Dynasty 1

[MilkSpiller22]

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

Easy way around this... and that is to always roster your #1 QB's backup... If someone else has him at some point before he becomes starter he will be very cheap to have... It is a lot like RBs..

 

[TREFF]

Easy way around this... and that is to always roster your #1 QB's backup... If someone else has him at some point before he becomes starter he will be very cheap to have... It is a lot like RBs..

Not entirely. .in my case, the sure fire zero had a 50/50 shot at being better than T. Jackson.

Another easy way way around it is not having 20 roster spots

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Not entirely. .in my case, the sure fire zero had a 50/50 shot at being better than T. Jackson.

Another easy way way around it is not having 20 roster spots

We are 14 teams, there is 32 NFL teams, if you cant find a starting QB for all weeks besides the one bye week, then something really terrible happened... I cant see this ever being an issue... Every team hypothetically should have 2 QBs who start in real life, and there would still be 4 more QBs that star in real life that will be owned...

If someone owns your QB 1's backup then you should own your QB 2s backup... It is really a waste of roster space to own another teams backup... No team will have more than 4 QBs at any point in a season... so unless there are owners actively trying to screw you, this should never be a problem... I can understand the potential of not having a QB on a bye week, but honestly, if it does, it is still your fault as it is such an extreme...

 

[TREFF]

Look, spin it whatever way you like, my side is an extreme, your side is just as much of a hypothetical what if. .and if counting every teams qb2 as a realistic alternative should your guy go down is what you're suggesting, it's just as extreme.

If you'd prefer real life situations, look at our title game last year. Rawls is down, Shady is down, Blount is down, trade deadline is long past, I had to use CAP, and pick up Gilisle of the scrap heap. Now I'll gladly tell anyone that doesn't know better that I knew damned good and well that Gilisle would be my ace in the hole, but we all know better. Sure there was a certain amount of "skill" involved, but had he not luckily broken a 50 yard TD, I would've lost.

Now you want to toss another 28 players into rosters, a schmuck like Gilisle won't even be there and our games are going to be won or lost on sheer luck of one guy getting one lucky carry, or one catch, your telling me that's how you'd like to win or lose? Not for me, I'm not even all that proud of how I won last year.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Look, spin it whatever way you like, my side is an extreme, your side is just as much of a hypothetical what if. .and if counting every teams qb2 as a realistic alternative should your guy go down is what you're suggesting, it's just as extreme.

If you'd prefer real life situations, look at our title game last year. Rawls is down, Shady is down, Blount is down, trade deadline is long past, I had to use CAP, and pick up Gilisle of the scrap heap. Now I'll gladly tell anyone that doesn't know better that I knew damned good and well that Gilisle would be my ace in the hole, but we all know better. Sure there was a certain amount of "skill" involved, but had he not luckily broken a 50 yard TD, I would've lost.

Now you want to toss another 28 players into rosters, a schmuck like Gilisle won't even be there and our games are going to be won or lost on sheer luck of one guy getting one lucky carry, or one catch, your telling me that's how you'd like to win or lose? Not for me, I'm not even all that proud of how I won last year.

But at the same time, you should be able to protect yourself better... with 28 more players, there is NO reason not to own your own backups...

Now, I do agree that this will hurt the waiver wire, but in a league like ours the waiver wire is already pretty baron... I would actually say 2 more spots helps you because now you can afford to back your players up better...

I mean, I don't care either way... But the reasoning against 20 is not what you are saying IMO... the only reason I can see is to keep a waiver wire pool...

 

[TREFF]

But at the same time, you should be able to protect yourself better... with 28 more players, there is NO reason not to own your own backups...

Now, I do agree that this will hurt the waiver wire, but in a league like ours the waiver wire is already pretty baron... I would actually say 2 more spots helps you because now you can afford to back your players up better...

I mean, I don't care either way... But the reasoning against 20 is not what you are saying IMO... the only reason I can see is to keep a waiver wire pool...

Okay, I can afford to back up my players better. ..would anyone in their right mind have grabbed Gilisle to backup Shady? No.

And if the only reason for not 20 is the waiver pool, that's still one good reason more than there are reasons to have 20

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree that a competitive league, especially one with the quality of owners that we have, should have playoff and or title games decided by scrubs who either got lucky, or didn't get lucky, this league deserves better than winning or losing by sheer luck. And anything that increases the dependancy on luck, gets a big no vote from me.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Okay, I can afford to back up my players better. ..would anyone in their right mind have grabbed Gilisle to backup Shady? No.

And if the only reason for not 20 is the waiver pool, that's still one good reason more than there are reasons to have 20

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree that a competitive league, especially one with the quality of owners that we have, should have playoff and or title games decided by scrubs who either got lucky, or didn't get lucky, this league deserves better than winning or losing by sheer luck. And anything that increases the dependancy on luck, gets a big no vote from me.

And that's the thing, I think this prevents luck more... What is luckier than adding a guy on the waiver wire?? there is skill in research, but in leagues this deep, do you really ever just make normal add/drops or do you wait until a player on your team is injured or just ineffective?? And you really only make moves when you need to...

To me, it is much less luck to back yourself up than to magically find a player on the waiver wire...

 

[TREFF]

And that's the thing, I think this prevents luck more... What is luckier than adding a guy on the waiver wire?? there is skill in research, but in leagues this deep, do you really ever just make normal add/drops or do you wait until a player on your team is injured or just ineffective?? And you really only make moves when you need to...

To me, it is much less luck to back yourself up than to magically find a player on the waiver wire...

Well in instances like I just pointed out, that actually happened, it's not hypothetical. .sometimes your pressed into going into the wire, no matter how deep you thought you were. 4 "starting " RB's, plus 2 others with a reasonable chance at carries any given week, 6 options i could've had, and I still pressed to the wire. 2 more slots isn't going to change that, it's only going to make what's available when the need arises that much less appealing.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Well in instances like I just pointed out, that actually happened, it's not hypothetical. .sometimes your pressed into going into the wire, no matter how deep you thought you were. 4 "starting " RB's, plus 2 others with a reasonable chance at carries any given week, 6 options i could've had, and I still pressed to the wire. 2 more slots isn't going to change that, it's only going to make what's available when the need arises that much less appealing.

of course you will always need some waiver wire... and of course with more players rostered the harder it will be to find players, but the 2 more owned players will also limit the probability of you needing to go into the waiver wire...

Again, I don't care either way...

 

[Trudem]

off topic but I have some RBs that could be available. Let me know.

 

[Chef99]

Cruuuuuuuuuuu!!!

Well, let's get this party started.

 

[Trudem]

Lets do this!

Trudem is open for business!

 

[leftypower]

Lets do this!

Trudem is open for business!

FuzzyPower as well. ......

 

[leftypower]

BTW - Will the draft snake in reverse order of EOY standings ???

 

[Trudem]

FuzzyPower as well. ......

stop stealing my customers!

 

[leftypower]

stop stealing my customers!

Well, if its like last yr we weren't able to entice a deal from anyone - - so chances are you have little to worry over. .....

 

[Trudem]

Well, if its like last yr we weren't able to entice a deal from anyone - - so chances are you have little to worry over. .....

true

 

[Chef99]

According to my email, Harold has updated his block 6 times...I think he's established that he'll trade anyone except Lockett.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

According to my email, Harold has updated his block 6 times...I think he's established that he'll trade anyone except Lockett.

You must of missed my last update....everyone is on the block.

 

[SteelersPride]

i keep trying to send @Chef99 trades, no avail