Would devaluing RBs make for a better league?

[Wizard]

It seems the most common strategy is to get stud RBs; that's what wins the ship, and it looks to be true. Pretty much everything I read says GET good RBs, they are more valuable than WR because of scarcity, which is also true. I see in my leagues there are 4 or 5 team every year that pretty much don't have a chance to win due to ...... bad RBs. Does anyone play in a league that devalues them? Maybe in a half PPR or full PPR that RBs don't get the PPR points? Or maybe you only can start 2 RBs at the max so you're starting 4 or more WRs. I'd like to hear from anyone that does play in a league that devalues RBs and what their thought are, is it fun? Does it suck? Does it totally change how trades and the rookie drafts works. It seems to me that it might make it more fun but I could be wrong, maybe the struggle to get the stud RBs makes a league more exciting. It just seems to me there are teams every year that are done before week one and it's because they don't have any stud RBs and possibly devalue them may level the playing field a little and make the leagues more challenging.

[TheNuts]

It seems the most common strategy is to get stud RBs; that's what wins the ship, and it looks to be true. Pretty much everything I read says GET good RBs, they are more valuable than WR because of scarcity, which is also true. I see in my leagues there are 4 or 5 team every year that pretty much don't have a chance to win due to ...... bad RBs. Does anyone play in a league that devalues them? Maybe in a half PPR or full PPR that RBs don't get the PPR points? Or maybe you only can start 2 RBs at the max so you're starting 4 or more WRs. I'd like to hear from anyone that does play in a league that devalues RBs and what their thought are, is it fun? Does it suck? Does it totally change how trades and the rookie drafts works. It seems to me that it might make it more fun but I could be wrong, maybe the struggle to get the stud RBs makes a league more exciting. It just seems to me there are teams every year that are done before week one and it's because they don't have any stud RBs and possibly devalue them may level the playing field a little and make the leagues more challenging.

I personally prefer to give bonus points to the other positions than give less points to rbs. Like 25-50% ppr bonus for receivers. 50-100% ppr bonus to tight end.

I also really dig superflex 4 point pass td since it makes qbs much more important but not crazy important. In 1 qb leagues the top couple are valuable, and then it's pretty much a who cares about qbs since they all score closely.

[DLF3000]

After getting obliterated for years because my RBs always sucked, including drafting 1st round RB busts at a truly impressive clip...

I drafted a scoring system a few years back where basically the best few of every position scored about the same. One cornerstone was customizing PPR by position rather than the far more common by production type (rush yds, pass yds etc.).

The goal was to encourage building a winning team with a more variable combination of positions. So in theory, two teams were strong at 3 positions but weak at one were pretty much on par, regardless if one team was weak at QB and the other weak at RB, for example. So it was more about getting good players rather than over-drafting/trading for/hoarding any position.

I also felt at least 12 skill position starters and 1-3 flex alongside start 2QB and start 2TE made for a greater challenge and value boost to all positions.

That said, I never implemented it because I have near zero interest in ever running leagues again after running them for many years.

Back on RB, it's just the nature of the beast in most non-cutting-edge leagues. Some things cycle in and out after a few years, so the general rule for RBs right now is bound to shift again.

[Straycatz2]

While RB do tend to score more, their fantasy life span is much shorter, and now we see RB having a harder time making it to their next big contract without changing teams so stability is a issue too. So in the long run it kind of all equals out.

Also if you created some system where all players are pretty much equal, then that would take the fun out of trading. Because positions have their own uniqueness, that creates holes on rosters and inturn promotes trading.

[OhCruelestRanter]

While RB do tend to score more, their fantasy life span is much shorter, and now we see RB having a harder time making it to their next big contract without changing teams so stability is a issue too. So in the long run it kind of all equals out.

Also if you created some system where all players are pretty much equal, then that would take the fun out of trading. Because positions have their own uniqueness, that creates holes on rosters and inturn promotes trading.

Agree with this. RBs score more, but don’t last as long. That’s part of the “puzzle” of building a dynasty team.

[Valhalla]

While RB do tend to score more, their fantasy life span is much shorter, and now we see RB having a harder time making it to their next big contract without changing teams so stability is a issue too. So in the long run it kind of all equals out.

Also if you created some system where all players are pretty much equal, then that would take the fun out of trading. Because positions have their own uniqueness, that creates holes on rosters and inturn promotes trading.

Agree with this. RBs score more, but don’t last as long. That’s part of the “puzzle” of building a dynasty team.

Yep. Not every team will be competitive every year. If you want it that way, you could allow for 1RB 3WR 1TE and XFlex, so people could get away with playing just one RB and a bunch of WRs. I personally like settings that challenge you to build the team and pick your window to grab the RBs you need to be playoff competitive. Without demanding more RBs in the lineup and having that scarcity, there's less of a challenge in fielding a competitive lineup and building a winner.

[Cameron Giles]

You probably have a good 3 years to ride a good RB on their rookie contract before you should sell. RBs usually are significantly less valuable on their 2nd contract. So, as others have said, team building already in a sense makes it difficult to devalue RBs even further.

[DLF3000]

Also if you created some system where all players are pretty much equal, then that would take the fun out of trading. Because positions have their own uniqueness, that creates holes on rosters and inturn promotes trading.

That's fine, though not all trading is "fun" for everyone. Related to this, I proposed zero-trade leagues here a few years back as an experiment. Trades are by the far the most swing-y option in building a team, especially in dynasty. (And some GMs' trade etiquette and communication is downright terrible, making the whole trade experience exhausting, but that's a whole other thread.)

You and I have seen plenty of massively unbalanacing trades over the years across multiple leagues, so taking out that possibility (and we've all seen horrible trades that nearly or actually do destroy leagues of all types - how is that fun for anyone except maybe 1 GM?) would simply be a new challenge.

You'd have to learn to be e a great drafter and waiver wire trash sifter instead of shark-trading your way to victory. Slow build approach vs. the massive swings bad trades can make. At least as a one-shot, it would be different strategy and tactics and definitely challenging.

[bjd5211]

Trades that "destroy leagues" are incredibly rare, and most of the time people are over reacting to them in the first place.

[dynastyninja]

Trades that "destroy leagues" are incredibly rare, and most of the time people are over reacting to them in the first place.

x2, I don't think I've ever seen a trade that destroyed the league. It would have to be outright collusion.

[Pew Dogs]

Would doing away with flexes do the trick? This way it’s a battle within positions.

I know that in our family league, when we switched from 2RB, 2WR, 1Flex to 3RB, 3WR everyone liked it better. It also made people have to go deeper during bye weeks. (I’d be happy with 4RB, 4WR.)

[Csl312]

Would doing away with flexes do the trick? This way it’s a battle within positions.

I know that in our family league, when we switched from 2RB, 2WR, 1Flex to 3RB, 3WR everyone liked it better. It also made people have to go deeper during bye weeks. (I’d be happy with 4RB, 4WR.)

Hadn't thought about this ever but I think I actually really like this idea. I think it would work best if you started 2 TE also to avoid marginalizing a really shallow position.

[Jigga94]

Would doing away with flexes do the trick? This way it’s a battle within positions.

I know that in our family league, when we switched from 2RB, 2WR, 1Flex to 3RB, 3WR everyone liked it better. It also made people have to go deeper during bye weeks. (I’d be happy with 4RB, 4WR.)

Starting 3 RB would make them even more valuable. The more you need, the more demand. Now, every league is different but generally that's going to drive the price up.

I think adding flexes helps lower the value of any one position. Have a league with 3 flexes that is pretty cool. Why would anyone pay big money for their 5th RB though when a WR in the same range would likely cost less, play longer and score more on average?

Superflex is a pretty unique example. You can put ANY position there but everyone knows playing QB is the way to go so that drives their prices up because it's essentially adding a required QB spot

[Sriracha]

After getting obliterated for years because my RBs always sucked, including drafting 1st round RB busts at a truly impressive clip...

I drafted a scoring system a few years back where basically the best few of every position scored about the same. One cornerstone was customizing PPR by position rather than the far more common by production type (rush yds, pass yds etc.).

The goal was to encourage building a winning team with a more variable combination of positions. So in theory, two teams were strong at 3 positions but weak at one were pretty much on par, regardless if one team was weak at QB and the other weak at RB, for example. So it was more about getting good players rather than over-drafting/trading for/hoarding any position.

I also felt at least 12 skill position starters and 1-3 flex alongside start 2QB and start 2TE made for a greater challenge and value boost to all positions.

That said, I never implemented it because I have near zero interest in ever running leagues again after running them for many years.

Back on RB, it's just the nature of the beast in most non-cutting-edge leagues. Some things cycle in and out after a few years, so the general rule for RBs right now is bound to shift again.

What scoring settings did you come up with to put every position more in line with one another?

[DLF3000]

What scoring settings did you come up with to put every position more in line with one another?

Like I said, the #1 change was adjusting every position's PPR so it was unique to them. Basically tweaking that until each Top X at each position (e.g. referencing avg fantasy points from the prior year) were reasonably close, as in within a few points.

So for example, the Top 3 at each position might average around 25 points - the main and easiest slider for that was different PPR values by position. QBs required different types of tweaking of course, like passing yard points adjustments, to bring them in line with RB, WR and TE.