Positional Roster Limits Are Lame (1 Viewer)

[daylight]

Please forgive me if this is the wrong forum for this question but I do consider this a "fantasy football strategy discussion".

I am in two 12 team redraft leagues, one MFL (half point PPR, decimal and no bonuses, 16 man roster) and the other ESPN (zero PPR, bonuses for 100+ yards, 15 man roster).  I went RB early and often in both leagues filling in my WR corps with guys like M Thomas NO and T Pryor late.  It was my strategy all along to dominate if I could at the RB position.  I am 5-2 in both leagues and in the top 5% in overall scoring.  I am currently carrying 8 RB in the MFL 16 man league and 7 RB in the 15 man league.

In both leagues my league mates (the ones with losing records anyway) are screaming that I am "hoarding" RBs and that is "unfair" and (in both leagues) are calling for "positional roster limits" saying "I can't find any RBs on the WW".

I am asking for you opinion on this.  I think roster limits are for guppies.  Since, as Sigmund Bloom said recently in The Audio "fantasy football is a war of attrition" and despite the proliferation of passing in the NFL, RB is still the toughest position to find, obtain, retain and start for production.  I truly am interested in other's opinions on this:

• Am I truly "hoarding"?
  
• If yes, is hoarding "unfair"?
  
• FF is a competition, I feel that Positional Roster Limits is socialism (cooperation)
  
• The way I see it, I planned ahead (I drafted CJ+Booker and Rawls/Michael in both leagues)
  
• I spend a ton of time researching during the season, I picked up J Howard just before his two 100+ yard games while others sat on their hands.  Unfair?
  
• It happened again this week:  I left R Kelley sitting on the WW all week while Jones didn't practice and on Saturday night at 11:30 I couldn't stand it anymore and picked him up.  I'll bet they be screaming even more that "there are no RBs on the WW because of you" this week.
  
• I think Positional Roster Limits are for guppy leagues
  

Your opinions are sought.

 

[JFS171]

I would never play in a roster limit league.  Leagues are won on the waiver wire, IMO -- especially redraft leagues.  Tell your league mates to grow a pair.

When people say you're hoarding, it's usually because they didn't have the foresight to add the players you've added that have led to such a surplus. 

ETA -- to clarify my waiver wire comment, they're won speculating on guys that can explode if circumstances change (e.g., Devontae Booker).  Speculating on high upside situations (think Chiefs RB) or high upside talent that just needs opportunity (think Derrick Henry) is part of the game -- one most of the industry hasn't caught on to just yet.

 

[MattFancy]

Positional limits are totally pointless. If one team wants to "hoard" a ton of RBs, then they don't have depth in other areas. Who cares how someone fills out their roster. To say someone has an advantage because they "hoard" players, is just dumb.

 

[daylight]

I would never play in a roster limit league.  Leagues are won on the waiver wire, IMO -- especially redraft leagues.  Tell your league mates to grow a pair.

When people say you're hoarding, it's usually because they didn't have the foresight to add the players you've added that have led to such a surplus. 

ETA -- to clarify my waiver wire comment, they're won speculating on guys that can explode if circumstances change (e.g., Devontae Booker).  Speculating on high upside situations (think Chiefs RB) or high upside talent that just needs opportunity (think Derrick Henry) is part of the game -- one most of the industry hasn't caught on to just yet.

I value your opinion @JFS171 (not just b/c you agree with me LOL).

 

[daylight]

Does anyone know of an article on the www that specifically discusses Positional Roster Limits in FF?  I have searched and searched to no avail.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Not sure I'd want to play in a league where leaguemates want to invent rules to cover their own shortcomings as FF managers. 

 

[habsfan]

All of this is really opinion and not a matter of "fair" or "unfair".

FF leagues are played under a specific rule set and there are countless variations of rules and settings from league to league. I may not enjoy playing in leagues with roster limits but that doesn't make them lame. It's just a different rule set - adjust accordingly.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

I'll take the other side of this discussion for kicks.

I abhor short-bench leagues - like, "with every fiber of my being" abhor. If you're going to limit people to drafting / rostering the top 175 or so players, you might as well just have everyone auto-draft from the ESPN Top 200 lists and be done with it. Especially in heavy bye weeks, short benches favor randomness and completely cripple your ability to stash guys who could be season-changers in November / December.

So every league I run (and most leagues I feel like playing in) have pretty deep benches. My 10-team 2-QB neighborhood league, for example, has 10 bench spots, and I'd probably add even more if I could. And yet from day 1 I've enforced a roster limit of 4 QBs. (When in Year 1 it was a 2-TE league as well, I had the same limits for them.)

Does it penalize owners who are willing to sacrifice depth at other positions to hoard QBs? You bet. Am I "enforcing fairness"? Eh, maybe. But nobody I know makes a career as a FF player. We're playing this hobby for fun, and there's nothing inherently fun about a guy having to take a zero because of factors (mainly injuries) completely beyond his control, or having to get bent over a barrel by another owner to keep that from happening.

As @habsfan said, there's nothing inherently fair or unfair about any given rule, including roster limits. Personally in most cases I err on the side of "minimizing randomness" when it comes to setting FF rules, but I don't even think there's anything inherently more or less random about roster limits. It's just another constraint that savvy owners have to understand and adjust to.

 

[Nugget]

I've played in both and optimize my strategy for both.  Can't change rules mid-season.  There is nothing unfair in fantasy football.  Work your scoring system/league settings.

 

[Weebs210]

Any of those mouth breathers try offering you a trade?

 

[daylight]

Any of those mouth breathers try offering you a trade?

They did.  In the 15 roster non-PPR ESPN league I was offered A Robinson and D Lewis for Booker+Laundry.  FF is 17 one week seasons and I'm wasn't about to sacrifice my CJ+Booker position for a RB Lotto Ticket like Lewis when I can get similar via a preemptive pick up.  The same owner earlier offered me A Rob for D Murray.  The problem IMO is that they don't seem to understand how to value positions or players and in their fear are projecting fault elsewhere.

 

[PIK95]

Yup.  They suxor

 

[belljr]

Does anyone know of an article on the www that specifically discusses Positional Roster Limits in FF?  I have searched and searched to no avail.

Fantasy Index from 1991.   

How we started our league.   But we have a 12 player bench.  5 max at any position    

Too lazy to change it

 

[GregR]

If 12 guys all want to play in a certain type of league, GB them having the rules the way they want.  But in general yeah, positional limits suck and are there to cover up the shortcomings of owners.

We had the same number of picks and we each got 1 pick a round so we had equal resources.  You recognize your use of them is giving a worse result than my use of them. So why not learn from that and use yours more wisely next time, rather than pass rules requiring me to also use mine unwisely?

 

[ShamrockPride]

#1. Not a matter of fair/unfair as everyone is playing under the same rules.

#2. I'll take the side of I like them. Just my  ...but really, it takes zero skill to hoarde. Know what impresses me more and shows more football accumen? Having to make that tough decision of being at the max of a position with a guy you're interested in on the WW. You take the risk to cut a guy you value on your roster to take a calculated risk, and it pays off, even more than what the guy you cut was giving you on a weekly basis.

 

[Franknbeans]

I actually bumped up against one of our roster limits for the first time in 20 years. I wanted to add a 9th receiver (on a 16 player roster). Not a big deal so I adjusted.

 

[Hawkeye21]

I think positional limits suck.  Everyone is playing by the same rules so they had the same opportunity to use the same strategy.  I think that's just a bunch of losers in your league complaining because they didn't think of doing it first.

 

[Steeler]

All of this is really opinion and not a matter of "fair" or "unfair".

FF leagues are played under a specific rule set and there are countless variations of rules and settings from league to league. I may not enjoy playing in leagues with roster limits but that doesn't make them lame. It's just a different rule set - adjust accordingly.

Nah, leagues with those rule are universally lame.  However, I agree with your general point.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I played in a league with roster position limits - and championed that change the next year & it passed with flying colors. 

The argument from those who were against the change was about "hoarding" - and the point was made that anyone had access to the same player pool. 

The season with roster limits not a single trade was made. Once it was flex bench rosters we had many trades made.

much better.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

 Know what impresses me more and shows more football accumen? Having to make that tough decision of being at the max of a position with a guy you're interested in on the WW. You take the risk to cut a guy you value on your roster to take a calculated risk, and it pays off, even more than what the guy you cut was giving you on a weekly basis.

Ok, under normal circumstances you make a fair point.

So let's say it's week 6 and your 1st and 3rd round RBs are both injured with "week to week" ailments, and your 5th round RB3 has a BYE.  Through skillful drafting, all 3 are top 10 at their position. 

I'm missing the impressive skillfulness required to fill your starting lineup in that scenario. Being forced to drop a top player to field a roster isn't skill.  Its torture. 

 

[ShamrockPride]

Ok, under normal circumstances you make a fair point.

So let's say it's week 6 and your 1st and 3rd round RBs are both injured with "week to week" ailments, and your 5th round RB3 has a BYE.  Through skillful drafting, all 3 are top 10 at their position. 

I'm missing the impressive skillfulness required to fill your starting lineup in that scenario. Being forced to drop a top player to field a roster isn't skill.  Its torture. 

#1. Why would you be in a league without at least 1 IR slot?

#2. In your scenario, it's very likely you aren't going to find an RB worth even half of any of those guys outputs. In laymen's terms, if you're in that scenario, you're screwed however you want to approach it.

Pretty much I just equate no limits to playing fantasy with Ian Rapaport syndrome. Just throw s*** at a wall until something sticks.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

#1. Why would you be in a league without at least 1 IR slot?

#2. In your scenario, it's very likely you aren't going to find an RB worth even half of any of those guys outputs. In laymen's terms, if you're in that scenario, you're screwed however you want to approach it.

Pretty much I just equate no limits to playing fantasy with Ian Rapaport syndrome. Just throw s*** at a wall until something sticks.

Because IR sucks. Creates constant headache for the commish - and many leagues won't allow a player with a sprained ankle on the IR. 

Each to his own - I found the roster limits to be horribly restricting.

with a flex bench you can simply shorten the bench to help prevent "hoarding". Everyone still has BYEs to cover,and if you've got a 6-7 man bench for 9 starting spots, it's kinda hard to carry 7 RBs.

but whatever works for you - I don't judge. Ok, I judge a little, but it's your league & if you're happy with it, that's what matters.  

 

[ShamrockPride]

Because IR sucks. Creates constant headache for the commish - and many leagues won't allow a player with a sprained ankle on the IR. 

Each to his own - I found the roster limits to be horribly restricting.

with a flex bench you can simply shorten the bench to help prevent "hoarding". Everyone still has BYEs to cover,and if you've got a 6-7 man bench for 9 starting spots, it's kinda hard to carry 7 RBs.

but whatever works for you - I don't judge. Ok, I judge a little, but it's your league & if you're happy with it, that's what matters.  

Always open to discussion. It's been a topic that's been brought up occasionally. Will be watching to see this thread as more discussion comes in.

 

[daylight]

#1. Not a matter of fair/unfair as everyone is playing under the same rules.

#2. I'll take the side of I like them. Just my  ...but really, it takes zero skill to hoarde. Know what impresses me more and shows more football accumen? Having to make that tough decision of being at the max of a position with a guy you're interested in on the WW. You take the risk to cut a guy you value on your roster to take a calculated risk, and it pays off, even more than what the guy you cut was giving you on a weekly basis.

Re: #1:  agreed.

Re: #2:  Agree that it takes zero skill to simply load up your roster in one position.  That is not what is happening here.  I don't throw spaghetti at walls, my pickups are based on thorough and careful analysis of talent, opportunity and possible workload - I don't always get it right but no effort is spared.  Roster spots are extraordinarily valuable and every move is a "tough decision" not without risk.

 

[ShamrockPride]

So in these leagues without maxes, are there any kind of minimums?

 

[habsfan]

As commissioner I will add this:

The amount of input I get on settings changes from owners is almost always inversely proportional to how well their seasons went.   

 

[Hawkeye21]

So in these leagues without maxes, are there any kind of minimums?

Of course.  Almost every league has a set roster that has to be made.  My league requires 1QB, 2RBs, 3WRs, 1TE, 1Flex, 1K and 1DST.  We have 6 bench spots for whatever you want.  If you want 6 QBs on your bench then more power to you.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Would never join position limit league. 

 

[daylight]

I'd like to hear from those of you who DO play in position limited leagues - and enjoy them - and what the config is? 

• Total Roster Size
  
• Starting Roster Size
  
• Min RBs
  
• Max RBs
  
• Min WRs
  
• Max WRs
  
• Flex Position?
  
• How does a Positional Roster Limit rule enhance the competition?
  

 

[kegger]

In my 10 team 2 QB league we have 2 position limits.

QB 3

RB 4

The QB limit to me makes good sense, (QB scores the most points and everyone is guaranteed 2 starters)

The RB here doesn't really mater that much here as it's short bench anyway but does keep the WW useful.

I believe limiting is good for this league..  (also keeps drafting a little more predictable and prior info useful)

-----------------

My 2 12 team leagues only have 6 total bench spots as well, so I believe limiting wouldn't matter much either on them very much.

With "short" benches here no limiting or limiting probably doesn't really matter. (don't see it making much difference most of the time)

------------------------

In the high bench leagues I would want an RB limit is really mainly about it, to me it makes it more thought out on players you'd pick up and hold on to.

Otherwise just grab anyone remotely you think has a chance an hold them, (to me that is easier and not as intellectual as figuring what and when to do it)

--------------------------------------

This is all in Redraft/4keeper or less leagues...

 

[FUBAR]

I'd like to hear from those of you who DO play in position limited leagues - and enjoy them - and what the config is? 

• Total Roster Size
  
• Starting Roster Size
  
• Min RBs
  
• Max RBs
  
• Min WRs
  
• Max WRs
  
• Flex Position?
  
• How does a Positional Roster Limit rule enhance the competition?
  

I'm in a 32 team league with a max of 2 QB.  I do not like the rule but otherwise enjoy the league.  The commish set the rule before filling the league so we knew what we were getting into.  

Salary cap, 53 player rosters plus ir, which means around 1700 players are on rosters (yeah, waivers suck). QRWWTFFF, K, P, 10 IDP. Yeah, not only are we limited to 2 QB, waivers suck and we start a kicker and punter (both are also limited to 2 each).  Obviously many won't like these rules.  But the league is challenging and fun.  Doesn't hurt that I've been in the super bowl both years since we started  (lost both).  

The commish put the qb, k, and p rules in place to provide a better chance for everyone to have one of each, which sort of enhances competition in the large league mostly because there are fewer pushover teams in theory.  

But if I could change the rule, I would. 

 

[krsone21]

I would never play in a positional limit league. To restrictive for my taste. If I want add a player I think will get some series playing time soon I don't want to be limited because I'm already up against the limit. 

My very first every fantasy football league had positional limits and I felt like my hands were tied a lot. 

 

[bulldog_guy]

I'd like to hear from those of you who DO play in position limited leagues - and enjoy them - and what the config is? 

• Total Roster Size
  
• Starting Roster Size
  
• Min RBs
  
• Max RBs
  
• Min WRs
  
• Max WRs
  
• Flex Position?
  
• How does a Positional Roster Limit rule enhance the competition?
  

OK.  I'll jump in here on the position limits side.
Our league is a very short bench league and created this way close to 15 years ago because many people in the league did not want to have an long draft.  Just trying to get them to agree to a date is rough. 
Total teams - 12
Total Roster Size - 12
Starting Roster Size - 9
Min RBs - 3 (2 starting)
Max RBs - 4
Min WR - 4 (3 starting)
Max WR - 5
No Flex
Plus min/max of QB, TE, PK, D/ST of 1/2

The negatives - Yes the small bench is very limiting.  Yes it may force you to drop a player you wanted to hang onto.

The positives - bye week strategy is important, so for instance I try to pickup a QB and TE from different bye weeks and those bye weeks are different then my at least 2 of my RBs and 3 of my WRs.
Small bench allows for more waiver wire moves every week, so keeping an eye on waivers is a bigger deal because you may actually wind up with a fairly good player on the waivers.  When dealing with large benches a fairly good player is probably not going to make it to a starting lineup because they are a WR6 or RB5.

Streaming positions becomes more of a league wide process for all positions including QB, RB2, WR3, TE, PK, D/ST. except for major names at QB or Gronk at TE unless the bye weeks were not accounted for.

I've played in both large and they both have their pluses and minuses.  We have been running this league like this for 21 years with maybe one replacement owner per year and about 8 owners that have been in the league 10+ years.  Most new comers to the league are thrown a little about the small bench and the roster requirements, but after they get it, they usually find that they have to think about their waiver wire moves, bye weeks and free agents a little more than in most other leagues.

To each their own.

And as far as it being "fair" on "unfair" on leagues that allow larger bench and no roster limits is concerned, if all teams are forced to play by the same rules, then it is fair regardless.
 

 

[UncleZen]

My league doesn't have roster limits and we have 9 bench spots. This makes the draft so much more valuable as the waiver wire is always thin. If you don't want someone hoarding certain positions, draft better.