Roster Makeup, Not size

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:19 pm

Fair enough, Skip - just trying to find a balance between a roster big enough to allow management and yet maintain a free agent pool with something worth shopping.

Gotta be an 'active' roster for each game, right? Don't coaches have to submit an NFL 'active' roster for each game? Without getting too deep into the technicals, the concept is what I'm looking at. I know there's got to be a way to figure out if someone dressed or was ever on the field, etc.

Nonetheless, you can always just have more roster spots

Dave

Route Collectors · Post by **Route Collectors** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:21 pm

Skipman

Your opinions are welcome and just as relevant as anyone elses. I guess I've just seen too many posts lately that start out with "What's all the bit..in about" or "this is all bs" followed up with absolutely nothing valuable to the discussion. At least you followed up with a legit opinion.

Dvy

Congrats on a great week!!!!!!!!!!!!

skipman · Post by **skipman** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:26 pm

I accept your apology Indy. However, next time read past the first sentence before you blast me.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:40 pm

Thanks Indy - been a tough season already, so the props are appreciated.

Dave

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:56 pm

Cool. Civil discourse.

For the record, nobody (well, almost nobody) is complaining about the current setup. If tweaking the rules, however, makes for a BETTER contest, then those ideas merit discussion.

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:43 pm

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
Administering a football league with an IR is a nightmare. It can be...

Here's what I do in my leagues.
IR = NFL IR, NFL PUP, ("OUT" on Wed NFL report) or any player reported as "OUT" 2 weeks or more. That would include McAllister.

The moment he plays, I activate them on EVERY team to their bench unless they have already put him in there lineup.

No debates, no special grace periods. He plays, he's activated. Simple as that.

And someone in a league will ALWAYS tell you if you miss sun obscure player.

An owner can not make a transaction or set a lineup in my service if over the active limit.

The guys love it. No babysitting required.

Don MacKenzie · Post by **Don MacKenzie** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:00 pm

I also feel that the flex should be changed, but why stop at 2 flex. Why not start 1QB, 1RB, 1WR, 1TE, and have 4 flex positions that could either be RB/WR/TE. I dont really like the idea of a quarterback flex. While fantasy football doesn't follow the NFL in all ways, we should at least try.

I know that having 4 flex positions offers all kinds of strategy to the game. I know this because this is how my 14 team 20 round draft home league does it. And none of us would ever go back to a non-compromising format. And let me tell you why.

1. This changes the whole draft. A multitude of different strategies can be successfully employed. While not drafting a RB for the first three/four rounds can be successful in mandatory 2rb league, its tough. With a flexible lineup, RBs are not such a hot commodity. And with the reception points, its about dead even between the 2 positions. So a stud RB strategy, stud WR strategy, or anything inbetween can be equally successful.

2. A flexible lineup cuts down on the luck. While I know fantasy football will always have a lot of luck involved, there are ways to cut some of it down. Who does and doesn't get injured throughout the year is luck. For the most part, these things can't be predicted. If you have the flexibility to start 5WR when you lose your top 2 RBs to injury, you may still be competitive. After all, there is such a thing as a single back set, right? Another way to eliminate some of the luck is 2 play 2 games a week, but thats neither here nor there.

I understand most leagues are going to stay with the fixed positions because, well, I guess because thats just the way its always been. I am curious what the advantage is to doing it this way though. I just dont see any benefit to anybody on having it this way. I mean, who doesn't want complete control of their team. It's not like its way off base. Having a more flexible lineup would actually mirror the NFL better than the current system. But what do I know. I think I have the worst team in this whole contest!

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:52 am

Don, you bring up some good points and this whole thread about making your starting lineup more flexible has more merit to me than I originally thought. Two days ago if you would have asked me if I would ever allow just 1 RB starting in the future, I would have said "NO WAY." But it's obvious that many NFL teams are also going with one RB and four wideouts at times and maybe allowing more flexibility for NFFC owners makes sense in the future. We all know that having two stud running backs is good, but maybe there are times in a draft when you can still win with 1 RB and 4 WRs. Allowing more Flex positions and fewer mandatory starting positions might be a good idea for the future.

Again, I'm just watching the posts and I am an old guy who doesn't like change, but more flexibility, roster management and Draft Day strategy is starting to work on me and I like it. I think you guys may be onto something here.

I'd be interested to see how the 1 QB, 1 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 D/ST, 2 Flex works without allowing 2 QBs in the Flex. No NFL team can use 2 QBs at once, so I'm not in favor of doing that in the NFFC. But allowing more WRs or even RBs in the Flex positions is intriguing to me.

Keep the chatter going as I'm watching from afar.

BONGIZMO · Post by **BONGIZMO** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:36 am

I wanted to take a moment to chime in my .02 on this issue. I have no problem with an enhanced flex (adding QB to it etc) but I am strongly opposed to reducing the starting requirements to 1 RB for example. This type of set up greatly increases the ability if the less prepared or poor drafter to get lucky by picking up any of a slew of WR's out on the WW. Let me explain...

The main event of the high stakes arena is the draft, it is the event. It is what we fanatics that love this hobby spend countless hours and months preparing for. With a tight requirement on starters, one now has many different avenues to go down. Do I handcuff certain players? Do i fill my RB's out even though the best available player on the board is a WR? The starting 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE requirement makes it so one needs to figure whether they want to risk being thin at a position in an effort to be stronger elsewhere. It makes one ponder handcuffing a player early before another owner vultures the pick to stash on their bench for possible later rewards.

If you reduce these requirements you reward the poor planner or the individual that didn't bother worrying about bye week coverage by allowing them to pluck any of the slew of WR's off the WW and thus potentially save their butt. We are supposed to be competing to find out who is the best. Obviously FFL has a degree of luck in it and we all know that thus why would want to increase the luck factor and decrease the skill/preparation factor.

Just my thoughts but having 2 RB's required in leagues this size and with a position that thin simply opens up all different avenues of startegies and approaches that will be lost if you make it easier for the poor drafter to recover from their lack of preparation on a weekly basis.

Don MacKenzie · Post by **Don MacKenzie** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 7:36 am

I am afraid I have to disagree with you Bongizmo. First off, let me state that I do not figure to change yours, this boards, or anyone elses minds about this particular topic. Like I said earlier, most leagues have always been 2RB, and probably will for some time, though I think you will see the trend of more flexible positions grow quite popular in the next 5-10 years.

The simple fact is with 14 teams, 2RB each, thats 28 starting fantasy RBs out of 32 NFL teams. The simple fact is, most teams are not going to have a quality #3 running back, no matter how good or poor a team plans the draft. There just aren't enough out there.

As far as reducing RB requirements rewarding the poor planner, and increasing the luck factor, I don't really follow you there. The Waiver Wire is going to be there regardless. If a team is constantly having to scramble to fill spots off the wire, no matter what the rosters, they are probably in for a long season.

You state that "having 2 RB's required in leagues this size and with a position that thin simply opens up all different avenues of startegies and approaches that will be lost..". Once again, I am afraid you have lost me. Having a more flexible lineup opens up all kinds of different strategies and approaches to the draft, and really rewards the more knowledgeable owner. Having a mandatory 2RB starting requirement is what shuts down strategy, as you are almost forced to go after multiple running backs early.

In my home league, this is the third year we have run the 1RB multiple flex. I played the 2RB no flex for years before that, and I have to say, I would never want to go back. Each year we have voted if we wanted to keep the multiple flex, and it has been a unanimous yes each year. If I could find a high stakes league that had a multiple flex, that would be the one I would join. Based on personal experience, I don't think it helps the poorer teams (and we have had a few), at all, and rewards the teams that really do their homework, as you can now draft for absolute value. After all, isn't finding value what are game is about. And besides, its just more fun to have multiple options on your team, and thats really whats most important.