Endzone Is Near Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 This isn't a trade or start/sit question, so I thought this may be the right forum...if not let me know (I'm a forum newbie). The league I've been in for a few years is a 12 man league and only allows 4 RB's on the roster (14 total roster spots). This seems like the year I may have a real shot to go all the way, but I'd love to be able to stash at least one more speculative RB. Is 4 RB spots a normal thing? Seems pretty slim to me. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Normal - no, most leagues do not limit the number of players you can have at a position. Most leagues let theirowners fill their rrosters as they see fit. That said, it is not unheard of, and as it was the rule in place when you started the season, it would not be fair to change it mid season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Is Near Posted September 20, 2013 Author Share Posted September 20, 2013 Normal - no, most leagues do not limit the number of players you can have at a position. Most leagues let theirowners fill their rrosters as they see fit. That said, it is not unheard of, and as it was the rule in place when you started the season, it would not be fair to change it mid season. Oh I totally agree that it shouldn't be changed midseason, just never really understood the reasoning. I'd like to be able to add someone like Montee Ball but don't have room for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MothAudio Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Several years ago a few managers complained to me [commish] that we should have a limit on the number of position any owner could stock pile. This was after I hawked a number of rising stars year after year in the draft or early in the seaon [Foster, C. Johnson, S. Jackson, Gore, Barber, Westbrook] and have 5-6 RBs. This made no sense, as everyone had the same roster size and if you loaded up on any one position that limits the rest of your positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Agree with BC, don't care for roster position limits. A 12 team league with 14 man rosters still leaves quite a bit on waivers I'd presume (we have 12 teams and 18 man roster). So I can see where there are some speculative players you'd like to stash. You might bring it up in the off season, ask why there are limits, does the league like them etc. Our roster size allows a full bench of backups to cover every starter, but most owners carry extra RB/WR or even QB and don't have backup kickers/defense, or even TE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 My local is very strange for many reasons. As stated, you need to wait til the off season. This past year we voted in a 2X + 1 position limit to open up the waiver wire just a little. 14 team league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wpayers Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 We have an RB limit of 5 at the draft to avoid hoarding and promote balance. The limit goes away in week1. As a long time RB hoarder I prefer that. But with that said, a league should never change rules after the season starts. That's a can o' worms you don't want opened. You can also make the case that managing with roster limits tests the skill of owners thus making it more rewarding...kinda like eating broccoli. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 We have an RB limit of 5 at the draft to avoid hoarding and promote balance. The limit goes away in week1. As a long time RB hoarder I prefer that. But with that said, a league should never change rules after the season starts. That's a can o' worms you don't want opened. You can also make the case that managing with roster limits tests the skill of owners thus making it more rewarding...kinda like eating broccoli. I've never understood this logic. If one team is loading up at one position, they are going to be weak at other positions. The limits don't promote balance across teams (maybe balance at positions taken), they essentially force owners to potentially take weaker/lesser valued players just to fill a position limit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 I've never understood this logic. If one team is loading up at one position, they are going to be weak at other positions. The limits don't promote balance across teams (maybe balance at positions taken), they essentially force owners to potentially take weaker/lesser valued players just to fill a position limit. My team is a great example of that, 3 very good WR (Megatron, Fitz and Dem Thomas) fill my 3 starting spots, so I don't need a lot of depth there. (Except for byes, which they all have at the same time.) While my RB are weak, so I want more depth and options there, stashing player that might move up the rankings. With fixed roster spots or some sort of limit I'm handcuffed in managing my team. 1 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.