Dynasty 1

[obxyankeefan]

How many keepers did we decide on again??

It was dropping either 3 or 5.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I could be mistaken, but my understanding is everyone. .except we've gotta drop players for the rookie draft

then a more accurate question would be how many rounds of rookies are we drafting...

 

[TREFF]

My team is not good.

Can't see me getting away with not trading Antonio Brown. I'll be looking for a RB....

Well ....

 

[TREFF]

then a more accurate question would be how many rounds of rookies are we drafting...

I honestly can't recall, but, considering 14 teams, only picking from QB's, RB's, WR's and TE's..3 rounds is 42 rookies, doubtful there will be a desire to make that 56 or 60..there simply aren't that many skill position players drafted each year

 

[obxyankeefan]

I could be mistaken, but my understanding is everyone. .except we've gotta drop players for the rookie draft

It was dropping either 3 or 5.

I went back and found the thread and numbed it up.

From my reading of it, I would say that Treff is right.

You can drop as many or as few as you want.
The draft will be there rounds and it looked like we were in agreement that vets can be drafted.

If you do not have a full roster after the draft, than you are stuck with the WW.

 

[leftypower]

I went back and found the thread and numbed it up.

From my reading of it, I would say that Treff is right.

You can drop as many or as few as you want.
The draft will be there rounds and it looked like we were in agreement that vets can be drafted.

If you do not have a full roster after the draft, than you are stuck with the WW.

I'm not sure about the three rounds. I'm pretty sure we agreed to add 2 more spots to the rosters which would make it 5 rounds of drafting? ......

 

[obxyankeefan]

I'm not sure about the three rounds. I'm pretty sure we agreed to add 2 more spots to the rosters which would make it 5 rounds of drafting? ......

If you can find were we agreed, let me know. Everything I found had us putting that vote off until a later date.

 

[leftypower]

I'm not sure about the three rounds. I'm pretty sure we agreed to add 2 more spots to the rosters which would make it 5 rounds of drafting? ......

If you can find were we agreed, let me know. Everything I found had us putting that vote off until a later date.

My mistake ..... as you said, discussion but never fully decided. No vote on it. ....

 

[broncosmitty]

I'm pro expansion.

 

[TREFF]

I'm pro expansion.

I'm anti

There's already a dozen or more players that don't belong on rosters, and should disaster strike, the wire is already bare of any realistic assistance. I honestly can't see any reason to expand outside of simply stashing guys on the roster, which is no reason at all, imho

 

[broncosmitty]

I'm anti

There's already a dozen or more players that don't belong on rosters, and should disaster strike, the wire is already bare of any realistic assistance. I honestly can't see any reason to expand outside of simply stashing guys on the roster, which is no reason at all, imho

Pretty sure I've shared your opinion on this more than I haven't. But.... In the other dynasty league I'm in on Fantrax, I think I have 24 offensive guys rostered. There are still starting options at receiver sitting on the wire. (If it weren't the offseason anyway.)

With some definite vets available in the draft who have plenty of upside. (I drafted Devante Freeman in the rookie/vet draft in that league last year.)

I think we could have no bench and there still would be a handful of players that really shouldn't be rostered. But some guys will see upside in a player who others don't. I know I've kept guys for months only to look back and wonder what I was thinking.

I remember people pushing for larger rosters while we were getting things together. (Pushing might be too strong of a word tbh.)And the point that sticks out to me now is encouraging trading. Which is a good portion of why Id support expanding our rosters.

 

[SteelersPride]

Pro expansion

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I'm pro expansion.

 

[TREFF]

Encourage trading sure, but when bent over a barrel with no options, other than a zero at let's say, the QB position, if you don't get a trade done, not exactly a thrilling or fulfilling expierence. I don't care to win, or lose in that fashion

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Encourage trading sure, but when bent over a barrel with no options, other than a zero at let's say, the QB position, if you don't get a trade done, not exactly a thrilling or fulfilling expierence. I don't care to win, or lose in that fashion

Don't think anyone would feel their bent over a barrel looking at rosters, most everyone has choices. Maybe not great choices, but at least a fall back if you can't find a trade partner.

 

[TREFF]

Don't think anyone would feel their bent over a barrel looking at rosters, most everyone has choices. Maybe not great choices, but at least a fall back if you can't find a trade partner.

Just devils advocate here, but a totally plausible scenario. ..Romo breaks his collarbone again, someone grabs whomever his backup is next year (considering it'll likely be a high round draft pick, someone will, especially with 2 extra slots) Russel Wilson pulls a hammy 3 weeks later. .now that there are 28 more players rostered, my chances of having a guy that's even going to play, let alone compete are slim and none. Anyone I go to trade with knows this, and would be doing themselves a disservice if they didn't take advantage of that. .

Look I know I'm talking about extreme what if's and maybe's here. But I honestly don't see why 2 more roster slots helps anyone, and there's only the greater potential for crappy things to happen to some unfortunate owner. Don't like it one bit, see absolutely zero positive benefit

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Just devils advocate here, but a totally plausible scenario. ..Romo breaks his collarbone again, someone grabs whomever his backup is next year (considering it'll likely be a high round draft pick, someone will, especially with 2 extra slots) Russel Wilson pulls a hammy 3 weeks later. .now that there are 28 more players rostered, my chances of having a guy that's even going to play, let alone compete are slim and none. Anyone I go to trade with knows this, and would be doing themselves a disservice if they didn't take advantage of that. .

Look I know I'm talking about extreme what if's and maybe's here. But I honestly don't see why 2 more roster slots helps anyone, and there's only the greater potential for crappy things to happen to some unfortunate owner. Don't like it one bit, see absolutely zero positive benefit

Just to use your example T. Jackson would still be available. Not a tasty choice, but what you can expect if you suffer the bad luck of both your QBs going down. My experience is there are team owners playing that are willing to work out a reasonable trade when your in a bad spot, not everyone bends you over. Besides perhaps with those extra 2 roster spots you pick up a third QB and don't even have to make a trade.

 

[TREFF]

Geesh, is T. Jackson Wilson's backup? God help the Seahawks if that ever happens

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Geesh, is T. Jackson Wilson's backup? God help the Seahawks if that ever happens

Surprisingly he's played well when he's been in games.

 

[Trudem]

Im pro expansion as well but we could compromise and expand by one slot. I would prefer 2 because it would allow me more space for long term players. I do see Treff's side of the argument though.