Thoughts on Flex/Utility spot in Fantasy Hockey

[Hawko]

Considering adding a Flex Skater position to one of my leagues roster for 2017-18, as suggested by a league GM.
I know they're used regularly in fantasy football but only come across a few Hockey leagues with them.
Anyone out there use one? I don't think its a necessity, but some want it. Open to thoughts and comments. League breaks down like this:

12 Teams, H2H, 20 Keepers per year
Positions: 3C, 3LW, 3RW, 5D, 3G, 8Bench, 4 Minors
Stats: G, A, +/-, PIM, SOG, PP&SHP, GWG, H&B, W, GGA, SV%, SHO

[Eskimo Brother]

I don't think they're all that uncommon in hockey. Usually though the UTIL spot just becomes another C slot due to the abundance of Cs, and the production you can get out of them. So take that into account if you want to add them. They do offer some nice flexibility though, especially with so many player positions being taken away this year.

[Goldendelicious]

Quite personally I'm not a fan of these slots. I think GMs should be awarded for better draft plans and covering bases with drafting Cs, LWs, RWs & Ds appropriately whether that be a keeper, dynasty or redraft league.

We actually just removed 2 skater positions in my one league as a result and it seems to be working out already even though we haven't started the new season yet. In my experience, it forces more league activity as people need to trade for these positions just like the NHL as opposed to trotting out whatever you have in a Skater/Utility spot and maintaining status quo with your team (I know this isn't the case in every league however).

[Rehdaun]

Exactly what EB said. My daily league has had a flex spot since we started the league. Most of us use it for that extra forward, most likely a center. Notice the Daily league in my Sig. Says that we run 3C. One's actually a flex spot.

[hockeyrobot]

I have a Util spot as well. Makes sense in most formats.

[Pengwin7]

I don't like the "UTIL" spot.
It feels very un-hockey like.
I get it in fantasy football, some teams are preferential to a base line-up with 2 RB... or 4 WR sets... or double TE sets.

But hockey, nah.
It's not like there are conditions where your team strategy is to go with 2F/3D all game... psh.
I'd be pretty annoyed if any of my leagues went "UTIL"... its essentially gonna be another forward - likely center.
Nah.

[Sulla]

agree with P7 - not a deal breaker for me but I prefer leagues without one - just feels a cop out

[RizzeeDizzee]

My main league has one, and it's basically just another forward spot 95% of the time. The only time it isn't is when a team has major forward injuries or there is a scheduling quirk. I'd personally be happy to see it gone from fantasy hockey.

[Hawko]

Mirroring many of my thoughts. I dont see the need for it as the rosters are big enough the managers should be able to draft accordingly. Playing one centre over another is a big part of managing a good team. Thanks for the input and helping confirm my suspicions

[chuckcouples]

I agree with the majority. I find no use for having a utility spot in hockey since it doesn't really make sense. I doubt there are even a handful of the 1230 NHL games a season where one player starts a game at forward or d then switches to the other one. Sure there are plenty of players capable of playing both forward and d but they almost never due it in the same game.