REJECTED 6-1 (Flex Lineups?)

[Preds]

Can you tell my rookie draft is over and I've got nothing better to do !

Anyhow, another thing I'd love to see added as a wrinkle to this league to help improve upon the realism is flex lineups.

I'd propose the following offensive sets:

1QB, 2RB, 3WR, 1TE, 1K, 1D

1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 2TE, 1K, 1D

1QB, 1RB, 4WR, 1TE, 1K, 1D

1QB, 1RB, 3WR, 2TE, 1K, 1D

This is a change that I think could be implemented this year. It would allow us to do more coaching during the season, and again we'd have less reliance of the waiver wire since we could shift our starting lineup from week to week.

What do you think?

Again, please Vote in the Poll above!

[Nittany Dodgers]

Big time NO vote here. I hate flex lineups. The only way I would agree to a flex lineup is if the team had to run the same formation all season. Do the Falcons come out one week with the run and shoot, lose, and decide to do a power running game with two tight ends the next? No, so I don't think we should either.

I think this league is awesome, but flex lineups would ruin it for me.

[Preds]

Dodgers, now here I disagree with you. Teams can an DO change their lineup formations from week to week, heck they do it all the time in-game.

It's called a gameplan, teams do whatever they can to create mismatches against a defensive opponent, sometimes that means they go with the power running game 2 back set, others it might be to spread the field 4 wide, etc.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Ah, but what you're talking about Mike is more situational. Sure, on third and long, no team is going to come in in a one back, two tight end set. You're going to bring in a third or fourth receiver. And sure teams game plan week to week to take advantages of mismatches against their oponents, but they do not change their offensive philosophy every week. Say a team has 200 plays. They look at their opponent and find the best 50 that they think will work against their opponents perosonell and thats what they focus on that week (I'm pulling those numbers out of the air, don't flame me for inacuracies).

But going with the flex lineup is like changing their whole offensive phliosophy every week. Take the 49ers. Are they going to meet a team, say the Bucs, who play well against the west coast offense and change what they try to do? I don't think Mooch sits in his office and says "uh oh, we're playing team x this week, so scrap those timing patterns, its4 wide and bombs away this week." Nor do teams change their philosophy just cause someone is injured. The only time a change is made is when a QB gets hurt and they scale back the playbook, but I've never seen a gameplan change made due to injury. The colts still ran even though they were handing off to, what a 7th rounder? Same with the Broncos with Gary and Anderson. Best player goes down? You keep pluggin away cause you have confidence in your system.

Now of course this isn't real, and it isn't the NFL but I always like to try to get as close to the real thing when possible.

If we do go with flex, I would think we'd have to also have a 1/3/2/1 as an option too. I don't think it would be fair to someone who is stacked at RB not to let them play more than 2 when someone who is stacked at WR could play four if they wanted to.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I think if we're going to move to FLEX lineups the decision needs to be made WAY EARLY in the offseason... before UFAs and rookies are bid on. Teams have already formed strategy on who they'll add/keep on their rosters. At this point in the game, I think it's too late for this season.

[Preds]

Originally posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi
I think if we're going to move to FLEX lineups the decision needs to be made WAY EARLY in the offseason... before UFAs and rookies are bid on. Teams have already formed strategy on who they'll add/keep on their rosters. At this point in the game, I think it's too late for this season.

Jim,

I don't know that I entirely agree with you there. My strategy wouldn't have been any different before or after. RB's are by far the most valuable position, so starting 2 good ones if you can is certainly the way to go (unless your BDSC with Moss, Boston, etc ).

I say this as a team who's strength is the 2 back set. If anything, allowing the flex lineups will hurt me more than it would help me since some teams are seriously WEAK at RB.

I like flex because it allows you to play to your strentgths, and somewhat deemphasizes the value of RB's since you have other options.

If teams want to stick with a 2 RB set, thats fine by me. I'm built for that. I would like to see us allow the 2WR 2TE set however.

Starting a TE over a WR is probably only worthwhile for bye week fillins, but that makes more sense than a waiver wire pickup to me.

Look at the Undead, with 3 WR's on bye week 10, at least the extra TE would give them another option without decimating their team with waiver pickups and cuts, or required trades.

How about that as a compromise folks?

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

I dont think starting 2 TEs and 2 WRs vs 1 TE and 3 WRs is much of a difference. Anyone forced to start 2 TEs is in trouble anyway. I would be opposed to allowing 1 RB and 4 WR at this point just because I feel it is a bit late to vote on at this point in the season. If enough owners feel strongly about this then we could vote on it during the next offseason.

[Flaxwless]

I agree with Squirrels. 2 TE and 2 WR sets or 1 TE 3WR set is fine with me. I wouldn't mind changin it this season.

However like everyone else the 1RB to 4 WR ratio is not going to work.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I'd go with 2 WRs and 2 TEs as an option. Don't see how I'd ever use it... but it doesn't undermine the original configuration.