The utilitiy spot went from wr-rb to wr-rb-te?

Mosster · Post by **Mosster** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:25 pm

When was this changed?

Then i saw from 20 players to 18.

if your gonna change things let us know on the board.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 6:22 pm

You mean like here? http://nffcboards.stats.com/cgi-bin/ult ... 1;t=000018

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 3:10 am

The Flex position has always been RB-WR-TE. That has never been changed. I doubt many people will use a TE in their Flex position, but the option is there if you need it. Again Craig, that was never changed.

I did change the total rosters from 20 to 18 last month. A total of 252 players will be drafted, leaving enough surprises in the free agent pool to make the in-season bidding fun and interesting. I just thought 280 players made the free agent pool too thin. We're glad you've chosen to compete in the NFFC and we look forward to meeting you in New York.

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 1:22 pm

I really don't like the roster reduction, it will hurt roster depth. Can we at least have an IR for injured players?

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 1:52 pm

I hate to say it, but I agree with Vegas. Two or three injuries can really decimate a team. One IR spot can help alleviate this and makes sense to me. Pat yourself on the back Phil. Job well done!

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 2:03 pm

I think the rule is just right. If you lose that many players to injury your going to be out of it anyway. One IR spot is not going to save you.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 2:36 pm

Originally posted by Walla Walla:
One IR spot is not going to save you. Sorry chap. Simply put...you are wrong.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 2:40 pm

In the WCOFF last year you had a 20 player team, and roster management was hard enough. 18 is pretty slim. couple injuries could hurt...

[ June 22, 2004, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:41 pm

Gordon, are you saying that an 8-man reserve is too thin? You may be correct, but we have just a 6-man reserve in the NFBC and there are certainly more injuries in baseball than football when you compare the roster sizes. What I think we've found in baseball is it creates a tough strategy where some guys have been forced to cut key players because they can't wait six weeks for them to come off the DL. I think the same tough decisions will have to be made in the NFFC with an 18-man roster, plus it makes deciding whether to carry two defenses, two tight ends and/or two kickers all year a good or bad strategy.

I think every setup has its plusses and minuses. Right now I think keeping the player pool at 252 is fair enough and makes the in-season FAAB bidding more interesting. I can be proven wrong and as you know in the NFBC I'm willing to make compromises, but right now I still think 18 players per roster is rather deep. More thoughts?

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:48 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
In the WCOFF last year you had a 20 player team, and roster management was hard enough. 18 is pretty slim. couple injuries could hurt... You would have a hard time managing a roster size of 30. I certainly acknowledge your right to an opinion, but I think most will, just as certainly, ignore it.