Fantasy Football Roster question - 14 team league

[JSC437]

I have this Fantasy Football league at work and I am the commish.

It is a 14 team league

I have the rosters set like this

QB
WR
WR
WR
RB
RB
TE
Flex (wr/rb/te)

Def
Kicker

EDIT: I forgot to add the TE position (added after the below reply, sorry)


Do you think that starting 3 WRs in a 14 team league is too many? Should I do 2 WRs? the talent at WR (for fantasy purposes) is kind of thin

I know this is a random question..... thanks

 

[ArliHawk`]

We use a similar lineup in a 10 team league without the flex and we also use a TE. What about simply making TE an assigned position and getting rid of the flex? That would be an easy solution.

 

[Davidko19]

14 teams, thats way too thin at wr. You need to do 2 RB / 2 WR / 1 TE (And MAYBE a wr/te flex). Think of the rosters, you will have no WR depth, thus making the QB and RB more valueable. you dilute the position and its not really fun having to pick up some teams #3's to fill out your roster.

 

[ArliHawk`]

So many teams run 3 receiver sets that a lot of 3's score major points. Look at Steve Breaston and Anthong Gonzales. Regardless, how many teams are in the NFL? 30? 60 #1 or 2 wide receivers in the leauge should make 52 easy to pick. You'd only have to play the lower ones on bye weeks.

But if you keep it the way it is, you certainly won't have too many wr's playing flex.

 

[Macallan9]

Less depth = more scouring the waiver wire = better league. Sleeper picks come into play. I think it's marsupialed to have quality starters sitting in free agency and every team having a loaded roster.

 

[Davidko19]

Originally Posted by ArliHawk`

So many teams run 3 receiver sets that a lot of 3's score major points. Look at Steve Breaston and Anthong Gonzales. Regardless, how many teams are in the NFL? 30? 60 #1 or 2 wide receivers in the leauge should make 52 easy to pick. You'd only have to play the lower ones on bye weeks.

But if you keep it the way it is, you certainly won't have too many wr's playing flex.

Those are the exceptions my man. Can you name the #1 WR on Oakland or st. louis or tenessee or the giants? What about the number 2 on almost all other teams? Easier said than done. 14 teams * 2 starting WR's equals 28 guaranteed plays. Plus add in probably 10 teams using them for flex (if you only do WR/TE) and thats 38. Seems about right. 40 WRs you can name. The rest are 2 reception guys, not deal makers by any means.

Originally Posted by Macallan9

Less depth = more scouring the waiver wire = better league. Sleeper picks come into play. I think it's marsupialed to have quality starters sitting in free agency and every team having a loaded roster.

NOT TRUE. Watered down leagues suck almost as much as stacked ones. 10-12 teams is ideal, imo. There is a difference between picking someone who is a sleeper and a teams #3/4 for a spot start cause you ahve to. Having some decent players in FA is good, it encourages guys to make risky roster moves instead of drafting and squatting. I dont know about you, but I like action in my leagues.

 

[ArliHawk`]

Originally Posted by Davidko19

Those are the exceptions my man. Can you name the #1 WR on Oakland or st. louis or tenessee or the giants? What about the number 2 on almost all other teams? Easier said than done. 14 teams * 2 starting WR's equals 28 guaranteed plays. Plus add in probably 10 teams using them for flex (if you only do WR/TE) and thats 38. Seems about right. 40 WRs you can name. The rest are 2 reception guys, not deal makers by any means.




NOT TRUE. Watered down leagues suck almost as much as stacked ones. 10-12 teams is ideal, imo. There is a difference between picking someone who is a sleeper and a teams #3/4 for a spot start cause you ahve to. Having some decent players in FA is good, it encourages guys to make risky roster moves instead of drafting and squatting. I dont know about you, but I like action in my leagues.

On the first point, that's why you have a draft. If someone drafts the Raiders main receiver (Hayward Bay? Curry) high they deserve to lose. If everyone's lower receivers are even, taht makes it competitive.

I don't think a 14 team league would be watered down or stacked. Think it would be a pretty good balance. Reasonable minds can differ.

 

[Davidko19]

Originally Posted by ArliHawk`

On the first point, that's why you have a draft. If someone drafts the Raiders main receiver (Hayward Bay? Curry) high they deserve to lose. If everyone's lower receivers are even, taht makes it competitive.

I don't think a 14 team league would be watered down or stacked. Think it would be a pretty good balance. Reasonable minds can differ.

i understand but its not fair to say 30 teams, 2 receivers = 60 great WR's, its all good. Its not even like that. The cardinals #3 guy is better than the raiders #1 guy. Your assuming everyone has great picks. There is a 16th round where you ahve to get someone.

i dont think 14 teams is watered down but if you have 3 wr spots, 2 rb spots, 1 TE and a flex...then yea it is.
You will NOT find 14 TE's worth keeping week in and out.
28 RB's of value is impossible in the world of injuries and committees
42 WR's... yea....right...

 

[HRoi]

i would get rid of the flex for sure and make the 3rd wr spot a wr/te flex.

maybe get rid of the te spot altogether, as well

just my opinion

 

[countdemoney]

If you use traditional scoring for wr (yards + td), you will have some interesting games as WR scoring is so erratic. 28 points one week, 5 the next. There are only 5-10 WR's in the league who will consistently put up points every week and not have clunkers.

3 starting WR will give owners a chance to win the lottery every week. If you have a flex position any owner with skill in drafting and a lick of sense will fill it with a rb as the points are so much more consistent.

 

[WhateverYouLike]

Ive played a 20 man league with 3 WRs. It was a ***** and a half, but worked out just fine. If your first 3 round picks dont perform though, you're usually fucked.