ffry Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I'm in a 14 team fantasy league that has a roster setup like most others(2 qb, 4rb, 4 wr, 2 te, 2 k, 2 d/sp) except we also have 2 more roster spots that can be used at any position, you can use only one at any position. So you can have 3 qbs and 5 rb but not 6 rbs. You can have 5 rb and 5 wr but not 6 wr. So I guess the question is what do you think of this setup? Is it too many slots? Does it pose any problems(if you read my other post you know what I'm getting at)? Would like to hear from commissioners and owners alike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I'm in a 14 team fantasy league that has a roster setup like most others(2 qb, 4rb, 4 wr, 2 te, 2 k, 2 d/sp) except we also have 2 more roster spots that can be used at any position, you can use only one at any position. So you can have 3 qbs and 5 rb but not 6 rbs. You can have 5 rb and 5 wr but not 6 wr. So I guess the question is what do you think of this setup? Is it too many slots? Does it pose any problems(if you read my other post you know what I'm getting at)? Would like to hear from commissioners and owners alike. dont like having any positional requirements Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okiiyama Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I think its too restrictive. I like being able to fill my roster with whom ever I want, just as long as I have a starter for every position. For the most part, I could care less who my kicker is; so why would I want 2 of them.?.. I'd rather have more depth at RB or WR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Roster restrictions suck. If I wanna have 10 QBs on my team, damnit, I wanna have 10 QBs. Who cares? Itll hurt me in every other area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Agree with everyone else so far, restrictions are terrible. At our auction, two teams finished with 5 QB's each, let them do that if they want, I don't care. This way I can load up on RB's and WR's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I actually think roster restrictions are a good thing. You don't need to be overly restrictive, but it keeps a team from hoarding talent at a certain position. Yes, typically the team that "hoards" wll end up sucking. But, he can also influences the outcome of other games by hoarding. To me, it's kind of an "anti-El Guapo" rule, which shouldn't be necessary but sometimes you have to legislate against this kind of stuff. About 15 years ago we had a "hoarder" in our league - his team sucked, but he kind of ruined the league for that particular season. The next year, we put roste restrictions ion place. The year after that, he was gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I actually think roster restrictions are a good thing. You don't need to be overly restrictive, but it keeps a team from hoarding talent at a certain position. Yes, typically the team that "hoards" wll end up sucking. But, he can also influences the outcome of other games by hoarding. To me, it's kind of an "anti-El Guapo" rule, which shouldn't be necessary but sometimes you have to legislate against this kind of stuff. About 15 years ago we had a "hoarder" in our league - his team sucked, but he kind of ruined the league for that particular season. The next year, we put roste restrictions ion place. The year after that, he was gone. "El-Guapo" means the "handsome one" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 "El-Guapo" means the "handsome one" He must have thought that because he was better looking, he had certain rights to hoard TEs or something... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easy n Dirty Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I can see both sides of the roster restriction argument - I'm in unrestricted and restricted leagues, and either can work just fine. But I do think that having 18-man rosters in a 14-team league can be a bit too much. It typically results in there being nothing or close to nothing available on the wiaver wire for most weeks, meaning if you have a starter that gets injured, you're very likely to be stuck starting Tatum Bell (or worse). This is particularly true at RB, where it seems a minimum of 56 RBs are on a roster in your league, and perhaps as many as 70. It really boils down to league preference as to how much emphasis should be placed on the draft versus in-season roster management. With that many teams and with rosters that large, it becomes very hard to manage your roster in-season, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.