|
|
4 WR's
Aug 29, 2009 16:25:09 GMT -5
Post by Corbett (Dirty Birds) on Aug 29, 2009 16:25:09 GMT -5
What would everyone think of changing it from 4 starting WR's and 2 starting RB's to 3/3? I just think having 4 starting WR's seems like too many.
|
|
|
|
4 WR's
Aug 29, 2009 16:31:07 GMT -5
Post by bowlby on Aug 29, 2009 16:31:07 GMT -5
im definitely fine with it.
|
|
|
|
4 WR's
Aug 30, 2009 10:44:28 GMT -5
Post by Corbett (Dirty Birds) on Aug 30, 2009 10:44:28 GMT -5
Or if people still want the option of a 4th WR, we could go:
WR - 3
RB - 2
WR/RB - 1
|
|
|
|
4 WR's
Aug 30, 2009 13:10:33 GMT -5
Post by pureblood on Aug 30, 2009 13:10:33 GMT -5
Or if people still want the option of a 4th WR, we could go: WR - 3 RB - 2 WR/RB - 1 I like this |
|
|
|
4 WR's
Sept 1, 2009 17:13:55 GMT -5
Post by bigben on Sept 1, 2009 17:13:55 GMT -5
i'd even be in favor of a wr/rb/te flex....
|
|
|
|
4 WR's
Sept 1, 2009 17:46:07 GMT -5
Post by Corbett (Dirty Birds) on Sept 1, 2009 17:46:07 GMT -5
i'd even be in favor of a wr/rb/te flex.... I'd be fine with that. |
|
|
|
4 WR's
Sept 1, 2009 20:01:33 GMT -5
Post by bowlby on Sept 1, 2009 20:01:33 GMT -5
ill change it up tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
4 WR's
Sept 2, 2009 11:20:23 GMT -5
Post by bowlby on Sept 2, 2009 11:20:23 GMT -5
its been changed to wr/ rb/ te
|
|
|
|
4 WR's
Sept 6, 2009 1:31:49 GMT -5
Post by skerr41 on Sept 6, 2009 1:31:49 GMT -5
You would be hard pressed to get 4 decent wr's. Without sacrificing everything else anyway.
3, 2, 1 works, glad you changed that Bowlby.
|
|
