starting lineups?

[Bier Meister 1,658]

current:

qb: 1

rb: 2

wr: 2

te: 1

flex: 1 wr/te

pk: 1

d/st: 1

 

proposed:

qb: 1

rb: 1

wr: 2

te: 1

flex: 1 rb/wr/te

flex: 1 wr/te

pk: 1

d/st:1

 

puts a max at 2 rb, with the ability to flex one.

it opens a couple of other discussion: do you like being able to start 3 rb? do you guys like starting 10 instead of 9?

 

thoughts?

[Djgb13 2,339]

Personally, I like the traditional 1 QB, 2 RBs, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 DST, 1 PK, and 1 flex that allows RB/WR/TE. But that's just me.

[Bier Meister 1,658]

if the league likes the ability to start 3 rbs, i'd push for:

qb:1

rb:1

wr: 2

te:1

flex: 2 rb/wr/te

pk:1

d/st:1

 

 

with the the high rate of injuries over the past 5 years or so, i like the flexibility to cover injuries, byes, and rbbc

[shotsup 832]

Personally, I like the traditional 1 QB, 2 RBs, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 DST, 1 PK, and 1 flex that allows RB/WR/TE. But that's just me.

This

[gocolts 300]

Not ignoring this topic, just do not really care what way we go. I will vote and participate when we get it narrowed down, no problem.

[tanatastic 2,062]

This

It's really the only way it should be.

[Bier Meister 1,658]

It's really the only way it should be.

 

That's like saying burger king is the only place to go for chicken nuggets.

[Voltaire 5,203]

The tradition is 1/2/3/1/1/1 and no flex.

 

We flexed the 3rd WR to open it up for 2 TEs, not a 3rd RB.

 

3RBs has been proposed every year and thus far has lost every vote every year.

 

----

 

What Bier Meister's original plan was, allowing the 2nd RB to be flexed into a 4th WR or a 2nd TE is how we did it in the IBL in year one. It's also the only vote I lost that year. Everything but that was my idea. Years later I lost another vote to keep PPR out of the IBL ... since then I've softened my stance on both of those things. to such an extent that CCDL has had both the 4th WR option and PPR from the start and I didn't flinch.

----

 

Anyway I actually don't mind if we flex the 2nd RB into a WR4 but I do prefer it as is and so vote ; no

 

A much more vigorous "no" to the perennial proposal to opening flex to a 3rd RBs.

[Bier Meister 1,658]

while i have my preferences, i can easily go with the flow. i wanted to see where people stood. does 4 people responding suggest contentment or apathy?

 

 

edit: i like to reduce luck factors in FF (though know they will always exist). the nfl is different now than it was in 1991 when i started, where there was more predictability. with rbbc, an injury can completely flip the fate of two teams with their rb2.

[Voltaire 5,203]

while i have my preferences, i can easily go with the flow. i wanted to see where people stood. does 4 people responding suggest contentment or apathy?

Neither. It means people don't check this forum. I was in the neighborhood for the CCDL forum. I found there were posts in this forum just now by scrolling down rather than enter CCDL directly.