Roster Makeup, Not size

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 12:31 pm

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
I'm going to start a new thread because I don't believe that roster size is an issue. I also don't think 14 teams is an issue, unless you don't consider the league size in specifying the roster makeup. sorry sport, i disagree with your claims. i won't invest anymore time into this discussion, as this thread will be a waste of time. if something like having only 1 RB required for a starting line-up ever remotely comes close to being voted on or implemented, then i'll surface.

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
The reason I have a problem with this is that it adds too much luck to the event. Since you are required to start 2 RBs, a RB injury is unrecoverable. This could be because of having 14 teams/league. Talent is split amongst more teams. I guess people can't figure that one out.

[ September 27, 2004, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Route Collectors · Post by **Route Collectors** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 12:41 pm

Shipman

We're not voting on a rule change - only discussing possibilities. Nobody is complaining (I don't think) about the current structure. If we can make something better by discussing it and coming up with new ideas, I don't understand why some feel so threatened. This topic may only change a few local leagues anyway.

One thing though - your point 3 is only partially true. Putting in the time to come up with the best team (no matter the scoring system) makes champions. That, and a WHOLE LOT of luck.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 12:53 pm

I think it's 'STRATEGY' in this deep of a league format to draft your own backups to your own players. It's 'STRATEGY' to pick up scrap RB after getting a lot of early WR.

Now, the debate should be about 'good strategy' vs 'bad strategy', but regardless, we all took risks of some kind or another. The owners who did a great job of 'strategically' getting players and backing them up are far less upset than those who didn't want the backup or didn't get their backup early enough.

I like the format as it is. Having said that, I have no problem with going to 1 rb, 3 wr and 2 flex positions. Just make 1 of the flex positions able to contain a QB and now we're talking about MAJOR strategy to play with.

Isn't the point simply to have a game where knowing the players and manipulating them correctly nets a winner? If that's the case, then some people have already suffered poor draft strategy, others have suffered horrible luck... and still others are enjoying the game. Poorly played or not, it's still fun.

Now, can it be made better with some logical variation? Sure, why not talk about it?

My variation would be:

QB, 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 D, 1 Super Flex (any position QB to Kicker), 1 'normal' flex (RB/WR/TE)

Then have 7 on the bench plus an IR that can be used only while a player is injured. If he comes back, you have 1 game after he returns to move him or he's lost to waivers.

Anything that involves strategy and options is intriguing to me.

Dave

wlfskp · Post by **wlfskp** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 1:03 pm

Hey Dyv,

Thanks for the comment....this was way to serious...

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 1:53 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko: sorry sport, i disagree with your claims. i won't invest anymore time into this discussion, as this thread will be a waste of time.
Then please feel free not to read any more of these posts. Thanks.

[ September 27, 2004, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: JerseyPaul ]

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:03 pm

By the way, concerning IR, it doesn't work in the real world. For example, McCallister was listed as "Q" although we knew he wouldn't play this week. Bye week teams don't issue injury reports so players don't have a "Doubtful" or "Out" designation. True IR in football means out for the season, so might as well just drop that player.

Administering a football league with an IR is a nightmare. You would hate it and Greg would go crazy.

skipman · Post by **skipman** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:25 pm

Originally posted by Indy Rules:
Shipman

We're not voting on a rule change - only discussing possibilities. Nobody is complaining (I don't think) about the current structure. If we can make something better by discussing it and coming up with new ideas, I don't understand why some feel so threatened. This topic may only change a few local leagues anyway.

One thing though - your point 3 is only partially true. Putting in the time to come up with the best team (no matter the scoring system) makes champions. That, and a WHOLE LOT of luck. Sorry Indy,

I didn't know I was threatened and impeding discussion. From now on I will not interrupt your discussion with an opposing point of view.

My bad.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:32 pm

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
By the way, concerning IR, it doesn't work in the real world. For example, McCallister was listed as "Q" although we knew he wouldn't play this week. Bye week teams don't issue injury reports so players don't have a "Doubtful" or "Out" designation. True IR in football means out for the season, so might as well just drop that player.

Administering a football league with an IR is a nightmare. You would hate it and Greg would go crazy. JP, as I said - the simplicity can be there... if someone plays in a game, you have until their next game to get them off of IR or they drop to waivers. Simple enough to figure out if someone played in a game, isn't it? If so, then the clock starts ticking and you have to get them off your IR. Want to make a simple rule for adding tot he IR? Ok, they have to miss a game to be eligible for IR. I don't care about all the nuances - rules can be made to handle that.

Dave

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:33 pm

Originally posted by FresnoFanatics2:
Hey Dyv,

Thanks for the comment....this was way to serious... Baha - not sure anyone else noticed

Is it the motion in the ocean?

D

skipman · Post by **skipman** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:40 pm

Dvy,

Sometimes it is not always easy to know if someone played. Easy to tell is they register a stat. But, you can begin to see the problems with an IR, it is vague. Why not just add one more roster spot so you are not subject to the whims or the coaches placing a guy on IR or not.