2nd flex position

[Deleted]

I was curious about how that 2nd flex position (QB/WR/TE) was decided on. I have never seen that kind of flex option w/ a QB, especially as a 2nd flex starter. It is very unusual.

[Peter (Swamp Dragons)]

That's good because if you get locked out of the stud rb's you might get more points from a second QB to level the playing field.
Just think you can blow of RB's and draft Brady and Manning. I wouldn't recomend that but think of the points it would give you.

[Chris (RI Irish)]

We felt like we should be able to reward teams for having good QB's also. That is why we decided on having the QB flex option.

[benyamen]

Ya, I gotta admit I'm not a huge fan of the QB flex position either. To me the best leagues are the one's that are the most realistic. You can't start 2 QB's in the NFL, so I don't see why you'd allow it in fantasy football. The great thing about a dynasty league is that it's supposed to be like operating your own franchise. If you're totally set on allowing a 2nd starting QB, I guess there's nothing I can do about it, but I'd definitely prefer to have only one starting QB.

[Deleted]

The teams that have the best drafts should be rewarded most, but I am willing to try anything out.

This brings me to my next question. I understand that the rules were set up before I, or anyone else joined the league, so I don't expect to have a say in changing or improving them before this season. However, what about future seasons? Is everything democratic? Will we be able to vote on rule changes, or do you plan to keep your system intact like it is?

[Brad (Texas Hellfire)]

We will always be open to suggestions of what is going right and what is going wrong in the league . . . and if you'll notice, everything that was not decided beforehand is put up for some discussion before being implemented.

You can think of future changes as a limited dictatorship We will definitely listen to what is going on especially if a majority of the owners think so, but the commishes votes and views on the league will weigh heavily on the final decision.

For example . . . IDP . . . even though 6-7 league members may be for it, Chris (Rock Island) is staunchly against it. Since this league was his idea, it will probably never be part of this league . . . but any and everything are up for discussion at any time . . . which is why the rules proposal thread is open to everyone.

Bottom line we want everyone to think of this as a fun league, but we mostly want everyone to think of it as their league too, Chris and I are just setting it up and trying to run it in the way where we have the most fun.

[Deleted]

May 20, 2008 13:46:52 GMT -6 Brad (Texas Hellfire) said:

We will always be open to suggestions of what is going right and what is going wrong in the league . . . and if you'll notice, everything that was not decided beforehand is put up for some discussion before being implemented.

You can think of future changes as a limited dictatorship We will definitely listen to what is going on especially if a majority of the owners think so, but the commishes votes and views on the league will weigh heavily on the final decision.

For example . . . IDP . . . even though 6-7 league members may be for it, Chris (Rock Island) is staunchly against it. Since this league was his idea, it will probably never be part of this league . . . but any and everything are up for discussion at any time . . . which is why the rules proposal thread is open to everyone.

Bottom line we want everyone to think of this as a fun league, but we mostly want everyone to think of it as their league too, Chris and I are just setting it up and trying to run it in the way where we have the most fun.

You guys have done a great job so far.