MBBRL Dynasty roster thread

[Microwahevo]

Alright, here's where we should discuss the roster size and positions. Right now, here is what I believe has been talked about most:

QB
RB
RB
WR
WR
TE
RB/WR/TE flex
K
Def

7-11 bench

With this, it would make it 16-20 roster spots. I personally feel 11 bench spots is too much. I like 7-8 spots.

Thoughts?

 

[TREFF]

Well, to keep the rounds even. .it's 7 or 9 bench spots imho..
Personally I'd prefer 7, to keep options limited and activity to a max.

But, I understand quite a few guys feel dynasty needs a deep roster, so I'd compromise and say 9 bench spots, 18 total roster. .

How about IR slots? 1, 2? Zero?

 

[obxyankeefan]

I would vote for the flex and 9 bench.

IR should be small to make people think about their bench. How small IDK.

 

[TKOSpikes]

I say nine bench is great. It's enough to have a deep bench, but shallow enough to be forced to make a decision on your last spot, i.e. rookie vs vet.

 

[TKOSpikes]

I say two IR slots. Getting hit with a out for season on one of your keepers is bad enough, gotta have a back up spot for a week to week guy.

 

[broncosmitty]

Count me for 7 or 9 bench. And for a flex spot in the starting lineup.

16 or 18 roster spots total.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Since I'm new to this, I prefer a 20 man roster, to cover a screw up here or there. Two IR spots.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

If we are going to own 20 players which is cool, i think we should be starting more players... there is no reason to have such a large BENCH....

I like TKOs first proposal of

QB
2 RB
2 WR
TE
RB/WR
WR/TE
D/st
K

to be the absolute minimum... But that is still only 10 players...

 

[HaroldSeattle]

If we are going to own 20 players which is cool, i think we should be starting more players... there is no reason to have such a large BENCH....

I like TKOs first proposal of

QB
2 RB
2 WR
TE
RB/WR
WR/TE
D/st
K

to be the absolute minimum... But that is still only 10 players...

Isn't the WR/TE going to be WR almost all the time? Might as well make it 3 WR instead. I rather not though, I like the idea of a flexable bench. I say a 9 player starting unit.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Isn't the WR/TE going to be WR almost all the time? Might as well make it 3 WR instead. I rather not though, I like the idea of a flexable bench. I say a 9 player starting unit.

I just think if we are drafting so many rounds we should be starting more players... having a small amount of starters is almost counter productive, because it actually weakens the importance of depth...

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I just think if we are drafting so many rounds we should be starting more players... having a small amount of starters is almost counter productive, because it actually weakens the importance of depth...

I disagree. For example if you got a stud RB, but his OL is hurting and hurting bad, it would be nice to play the match ups and go to your bench. Just my

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I disagree. For example if you got a stud RB, but his OL is hurting and hurting bad, it would be nice to play the match ups and go to your bench. Just my

I mean, everyone is going to have sleepers of RB and WRs on their bench... It would be nice to force at least one more of them to be started... Would actually add another dimension because you want to own players for the future but they might hurt you in the present...

I think we NEED to start at least HALF of our roster...

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I mean, everyone is going to have sleepers of RB and WRs on their bench... It would be nice to force at least one more of them to be started... Would actually add another dimension because you want to own players for the future but they might hurt you in the present...

I think we NEED to start at least HALF of our roster...

Well I guess it's a matter of opinion whether or not one should be forced to use a sleeper in the starting line up. Let's hear what others have to say on the matter.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Well I guess it's a matter of opinion whether or not one should be forced to use a sleeper in the starting line up. Let's hear what others have to say on the matter.

either way, the less starters you start the less important the keepers are(it becomes more about studs), and also makes it Much harder for the bad teams to become good one day...

 

[Barilko]

do not start more than 9 or you are changing the game

as for deep rosters that is what makes it Dynasty

 

[HaroldSeattle]

either way, the less starters you start the less important the keepers are(it becomes more about studs), and also makes it Much harder for the bad teams to become good one day...

It's going to be about the studs either way IMO.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

do not start more than 9 or you are changing the game

as for deep rosters that is what makes it Dynasty

If we are to start 9 i vote 17 players... But i would rather start 10 and have a 20 man roster...

 

[Barilko]

it is about dynasty and building a franchise
think about the players as being in your system and not on your bench...

have we forgotten Steelers original post


who wants to join a Dynasty league
or has Dynasty been dropped and we are into a Keeper league....

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Good thing we have a long time to figure this out. Next year should be a piece of cake.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

it is about dynasty and building a franchise
think about the players as being in your system and not on your bench...

have we forgotten Steelers original post


who wants to join a Dynasty league
or has Dynasty been dropped and we are into a Keeper league....

Not sure what you are trying to say... I think we all know this is a dynasty league!!!

All i am saying is that i think we should START at least half of our roster... Having a bench larger than your starters is putting depth in the wrong place...