ateam1970 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 We are starting 9 offensive players and 1 defensive player. How meny rounds should we have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 At least 10 depends on how big you want your bench and how many teams in the league. Anywhere between 14 and 20 is normal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ateam1970 Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 At least 10 depends on how big you want your bench and how many teams in the league. Anywhere between 14 and 20 is normal We have ten teams, I would like a short bench Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I would likely go 16 assuming a standard off lineup of 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 K and 1 flex and the D player you have a roster of 10 starters and with 6 backups teams have the tough deision of carrying exactly one backup at each postion and having basicaly no depth anywhere of of playing musical chairs with their TE, K and D to be able to have any RB or WR depth. It would force WW and trade movement IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 The number of teams is important as well. You need to allow teams to acquire some depth but not entirely deplete the free agent pool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I would likely go 16 assuming a standard off lineup of 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 K and 1 flex and the D player you have a roster of 10 starters and with 6 backups teams have the tough deision of carrying exactly one backup at each postion and having basicaly no depth anywhere of of playing musical chairs with their TE, K and D to be able to have any RB or WR depth. It would force WW and trade movement IMO I agree with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ateam1970 Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 I would likely go 16 assuming a standard off lineup of 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 K and 1 flex and the D player you have a roster of 10 starters and with 6 backups teams have the tough deision of carrying exactly one backup at each postion and having basicaly no depth anywhere of of playing musical chairs with their TE, K and D to be able to have any RB or WR depth. It would force WW and trade movement IMO I like it, more money for the league Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljbrun Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I would likely go 16 assuming a standard off lineup of 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 K and 1 flex and the D player you have a roster of 10 starters and with 6 backups teams have the tough deision of carrying exactly one backup at each postion and having basicaly no depth anywhere of of playing musical chairs with their TE, K and D to be able to have any RB or WR depth. It would force WW and trade movement IMO My limited FF experience indicates that a larger FA pool promotes WW/FA transactions, but does not always promote trades. If there's a talent rich FA pool, when given a choice, it seems that managers would rather drop a player perceived as expendable for a FA of potentially greater productivity, instead of trading value for value. I'm sure there's a balance point, but I don't know what it is. Perhaps those with "high trade volume" leagues could chime in. In my league (1st year of a 14 team, 2 keeper league so maybe it's not representative) we have only 5 bench slots and had a lot of FA/WW moves, but almost no trades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitzkek Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 My limited FF experience indicates that a larger FA pool promotes WW/FA transactions, but does not always promote trades. If there's a talent rich FA pool, when given a choice, it seems that managers would rather drop a player perceived as expendable for a FA of potentially greater productivity, instead of trading value for value. I'm sure there's a balance point, but I don't know what it is. Perhaps those with "high trade volume" leagues could chime in. In my league (1st year of a 14 team, 2 keeper league so maybe it's not representative) we have only 5 bench slots and had a lot of FA/WW moves, but almost no trades. Totally agree w/you here. The larger the roster the more trade activity you'll get. Why trade when you can just pick up a FA? If you take those FA's away from the pool, people are forced to make trades to better their team. 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.