Rosters/Lineups - Roster limits for positions.
This feature would allow commissioners to set the maximum and minimum number of players a team can roster at each position at a given time. For example, teams can have a maximum of 3 QBs on their roster or a team can have a minimum of 1 kicker. Currently there is no way to set the maximum or minimum number of players a team can roster at each position.
Product Support
shared this idea
-
MaveROCK
commented
Jim - Very good point! However, easily solved...as a Commissioner, Yahoo! limits you to which settings can be edited Pre-Draft Only or All Season.
For instance, I can change the League's Trade Deadline all season, but I can only remove a Roster Position Pre-Draft. I'd presume that Roster Limits would only be editable Pre-Draft...
Also, if you're drafting an RB that has a high likelihood of being cut from a roster entirely (as your 3rd or 4th RB), then you're doing something very wrong!
-
MaveROCK
commented
Some GMs will select and/or pick-up 5-7 RBs that aren't even starters...generally, the term is "hand-cuff" players, but many of these guys aren't even back-ups to the Owner's starter. And, the only advantage it has for that particular Owner is a monopoly on a crucial position, whereas if there were a limit that player might be available to another Owner if his starter gets injured...
Prime example(s): Maurice Jones-Drew was a Top 5 RB going into last season and his ADP was at worst a 2nd Round Pick (due to holdout concerns). So, many people drafted Rashad Jennings just to have him "in case" MJD missed a few games, but in reality had no plans of actually inserting him into the starting lineup. What happened? MJD played on opening night, but nobody dropped Jennings because they didn't need to...it was better having him as an RB5 than a back-up Kicker, right? Well, MJD gets hurt and misses the rest of the season...now, the Owner who wasted a high pick on him has no chance to replace his injured player with a legitimate starter.
Another one, Ahmad Bradshaw (Mr. Glass) was drafted as an RB2 for many teams, but he's injury-prone so other GMs who know that decided to draft David Wilson or Andre Brown as their RB5/RB6 with no intention of ever playing them. Ahmad Bradshaw suffered through another injury-prone season, but the GMs who drafted him were left out in the cold because Bradshaw's replacement was already on a roster from Day 1...
How is that fair or strategic advantage? If there was a limit on the amount of players per position, GMs would actually have to make tough choices between using up their 5th and final RB spot on a legitimate player now or saving it incase they need to pick-up an injury replacement later. You know, GMs would have to actually be "strategic" instead of "hoarding" a prime position with 0 intention of ever playing that player...
-
MaveROCK
commented
ESPN allows this functionality...it helps to prevent a guy from stockpiling a crucial position and depleting the depth of other teams.
I can see the concerns, but it's upto your Commissioner to ensure it still allows GMs to be strategic. For instance, 4 RBs would be PLENTY for a team (2 starting RBs and no Flex), but many GMs will roster 5 or 6 RBs; thus, limiting other teams RB quality and depleting the Free Agency options.
By default, it would work best if the limit was set to 2-3 more than the necessary amount per position (i.e. Starting Positions: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, K, DEF - Position Limits: 3 QB, 4 RB, 6 WR, 3 TE, 3 K, 3 DEF).
-
MaveROCK
commented
Can you all PLEASE talk some sense into the idiots that have posted in this thread:
People are actually suggesting this option would make Yahoo! fantasy football worse...
-
Anonymous
commented
I concur with MaveRock. However you can simplify it a bit...
1. The defaul league setting would be off
2. If turned on the default limit to be double the amount of starters in each position.
3. Allow Comish to adjust limits to user preferences.
Easy enough to code into the program. -
MaveROCK
commented
Suggested Default Roster Position Limits:
QB - 3
RB - 5
WR - 6
TE - 3
K - 3
DEF - 390% of GMs would never even notice there was a Position Limit on their roster...in Standard Leagues, there is no need to have more than 5 RBs on one roster at any given time. Even if every Owner carried the max, that's 50 RBs that are taken!
At that point, you're holding onto pure back-up RBs in the off-chance their starter gets hurt...GMs need to be more active on the Waiver Wire, rather than relying on Draft Day to hoard every possible worthwhile RB over the course of a season.
-
MaveROCK
commented
Jim - Very good point! However, easily solved...as a Commissioner, Yahoo! limits you to which settings can be edited Pre-Draft Only or All Season.
For instance, I can change the League's Trade Deadline all season, but I can only remove a Roster Position Pre-Draft. I'd presume that Roster Limits would only be editable Pre-Draft...
-
MaveROCK
commented
Adding a second QB slot or reducing the bench is never going to solve the true problem - hoarding players. People need to stop finding convoluted solutions to a simple problem.
In 90% of Leagues (even with Default values), GMs would never feel the effects of this change, but why shouldn't private league Commissioners have the option? People are so averse to change that they freak out and cry - nobody is saying to force this limit onto EVERY league. We just want the option...some leagues probably won't even use it.
-
MaveROCK
commented
None - Exactly!
-
MaveROCK
commented
James - As noted before, I entirely disagree with the "hand-cuff" philosophy and I've had plenty of success avoiding it. Although, that is an entirely different discussion that is irrelevant...
Owners implore the "hand-cuff" method in leagues where RBs are scarce...they are in deep trouble if their starting RB gets injured because the Free Agent pool is shallow (most likely due to GMs hoarding RBs). However, by imposing a limit that reduces the scarcity of RBs, which ultimately reduces the need to "hand-cuff" your starter...
If you don't have to panic or worry about finding a replacement RB for your injured starter, wouldn't you rather use that spot on a player who might actually contribute to your team's points on a weekly basis? I would.
-
MaveROCK
commented
Refer to my previous breakdown:
Starting Positions: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, FLEX (W/R/T), TE, K, DEF
RBs Per Team: 3, 4, 6, 4, 5, 6, 4, 5, 6, 46 RBs? REALLY? 3 teams carry 6 RBs? Extreme. I'm not advocating setting a 3-RB limit, but 4 or even 5 is more than sufficient.
Let's say in my League, I set a 4-RB limit (double the starting positions)...that means only 8 more RBs would be available and only 5 teams would be affected.
Now, in any league with a W/R/T Flex Position, I'd say a 5-RB limit is a good setting...in that case, only 3 additional RBs would be available and only 3 teams would be affected.
Would that severely alter the League? No. It would, however, free up a few more players at a very important, but scarce position and promote competitive balance. It would also reward GMs who are active, which is a great benefit.
-
MaveROCK
commented
Anonymous - So, let me get this straight...you're against the "Roster Limit" option because it favors more active Owners?? Do you see how flawed that is?
Also, as I've stated before, there is NO REASON for more than 40 total RBs to be rostered at a given time. Even with time-shares, there are generally 40 relevant RBs at any given time...some more so than others, obviously. So, yeah...do a little work. Do your research. Find the guy more likely to play and roster him. Don't keep Marcus Lattimore on the roster incase Gore and Hyde die in a plane crash...even with day-to-day injuries, having 4 RBs on your roster is PLENTY over the course of a season. I always carry 3 RBs and I've never had a problem.
Are you desperate? Are your Top 3 injured/on a BYE? Drop your 5th WR. Drop your 2nd DEF. Drop your 2nd QB. Drop your Kicker. I just gave you 4 solutions to your dire problem...or better yet, make a trade! Be active.
In your scenario, that guy "sitting with his computer in his lap ready to pounce on whatever RB looks promising for the next week" still exists. Except, he has 6 RBs on his roster and nobody else can get them...yet he only starts 2 RBs each week. Does that seem fair?
-
MaveROCK
commented
Jose - Don't be an idiot. 2-QB Leagues are terrible and simply do not work. Adding additional roster positions in hopes that it alters a GMs philosophy is a juvenile and contrived solution.
To be honest, making that statement and being adamantly against change at all shows a much more stubborn and "already set their minds that they are right" mentality.
Nobody is implying that this should be a Yahoo! Default Setting or that EVERY LEAGUE needs to impose limits. However, it works best in some Leagues and Commissioners around the world would find value in having this as an OPTION.
If you don't like limits, then don't sign up for a league that has them...and most other sites do, in fact. CBS has them. ESPN has them. Nobody cries.
The whole point of having a "Commissioner" is to police the teams that refuse to police themselves - we should have ultimate power to enforce any guidelines that help improve the league or maintain competitive balance. You want Commissioners to "cause their managers to draft a different mix of players" when in reality, that's an impossible feat. You know how a Commissioner can "cause their managers to draft a different mix of players", though?
Limits.
-
MaveROCK
commented
Anonymous - You are incorrect. In fact, I am 100% taking into account the injury-rate of RBs in my analysis...
However, I disagree that each team needs to have a stable of 3 "injury-replacement" RBs on their active roster because odds are that 90% of those guys will never actually be used in their starting lineup. Unfortunately, for the teams that do suffer a season-altering injury to one of the most crucial positions in the league, they are out-of-luck if they didn't "guess right" or hoard RBs at all because the FA pool is completely depleted.
Additionally, in my League there is much more balanced scoring than most - there isn't a single FB scoring more points than a starting WR. And, majority of the time a timeshare RB scores less than a starting WR. However, there is a common philosophy of "you need 10 RBs to win a fantasy football championship!" and many people go overboard with it.
In regards to adding a second starting QB, you weren't serious about that, right? First of all, a change like that would have an EXTREME impact on the complexion of the League. Second of all, I have tried a 2-QB system previously (2003) and it simply doesn't work.
Why should a Commissioner be forced to alter their League Settings to a clearly inferior method to hopefully alter a GMs roster philosophy? It's a very convoluted solution to a simple problem...
-
MaveROCK
commented
I haven't been here in awhile, but let me respond to some of the comments made to my earlier posts...
Anonymous - No, I do not follow the "hand-cuff" philosophy. I don't know about you, but I don't draft a player anticipating he'll be injured. As I stated previously, though, injuries do happen and under the current rules it's nearly impossible to find an adequate replacement from the Waiver Wire because teams are hoarding back-up RBs (nearly 10 total!) throughout the league. Why would somebody want to take up a perfectly good roster spot on a guy who will never play unless somebody else breaks their leg? "Hand-cuffing" is and always will be a flawed strategy - I want to use that valuable spot on a player who actually sees game action on a regular basis. I'm not sure if you know this, but the Free Agent pool is actually a tool designed to hold replacement players...in the event of injury or poor production. Why diminish its worth?
In 9 seasons, I have made the Championship game 5 times and finished Top 2 in the Regular Season 4 times...yet I have never implored the "hand-cuff" strategy. It's unnecessary.
-
Anonymous
commented
What the ****. Why cant you guys figure out that this needs to be changed. 90% of the people on Yahoo Football are wondering the same thing as well. You would probably have a lot more people using this site if you would fix it.
-
Matthew Crowe
commented
My FFL was looking to switch to Yahoo this year, but we couldn't because of the lack of this feature. We have an 8 player team format using the standard lineup of 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1K, 1DST.
Our rules allow for the "three wide" option, though, where you can drop a RB and play 3WR. We also allow for a 2TE set where you play 2RB, 1WR, and 2TE or 1RB, 2WR, and 2TE.
Your configuration screen should have a "Min" and "Max" column for each position on the team's active roster along with a total number of players allowed to start (in our league, this would be set to 8).
For the bench players, you can allow the same flexibility, but also make sure to allow "No Maximum" as an option. In our league, we don't care how many players you stockpile at one position, so long as you don't go over the overall total team roster size.
Implement this change and we would love to switch next year, Yahoo.
-
Chris
commented
I'd also like to add that I believe this rule should be for the bench. So you can choose how many of each position is sitting on your bench. For those who complain commissioners change rules after the draft, then join a league you trust the commish or join the standard Yahoo leagues!
-
Chris
commented
I've had this same feeling this is a GREAT idea!!! Some people get way to many of one positions leaving nothing for others!
-
Annoyed customer
commented
why is this taking so long? Yahoo engineers standing around with their pencils up their *********