Page 1 of 1

Should starting two RBs be the standard in Fantasy Football?

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:58 pm
by tejas42
Sorry, this is basically a preseason thread, but I have a friend that insists that is the way to go for our league next year -- only start one RB, 3 WRs and a flex.

He thinks it's more a passing league now, so the standard should be 1 RB, 3 WRs, and a flex. I don't think it's a bad idea to have 3 WRs, but I think 1 RB is a terrible idea.

There's more skill in finding good RBs in fantasy over WRs due to the lack of depth at the position compared to WR, so I think that should remaind the standard.

Your thoughts?
https://192168o1.com.br/
https://19216801login.com.br/
https://logintplink.com.br/

Re: Should starting two RBs be the standard in Fantasy Football?

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:13 pm
by PerkinsFor3
Not only a preseason thread, but a football thread as well.

Re: Should starting two RBs be the standard in Fantasy Football?

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2020 9:01 pm
by Jordan Syndrome
1 RB, 2 WR, 2 Flex

Re: Should starting two RBs be the standard in Fantasy Football?

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:36 pm
by jonbob17
Starting one RB is fine, if it is a 30 team league

Re: Should starting two RBs be the standard in Fantasy Football?

Posted: Thu Dec 3, 2020 4:26 pm
by brobitoppin
I like it. 1 QB, 1 RB.. just use your flex on a high end RB. RBs often get hurt and it comes down to waiver wire pickups to save your season mostly. I don't think it involves as much skill as it does luck for where in the waiver wire you're positioned. Everyone has the same information these days.

Re: Should starting two RBs be the standard in Fantasy Football?

Posted: Sun Dec 6, 2020 5:04 pm
by celticfan42487
I would like to only start 1 RB but my league is old and they'll never go for it. Stuck in the early 2000s idea of what football is.

There's nothing left at the RB position.

If anything because it's a passing league now you should do 1 RB and your Felx should be a super flex (which would essentially make it a 2 QB league).