Bench Players/Roster spots

[Brentastic]

In my friends league we are adding 2 new teams which will make this a 14 team league. The commish and another owner are suggesting we decrease the roster spots so the free agent pool has some reliable players. - we currently have 16 (+1 IR) roster spots with 8 starters. My argument is that we need to have double the amount of starters (8 starters>16 total roster spots). My reasoning is that a team shouldn't be forced to drop a starter because of short-term injury or bye-weeks and since you don't know what player/positions might get injured at any point in the season you need to be covered at every spot. Every league I've ever played in has enough roster spots to cover each starter (double) and although I have explained this to my league-mates I feel like I need something more convincing or at least different angles to my argument.

 

So huddlers - how do you approach roster spots and can you provide me with different angles on why my logic makes sense. If I don't make sense just tell me and I will ignore you

 

Along with my case - I am trying to point out to them that the priority should be on drafting a qualilty team NOT providing depth in the free agent pool.

 

E2A: Yes this is a re-draft with one keeper.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Brentastic

[yo mama]

Totally depends on the flavor you want in your league. In Empire the rosters are 18 deep. That means there isn't much on waivers during the year and your season is very dependent on drafting well. In my local, the bench spots are about half the starting spots. Man, when the bye weeks start rolling in some good players get dropped into the FA pool. People are WAY more active in add/drops in that league, which has its merits. It also makes it easier to recover from a bad draft and/or injuries.

 

Honestly, I like both formats and I'm glad I'm in leagues that different in that regard. As far as expanding the league from 12 to 14 teams, I think that adds a little bit of a wrinkle because the FA market is going to get tighter no matter what. If you want the league to be more interactive during the year, I say shrink the the bench spots and make sure everyone understands the FA/waiver wire priority system. If its a group of strangers and you want to reward strong drafting skills then go with the bigger rosters.

[Chavez]

I'm assuming this is a redraft so you don't have to worry about having weak dynasty teams.

 

I might consider dropping the rosters to 14. Usually I max out my roster by carrying only 1 K and 1 Def anyway, and picking up some good matchup or hot player/team during the bye. Having a few extra guys out in the FA pool never hurts, and if you're getting ass-rammed by injuries, the two players won't make a difference anyway. It's been pretty rare that I've REALLY needed my 4th RB or 2nd TE.

[AtomicCEO]

I like to have double the starters, and then at least one extra spot for a prospect.

 

The exception to this would be if you start 3 guys at some position, to only add room for 2 backups.

 

So if your normal roster (even if it's flex... I just assume standard starters) includes:

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, K, DF... you'd have

2 + 4 + 5 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 extra = 18 roster spots in my perfect world.

 

Your not required to carry a certain amount of any position, but they are there if you need them.

 

How would I approach this with my leaguemates? I would bend them all to my will through mind games and subtle trickery.

[Big Country]

There will always be available players. In USDA, we have(had as I have since left the league) 14 teams with 20-21 man deep rosters and there was never a lack of waiver activity or movement and always some viable players available.

 

I agree with you that you should not be forced to drop a starter, but I do not necessarily think that you need exactly double. In fact, I kind of like slightly less than double the starting lineup as owners can then decide if it is worth it to carry a backup kicker/defense or even TE at the expense of adding depth elsewhare like RB or WR or a 3rd QB. With only 8 starting spots, I think a roster of anywhre from 14-16 players is fine. With 10-14 teams, there will be plenty of talent in the free agency pool, and really, with less talent in the free agency pool owners will be forced to look to trades to fill gaps which I think makes for a more fun and exciting league.

[darin3]

There will always be available players. In USDA, we have(had as I have since left the league) 14 teams with 20-21 man deep rosters and there was never a lack of waiver activity or movement and always some viable players available.

 

I agree with you that you should not be forced to drop a starter, but I do not necessarily think that you need exactly double. In fact, I kind of like slightly less than double the starting lineup as owners can then decide if it is worth it to carry a backup kicker/defense or even TE at the expense of adding depth elsewhare like RB or WR or a 3rd QB. With only 8 starting spots, I think a roster of anywhre from 14-16 players is fine. With 10-14 teams, there will be plenty of talent in the free agency pool, and really, with less talent in the free agency pool owners will be forced to look to trades to fill gaps which I think makes for a more fun and exciting league.

Agree w/ BC here...

[LosGatosEnFuegos]

In my local, we recently added a 3rd WR to the starting lineup. That increased the starters from 8 to 9, but we kept the total roster at 16. I argued that we should have added at least one roster spot but got shut down. I think that prospecting helps differentiate good players from bad. Anyone can troll the WW. Due to roster requirements and poor play by leaguemates, I was able to pickup Fred Taylor from waivers going into the finals. Probably won me the league. I feel that that was dumb luck that I stumbled into. Not terribly satisfying. But when you pick a high reward player in the late rounds and they pay off, well that is one of the most satisfying feelings of FF. Other than winning of course.

 

I suppose a case can be made, however, that roster management becomes more important with a smaller bench, and that is a challenge that differentiates the good from the bad also. It's just a different skill set from extensive preseason research.

[rajncajn]

There will always be available players. In USDA, we have(had as I have since left the league) 14 teams with 20-21 man deep rosters and there was never a lack of waiver activity or movement and always some viable players available.

 

I agree with you that you should not be forced to drop a starter, but I do not necessarily think that you need exactly double. In fact, I kind of like slightly less than double the starting lineup as owners can then decide if it is worth it to carry a backup kicker/defense or even TE at the expense of adding depth elsewhare like RB or WR or a 3rd QB. With only 8 starting spots, I think a roster of anywhre from 14-16 players is fine. With 10-14 teams, there will be plenty of talent in the free agency pool, and really, with less talent in the free agency pool owners will be forced to look to trades to fill gaps which I think makes for a more fun and exciting league.

Agree with BC as well. I don't see how dropping roster spots will add to the player pool anyway. It's not like dropping them will suddenly make them studs available for the 13th & 14th teams.