Overall Roster Size & Restrictions

The Immortal Ramirez · April 14th, 2005, 02:18 PM

30 sounds good

April 14th, 2005, 02:27 PM

30 sounds good.

It should not be forced 18 offence / 12 defence

(I want to be able to sign 20 RBs if I want to)

Nittany Dodgers · April 14th, 2005, 02:32 PM

I'd prefer we have an alloted amount of offensive and defensive roster spots. In the Frenzy, we mandated 5 of the 18 rosters spots for K, D, and TE to prevent teams from hoarding. I think it works well, and I think the same should go for defense. 18 and 12 with a 30 total roster gets my vote until I see a better proposal.

Preds · April 14th, 2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I'd prefer we have an alloted amount of offensive and defensive roster spots. In the Frenzy, we mandated 5 of the 18 rosters spots for K, D, and TE to prevent teams from hoarding. I think it works well, and I think the same should go for defense. 18 and 12 with a 30 total roster gets my vote until I see a better proposal.

I concur. An 18/12 split works for me.

Flaxwless · April 14th, 2005, 02:40 PM

Agreed... with what Brian posted.

With 18 offensive players and 5 being a combo of DEF/PK/TE (it was added to give us back up at positions we normally would look over) you have 13 spots left over. We start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 DEF 1 PK but we won't count DEF/TE/PK so you have 6 positions starters from the 13 and 7 left for backups. If you felt like it you can then have 7 RBs.

The 12 for defense works for me I was thinking cut it to 10 so we wouldn't have to put restrictions on how many LBs you want to hoard.

The Immortal Ramirez · April 14th, 2005, 02:48 PM

dudes, you don't need minimum DT anymore if we're IDP... hee hee

Anyway, I like having minimal K & TE then. I really don't care if it's 18/12 or not. I'll play either way.

April 14th, 2005, 02:51 PM

i am ok with the forced split since it seems people are leaning that way.

since we no longer need dt does that decrease the size fo the 18 spots on offence?

The Immortal Ramirez · April 14th, 2005, 03:13 PM

It appear so...
add another 'flex position' being either TE or WR?

April 14th, 2005, 03:18 PM

or add the flex to DT. so it would be 2/2/2+flex

Nittany Dodgers · April 14th, 2005, 03:21 PM

I realize we no longer have DT, but I was just explaining the justification for mandating certain roster spots to O and D.

The 18 O spots offers more flexibility than we have no in the Frenzy, since you don't have to worry about the DT.

Burt the Butcher · April 14th, 2005, 03:22 PM

30 sounds good, but why put a limit to OFF and DEF positions? How about a minimum of each, and leave a few flex positions? How about 15/10 with 5 whatver?

The Immortal Ramirez · April 14th, 2005, 03:26 PM

good option

April 14th, 2005, 03:29 PM

works for me

Nittany Dodgers · April 14th, 2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulsonpatch

30 sounds good, but why put a limit to OFF and DEF positions? How about a minimum of each, and leave a few flex positions? How about 15/10 with 5 whatver?

Just a couple teams hoarding a limited position (Rbs or QBs) and you have a shortage. RBs are thin enough in the Frenzy, without every Tom, Dick, and Harry on a roster somewhere. But I'll go along with it if thats the majority opinion.

Preds · April 14th, 2005, 03:43 PM

I still favor an 18/12 split, but could live with a compromise of say 17/13 which basically splits the 2 extr roster spots form the DT's among both sides of the ball.

Nittany Dodgers · April 14th, 2005, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preds

I still favor an 18/12 split, but could live with a compromise of say 17/13 which basically splits the 2 extr roster spots form the DT's among both sides of the ball.

17/13 is moving in the opposite direction of what most people want I think. 18/12 is a good balance. 18 offensive players already allows for a backup at each position, plus 2 more at any position.

Flaxwless · April 14th, 2005, 03:52 PM

DOH for got about no DT...

so is with that in line do we make it 4 or 3 slots reserved for TE/PK on the offensive side of the ball.

Which then can be added to whatever side of the ball for you hoarders.

I am strongly in favor of having a limit to IOP/IDP.

Liquid Swords · April 14th, 2005, 03:56 PM

i prefer 18/12 split but can live with 17/13 if you feed me a Guinness

Burt the Butcher · April 14th, 2005, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liquid Swords

i prefer 18/12 split but can live with 17/13 if you feed me a Guinness

Screw the roster size...I vote for Guinness also...:IconDrink

Nittany Dodgers · April 14th, 2005, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

DOH for got about no DT...

so is with that in line do we make it 4 or 3 slots reserved for TE/PK on the offensive side of the ball.

Which then can be added to whatever side of the ball for you hoarders.

I am strongly in favor of having a limit to IOP/IDP.

I think we can get rid of that requirement. That would be my opinion anyways. Just the mandatory one on each roster. It seems it has been more of a tracking nightmare for Mike than it is worth (and I was a big proponent of the idea in the first place, and still like it).

Preds · April 14th, 2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I think we can get rid of that requirement. That would be my opinion anyways. Just the mandatory one on each roster. It seems it has been more of a tracking nightmare for Mike than it is worth (and I was a big proponent of the idea in the first place, and still like it).

I think we can eliminate the TE/K restriction as well.

If you recall, it was done when we added 2 roster spots and 500 cb's to the league (since we were hamsrung to carry backups at TE/K/D with the past roster sizes), and the purpose was to ensure that these spots and were devoted to those positions.

Flaxwless · April 14th, 2005, 04:17 PM

sounds good... but then with all the RFAs, franchising, extensions and such we'd have too little player movement?

The Immortal Ramirez · April 14th, 2005, 04:25 PM

actually there are a lot of trades in CDL.

Preds · April 14th, 2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

sounds good... but then with all the RFAs, franchising, extensions and such we'd have too little player movement?

Trust me, there will be TONS of trades and activity. The UFA market may not be as deep, but the activity levels will be huge.

randilover · April 14th, 2005, 04:53 PM

I think the 18/12 works well.

I'm new to this (and I must say you guys go at a furious pace through these threads), but as for restrictions, wouldn't the restriction the cap offset most of the problems that overloading on one position, etc. At this point to say you need 18 IOP's and 12 IDP's should cover most of your problems as you are not going to get to many of one position.

Mike Page

Preds · April 14th, 2005, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randilover

(and I must say you guys go at a furious pace through these threads)

... we did warn you it would be VERY active!

April 14th, 2005, 04:56 PM

we are a little on the crazy side of things

keepers · April 14th, 2005, 05:12 PM

30 sounds good. I will abstain from voting on having a off/def split or not, since I am fine with either.

Mutts · April 14th, 2005, 05:14 PM

18/12 sounds about right. No restrictions needed IMO.

Valencia · April 14th, 2005, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

18/12 sounds about right. No restrictions needed IMO.

Ditto

View Poll Results: Overall Roster: 18 IOP/12 IDP -- no restrictions
Yes	7	100.00%
No	0	0%
Voters: 7. This poll is closed

April 14th, 2005, 02:18 PM	#1
The Immortal Ramirez PredsFF.com Portal News Reporters Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,210	Overall Roster Size & Restrictions 30 sounds good

April 14th, 2005, 02:27 PM	#2
Skippy the One Eyed Beagle Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions 30 sounds good. It should not be forced 18 offence / 12 defence (I want to be able to sign 20 RBs if I want to)

April 14th, 2005, 02:32 PM	#3
Nittany Dodgers Feeding Frenzy Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Maplewood, MN Posts: 5,204	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions I'd prefer we have an alloted amount of offensive and defensive roster spots. In the Frenzy, we mandated 5 of the 18 rosters spots for K, D, and TE to prevent teams from hoarding. I think it works well, and I think the same should go for defense. 18 and 12 with a 30 total roster gets my vote until I see a better proposal.

April 14th, 2005, 02:40 PM	#5
Flaxwless Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Bay Area, California Posts: 6,050	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions Agreed... with what Brian posted. With 18 offensive players and 5 being a combo of DEF/PK/TE (it was added to give us back up at positions we normally would look over) you have 13 spots left over. We start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 DEF 1 PK but we won't count DEF/TE/PK so you have 6 positions starters from the 13 and 7 left for backups. If you felt like it you can then have 7 RBs. The 12 for defense works for me I was thinking cut it to 10 so we wouldn't have to put restrictions on how many LBs you want to hoard. __________________ Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects - 1st EVER Feeding Frenzy Champion Bay Area Bloodsuckers 2008 SAC'D Champions - 2nd Worst to First in Year! 2011 SAC'D Champions - #5 seed, # 2 power rankings, #1 in the end!

April 14th, 2005, 02:48 PM	#6
The Immortal Ramirez PredsFF.com Portal News Reporters Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,210	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions dudes, you don't need minimum DT anymore if we're IDP... hee hee Anyway, I like having minimal K & TE then. I really don't care if it's 18/12 or not. I'll play either way.

April 14th, 2005, 02:51 PM	#7
Skippy the One Eyed Beagle Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions i am ok with the forced split since it seems people are leaning that way. since we no longer need dt does that decrease the size fo the 18 spots on offence?

April 14th, 2005, 03:13 PM	#8
The Immortal Ramirez PredsFF.com Portal News Reporters Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,210	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions It appear so... add another 'flex position' being either TE or WR?

April 14th, 2005, 03:18 PM	#9
Skippy the One Eyed Beagle Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions or add the flex to DT. so it would be 2/2/2+flex

April 14th, 2005, 03:21 PM	#10
Nittany Dodgers Feeding Frenzy Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Maplewood, MN Posts: 5,204	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions I realize we no longer have DT, but I was just explaining the justification for mandating certain roster spots to O and D. The 18 O spots offers more flexibility than we have no in the Frenzy, since you don't have to worry about the DT.

April 14th, 2005, 03:22 PM	#11
Burt the Butcher Supreme FF Dominator Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Falcon, Colorado Posts: 19,481	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions 30 sounds good, but why put a limit to OFF and DEF positions? How about a minimum of each, and leave a few flex positions? How about 15/10 with 5 whatver?

April 14th, 2005, 03:26 PM	#12
The Immortal Ramirez PredsFF.com Portal News Reporters Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,210	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions good option

April 14th, 2005, 03:29 PM	#13
Skippy the One Eyed Beagle Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions works for me

April 14th, 2005, 03:43 PM	#15
Preds *****istrator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Hamburg, NY Posts: 17,782	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions I still favor an 18/12 split, but could live with a compromise of say 17/13 which basically splits the 2 extr roster spots form the DT's among both sides of the ball.

April 14th, 2005, 03:52 PM	#17
Flaxwless Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Bay Area, California Posts: 6,050	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions DOH for got about no DT... so is with that in line do we make it 4 or 3 slots reserved for TE/PK on the offensive side of the ball. Which then can be added to whatever side of the ball for you hoarders. I am strongly in favor of having a limit to IOP/IDP. __________________ Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects - 1st EVER Feeding Frenzy Champion Bay Area Bloodsuckers 2008 SAC'D Champions - 2nd Worst to First in Year! 2011 SAC'D Champions - #5 seed, # 2 power rankings, #1 in the end!

April 14th, 2005, 03:56 PM	#18
Liquid Swords Frenzy and SAC'D Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Fishers, IN Posts: 17,307	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions i prefer 18/12 split but can live with 17/13 if you feed me a Guinness __________________ 5 time Frenzy Champion - 2024, 2021, 2019, 2018, 2016 - Liquid Swords 5 time SAC'D Champion - 2024, co-2022, 2021, 2019, 2010 - Disciples of the 36 Chambers

April 14th, 2005, 04:17 PM	#22
Flaxwless Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Bay Area, California Posts: 6,050	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions sounds good... but then with all the RFAs, franchising, extensions and such we'd have too little player movement? __________________ Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects - 1st EVER Feeding Frenzy Champion Bay Area Bloodsuckers 2008 SAC'D Champions - 2nd Worst to First in Year! 2011 SAC'D Champions - #5 seed, # 2 power rankings, #1 in the end!

April 14th, 2005, 04:25 PM	#23
The Immortal Ramirez PredsFF.com Portal News Reporters Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,210	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions actually there are a lot of trades in CDL.

April 14th, 2005, 04:53 PM	#25
randilover SAC'D Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Outside Philadelphia Posts: 1,183	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions I think the 18/12 works well. I'm new to this (and I must say you guys go at a furious pace through these threads), but as for restrictions, wouldn't the restriction the cap offset most of the problems that overloading on one position, etc. At this point to say you need 18 IOP's and 12 IDP's should cover most of your problems as you are not going to get to many of one position. Mike Page

April 14th, 2005, 04:56 PM	#27
Skippy the One Eyed Beagle Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions we are a little on the crazy side of things

April 14th, 2005, 05:12 PM	#28
keepers SAC'D Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 465	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions 30 sounds good. I will abstain from voting on having a off/def split or not, since I am fine with either.

April 14th, 2005, 05:14 PM	#29
Mutts General Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Bloomington, Indiana Posts: 3,026	Re: Overall Roster Size & Restrictions 18/12 sounds about right. No restrictions needed IMO.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Roster app updated again, however...	Preds	Frenzy Free Agency & the Waiver Wire	31	November 11th, 2002 01:03 PM
Roster Size in 2003...	Preds	Frenzy Rules & Bylaws	8	May 20th, 2002 07:54 PM
REJECTED 7-5 (Increase Roster Size in 2003?)	Preds	Frenzy Rules & Bylaws	10	May 8th, 2002 11:31 PM