Roster sizes/roster limits

[chinatown dragons]

Got a question for fellow Huddlers.

 

In a ten team league, where we keep 2 franchise players each year.

 

Currently, we have a 14 round draft, resulting in a final roster of 16 players.

 

We start 8 players each week (1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR/TE (TE is not required on Roster), 1 Kicker, 1 Team D).

 

For transactions, we have unlimited waiver wire moves during the season.

 

Based on a 16 player roster, have 8 starters and 8 bench players.

 

One owner has suggested reducing the bench down to 6, so total roster is 14.

 

On average, how many players does each Huddler have on their roster?

 

Also, do you have a limit as to how many QB's, RB's and WR's you can carry?

 

Any feedback would be great...

 

Thanks!!

[dula14]

Each of the leagues I play in have 16 team rosters (all re-drafts) - 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 RB/WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 Def. No limits on how many players you can have at each position.

[Big Country]

For a league set up as you describe, a roster of 14 or 16 is fairly standard. In a ten team league, it doesn't matter much as there is already a ton of good players on the waiver wire

 

Other leagues I am in have anywhere from 22 players on up to 45 plus a DTS of 12 additional players for an IDP dynasty league.

 

And NO NO NO to limiting how many players per position on a roster. Let owners manage their teams as they see fit.

[Jrick35]

we have 12 teams and 22 players per team.

 

We start:

1 QB

1 RB

2 WR

1 TE

1 Flex(RB, WR, TE)

1 K

1 KR

1 DL

1 LB

1 DB

 

Our only roster limitation is that you have to be able to field a full starting lineup when you leave the draft, and each week during the season.

[chinatown dragons]

thanks everyone.

 

so, it seems that no roster limits, per position??

 

what if a team is struggling, and just decides to stock pile RB's......either to prevent another team from getting them, or trade bait later??

 

would dilute the free agent pool, wouldnt it?

[Big Country]

thanks everyone.

 

so, it seems that no roster limits, per position??

 

what if a team is struggling, and just decides to stock pile RB's......either to prevent another team from getting them, or trade bait later??

would dilute the free agent pool, wouldnt it?

 

 

Sounds like a potential good strategy if it works. Stockpile RBs, either hit on some for your lineup, or hit on some that give you assets to trade for other need positions.

 

Realize that every RB they stockpile is just that much more of a valuable asset at another position that is left available. It all balances out.

 

As I said before, let your owners manage their teams as they see fit.

[chinatown dragons]

Our leagues waiver wire is based on current record (worst picks first, and so on..).......there are a lot more WR and TE's than RB's in the league...and a starting RB has more of a chance of going down during the season.....If Team X consistently has the worst record (and figures he is mostly playing for the following season, not 'tanking' per se), and once some of the byes are gone, carries only 1 qb, 1 k, 1 d (which is common), and carries 4 WR's (we only need to start 3, but can start 4), he could keep grabbing rb's, so he has 9 at any given time..(or if his byes are gone, could carry 3 wide outs and 10 RB's...)....

 

not saying it would be done, but there are always hot waiver wire RB pick ups each year...

 

guess i liked the idea of limiiting roster, by position...makes it more like managing an NFL team (as most nfl teams wont carry 8 or 9 rb's)

[Scare Tactics]

I think the standard is double your starting lineup.. My local league has pos limits, but pretty much every other league im in doesnt... I dont like lessening the bench players, because I feel that leaves alot more talent in the FA pool for people to pick up, wich I feel cuts down on trading...

[Big Country]

Our leagues waiver wire is based on current record (worst picks first, and so on..).......there are a lot more WR and TE's than RB's in the league...and a starting RB has more of a chance of going down during the season.....If Team X consistently has the worst record (and figures he is mostly playing for the following season, not 'tanking' per se), and once some of the byes are gone, carries only 1 qb, 1 k, 1 d (which is common), and carries 4 WR's (we only need to start 3, but can start 4), he could keep grabbing rb's, so he has 9 at any given time..(or if his byes are gone, could carry 3 wide outs and 10 RB's...)....

 

not saying it would be done, but there are always hot waiver wire RB pick ups each year...

 

guess i liked the idea of limiiting roster, by position...makes it more like managing an NFL team (as most nfl teams wont carry 8 or 9 rb's)

 

Does the above activity not improve his chances for the following season (assuming keeper league in this scenario) by giving him better assets in the hardest position to fill, thus giving him a better chance at having better keeper options or trade material to build for the following year. If he is already out of the running for the current season, I darn well hope my owners are planning for the future as any good owner would, so long as they are fielding a legal lineup each week. Position limits hurt owners in trying to do this, hurt trades as positions need to match up, etc.