|
Post by undefeated on Nov 23, 2005 20:10:32 GMT -5
Continued from Original Rule Change Suggestions Link'06 Smaller Rosters Lets debate this here. Smaller Rosters: Current Roster: 18 players 16 is still alot. Consider our starters. 1qb-1rb-2wrs-1rb/wr-1te-1def=7 starters. At the very least 14. I like the number 15. Giving us 7-9 bench players. Currently 11. Purpose of smaller rosters in my mind, is to prevent owners from stashing players on their bench. Keepers or trade bait. How much effect would removing two roster spots have on my team today? I would probably drop the 8th and 9th rb on my team. If not my 4th wr. The first scenario is ridiculous. Now i only have 7 rbs. please. I could understand having 16+ rosters if we started 8 players. But that is another question in itself. just some thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Fourth & Inches on Nov 23, 2005 22:11:07 GMT -5
I actually like having larger rosters but would not mind going from 18 to 15 or 16, (but see IR discussion above). Zero sum gain if we also add IR to the team rosters.
|
|
|
Post by nfshera on Nov 24, 2005 0:00:18 GMT -5
If we are are considering an IR system, then we should drop our roster to 15 plus the IR.
As far as the amount of keepers, I believe you still maintain flexibility if we changed the amount to 0 to 3 players. a max of 5 is just too much.
|
|
|
Post by tout on Nov 25, 2005 13:28:11 GMT -5
I think 18 is too much. Part of playing FF, in my opinion, is the ability to use the waiver wire and free agency during the year. I enjoy looking at who is available every week and trying to decide who I should pick up and who I should drop. That's part of the fun. In this league, every single player with any fantasy value is usually on a roster. Sure, you get a Sam Gado every now and then but do we really need Chicken to be storing 5 quarterbacks on his roster? That's no shot at Chicken, that's good strategy within the rules we are playing by. I'm just saying, do we really need that? I say make it 15. We only start 1 back 2 receivers and a flex. I think that would make things much more exciting during the year, especially for the teams who may not be 9-2 to try and work their team up throughout the year picking up some free agents. Just my opinion but I would rather have some legit players available from week to week rather than just sitting on all of our rosters.
|
|
|
Post by The Chicken on Nov 25, 2005 15:11:01 GMT -5
didnt we already discuss this in another thread - regardless, I will reiterate that I am in favour of reducing roster sizes but lets not turn the league upside down, lets reduce them by two.
I dont like the IR system one bit - working around injuries is just a part of fantasy football - a javon walker still have value and you can trade a javon walker to a 0-12 team as he will want to protect him.
why have a 9-2 team get to IR McNabb and Cpep all year long and be able to protect them. I think IR will not help parity in this league. My 2 cents
PS: just this week i picked up Tony Fisher - i find Waiver wire gems all the time even with the current roster sizes but i agree cutting them down will help seperate the waiver wire "men" from the "boys and girls"
|
|
|
Post by undefeated on Nov 29, 2005 4:04:20 GMT -5
We are not trying to turn the league upside down. We are simply discussing options. We do have input into the league. Yes/No? And this/other threads are created to organize our thoughts. Changing our roster sizes from 18 to 16. Breaks down from 8 starters and 8 bench players. Eight bench players is alot but not terrible. Losing a keeper or an early round pick hurts a team bad. Placing a player on IR sucks. Putting them at the end of your bench is worse. Teams that don't have serious injuries to deal with have a distinct advantage. 15 or 16 is where we should hover. And we currently stand at 16 for '06.
|
|