For those interested in roster expanding

renman · Post by **renman** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:13 am

I mentioned this in a past thread and never checked up to see what the responses were...

Many think that having 20 rounds or a 20 man roster to start the season would overly deplete the free agent pool (me included) and take away that part of the team management process. What if we drafted 18 rounds and then rosters expand the week before the bye weeks begin? This way the free agent pool would still be decent for the first month where most of the higher value players get acquired... While at the same time when byes and injures start to impact teams, we are given the flexibility to scamble for warm bodies to fill holes...

Thoughts?

3INTBOY · Post by **3INTBOY** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:21 am

Renman,
While I disagree with the theory the WW would be dry, there will always be "funky" players like Earnest Graham and DeShawyn Wynn available.

I like the shorter roster, it does cause some management problems, but that is part of this hobby. I would leave it as is. JMO.

3'

renman · Post by **renman** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 am

3int,

I am one who thinks things are fine the way they are now. I like that team management is a big part of the event and having that extra useful talent available on the free agent wire allows for that.

However I do see the logic in how unfair it can be when teams get hurt bad with injury combined with bye weeks and you are forced to cut useful players simply to field a full team.

I was thinking that expanding the rosters prior to the first bye week could be a compromise while also adding an interesting week of transactions prior to week 4 in what would almost feel like a mini suplimental auction. Some people might cover their kicker/defense bye weeks.. some might try to snag upside backups for later in the season... others might try to add depth where they are thin...

I am just throwing this out for discussion and wonder if this might add some to the event...

just looking for thoughts.

D-Day Heroes · Post by **D-Day Heroes** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:19 am

You can't cover all the bad crap that happens in this game, sometimes you just have to draw the line and deal with it. I think the line has been drawn, so just deal with it like everyone else. :rolleyes:

KOTRAX · Post by **KOTRAX** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:29 am

I GUESS IT'S TOUGH EITHER WAY YOU LOOK AT IT. ONE SIDE SAYS IT'S HARD BUT IT'S FAIR AND YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. HOWEVER AT THE SAME TIME YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TO STRUGGLE TO FIELD A HEALTHY LINEUP OR DROP "QUAALTIY" TALENT JUST TO PICK UP "NON QUALITY" TALENT JUST FIELD A LINEUP. SO I SEE BOTH SIDES.

wayne123 · Post by **wayne123** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:40 am

Originally posted by KOTRAX:
I GUESS IT'S TOUGH EITHER WAY YOU LOOK AT IT. ONE SIDE SAYS IT'S HARD BUT IT'S FAIR AND YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. HOWEVER AT THE SAME TIME YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TO STRUGGLE TO FIELD A HEALTHY LINEUP OR DROP "QUAALTIY" TALENT JUST TO PICK UP "NON QUALITY" TALENT JUST FIELD A LINEUP. SO I SEE BOTH SIDES. How about one roster slot that is for "injured reserve"? This slot would allow an owner to place a player into a holding slot and not back into the free agent pool when a replacement FA is aquired. In order to bring the player out of this slot, a player must be dropped from your line-up to make room.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:45 am

Originally posted by 3INT/BFDFANTASYfootball.com:
Renman,
While I disagree with the theory the WW would be dry, there will always be "funky" players like Earnest Graham and DeShawyn Wynn available.

I like the shorter roster, it does cause some management problems, but that is part of this hobby. I would leave it as is. JMO.

3' Just for the record: I'm not oblivious to the number of injuries this year and the hardships they cause during these bye weeks. That being said, there was also a call for increased roster sizes in the NFBC this year as well with some folks feeling that 7-man reserves in baseball were too small because of so many injuries. The injuries cause tough roster management decisions, especially in football where the bye weeks come into play.

In the NFFC, 8-man reserves are tough, I understand that. But it's also part of Draft Day strategy when looking over the byes. It's all part of being a tough contest. Now I realize that when you're over-run with injuries, it seems unfair. 20 players would be better than 18 when injuries add up. I agree. But skillful owners will have to make the right calls during the next few weeks and do everything they can to get through the injuries and the byes, and if they have to cut an injured "star" to pull out a needed win, then that's what they'll have to do. It's not easy and I understand that. I really do.

renman · Post by **renman** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:45 am

I was looking more for pros-cons on the idea I threw out to start the topic/thread. As I stated, I am perfectly fine with things the way they are. However I have seen a lot of discussion/debate on this issue and wonder about the idea I just threw out.

Blue_foot has an idea worth discussing too.

Sound Advice · Post by **Sound Advice** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:52 am

20 is a lot.
It would be nice, but it would hurt the waiver pool.

You guys that are for an increase should consider 19 rounds.
Leagues are of an even number because you want the guy that picks first in the first round, to pick last in the last round.
With 3RR it works out that way with an odd number of rounds.
So you might try for 19 rounds, with 3RR.

Just an observance.

One extra round would be more palatable than two.

KOTRAX · Post by **KOTRAX** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:53 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by 3INT/BFDFANTASYfootball.com:
Renman,
While I disagree with the theory the WW would be dry, there will always be "funky" players like Earnest Graham and DeShawyn Wynn available.

I like the shorter roster, it does cause some management problems, but that is part of this hobby. I would leave it as is. JMO.

3' Just for the record: I'm not oblivious to the number of injuries this year and the hardships they cause during these bye weeks. That being said, there was also a call for increased roster sizes in the NFBC this year as well with some folks feeling that 7-man reserves in baseball were too small because of so many injuries. The injuries cause tough roster management decisions, especially in football where the bye weeks come into play.

In the NFFC, 8-man reserves are tough, I understand that. But it's also part of Draft Day strategy when looking over the byes. It's all part of being a tough contest. Now I realize that when you're over-run with injuries, it seems unfair. 20 players would be better than 18 when injuries add up. I agree. But skillful owners will have to make the right calls during the next few weeks and do everything they can to get through the injuries and the byes, and if they have to cut an injured "star" to pull out a needed win, then that's what they'll have to do. It's not easy and I understand that. I really do.

[/QUOTE]I SEE YOUR POINTS GREG. HOWEVER IT IS TO A POINT NOW YOU ARE STARTING INJURED PLAYERS BECAUSE OF THE ROSTER SIZE. ALSO NO IS GOING TO CUT AN "ANDRE JOHNSON" FOR A "JABAR GAFFNEY" JUST TO MAYBE GET 2PTS FOR THAT WEEK IF THAT. ALSO IF YOU WERE POSITION TO DO THAT FOR 1 WEEK AND HAD THE MOST FA DOLLARS IN YOUR LEAGUE THEN JOHNSON COULD BE REMOVED FROM FA POOL AND YOU COULDN'T GET HIM BACK. IT IS JUST REAL TOUGH ALL THE WAY AROUND FROM BOTH SIDES.