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
-
Anonymous
commented
Yes, we play in a 3 player dynasty league with 9 starting positions and 8 bench. It was fine when the league had more spread out bye weeks, but with 3 IDP players i need to have 8 bench spots or teams cannot survive the bye weeks w/o making moves. Players will just not draft a def player then make a move in week one, just in case a player gets hurt in preseason. Many of my managers have complained about this and want me to reduce the bench size, but I would rather just do position maximums, so that teams are required to draft and carry defensive back ups.
-
MaveROCK
commented
Hmm...those ******** are "s t r i n g e r".
-
MaveROCK
commented
Anonymous - What is a more valuable 3rd ******** to you...QB, RB, WR, TE, K, or DEF? In fantasy football, of course, where 3rd ******** means the back-up to your top bench player at a given position (QB3, RB4, WR5, etc.)...(Starting Positions: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, K, DEF).
Most GMs would say RB4 has the higher value and could care less about QB3 or WR5...now, add a Flex and RB5 becomes even more valuable than those, which is exactly why guys hoard RBs. It does not make their roster suffer to hoard an RB4/RB5 instead of a WR5 cause there are far less RBs that see action than WRs! It's far easier to find an injury replacement for WR via Free Agency cause they're not being stock-piled.
And, my whole point is that you wouldn't be able to fill an injury hole with your 5th RB cause you wouldn't have one when other teams roster 5 or 6 RBs! Luckily, though, there'd be more options at RB available via Free Agency cause there'd only be 40 RBs taken MAX (in a 10-team league) with a position limit of 4...as opposed to 50-60 RBs taken without a position limit.
Besides, it would be an option to have position limits...the Commissioner could choose not to impose one and life would go on as it is now. Limitless.
-
Anonymous
commented
Mave, that is not true at all. First, if a GM stocks up on a bunch of RBs,it means he is weak in another area. Second, if I was the GM in your last scenario, there would be no "difficult choice" between my 5th RB spot or the future injury replacement. If one of my Rbs goes down, I'll replace him from that 5th spot. If another position goes down, I drop my worst player to pick up a replacement. Third, hand-cuff players rarely pan out. Most times the starter plays the whole year and the GM with the handcuff loses a roster spot for the whole year for no reason. That was their risk to take. Lastly, you could always just limit the total number of roster spots. In my league we have QB, 3 WRs, 2 RBs, TE, FLEX, K, DEF, 5 IDP and only 6 roster spots. This forces us to keep only those players we really want or need, ESP during the byes.
-
MaveROCK
commented
Clark - It's not just about issues during the draft. 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...
-
Clark Collins
commented
This is dumb...it takes rounds and rounds for an owner to do this. Just take a player at that position when it is getting thin, and dont complain when someone else takes all the good players.
-
MaveROCK
commented
I agree. 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).
-
Anonymous
commented
I don't see how a cap on the number of RBs or QBs or whatever that a team can draft would help in any of my leagues.
-
-rg
commented
I think you're just blocking one type of strategy which doesn't make sense.
-
Stephen
commented
The only problem I see with this is if it's a dynasty/keeper league and you are stock-piling youth in the hopes a couple pan out. However, if it's an option the commissioner can invoke and set a number then it should be okay.
-
andre
commented
naa