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!
Position Limits (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter AcerFC
- Start date
SDJohnny
Footballguy
I had this in one league, never again. Really cuts down on the fun and when you have injuries it makes it harder to keep hurt players on the roster.
If someone wants to load up on one position they are just screwing themselves over there is no need to resort to limits.
On the other hand 5 seems managable. Would help to know your starting requirements and bench #
If someone wants to load up on one position they are just screwing themselves over there is no need to resort to limits.
On the other hand 5 seems managable. Would help to know your starting requirements and bench #
AcerFC
Footballguy
Starters1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 Flex (RB/WR), 1 Te, 1 K, 1 DEF/ST, 1 LB, 1 DE, 1 DT, 1 CB, 1 SCan keep two guys drafted in rounds 6-22. If you keep 2, lose your third round pick the next year and the original rounds that you drafted those players
Winston Wolfe
The Cleaner
Positional limits are for one dimensional drafters. People who complain about RB hoarding are the people who WR hoard early.
Man, I *looooove* positional limits. I've never been in a league with in-season limits, but most of my leagues have roster requirements during drafting (you *MUST* draft 4 QBs, 6 RBs, 6 WRs, 2 TEs, 2 PKs, 2 D/STs). I think it adds a whole new element of strategy. You always want to wait until there's GREAT value available before picking your last player at a position, because once you pick it, you're done at that position. If ridiculous value appears later, you're out of luck. It's also great to be the last person to take a certain position, because you can sluff that position until the very last round of the draft- which is even better in one of my leagues, which is a keeper league where players can be kept for a draft pick two rounds higher than where they were intially selected.
In the end, everyone plays under the same rules. There's no rule that's really unfair as long as everyone is aware of it before hand- because everyone is bound by the same rules. If there's a rule that someone else takes advantage of and you do not... well then, perhaps they're just a fantasy player.
I look at every rule as an opportunity to exploit advantage.
In the end, everyone plays under the same rules. There's no rule that's really unfair as long as everyone is aware of it before hand- because everyone is bound by the same rules. If there's a rule that someone else takes advantage of and you do not... well then, perhaps they're just a fantasy player.
I look at every rule as an opportunity to exploit advantage.
Anonymous Internet User
Footballguy
as long as you draft a full starting lineup - i don't see how anyone should be allowed to dictate who's on your bench.
C
CrossEyed
Guest
We start 2 QB, 1RB, 2WR, 2Flex (RB/WR), 1TE, 1PK 1Def. Our roster size is 15 and we have a limit of 3QBs, 6RBs, 6WRs. 12 team league.
SteelerMurf
Footballguy
I like roster limits. You need to have something out there in free agency when injuries occur. I hate a free agent list that consists of a Rb who will get 4 touches a game if lucky and a kick returner who may line up at WR in a game.
walkwithme
Footballguy
Never played in a league with roster limits but I also never played in a league where you start 2 qbs. This is the only situation I can see problems happening. Playing in a league like that will result in someone definitely hoarding the QB's. 
I know it is fantasy football but two starting QB's doesn't make sense to me.
I know it is fantasy football but two starting QB's doesn't make sense to me.
B. Nugget
Footballguy
I gave the guys in my longest standing league an ultimatum for me to stay in the league after they are so reluctant to change the way we do things. I'd like to stay, but the way it is set up just frustrates the hell out of me. We still used Sportsline and paid $120+ until this year because the guys said it was easier to pay double what other sites like MFL charge than to have to set up a new league. I think I've finally got them convinced that Sportsline isn't the only website on the internet that has fantasy capabilities. It is very frustrating when your favorite league drops to the bottom of the chart because they don't want to adapt to the modern fantasy environment. At the start of my fantasy career I didn't know any better, but I've played too many leagues and have seen the light and roster limits just don't do it for me anymore.
Anyway, back to the roster limits, I've been teetering on the edge with this league for the past few years because it takes the fun out of knowing you can only take X RBs and X WRs and once you fill out your limits you are done and have to move on to another position, even if there is value hitting you in the face.
For example, in one league we are allowed 3 RBs and 3 WRs. Everybody gets their RBs early and the guy that drafted Priest didn't handcuff LJ because you have to that 3rd guy as a bye week filler. Honestly, you can't handcuff anybody in that league because if you drop somebody during a bye week, he won't be there the next week to pick back up. Anyway, we get down the stretch and have about a round and a half left when one guy who's pick is coming up gets a phone call. He has to leave as soon as he makes his next pick, and conveniently enough he is the only person with only 2 RBs. He points this out and since nobody else can take a RB just goes ahead and puts LJ down in the last round. Guess who won the league? It isn't sour grapes or anything on my part, my team wasn't that good due to the injury bug, but I can guarantee you that with no roster limits many owners would have taken a chance on LJ instead of trying to get the guaranteed production of a mid to lower tier RB or taking a QB early just because you don't have anything else to do. The way it is set up, if you handcuff, you lose out.
B. Nugget
Anyway, back to the roster limits, I've been teetering on the edge with this league for the past few years because it takes the fun out of knowing you can only take X RBs and X WRs and once you fill out your limits you are done and have to move on to another position, even if there is value hitting you in the face.
For example, in one league we are allowed 3 RBs and 3 WRs. Everybody gets their RBs early and the guy that drafted Priest didn't handcuff LJ because you have to that 3rd guy as a bye week filler. Honestly, you can't handcuff anybody in that league because if you drop somebody during a bye week, he won't be there the next week to pick back up. Anyway, we get down the stretch and have about a round and a half left when one guy who's pick is coming up gets a phone call. He has to leave as soon as he makes his next pick, and conveniently enough he is the only person with only 2 RBs. He points this out and since nobody else can take a RB just goes ahead and puts LJ down in the last round. Guess who won the league? It isn't sour grapes or anything on my part, my team wasn't that good due to the injury bug, but I can guarantee you that with no roster limits many owners would have taken a chance on LJ instead of trying to get the guaranteed production of a mid to lower tier RB or taking a QB early just because you don't have anything else to do. The way it is set up, if you handcuff, you lose out.
B. Nugget
The Jerk
Footballguy
I don't like roster limits that are present in leagues "because that's the way we've always done it" but there's nothing inherently unfair about them. I don't see them as necessary and will vote against them, but it's not really that big of a deal. As SSOG says, everyone plays under the same rules. If present, roster limits are another element of a league that should factor into draft strategy.
Prop schmrop. You're playing under the exact same rules, and you're just as welcome to take advantage of them as the next guy. If the rules mean there's always going to be great RB/WR value on the wire, well then feel free to weaken your RB/WR corps and go with a stud TE/QB to compensate.Unless there's a rule in your league that everyone is allowed to take advantage of a certain rule except for you, I really don't want to hear anyone whining about their league rules. Look at each rule as an opportunity to gain an advantage over another team that doesn't understand the rule and its ramifications as well as you do.GregR said:
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
We added a 4 RB roster limit several years ago. I came out strongly against the rule when it was first proposed, but after a few years I think it is a good thing. It adds a significant strategy element to drafting and roster management. We have no IR, and it is a keeper league, so there are often some very difficult decisions to make during the season as far as handcuffs, short-term injuries and bye weeks.
C
CrossEyed
Guest
Starting 2 QBs adds another element of strategy and makes it much more challenging. In a 10 or 12 team league that only starts 1 QB you can pretty much wait until the rest of your roster is filled and still get a quality starter. When you start 2 QBs you can't afford to go RB, RB, WR, WR in your draft if you want a good QB corps.walkwithme said:Never played in a league with roster limits but I also never played in a league where you start 2 qbs. This is the only situation I can see problems happening. Playing in a league like that will result in someone definitely hoarding the QB's.
GregR_2
Footballguy
You seem to have it backwards. The position limit is normally favored by the guy who isn't adapting to his league's scoring system and the value it creates in positions, and so instead seeks a rule which helps in his shortcoming.Not every rule affects everyone equally. This kind of rule definitely helps the guy who doesn't want to do his homework (or doesn't know how) as to his league's value more than it helps the skilled FF owner.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
This is what I thought before we put in a tight (4) RB roster limit a few years ago, but its not the case. You definitely have to be on your toes with this limit because you can't have unproductive RB's sitting on your roster waiting for something to happen. Productive RB's are constantly being dropped and shuffled due to injuries and bye weeks, intriguing backups are always out there, etc. I would now say the unlimited roster favors the lazy owner more.
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
SSOG said:
Excellent job SSOG.If you MUST draft 5 RBs (and no more) for example, you can sluff your 4th (and possibly 5th) RB until very late, since no one else can take them.This is an advantage to you, embrace it.
GregR_2
Footballguy
Disagree completely. Last year I picked up Cedric Houston and even had some generally sharp owners comment they didn't know who that was. I picked him up believing that by this year there would be a very good chance he could end up a starter.So which is the lazier owner? The one who found out about Houston's potential a year in advance and had to make a conscious decision about whether he had enough value to warrent my roster space over other players? Or the one who waited until the news broke about CuMar's knees this year and could find him lounging on waivers because the rules required me to carry a TE or WR instead of using the spot on the player I thought would ultimately bring me more value?As importantly, which requires more skill? By creating roster limits you remove from the game the element of judging value of non-starters across positions, because you never can fill the same spot with different positions.
Again, if not doing your homework means this rule gives you an advantage, then you'd be wise to not do your homework as well.What you're trying to say is that this rule benefits people who use unconventional or "unsharklike" strategies- such as not loading up on RBs early. The thing is, you're fully capable of not using Sharklike strategies, too, to take advantage of this rule. I think you're just too rigid in your thinking here. If this rule gives someone an advantage because they do things a certain way, then you'd be wise to do things the same way as them- even if it's not conventional shark logic- just so you can enjoy the same advantage.
GregR_2
Footballguy
A true shark is a person who can find the value in any league setup, not a person who is familiar enough with normal setups to know of rules of thumb that work, and follows them blindly. Yes, a true shark is going to recognize the changes that position limits create and he's going to adjust. But that doesn't change the fact that positional limits lessen the importance of correctly determining value across positions amongst backups. It takes away a lot more than it creates opportunities for a skilled owner.Positional limits are a bigger help to the guy who can't determine value as well, or who can't identify talent before it breaks out, than they are to anyone else. And those qualities are not the ones I think we should be trying to emphasize as being positive attributes.
BoulderBob
Footballguy
Position limits are for sea cows.
I have a different take on it. I think position limits are a bigger help to skilled negotiators who trade a bunch of middle-tier players for one or two upper-tier players. Position limits increase the value of studs, decrease the value of mid-level players, and reward the fantasy footballers who are able to take advantage of this, whether they're "sharks" or "guppies".Also, you say that position limits take away an advantage from a "skilled" owner. I disagree. I think they take away the advantage from an "overprepared" owner who likes to have 50 different irons in the fire at the same time- the obsessive compulsive owners who gamble on anyone with upside. I think "skilled" owners make out just fine. The difference is that now instead of identifying sleepers, there's another skill they need to develop- getting a feel for how long they can leave those sleepers on the street before someone snatches them up.It also requires *MORE* skill, in some regards. Since you can't grab 50 RB prospects anymore, positional limits force you to PRIORITIZE. Before the draft when we're creating cheatsheets, prioritizing is considered a "skill". Why isn't it a "skill" anymore after the draft? To use your Cedric Houston example... let's say you like Cedric Houston, but you also like Vernand Morency, and you have a T.J. Duckett type on your roster to help you cover your bye weeks. Well now, it looks like you need to PRIORITIZE which RB is most likely to help your team.If anything, positional limits penalize players who do a lot of guessing, because it limits the number of guesses they can make. If you consider that "penalizing skilled owners", then I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree.
GregR_2
Footballguy
With positional limits it's harder to prioritize Houston vs Ducket and Morency.... than it is without positional limits to prioritize Houston vs Ducket, Morency plus the best QBs, WRs, TEs, PKs and Defenses on waivers?That would seem hard to believe.I played in a league where we had limits and didn't like it. Not enough to make me quit the league but not as good as pick anyone. In my roster limit league, I would try to get 3 good RBs, get 1 guy to cover bye weeks and hopefully have 1 "break out" pick. Last year, in my no roster limit league, I had 6 RBs on my team simply because every time I went to pick a RB was the best value. Next to last pick in the draft was Thomas Jones whom I could take a flier on. Due to my great projecting capability there were a couple of RBs I used only when I absolutely had to but at least I was able to draft who I wanted.
I think it is more personal preference than anything else though. Like SSOG said, the rules are the same for all. I would just rather not have a roster limit rule.
I think it is more personal preference than anything else though. Like SSOG said, the rules are the same for all. I would just rather not have a roster limit rule.
tomarken
Footballguy
I'm in a cbs league with the following roster requirements:
Start 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 DST
Total Roster: 3 QB, 3 RB, 4 WR, 2 TE, 2 K, 2 DST
It sucks. You start 2 RB, and you only get 1 backup. It doesn't add another level of skill to the game, it adds another level of SUCK. It severely limits the better drafters who want to draft value late in the draft but can't because they have to get backup D's and kickers.
Some fools in the league would draft 2 TE, 2 K, 2 DST, etc. All the roster requirements do is make my roster look as stupid as theirs does. I've been in this league for several years, and I don't think I've ever used my 3rd QB. Yet somehow every year I find myself drafting a 3rd QB anyway because I have to, while staring at the sleeper RB's and WR's I would much rather have but can't. Ugh.
Start 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 DST
Total Roster: 3 QB, 3 RB, 4 WR, 2 TE, 2 K, 2 DST
It sucks. You start 2 RB, and you only get 1 backup. It doesn't add another level of skill to the game, it adds another level of SUCK. It severely limits the better drafters who want to draft value late in the draft but can't because they have to get backup D's and kickers.
Some fools in the league would draft 2 TE, 2 K, 2 DST, etc. All the roster requirements do is make my roster look as stupid as theirs does. I've been in this league for several years, and I don't think I've ever used my 3rd QB. Yet somehow every year I find myself drafting a 3rd QB anyway because I have to, while staring at the sleeper RB's and WR's I would much rather have but can't. Ugh.
Not hard to believe at all. Given the fungibility of QBs, non-elite TEs, Defenses, and kickers, I always just carry one or two of each and load up the rest on WRs and RBs. There's really no prioritizing involved- RBs and WRs win out over QBs and TEs and Defenses and PKs every time, because there's virtually no dropoff at those positions.Forcing everyone to carry QBs makes it more important to get good QBs, because there's not as much available on the wire. It also prevents teams from grabbing extra RBs at the expense of crappy kickers and TEs.The arguements being made for no position limits could also be made for larger benches. I mean, more bench spots means you can speculate on Cedric Houston, too. So should all leagues play with 30 man benches, while we're at it? Would playing in a league with 12-man rosters suddenly require less skill and favor unprepared owners?
valhallan
Footballguy
I agree with SSOG for the most part, but I also want to add that it seems like several of those who are complaining about positional limits have been in poorly run leagues. Obviously, requiring you to start 2 RBs but only letting you carry 3 is just dumb and not even the most ardent supporter of positional limits would vote for that structure. However, I think allowing 5 spots for 2 starters is reasonable and adds a good bit of strategy to the league that you just don't find without positional limits. And don't we always say, the more strategy the better?
GregR_2
Footballguy
You have a decision between A or B. And you have a decision between A, B, or several other options. Even if the other options were not realistic options, you still are faced with the exact same decision as before so how is it harder? And sometimes those other options are realistic which would mean a tougher decision.And yes, playing with 12 man rosters would require less skill and would favor unprepared owners. Why would anyone think otherwise?Not hard to believe at all. Given the fungibility of QBs, non-elite TEs, Defenses, and kickers, I always just carry one or two of each and load up the rest on WRs and RBs. There's really no prioritizing involved- RBs and WRs win out over QBs and TEs and Defenses and PKs every time, because there's virtually no dropoff at those positions.Forcing everyone to carry QBs makes it more important to get good QBs, because there's not as much available on the wire. It also prevents teams from grabbing extra RBs at the expense of crappy kickers and TEs.The arguements being made for no position limits could also be made for larger benches. I mean, more bench spots means you can speculate on Cedric Houston, too. So should all leagues play with 30 man benches, while we're at it? Would playing in a league with 12-man rosters suddenly require less skill and favor unprepared owners?
I'm in a league with roster requirements, they were basically implemented because one guys hoarded RB's one year and wouldn't trade with anybody.
I didn't mind them too much until last year when 3 of my 5 WR's were injured and another was on a bye week (we start 3 WR's). I wasn't ready to drop anybody because it sounded like most of them would be back relatively soon and I (of course) felt they were all worth keeping over what was available in the FA pool.
Conversely, the year before I was able to draft Carson Palmer in the last round of my draft because everybody else was done drafting QB's a few rounds before.
So, I see a benefit if you're a savvy drafter as mentioned above. However, there's also an added strategy to drafting without requirements because you're always wondering "is this guy going to be here next time around?" rather than knowing like I did that Palmer would be there because nobody else could take him.
But overall, I don't like them - maybe if there was some type of IR roster spot for issues like I ran into. Could just be that we need to keep more than 5 WR's on the roster.
I didn't mind them too much until last year when 3 of my 5 WR's were injured and another was on a bye week (we start 3 WR's). I wasn't ready to drop anybody because it sounded like most of them would be back relatively soon and I (of course) felt they were all worth keeping over what was available in the FA pool.
Conversely, the year before I was able to draft Carson Palmer in the last round of my draft because everybody else was done drafting QB's a few rounds before.
So, I see a benefit if you're a savvy drafter as mentioned above. However, there's also an added strategy to drafting without requirements because you're always wondering "is this guy going to be here next time around?" rather than knowing like I did that Palmer would be there because nobody else could take him.
But overall, I don't like them - maybe if there was some type of IR roster spot for issues like I ran into. Could just be that we need to keep more than 5 WR's on the roster.
valhallan
Footballguy
Yeah my league has position limits but also a flex bench spot that can be any position. So while most people would carry 5 WR and 5 RB, you could drop a RB to get that WR replacement you need. Or, you can trade an RB for a WR. Gives everyone just enough flexibility, imo.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
If you have problems with people hoarding players (and I would bet it is RBs), then your rules are weighted way too heavily on that position. If you had a decent scoring rules set hoarding in the manner you describe would be self policing - i.e. the hoarder would have an awful team as a consequence of his hoarding.An artificial limit doesn't change the underlying problem.
GregR_2
Footballguy
One last post and then I'm out.
Position limits comes down to stopping owners from pursuing the value that exists in the scoring system... generally because a group of owners would rather pursue some other strategy. And when they find that strategy isn't optimal, they want position limits.
If they don't want a league where hoarding RBs is a good strategy, then change the #### scoring system and/or starting line-up to make the positions comparative value be in line with what they'd like to see people do. Don't restrict people's ability to work within the value that the scoring system creates by limiting who they can use their roster space on.
My dynasty league has QB, WR and TE all of equal value to RB. In fact, I had LT as no more than the 4th most valuable player overall in our initial auction last year. But anyone in the league can pursue any strategy they want, and we didn't have to resort to taking away people's flexibility to accomplish balance.
Position limits comes down to stopping owners from pursuing the value that exists in the scoring system... generally because a group of owners would rather pursue some other strategy. And when they find that strategy isn't optimal, they want position limits.
If they don't want a league where hoarding RBs is a good strategy, then change the #### scoring system and/or starting line-up to make the positions comparative value be in line with what they'd like to see people do. Don't restrict people's ability to work within the value that the scoring system creates by limiting who they can use their roster space on.
My dynasty league has QB, WR and TE all of equal value to RB. In fact, I had LT as no more than the 4th most valuable player overall in our initial auction last year. But anyone in the league can pursue any strategy they want, and we didn't have to resort to taking away people's flexibility to accomplish balance.
dreadlocks
Footballguy
I don't like limits. Limits make it difficult to exploit a weak owner. Considering that with a couple of magazines and about four good dumps you should be infinately more prepared than the same owner ten years ago there should be no excuses and no dumbing down of the rules.
AcerFC
Footballguy
I appreciate all of the input. I see both sides of the coin. No one should dictate how you can draft but at the same time you want to be able to have choices on the waiver wire.
Even with no limits and forsight into younger guys who may be studs sometime down the road, two of your top 3 backs could go down and you need to pick someone up and all you see is derrick ward and leon washington on waivers and you can't do anything about.
A lot of people have asked about our scoring system and it is not heavily weighted on the backs but there are still runs on them in rds 1-3. We have .5 ppr for RB, 1 ppr for WR and 1.5 for TE.
There is a strategy to both sides and good fantasy players will exploit those strategies. Keep of the discussion as it is giving me a ton to think about.
Even with no limits and forsight into younger guys who may be studs sometime down the road, two of your top 3 backs could go down and you need to pick someone up and all you see is derrick ward and leon washington on waivers and you can't do anything about.
A lot of people have asked about our scoring system and it is not heavily weighted on the backs but there are still runs on them in rds 1-3. We have .5 ppr for RB, 1 ppr for WR and 1.5 for TE.
There is a strategy to both sides and good fantasy players will exploit those strategies. Keep of the discussion as it is giving me a ton to think about.
bueno
In a class by himself
I'm in a dynasty league with roster limits. It's a bit of a pain, but the other guys like it. I'm ambivalent.
The limits allow for some flexibility. Now we know nobody would hoard PKs in a 12 owner league with a 26 man roster, but RBs ?
Of course ay league that allows itself to be manuevered into a position where one team is hoarding a bunch of starting RBs is probably filled with Guppies anyway.
The limits allow for some flexibility. Now we know nobody would hoard PKs in a 12 owner league with a 26 man roster, but RBs ?
Of course ay league that allows itself to be manuevered into a position where one team is hoarding a bunch of starting RBs is probably filled with Guppies anyway.
It's not as simple as a decision between A, B, or other options.With positional limits, you'll have a decision between A and B. Without positional limits, A and B will be long rostered, and you'll have a choice between the drastically inferior J, K, or L- neither of which will likely ever have any impact on your team whatsoever (unless you manage to get the winning lottery ticket).As to why anyone would think that 12-man rosters wouldn't require less skill... for one thing, it requires a lot more careful planning around bye weeks, and forces a lot more difficult decisions where you have to choose between two players who could both have a meaningful impact on your fantasy squad (as opposed to the eternal "who should I grab, LeRon McCoy or Jerome Pathon" dilemma). It also makes squads a bit more injury proof, so a freak injury is going to have less of an impact on your success over the course of the season. Increasing the importance of the decisions you make, lessening the impact of injuries... it sounds to me like that's a good recipe for increasing the amount of skill required.No, it doesn't increase the amount of PREPARATION required. You don't have to learn about 5th WRs and 4th string RBs- but learning about 4th string RBs is not the same thing as "fantasy skill". Fantasy skill is the ability to make meaningful decisions between two apparently equal options. Again, choosing between LeRon McCoy or Jerome Pathon isn't going to make or break your season. Choosing between Cedric Houston or Vernand Morency will, 9 times out of 10, have absolutely 0 impact on your final finish. Choosing between Rod Smith and Eddie Kennison, on the other hand... now that's a meaningful fantasy decision.You have a decision between A or B. And you have a decision between A, B, or several other options. Even if the other options were not realistic options, you still are faced with the exact same decision as before so how is it harder? And sometimes those other options are realistic which would mean a tougher decision.And yes, playing with 12 man rosters would require less skill and would favor unprepared owners. Why would anyone think otherwise?Not hard to believe at all. Given the fungibility of QBs, non-elite TEs, Defenses, and kickers, I always just carry one or two of each and load up the rest on WRs and RBs. There's really no prioritizing involved- RBs and WRs win out over QBs and TEs and Defenses and PKs every time, because there's virtually no dropoff at those positions.Forcing everyone to carry QBs makes it more important to get good QBs, because there's not as much available on the wire. It also prevents teams from grabbing extra RBs at the expense of crappy kickers and TEs.The arguements being made for no position limits could also be made for larger benches. I mean, more bench spots means you can speculate on Cedric Houston, too. So should all leagues play with 30 man benches, while we're at it? Would playing in a league with 12-man rosters suddenly require less skill and favor unprepared owners?
walkwithme
Footballguy
I can see this going back and forth for positional limits but league rules will dictate the drafting behavior. If RBs are more valuable then you have people drafting a bunch of RB's. At most they can start say 3 but hoarding is a strategy if you think about it. In a 2QB league the qb's have to be bone dry even in a 10 man league.
