Remove kicker add flex

I just finished listening to the latest podcast period and on this podcast a person asked about removing the kicker and adding another Flex instead. It seemed like the host are in favor of adding another Flex. I am having a hard time believing adding another Flex position is a good idea. My reasoning is that adding another Flex position really takes away for my team owner having to make those tough decisions on Sunday. So for them to say a kicker doesn’t add much value I believe is wrong to say because adding another Flex position has no value because all you are doing is taken away the tough decision on who to bench and who not to bench. And I say this as an owner over the years has been fortunate enough to have dep and has to agonize over benching a player because my Flex is already filled and then that player on the bench performs better. Taken away that decision is tough for me to comprehend as that is part of coaching. So again heading to flex and removing the kicker I believe adsmore luck then skill

I don’t think @DUB is saying picking a Kicker is the tough decision. He says the tough decision is who to play in the flex.

1 Like

You’re right. I’m an idiot. Completely ignore my entire post.


Let me try this again.

Some of what I said was still applicable. By adding a flex, you now have to make tough decisions between playing that WR/RB 4. This requires a lot of research in terms of schems and match-ups which you really didn’t have to make before. It’s easy to find an RB3 or a WR3 to play from week to week. It takes more work to figure out that top 50 player at the position who is playable to give you those 6-7 points you need to win.


Thanks for the replies fellas. Sorry for not a clear first post. I was in the gym and did voice text. What I am saying is that I know some leagues are moving away from the kicker and adding another flex. In my 13 year league I heard the thought come up time to time over the years. My main issues are 1. the kicker scores real points in a real game. and 2. the big issue for me is that adding another flex takes less coaching. I say that because lets say the current roster is
qb, rb, rb, wr, wr, flex, te, k, def

Now, if I have a one player(s) on my bench currently for this week’s game that I am considering to put in my flex spot over the current player in the flex that’s coaching option is a tough one. I find myself year in and year out with some depth on my bench and each week I am like damn it who do I sit (for me I’m wrong a lot of the time and cost myself points) if you take that coaching option out and I can just play 2 flex that to me is making fantasy football a checkers game vs. a chest game on skill level. Of course I don’t want to leave bench points… it hurts doing that… but it also is the pain of the game. Does that clear it up? Or do you others like the less pain part and want 2 flex to make it easier…? Thanks for thoughts, I love to brainstorm…

It seems more and more I hear this thought or action being made in league play…

I get that a kicker isn’t the sexy research position week in and week out. Not like you find the break out kicker yearly. Having a kicker on the team you are playing against out score your players is tick off worthy at times… I get it all hahaha. I’ve won and lost games coming down to a kicker myself…


Taking out the kicker and adding another flex spot (especially if it’s now your second flex most lineups are qb, rb, rb, wr, wr, te, k, def.)

So adding in that second flex spot to me takes away the coaching aspect and dumb the game down more to checkers vs. chest as trying to take luck out of fantasy as much as possible and here a league goes and adds that second flex making the coach now have an easier time on who to flex and who not to flex and could cost themselves points keeping the wrong player on the bench. Most owners ( I know myself year in and year out) have that 2 player coin flip week in week out that I need to get right (most times I don’t) and the player on bench gives more points.

This is a rant, trying to understand, and what do others thing type of post… hmmmm… 2 flex spots…


I’m trying to understand the drive behind 2 flex players. Is it so you have a lesser chance to keep points on the bench? So giving teams the best chance to roll out their best squad week in and week out. So maybe that having one flex spot and you make the wrong player pick costs you a win is more luck based…? -DUB-

2 flex adds strategy since you will play match ups, hot players etc as well as rewarding GMs who draft,waiver/trade well.

I brought the removal of kickers to a vote in my league n surprisingly most wanted to keep them or were just indifferent towards the matter. I want them a part of Fantasy; they score points so they matter, but i get those who don’t care for them and find them to be a nuisance. Personally, I think kickers should be merged with Def/ST and just nerf some of the scoring; it baffles me this is still not an option on any site I know of… So now we are voting whether or not to add the extra flex/bench. It’s been something I’ve been thinking about for a bit now and the Baller’s pushed me over the line on it.

Kicker or not; one or two flexes, I believe there’s good strategy either way. Personally, It just seems so weird to not have the kicker slot after all this time…

1 Like

In one way, yes, makes it harder to make mistakes, more a shotgun approach, I.e., less “coaching”. But, in another way, its one more decision to be made, meaning more chances to screw up, more matchups to think about. I see both sides and yes, rewarding stacked or built better teams is great but less coaching on gameday hmm…Depends on your viewpoint as to whether it adds or subtracts strategy

Thanks for adding in thoughts fellas… love to hear it… I just don’t know if I am stuck in my Commish ways or not at times when it comes to evolving… Even if I don’t move in the 2 flex (currently only 1 flex) option I want to learn about it and hear why others are going in that direction.

I honestly don’t understand your whole “less coaching” argument.

Choosing who to play for either that additional flex, super flex, or even WR which is what I do in my league, requires more skill, greater draft prowess, and more research than a traditional league ever will. You have to start more players and hence, constantly draft/waiver/pick-up players to serve that purpose on a week to week basis. This whole checkers vs chess argument just seems silly. It’s not like you don’t have to make start-sit decisions anymore. You just now have to make it at an even deeper level cause you’re trying to analyze and compare guys that most leagues would never start. You’re trying to pick between a WR4 for one week and an RB4 the week after and also, once you get that deep in RB/WR, it makes sense to start considering potentially even playing TE 2s. So I don’t really understand your argument at all. You keep saying that it reduces your “coaching” decisions and making it checkers vs chess but honestly, doesn’t really make any sense to me at all.

1 Like

thanks again for folks jumping in on this… I am trying to learn why adding 2 flex spots in a lineup that is currently
qb, rb, rb, flex (te, rb, wr) wr, wr, te, k, def with 6 bench spots and 1 IR spot would make sense to make our 12 man league more skilled base as our quest to limit luck as much as we can continues…

Speaking for myself I am a owner that year in year out week in week out has the depth on the bench that I have to make that one lineup call that could cost me points and the win. I’ve been on the wrong call side a lot and less year it cost me no joke 5 wins IFFFF played the other guy in the flex over the other… So I know that it is a hard coaching choice vs. ooooh here’s another flex spot to ease the hardness of making that call…

Ssolid points that I am thankful for as maybe having that extra flex spot instead of looking at it as easing the coaching choice on Sunday that it rewards the owner for building a team with some depth.

I just know I do not want owners needing to play a real nfl teams 3rd wr or 3rd rb or what not to fill a flex spot. That is pure luck that real nfl player on team has a good game…


Sorry so finding talent at a position is pure luck but trying to find which player breaks out isn’t? You have to research match-ups, watch college tape, etc to find those diamonds in the rough. I just don’t see much basis for anything you’re saying other than the fact you keep repeating this concept of “being a coach” and making hard bench decisions.

Luck is involved in fantasy, in fact, I’d say fantasy is much more luck than skill. It’s just about playing your odds. And if you find more enjoyment out of deciding who to bench vs who to play, than that is your prerogative but that doesn’t mean the other one takes less skill and is purely “based on luck” as you have stipulated.

Don’t really know how else to explain it beyond that. If you are fixated on this concept of more skill involved in benching, than just keep doing that. Play fantasy how you want to playman. But you posted here asking for thoughts, and I just gave you mine.

Ok. So the talk about kicking the kicker is done with… This is now more so on adding another flex spot. We have one flex (te, wr, rb)… adding another flex spot would be just for RB or WR (not TE as that position is already thin in real nfl.)

I am seeing that adding the second flex spot could ease coaching starting selection difficulty on do I bench x player over y player and then the opposite player does better… and now you not only lose the points, possible game, but lose on building a bench player that just sits… I know the other team you play gets their option on who to start at that 2nd flex now to so you could still lose but at the end of the day the pain of sitting wrong players would go away… and damn that Sh$#$# hurts hahahaha.