APPROVED 8-3 (Flex WR/TE Y/N)

Preds · May 3rd, 2002, 07:21 PM

I'd consider the flex lineups with RB's and WR's a dead issue at this point, no problem there, I understand you points, and this is everybodies league. Lets keep the suggestions rolling (don't be shy) to improve the league whicever way we can.

There does seem to be support, however, for a flex set to allow 2TE's.

Basically the legal sets would be

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

Please vote in the poll above to formaly approve or disapprove this change

Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers · May 3rd, 2002, 07:54 PM

If you're going this far you might as well go all the way. What about a 1 WR, 3 TE lineup?

Flaxwless · May 3rd, 2002, 08:06 PM

HA HA!

Now can we get this goddamn draft rollin!

PLease?!

As CHAMPION, I command you all!

Royal Hawaiian Opihi · May 3rd, 2002, 08:38 PM

Opihi have voted in favor.

Philadelphia Freedom · May 4th, 2002, 07:22 AM

Yes.

Ypsilanti Undead · May 4th, 2002, 08:33 AM

I voted yes.

Nittany Dodgers · May 6th, 2002, 09:37 AM

Flex lineups in any form are a slippery slope. I will try (in vain) to prevent us from sliding down that slope.

Urza's Ragers · May 6th, 2002, 11:02 AM

Voted.

May 6th, 2002, 11:46 AM

I have voted

May 6th, 2002, 11:05 PM

I voted yes. I have never been a fan of a strict, set lineup.

Mutts · May 8th, 2002, 11:27 PM

I have no problem with the change, as long as a mandatory TE never finds its way out of the rules.

May 3rd, 2002, 07:21 PM	#1
Preds *****istrator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Hamburg, NY Posts: 17,782	APPROVED 8-3 (Flex WR/TE Y/N) I'd consider the flex lineups with RB's and WR's a dead issue at this point, no problem there, I understand you points, and this is everybodies league. Lets keep the suggestions rolling (don't be shy) to improve the league whicever way we can. There does seem to be support, however, for a flex set to allow 2TE's. Basically the legal sets would be 1QB, 2RB, 3WR, 1TE, 1K, 1D and 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 2TE, 1K, 1D Please vote in the poll above to formaly approve or disapprove this change __________________ *4x Frenzy Champions (2003, 2005, 2013, 2022) with 9 appearances in the Frenzy Bowl (4 in the past 5 seasons*) 2022 Co-Champions with WchMeGo Roosters Email: preds1@gmail.com Cell: 716-481-8823

May 3rd, 2002, 08:06 PM	#3
Flaxwless Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Bay Area, California Posts: 6,050	HA HA! Now can we get this goddamn draft rollin! PLease?! As CHAMPION, I command you all! __________________ Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects - 1st EVER Feeding Frenzy Champion Bay Area Bloodsuckers 2008 SAC'D Champions - 2nd Worst to First in Year! 2011 SAC'D Champions - #5 seed, # 2 power rankings, #1 in the end!

May 4th, 2002, 07:22 AM	#5
Philadelphia Freedom Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Posts: 6,270	Yes Yes.

May 4th, 2002, 08:33 AM	#6
Ypsilanti Undead Feeding Frenzy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ypsilanti, MI Posts: 840	yea I voted yes.

May 3rd, 2002, 07:54 PM	#2
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: San Jose, California Posts: 946	If you're going this far you might as well go all the way. What about a 1 WR, 3 TE lineup?

May 3rd, 2002, 08:38 PM	#4
Royal Hawaiian Opihi Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Palmdale, CA Posts: 16,604	Opihi have voted in favor.

May 6th, 2002, 09:37 AM	#7
Nittany Dodgers Feeding Frenzy Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Maplewood, MN Posts: 5,204	Flex lineups in any form are a slippery slope. I will try (in vain) to prevent us from sliding down that slope.

May 6th, 2002, 11:02 AM	#8
Urza's Ragers Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: San Jose, Ca Posts: 1,431	Voted.

May 6th, 2002, 11:46 AM	#9
Devil Hounds Guest Posts: n/a	I have voted

May 6th, 2002, 11:05 PM	#10
Detroit Wyverns Guest Posts: n/a	I voted yes. I have never been a fan of a strict, set lineup.

May 8th, 2002, 11:27 PM	#11
Mutts General Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Bloomington, Indiana Posts: 3,026	I have no problem with the change, as long as a mandatory TE never finds its way out of the rules.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)