Overall Roster Size & Restrictions

[The Immortal Ramirez]

30 sounds good

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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

[Nittany Dodgers]

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]

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]

good option

works for me

[Nittany Dodgers]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Burt the Butcher]

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]

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]

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]

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

[The Immortal Ramirez]

actually there are a lot of trades in CDL.

[Preds]

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]

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]

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!

we are a little on the crazy side of things

[keepers]

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

[Mutts]

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

[Valencia]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

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

Ditto