't valuable. They have a role and its to provide depth if and when something happens to one of your big time guys.

There's already some weeks I see people putting including myself submitting some iffy lineups....you add another starting spot and it will be that much worse!

We're two seasons into this league...I dont think we need to do anything as drastic as adding a roster spot. If we want to convert 3rd WR to a flex to add flexibility and more strategy i"m game.

[reeddominick]

I had initially voted yes on this ballot since I'm all for the strategy of those that build a deeper team being rewarded. I'm okay with holding off on this for a few years since picks have already been traded, but I would support adding an additional flex spot down the road.

In the short term, I would be all for removing the 3rd WR spot and replacing it with a flex.

[UNITS24]

I do like the idea of changing the 3rd wr spot a flex instead of adding another flex spot while give teams more flexibility with their rosters. The more flexibility the better imo in a deep league like this!

[Jash13]

I voted yes here as well. I totally understand both points of view on this one, but my preference is always to get just a little bit deeper and reward the deeper teams. Someone mentioned previously and I agree that getting just a little deeper will add value to the lower round draft picks. We’ll think twice about moving some of those picks knowing how important a deep bench will be towards filling a lineup with solid players during bye weeks. I also think we’d need to think twice about holding onto an $80+ stud knowing we need to also build a deep team to be successful in this league. Might drive down prices a bit and encourage a few more high priced players to hit FA each offseason. Just my thoughts.

[detroitlions]

i think our league is already deep enough. and i am against changing a WR to FLEX. allowing ppl to start 4 rbs is a recipe for potential unbalanced seasons imo. i think the league is great as it is now in terms of starting lineup. last year we already had to go deep to find starters in some weeks which is fun. but another spot could overwhelm some teams.
for me its just ppl bored without sports to watch trying to find things to do.. we should fix what needs fixing, not mess with something no one complained about it the last 2 seasons

[mattbills]

I'm either way on this one.

I can't remember what I voted on this one. Truly am 50/50 on it. I'm happy with whatever majority rules comes out to be.

[rboyer34]

I signed up for and have built/traded with the QB/RB/RB/WR/WR/WR/TE/FLEW/DST/K in mind. Im strongly against this changing. We have all been playing with this as the structure. Some teams will have an advantage/disadvantage that was impossible for them to plan for. Its simply not fair. It will also thin out the competitive balance of the league. Less teams will be in contention and less owners will be in-gauged throughout the season. We don't need more non competitive teams, which this will create.

[Seahawks]

I'm for it, the teams that build for depth will do good. The teams that go for studs and duds probably not so much.

[Bucs Freemann]

Simply put, it adds depth and value to later draft picks. Having a 2 year window for people to prepare is more than enough time.

[Kostadino]

I’m against both ideas. Adding more starters could lead to the set it and forget it mentality. Dropping the 3rd wide receiver for a flex when we already have a flex. I don’t want to do.

[Kostadino]

If it goes to vote and passes I’m not leaving the league either way lol. Felt like I had to add that.

[rafastw]

I am always for deeper rosters, raises the value of finding those cheap pieces that can contribute. Therefore I voted yes at first. Probably biased as well since my team is quite deep right now. But even though I do not think adding a flex would alter player values in an unbalanced way as much as changing to superflex would for example, it still does some. And doing that in an ongoing league will always be unfair to someone. Personally I think the 2 year bumper mitigates this, but then again, my team is deep, I would be OK with having the extra flex right now, so maybe my opinion is not the most important one. Those who do not have much deep rosters right now (and most of them rightly so since they were considering the current roster rules) are voicing their concerns about it. And it is legitimate since they are the ones who would be harmed by this change. I have not made up my mind yet, but considering changing my previous vote.