Roster Size in 2003...

[Preds]

It's clear there is support for larger rosters in 2003 and beyond.

The questions at hand are what size, what roster requirments, what kind of cap change, and how many contract years.

I'd like to see in-season free agency at a minimum, more in line with the NFL. With this style league, we should where our GM hats and build our teams primarily in the off-season, then switch hats and Coach them during the regular season (kinda like what the Undead are doing with their ownership group).

What I'd like to see would be 18 man rosters that require a backup TE, K, and D at all times.

This would help limit the movement on the waiver wire during the season significantly, since byes should be covered. Waiver moves would only be for the prospects who slip through the cracks, or to replace an injured player.

My suggestions would be to increase the cap by 500 to 10,500, this would accomadate the 2 additional role players. Further, I suggest to increase the cap years to 38 (I doubt teams would tender multiple year contracts to K's and D's).

Before I post another poll on this subject, chime in with what you'd like to see, then we'll try to compose a rule that all will be happy with.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Now that we're getting through some of the UFA signing period... and as I get ready to play my first season with you folks (first EVER cap league)... I'm coming to the realitization that we DO need more roster space...

I'm in favor of increasing it to 18... but I am against requiring TWO Ks, TEs, and Ds at the same time. That's a bit restrictive, in my opinion. I'd be in favor of making it mandatory for two of those 3 positions to have a backup.

I also think a 500 increase to cover those two backups is very reasonable.

[Preds]

Originally posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

I'm in favor of increasing it to 18... but I am against requiring TWO Ks, TEs, and Ds at the same time. That's a bit restrictive, in my opinion. I'd be in favor of making it mandatory for two of those 3 positions to have a backup.

I could live with 2 of 3 backups required among TE, K, and D with 18 man rosters...

[Urza's Ragers]

I think keeping the 16 spots is ok, not in favor of allowing more. It is true that it is restrictive, but isn't that the whole idea of it (and more fun if I may say). Allowing more roster slots may makes things and decisions easier for all of us but then any Blind Monkey can manage a team that way.:Alcoholic

[Preds]

Originally posted by Urza's Ragers
I think keeping the 16 spots is ok, not in favor of allowing more. It is true that it is restrictive, but isn't that the whole idea of it (and more fun if I may say). Allowing more roster slots may makes things and decisions easier for all of us but then any Blind Monkey can manage a team that way.

I don't agree, the 16 man rosters pretty much force us to short change the TE, K, and D positions... and therefore you have cap penalties to create backups to cover byes.

Kinda senseless, as it stand right now, with 9 starters and only 16 roster spots you CANNOT backup every position.

Further, being a dynasty style cap league, roster movement in season should be kept to a minimum. How much in-season roster movement do you see in the NFL? The answer is very little outside practice squad moves.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I like the 18 man roster with requirements to have a backup TE, D, and K. I hate when there are musical chairs going on with defenses and kickers. This way all the best would be taken for the most part, and teams would be playing just who they have on their roster, instead of a weekly scramble for whoever happens to be playing Houston that week, or whatever.

If we don't go to the 18 man roster, I would be in favor of some sort of roster spot exemption for being able to pick up a kicker or a defense for one week.

We did this one year for my redraft league. If your regular kicker was on a bye, you got to pick up another kicker for just one week. You had to drop that kicker right away. I do think we need to do something to alleviate the tight rosters. I don't like every player in the NFL taken, but we could use a little breathing room (speaking of 2003 only).

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

If we don't go to 18, I could live with that "bye week exemption" suggestion. We could pick up any player who's not on a roster to fill in our K, TE, D bye week. Then we'd have to release him immediately following the game. We'd probably have to set up a waiver wire order for who gets "first dibs" on the players...

Then again, this would almost certainly allow for most (if not all) teams to take NO TE, K, D backups... at least that's the strategy I'd take... so I could have more "skill position" players.

My first choice would be to increase to 18.

[Preds]

I agree, I'd rather go to 18 man rosters in 2003, however Dodgers 1 week pickup roster exemption at no salary or cap hit may be a good solution for THIS year until we expand the rosters.

We could implement a waiver wire for say Tuesdays, and allow any of these players not currently being bid upon available as 1 week exemptions that MUST be cut the following week.

How about it? Sounds like a fair way to handle it until a more permanent solution is put into place.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Originally posted by Parkwood Predators

Kinda senseless, as it stand right now, with 9 starters and only 16 roster spots you CANNOT backup every position.

Actually you can back up every position, just not every player. You could have 1 backup QB, RB, WR, TE, K and DEF plus your 9 starters and that takes up only 15 roster slots. Of course realistically no one will backup their def or K if instead they could get a quality skill position backup. Again, I would not be against a roster expansion to allow for TE/K/Def backups but not for this season. I feel we are too far along for that type of change.