What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

FF Roster Size (1 Viewer)

richn

Footballguy
In our 12 team PPR League we currently start 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 RB/WR, 1 TE, 1 DEF, 1 K....we have 14 player rosters with limits 5 RB's, 5 WR's, 2 QB, 2 TE, 2 K, 2 Def. Some people think the benches should be expanded, some think it would deplete the free agency pool too much. This is a redraft league. What size rosters do you guys use......If you have reasons supporting roster size please chime in. Opinions???

 
Considering the flex option, your bench of six is deep enough. It's redraft, so you don't need to consume roster spots with "projects". Personally, I like the limited roster and hard choices. Comes down to preference... a small increase - an additional spot - should appease most and not really affect the quality of the free agent pool.

 
My leagues have the same setup as you. Although based on what's mentioned on the boards on the weekly WW gem threads, it seems most ppl here have their roster sizes at 16. I personally like 14 because it makes bye weeks more interesting and adds more wheeling and dealing throughout the season. Also makes the FAAB more interesting every Tues night.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
the more knowledge you possess, the more bench spots you should desire.

in my 10 teamer, we start 9 and have six bench spots. and i hate it. way too few spots. can't even back up every starting position...if you wanted to.

 
My leagues have the same setup as you. Although based on what's mentioned on the boards on the weekly WW gem threads, it seems most ppl here have their roster sizes at 16. I personally like 14 because it makes bye weeks more interesting and adds more wheeling and dealing throughout the season. Also makes the FAAB more interesting every Tues night.
We hopefully will push through FAAB as well, right now the good teams never get the "hot" pick ups
 
My leagues have the same setup as you. Although based on what's mentioned on the boards on the weekly WW gem threads, it seems most ppl here have their roster sizes at 16. I personally like 14 because it makes bye weeks more interesting and adds more wheeling and dealing throughout the season. Also makes the FAAB more interesting every Tues night.
We hopefully will push through FAAB as well, right now the good teams never get the "hot" pick ups
even if you don't get FAAB pushed through, at least change the WW priority to remain constant unless used, in inverse order of draft position.
 
My leagues have the same setup as you. Although based on what's mentioned on the boards on the weekly WW gem threads, it seems most ppl here have their roster sizes at 16. I personally like 14 because it makes bye weeks more interesting and adds more wheeling and dealing throughout the season. Also makes the FAAB more interesting every Tues night.
We hopefully will push through FAAB as well, right now the good teams never get the "hot" pick ups
even if you don't get FAAB pushed through, at least change the WW priority to remain constant unless used, in inverse order of draft position.
please explain......last drafting owner goes first, does it the go opposite the next week??? how would that work??
 
please explain......last drafting owner goes first, does it the go opposite the next week??? how would that work??
owner that picks last in round 1 gets WW priority 1, and unless he uses it, he keeps it. the entire season if he desires.and on down the line. if you use your priority, you go to the back of the line and work your way up again.
 
please explain......last drafting owner goes first, does it the go opposite the next week??? how would that work??
owner that picks last in round 1 gets WW priority 1, and unless he uses it, he keeps it. the entire season if he desires.and on down the line. if you use your priority, you go to the back of the line and work your way up again.
Nice Idea....can ESPN FF Handle this?? (ESPN is our league site)
 
please explain......last drafting owner goes first, does it the go opposite the next week??? how would that work??
owner that picks last in round 1 gets WW priority 1, and unless he uses it, he keeps it. the entire season if he desires.and on down the line. if you use your priority, you go to the back of the line and work your way up again.
Nice Idea....can ESPN FF Handle this?? (ESPN is our league site)
our Yahoo! league uses it. i'm pretty sure ESPN has the option to not reset WW priority weekly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the more knowledge you possess, the more bench spots you should desire.
Agree. Ours is a 12 team Keeper and also have the same line up as the poster, but we also start a middle Line backer. still, we carry 20 man rosters. max of 3 qbs - 5 rb's 6 wr's 3 TE etc. It is better to have depth on your ROSTER rather than having a plethera of decent options in the FA pool - if you know what you are doing - that can help as bye week fills, injury replacements and of course, hosing your other owners in a 2 for 1 or 3 for 2 trade. Depth is good and if you know what you are doing you can use that to your advantage by using the waiver wire and FA pool wisely, quickly and knowing all of the facts you can muster. Being able to pick up M lynch, M Clayton, l maroney, p hillis, L murphy, etc on a whim...is too easy IMO. Anyone can do it.Knowing the right time to pluck playas like Keiland Williams, C Ivory, stephen williams, or even Michael Hoomanawanui and see what happens, not a on whim, but because you have the knowledge to make that call and stash that chance on your bench.
we have 14 player rosters with limits 5 RB's, 5 WR's, 2 QB, 2 TE, 2 K, 2 Def. Some people think the benches should be expanded, some think it would deplete the free agency pool too much.
There are plenty of nuggets out there who posess the knowledge.
 
ESPN CAN handle that, but it is up to your league manager to change the waiver prior to the season. we are the same every year. you get 1st pick in the draft? Come week one you now last on the wire. only fair

 
14 is way too few. I bet there are zero trades in your league. Too much ww fodder.

I like 16 here.

Will give you at least one sleeper pick. I usually keep one kicker and defense and fill my bench with position players.

 
the more knowledge you possess, the more bench spots you should desire.

in my 10 teamer, we start 9 and have six bench spots. and i hate it. way too few spots. can't even back up every starting position...if you wanted to.
I think this is it in a nutshell. As the level of play rises the rosters should increase in size. If a new league starts up with inexperienced owners, the short rosters keep the league competitive. As the owners gain experience the rosters should go up to allow the draft to have more meaning.
 
Depth is good and if you know what you are doing you can use that to your advantage by using the waiver wire and FA pool wisely, quickly and knowing all of the facts you can muster.

Being able to pick up M lynch, M Clayton, l maroney, p hillis, L murphy, etc on a whim...is too easy IMO. Anyone can do it.

Knowing the right time to pluck playas like Keiland Williams, C Ivory, stephen williams, or even Michael Hoomanawanui and see what happens, not a on whim, but because you have the knowledge to make that call and stash that chance on your bench.

There are plenty of nuggets out there who posess the knowledge.
Sig Worthy :thumbup: League starts 6 skill positions, including a flex. How may positions do you need to back up?

 
the more knowledge you possess, the more bench spots you should desire.in my 10 teamer, we start 9 and have six bench spots. and i hate it. way too few spots. can't even back up every starting position...if you wanted to.
i dont necessarily disagree with you. in fact i've always been for larger rosters.that said, one of my leaguemates who was dead set against large rosters makes a good point. first of all this league does blind bidding waivers. in his opinion, smaller roster size means more money in the pot, due to more talent on the WW.
 
the more knowledge you possess, the more bench spots you should desire.in my 10 teamer, we start 9 and have six bench spots. and i hate it. way too few spots. can't even back up every starting position...if you wanted to.
i dont necessarily disagree with you. in fact i've always been for larger rosters.that said, one of my leaguemates who was dead set against large rosters makes a good point. first of all this league does blind bidding waivers. in his opinion, smaller roster size means more money in the pot, due to more talent on the WW.
raise the entry fee 10 or 20 bucks, increase rosters, and then you benefit both ways. more money, more bench spots, more opportunities to dominate.
 
lots of people will have opinions on this but it really just depends on what you want to emphasize. Larger benches put more emphasis on the draft - there always will be FA's available that will help but the larger your bench, the fewer of htese there will be. Smaller rosters emphasize management moves during the season. More FA's will be available that can help you but you will also have less dead wood on your team to drop to pick up players.

I prefer larger rosters myself and I think most people here would likely support that idea as well. A brief skim of that would seem to support it. However, it depends on the make up of your league, not this site. I've played in a couple of leagues that have had short rosters. Some people prefer to have that talent available to pick up. Usually it is less "serious" leagues and/or leagues with casual fans rather than FF "junkies". Some people get far too worked up over the issue. There's nothing "wrong" specifically with small rosters, just a different setup. You have to know your league to know what is best.

 
In our 12 team PPR League we currently start 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 RB/WR, 1 TE, 1 DEF, 1 K....we have 14 player rosters with limits 5 RB's, 5 WR's, 2 QB, 2 TE, 2 K, 2 Def. Some people think the benches should be expanded, some think it would deplete the free agency pool too much. This is a redraft league. What size rosters do you guys use......If you have reasons supporting roster size please chime in. Opinions???
Dynasty22 starters45-50 man rosters with up to 8 on the Practice SquadMy point is that you should be carrying more roster spots. I would think in your league, 16 is ample
 
In my 8 team league. We have 16 roster spots. I have one kicker, with plenty of kicker fodder on the wire, one defense, with plenty of D's on the wire. One QB, there are some starters in the NFL on the wire. I have Tolbert who is expendable so bye weeks where I don't have backups I will drip Tolbert and/or anyone i don't need to fill the spot. In years past, i didn't have a solid producer at kicker and/or defense and would play matchups on the wire each week. It's fun, but there are very very few trades.

 
My leagues have the same setup as you. Although based on what's mentioned on the boards on the weekly WW gem threads, it seems most ppl here have their roster sizes at 16. I personally like 14 because it makes bye weeks more interesting and adds more wheeling and dealing throughout the season. Also makes the FAAB more interesting every Tues night.
The more worthwhile players on waivers, the less teams have to deal with each other to fill their needs. Smaller rosters lead to less wheeling and dealing, not more. Unless by wheeling and dealing you mean waiver moves and not interaction between teams.I tend to prefer larger rosters. I think it gives the more skilled owner more of a chance to differentiate himself. The more players that are available on waivers, the less you need to understand how to figure out the value of players in your league. I play in some leagues with enormous rosters in comparison, though also with larger starting lineups. You can tell a lot about an owner's skill level by looking at his roster makeup. If he's carrying backups that aren't any better than what could be had on waivers (like at IDP) while passing on players who have a better chance of moving into a significant starting role (guys who turn into that year's Vick, Hillis, etc).

If those same players have to sit on waivers until everyone has heard the news or seen the result that the player is performing, the owner who was able to identify them in advance as the best breakout opportunities loses ground to the owner who couldn't but who can pick him up from waivers once it is more obvious.

I do think the waiver priority where you keep it until you use it helps at least a little there, but larger rosters with that kind of system are still better at giving skill a chance to win out than are smaller rosters with that same kind of system.

 
You need to go to 16 man rosters. That's a pretty good spot for those starting requirements. 14 is a little too small IMHO...
I agree.....this has become a big debate....i don't feel adding 2 spots would deplete the FA pool.
The high stakes leagues that have twelve teams have 20 roster spots and there is still a ton of good free agent and emerging players available every week. Look at what is happening this week with all the injury concerns.You should definitely add two and go to sixteen(personally I don't like the limits but that is a different subject)AND......FAAB is the only fair way for all teams to have a shot at players each week.....even ESPN added that as an option this year
 
Our team has the usual 9 actives and 6 bench spots.... which would be fine except... We're only allowed a max of 4 RB and 4 WR this season due to a misunderstanding that happened when we switched from CBS to ESPN. I hate it. Now, half the guys have 3 QB's, 2 DEF, and 2 TE, so there's no talent available for these positions in free agency. But there's a ton of RB/WR available. But guys who maybe drafted a Shonn Greene or CJ Spiller early and don't want to drop them are kind of handcuffed from adding a RB from free agency.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
16+ for 8 starters.The shallower the roster the better it is for weak owners.
:) :bs: Nailed it right here...................the stronger u are a FF, u should desire to go as deep as possible. Your roster size should be, at a minimum, 2x the size of your starting requirements. So, if start 8, roster size 16 min, start 10 roster size 20 min. The whiners who complain typically dont draft well and rely on the WW too much to mask the deficiency's of their respective teams. Just my two cents....
 
Our league is 10 team, start 2QB. We have 20 roster spots, 11 starters, 9 bench. I feel it gives enough balance to have your handcuffs and backups but also take a shot at a lottery ticket like a Jamaal Charles from last year. Its a good balance between skill and depth.

 
My leagues have the same setup as you. Although based on what's mentioned on the boards on the weekly WW gem threads, it seems most ppl here have their roster sizes at 16. I personally like 14 because it makes bye weeks more interesting and adds more wheeling and dealing throughout the season. Also makes the FAAB more interesting every Tues night.
The more worthwhile players on waivers, the less teams have to deal with each other to fill their needs. Smaller rosters lead to less wheeling and dealing, not more. Unless by wheeling and dealing you mean waiver moves and not interaction between teams.I tend to prefer larger rosters. I think it gives the more skilled owner more of a chance to differentiate himself. The more players that are available on waivers, the less you need to understand how to figure out the value of players in your league. I play in some leagues with enormous rosters in comparison, though also with larger starting lineups. You can tell a lot about an owner's skill level by looking at his roster makeup. If he's carrying backups that aren't any better than what could be had on waivers (like at IDP) while passing on players who have a better chance of moving into a significant starting role (guys who turn into that year's Vick, Hillis, etc).

If those same players have to sit on waivers until everyone has heard the news or seen the result that the player is performing, the owner who was able to identify them in advance as the best breakout opportunities loses ground to the owner who couldn't but who can pick him up from waivers once it is more obvious.

I do think the waiver priority where you keep it until you use it helps at least a little there, but larger rosters with that kind of system are still better at giving skill a chance to win out than are smaller rosters with that same kind of system.
:wall:
 
In our 12 team PPR League we currently start 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 RB/WR, 1 TE, 1 DEF, 1 K....we have 14 player rosters with limits 5 RB's, 5 WR's, 2 QB, 2 TE, 2 K, 2 Def. Some people think the benches should be expanded, some think it would deplete the free agency pool too much. This is a redraft league. What size rosters do you guys use......If you have reasons supporting roster size please chime in. Opinions???
14 is the best if you want to have a decent free agent market and make it more competitive during the season. The bigger the bench the more the draft decides everything. If its all sharks that may be the way you want to go but if its for fun then 14 makes it more competitve and keeps people more interested. 16 players is a good number for a 10 team league though.10 players x 16 = 160 players drafted12 player x 14 = 168 players drafted12 players x 16 = 192 players draft (not much left)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy1x said:
In our 12 team PPR League we currently start 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 RB/WR, 1 TE, 1 DEF, 1 K....we have 14 player rosters with limits 5 RB's, 5 WR's, 2 QB, 2 TE, 2 K, 2 Def. Some people think the benches should be expanded, some think it would deplete the free agency pool too much. This is a redraft league. What size rosters do you guys use......If you have reasons supporting roster size please chime in. Opinions???
14 is the best if you want to have a decent free agent market and make it more competitive during the season. The bigger the bench the more the draft decides everything. If its all sharks that may be the way you want to go but if its for fun then 14 makes it more competitve and keeps people more interested. 16 players is a good number for a 10 team league though.10 players x 16 = 160 players drafted12 player x 14 = 168 players drafted12 players x 16 = 192 players draft (not much left)
I think 16 is best, because there are plenty of gems still found/picked up every year that come out of nowhere. It also promotes a bit more of trading, IMO.
 
TheGrimReaper said:
16+ for 8 starters.The shallower the roster the better it is for weak owners.
:thumbup: :shock: Nailed it right here...................the stronger u are a FF, u should desire to go as deep as possible. Your roster size should be, at a minimum, 2x the size of your starting requirements. So, if start 8, roster size 16 min, start 10 roster size 20 min. The whiners who complain typically dont draft well and rely on the WW too much to mask the deficiency's of their respective teams. Just my two cents....
I agree with that larger rosters increase the skill level and give advantage to the better players. I play in one league however where all the players came from this and other message boards. 10 starters, 9 bench players. The waivers have already been pummeled. That sleeper WR you were looking to draft in round 12. Gone by round 9.That 3rd string RB sleeper for Week 4? 3 competing bids. This is by far my most challenging league and really requires you to dig deep to find players. I also play in a league with 9 starters, and seven bench spots. Players picked up as free agents (not waivers) this week include Dustin Keller, Aaron Hernandez, Lance Moore, Jabar Gaffney, Brandon Lloyd, Josh Freeman, Chad Henne and more. I couldnt imagine playing in a league shallower than this. 14 spots?No doubt that deep rosters are the way to go if you are looking to play at the highest level.
 
Billy1x said:
In our 12 team PPR League we currently start 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 RB/WR, 1 TE, 1 DEF, 1 K....we have 14 player rosters with limits 5 RB's, 5 WR's, 2 QB, 2 TE, 2 K, 2 Def. Some people think the benches should be expanded, some think it would deplete the free agency pool too much. This is a redraft league. What size rosters do you guys use......If you have reasons supporting roster size please chime in. Opinions???
14 is the best if you want to have a decent free agent market and make it more competitive during the season. The bigger the bench the more the draft decides everything. If its all sharks that may be the way you want to go but if its for fun then 14 makes it more competitve and keeps people more interested. 16 players is a good number for a 10 team league though.10 players x 16 = 160 players drafted

12 player x 14 = 168 players drafted

12 players x 16 = 192 players draft (not much left)
I think 16 is best, because there are plenty of gems still found/picked up every year that come out of nowhere. It also promotes a bit more of trading, IMO.
That's really what it comes down to. If you want interaction, ie trading, then you need a larger roster. IF you don't want trading, then smaller rosters is the way to go. Either is fine if thats what your looking for. I prefer larger rosters. More trading, more skill when finding the gems.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top