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!
Leaving an active roster empty for game week? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gheemony
- Start date
I disagree, why should you have to drop depth at another position to play a TE that will most likely score 0 - 3 points.
John Mamula
Moderator
you have to start a valid lineup every week.
John Mamula
Moderator
because not starting full lineups is the quickest way for league members to scream collusion and your league to fall apart.believe it or not, but when an opponent of someone benefits from playing someone with a partial lineup and beats out another team to get into the playoffs because of it, the team that didn't get in gets really pissed.in my main local league as commish, i will review rosters at gametime and if there are incomplete rosters submitted and they don't have a backup TE, i will pick up the highest TE off waivers, drop who i deem the worst player on their roster, and fine them $$.we have a keeper league that has been together for years and we do not tolerate incomplete lineups. it is bush league and i would never play in a league that allowed this.
Bush League??? That is BS. What if you league only allows 2 bench spots and you had LT and Phillips Rivers this week on a bye and also T.O. broken finger/also on a bye. Who are you going to drop to pick up some blocking TE who just might get pass throw his way.
This is not Bush League, this is strategy.
Lose the fight, win the war.
nerangers
Footballguy
All the leagues I play in say that you can play a player that is on a bye week. The main reason is that you can get negative points in my leagues, so picking up a junky player for one week can actually cost you. You can not leave a roster spot blank though (yahoo software seems to do this if you drop a player that was currently in your active roster - it does not assume who you are picking up is to be on your active roster vs bench).
nerangers
Footballguy
Some leagues also have limited moves....my redraft league only allows 7 FA pickups a season. I need a QB bad right now (Delhomme not playing well, Green injured) so I might have to drop my backup Defense to get another interim QB. Might have to go one week without a Defense that might only get me a point or two vs a QB that could get me 15 - 20.In my dynasty league, we have set roster requirements - carry two TEs. I have one on a bye, and another who might not play due to injury. With only one FA pickup a week in this league, it is real possible I might not be fielding a TE.
That is a few of my examples why you might have to play a player who has a bye week.
Last edited by a moderator:
acefootball
Footballguy
Teams are fined $10 in my league. Even if a player is a GTD and he sits , 10 bucks.
SigEp316
Footballguy
Rev
Footballguy
Guy in my league didn't submit a lineup at all, and so the worst team in our league won the game. I was pissed cuz I have that teams draft pick next year and obviously want him to lose every game. In the event that a team has starters ready to play but they sit on the bench while the owner starts an incomplete lineup, that's BS. Our owner used FBG cheatsheets and retroactively started the highest ranked players on his lineup.
But, if a team doesn't want to drop players in order to pick up a garbage player to fill a roster spot, especially due to injury problems, I don't care at all.
But, if a team doesn't want to drop players in order to pick up a garbage player to fill a roster spot, especially due to injury problems, I don't care at all.
bentley
Footballguy
I'd like to see the reasoning behind that. I can buy some of the things mentioned that are obviously collusion, but that can be dealt with in other manners. As an example, in my league, everyone carries 5 WRs. In week 7, all three of my top receivers are off. I'm most likely going to lose and will certainly take a goose egg at one spot. Should I also be required to drop Antonio Bryant just to pick up some spare receiver?
digitalamish
Footballguy
This actually happened to me a few years ago. I was stuck in a snow storm and couldn't call my roster in on time (the day before the games started). By the time I made it to a phone (45 minutes after the deadline), the commish had already contacted the other owners, and decided I had to play with an incomplete team. I cried b*ll#### for two reasons, one I was #1 in my league at the time, and two I was playing the commish. Suffice to say I lost that week, and wasn't happy.
Sound like sour grapes, right? Well, the exact same thing happened to my opponent later in the year, and I let him submit a roster. I wanted to win, but I wanted to play too.
The happy ending to this all was that I won the championship anyway, but it still makes me mad to this day.
Sound like sour grapes, right? Well, the exact same thing happened to my opponent later in the year, and I let him submit a roster. I wanted to win, but I wanted to play too.
The happy ending to this all was that I won the championship anyway, but it still makes me mad to this day.
I've got the best team I've ever had in my main league. Was our first year auction drafting and I think I killed it. I knew leaving the draft that I was prolly gonna lose week 6, Manning on a bye, and a few others. No way am I dropping Norwood or Winslow or J.Lewis, or etc, etc, etc, just to lose by less than I would have. I'll take my lumps in week 6 and keep my deep bench, thank you.
Now, in my work league, some knucklehead starts a bye week or injured player every other week. This is not a serious league at all. When I've expressed concern over this before they said I was just way to into this stuff and should ease up...so, I don't complain anymore, just kick their butts every year. I guess they're still having fun?
I guess that's why I appreciate my main league so much, when guys do stuff it's for strategy and not laziness.
Now, in my work league, some knucklehead starts a bye week or injured player every other week. This is not a serious league at all. When I've expressed concern over this before they said I was just way to into this stuff and should ease up...so, I don't complain anymore, just kick their butts every year. I guess they're still having fun?
I guess that's why I appreciate my main league so much, when guys do stuff it's for strategy and not laziness.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
In our league you must supply a full lineup or face a $10 fine. We have unlimited FA moves and we start 9 players from a roster of 18 so there should be enough room to make a move. If it means dropping some depth at a position for a week then so be it.
You don't see teams in the NFL playing with 0 TEs or 0 kickers. If they are thin at a position they'll drop someone on their roster and either activate a player on the practice squad or sign a FA.
You don't see teams in the NFL playing with 0 TEs or 0 kickers. If they are thin at a position they'll drop someone on their roster and either activate a player on the practice squad or sign a FA.
barndog
Father of Two
Yes, and FF is *exactly* like the real league... (team defenses, anyone?)
I have Gates on a bye this week, do not plan to pick up a lame-o, and still will probably beat my opponent. If I thought I needed a lame-o to win, I'd get one, but I don't. I'm playing to win, this week and the whole season. This is clearly not collusion, and I think it's silly to outlaw or penalize a valid strategy, barring a specific league rule against it.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
You mean Pittsburgh doesn't have the Steelers team defense? That's news to me!Yes, and FF is *exactly* like the real league... (team defenses, anyone?)
I never said FF was exactly like the NFL. Buit if your rules state you should play a certain number of players, you should have to field that number of players. I can't think of any sport where a team goes into a game knowing they'll be playing with 1 less player than their opponent for the entire game.
fsufan
Footballguy
Mungo Burrows
Footballguy
My rules specifically state that the starting roster numbers are maximums and that if you want to take a zero at a position for a player on bye or by leaving it blank you are welcome to do so. This isn't real football, it's a strategy game.If I have reason to believe there is collusion, that is obviously still not allowed and will be dealt with as a separate issue. However, some of these leagues sound pretty cuththroat, so I can see needing to be more diligent. We also don't nickel and dime teams for transactions and 'fines' along the way. My league gets along well and the owners are good about playing right.You mean Pittsburgh doesn't have the Steelers team defense? That's news to me!Yes, and FF is *exactly* like the real league... (team defenses, anyone?)
I have Gates on a bye this week, do not plan to pick up a lame-o, and still will probably beat my opponent. If I thought I needed a lame-o to win, I'd get one, but I don't. I'm playing to win, this week and the whole season. This is clearly not collusion, and I think it's silly to outlaw or penalize a valid strategy, barring a specific league rule against it.
digitalamish
Footballguy
When it really causes a problem is at the end of the year. If a team is out of it, and knows it, they may just give up and not submit rosters. It really steams me when I see a team trying to make the playoffs playing a team with empty roster spots, while another team is fighting for it's life against a powerhouse.
Utter Chaos
Footballguy
This sounds like the way to go. Doesn't force the owner to have to pick up a scrub but also encourages them to not play guys that have a bye.
Pipes
Footballguy
Completely disagree, fining an owner is a great strategy to force some lazy a** owners for checking out bye weeks. Though fining someone who is a game time decision and doesn't start seems harsh and just rubs salt in the wound.
Our solutiion seems to work. Automatically insert previous week's line-up. Doesn't happen often. Other owners in the league may be paying attention, see that a line-up hasn't been posted, and call the owner to let them know to put in that line-up as it can affect the standings.
HULLOBUDMAN
Footballguy
I am in a 16 team league with short rosters and in week 7 this yeat I will not have a starting QB and will have a WR position open. I have 4 regular starters that are on bye. I drafted with this strategy of losing this one game but having a 1 or 2 player advantage through the rest og the weeks. I would have to put some quality players in the free agent pool to dress a full lineup.
Our league makes the low score pay the high score $20 every week. I assume I will pay the $20 this week and be happy to do it.
Our league makes the low score pay the high score $20 every week. I assume I will pay the $20 this week and be happy to do it.
barndog
Father of Two
You can help this--perhaps cure it completely--by having cash awards for high scores or the like, or if it's a keeper/dynasaty league, by awarding draft order next year based on results from a consolation playoff bracket, and not by reverse order of finish.
Last edited by a moderator:
GregR_2
Footballguy
If leagues are going to have limited waiver moves, or tiny (ridiculously tiny?) rosters, then it probably makes more sense to allow starting bye week players.
But my preference would be that all teams be required to start a full valid lineup each week. I'm not in favor of tiny rosters in the first place, so that wouldn't be an issue in my leagues.
For the guy faced with dropping an Antonio Bryant, I guess my answer would be if you're in a league with decent roster size that has such a rule, then it would be your own fault for not managing your bye weeks with the rest of your rules taken into account. If you choose to have a bunch of guys all on bye the same week, then you put yourself in a situation of possibly having to cut one of them.
But to me that's more a case of roster size. You should have big enough rosters to have a few roster spaces that can be rotated through positions to hold starters while picking up bye week fillers at positions that carrying a backup isn't worth it. And enough additional roster spots to carry the valuable backups and sleeper guys. As an example, my keeper league starts 15 players at 9 positions and have 12 bench spaces (of which 5 spaces arguably are not worth carrying a backup: TE, PK, DL, LB, DE). I try to manage my byes so I don't have more than 3 guys on bye in a week at the positions I don't carry a full-time backup at, leaving me 9 spots to fill with my QBs, RBs and WRs, and with a backup head coach so I can play matchups there easier.
But my preference would be that all teams be required to start a full valid lineup each week. I'm not in favor of tiny rosters in the first place, so that wouldn't be an issue in my leagues.
For the guy faced with dropping an Antonio Bryant, I guess my answer would be if you're in a league with decent roster size that has such a rule, then it would be your own fault for not managing your bye weeks with the rest of your rules taken into account. If you choose to have a bunch of guys all on bye the same week, then you put yourself in a situation of possibly having to cut one of them.
But to me that's more a case of roster size. You should have big enough rosters to have a few roster spaces that can be rotated through positions to hold starters while picking up bye week fillers at positions that carrying a backup isn't worth it. And enough additional roster spots to carry the valuable backups and sleeper guys. As an example, my keeper league starts 15 players at 9 positions and have 12 bench spaces (of which 5 spaces arguably are not worth carrying a backup: TE, PK, DL, LB, DE). I try to manage my byes so I don't have more than 3 guys on bye in a week at the positions I don't carry a full-time backup at, leaving me 9 spots to fill with my QBs, RBs and WRs, and with a backup head coach so I can play matchups there easier.
Jagerbomber
Footballguy
Our league voted on allowing empty roster spots 2 years ago but as long as it's not used for collusion. Hard to prove collusion sometimes, but we've have the same core group of people for 5 years now so we can spot the shady moves.
Week 6 I have Watson, Wayne, and Vinateiri on bye and only have one roster spot that I'm willing to use, and it'll be used for a kicker. I wouldn't get many points from a scrub TE which is all that'll be left on the WW. If somebody emerges before then of course I'll grab them but chances are I'll just take the zero points.
Week 6 I have Watson, Wayne, and Vinateiri on bye and only have one roster spot that I'm willing to use, and it'll be used for a kicker. I wouldn't get many points from a scrub TE which is all that'll be left on the WW. If somebody emerges before then of course I'll grab them but chances are I'll just take the zero points.
Our league requires everyone to carry two TE's, two kickers, and two defenses, so this is not a problem. You also have to have 4WR and 4RB. We only offer one flex spot that can be used anywhere, of course most use it for an RB. IMO, teams should have to have a full lineup. It would be like an NFL team deciding to put only 10 guys on the field. Legal, but no team wanting to win would do that.
Insane Monkey
Footballguy
I feel it should depend on the setup of your league. One example that was given is that you only have two bench spots and both LT and Gates are on a bye. It that case you should be able to take the zero from your tight end. If you have 5 or more bench spots, I agree with the post that says you should have drafted better and should have to play an active roster. There was a team that drafted two defenses that had the same bye week.
