Dynasty 1

[TREFF]

Something out the box perhaps, I'd like to see expanded rosters until the NFL season starts. Kind of like they actual do in the NFL. That would give owners a chance to at least see rookies in preseason and then make a choice.

Thoughts on this idea?

Thers a small part of me that likes it, better odds at hitting a winning lottery ticket. But, there's a much bigger part that says that's taking the easy way out. It eliminates hard choices. .do I take the chance on this guy over this other guy? With expanded rosters, there's no longer that decision to be made, take em both, cover the bases, kick the decision on down the road. .maybe hope one of them gets injured so the choice is that much easier.

I can definitely see the appeal, no doubts, but imho, it's taking away a key strategy component, at a time where keen instincts, player study, and research, and yes a little luck and perhaps some heuvos, are where the advantages should be gained.

 

[TREFF]

maintenance is the issue, finding that many dedicated players

Agreed. .I can think of about 3 other posters who would be good fits (not counting those MBBRL'ers that have outright passed on the league previously)..and we'd need 6 more to make two 10 team dynasties.

Not to mention, we'd either have to restart this one, having 4 owners leave for the new league. .OR..start an entirely different one while maintaining this one, something I probably wouldn't be interested in. Just to much going on.

BUT...would've been a great idea had we started out that way last year!

 

[Barilko]

i think what makes this challenging is the fact that you have claw and fight every step of the way to fill a respectable team

ie: if you are strong at Rb you may be weak at Qb or Wr

if we cut to 10 teams we would essentially field all star teams

i think the challenge (of the thinner starting line ups) is what keeps and will continue to keep this league interesting

im pretty sure most here excel in their individual money leagues (assumption on my part) because they annually build powerhouses with the access they have to a better free agent pool that a 10 or 12 teamer supplies

 

[Barilko]

Something out the box perhaps, I'd like to see expanded rosters until the NFL season starts. Kind of like they actual do in the NFL. That would give owners a chance to at least see rookies in preseason and then make a choice.

Thoughts on this idea?

i will post my thoughts below Treff`s thoughts but want to start by saying that that question does carry some weight and further thoughts

however if we implement any changes that lean in this direction that would need be settled before this season ends and could only come into effect in next years preseason

Thers a small part of me that likes it, better odds at hitting a winning lottery ticket. But, there's a much bigger part that says that's taking the easy way out. It eliminates hard choices. .do I take the chance on this guy over this other guy? With expanded rosters, there's no longer that decision to be made, take em both, cover the bases, kick the decision on down the road. .maybe hope one of them gets injured so the choice is that much easier.

I can definitely see the appeal, no doubts, but imho, it's taking away a key strategy component, at a time where keen instincts, player study, and research, and yes a little luck and perhaps some heuvos, are where the advantages should be gained.

i second everything that Treff replied with Perfect analogy Mr Treff


as for my additional thoughts on the idea

1-At Seasons end after Super Bowl all rosters are locked shut (no adds drops or trades)

2-A date should be set to determine the beginning of a new season (example March 1st)

3-The New Season would commence (March 1st) with its Pre Season until Deadline Day just before Draft Day (as i describe below within number 8)

4-Pre Season has begun and at this time trades can commence to happen (but no adds or drops)

5-The Rosters could now be expanded with no max ( but this would only be to allow imbalanced trades) and still no adds or drops are allowed

6-During this time period (Pre Season) and Draft Day

yes we would have imbalanced rosters as a result of any imbalanced trades
yet no one would fear dropping a player that would otherwise would have to be dropped with the current off season-preseason-in season Max of 18 and it would also allow the team to carry the acquired players and use them in subsequent potential trades

7-ie: lets just say Chef trades 5 players to Steeler and receives 2 players in return
Chef would now have a roster of 15 players and maintain that roster of 15 until a further trade expands it again or until Draft Day where he obviously will fill his Roster needs

Using the above scenario Steeler will now carry a Roster of 21 players until Draft Day or until further trades add or subtract from his Roster

8-With all that i have described above i would set a Deadline Day just prior to Draft Day where all teams that ended with Rosters in excess of 18 ( as a result of imbalanced trades ) would be now forced to drop players and cut down to 18

9-Deadline Day should be as close to Draft Day as possible and could even be Deadline Hour

Apologies for my improper method of writing and especially of english punctuation

i do hope this is clear and as ugly as the description above may appear i do feel that it is clear and actually very simple and will facilitate the ease of making off season trades without roster restrictions


guys im going to copy and post this on the main Dynasty page for all eyes to see

Good one Harold ya got the Crazy Canuck going

 

[Barilko]

i used Red for Harold`s post in the Trade thread

the black is my reply in that thread

the Blue is Treff`s

i wanted all to see it here


↑
Something out the box perhaps, I'd like to see expanded rosters until the NFL season starts. Kind of like they actual do in the NFL. That would give owners a chance to at least see rookies in preseason and then make a choice.

Thoughts on this idea?

i will post my thoughts below Treff`s thoughts but want to start by saying that that question does carry some weight and further thoughts

however if we implement any changes that lean in this direction that would need be settled before this season ends and could only come into effect in next years preseason



↑
Thers a small part of me that likes it, better odds at hitting a winning lottery ticket. But, there's a much bigger part that says that's taking the easy way out. It eliminates hard choices. .do I take the chance on this guy over this other guy? With expanded rosters, there's no longer that decision to be made, take em both, cover the bases, kick the decision on down the road. .maybe hope one of them gets injured so the choice is that much easier.

I can definitely see the appeal, no doubts, but imho, it's taking away a key strategy component, at a time where keen instincts, player study, and research, and yes a little luck and perhaps some heuvos, are where the advantages should be gained.

i second everything that Treff replied with Perfect analogy Mr Treff


as for my additional thoughts on the idea

1-At Seasons end after Super Bowl all rosters are locked shut (no adds drops or trades)

2-A date should be set to determine the beginning of a new season (example March 1st)

3-The New Season would commence (March 1st) with its Pre Season until Deadline Day just before Draft Day(as i describe below within number 8)

4-Pre Season has begun and at this time trades can commence to happen (but no adds or drops)

5-The Rosters could now be expanded with no max ( but this would only be to allow imbalanced trades) and still no adds or drops are allowed

6-During this time period (Pre Season) and Draft Day

yes we would have imbalanced rosters as a result of any imbalanced trades
yet no one would fear dropping a player that would otherwise would have to be dropped with the current off season-preseason-in season Max of 18 and it would also allow the team to carry the acquired players and use them in subsequent potential trades

7-ie: lets just say Chef trades 5 players to Steeler and receives 2 players in return
Chef would now have a roster of 15 players and maintain that roster of 15 until a further trade expands it again or until Draft Day where he obviously will fill his Roster needs

Using the above scenario Steeler will now carry a Roster of 21 players until Draft Day or until further trades add or subtract from his Roster

8-With all that i have described above i would set a Deadline Day just prior to Draft Day where all teams that ended with Rosters in excess of 18 ( as a result of imbalanced trades ) would be now forced to drop players and cut down to 18

9-Deadline Day should be as close to Draft Day as possible and could even be Deadline Hour

Apologies for my improper method of writing and especially of english punctuation

i do hope this is clear and as ugly as the description above may appear i do feel that it is clear and actually very simple and will facilitate the ease of making off season trades without roster restrictions


guys im going to copy and post this on the main Dynasty page for all eyes to see

Good one Harold ya got the Crazy Canuck going

@TREFF @Chef99 @leftypower @TKOSpikes @SteelersPride @Microwahevo @MilkSpiller22 @Trudem @The Foot @broncosmitty @Ram Tough

 

[Barilko]

sorry @obxyankeefan missed ya see above post

 

[The Foot]

Im with whatever Barilko just said. just the wrok that went into writing that makes me want to do it. But it does sound perfect.

 

[Chef99]

I like it.

 

[TREFF]

I like it.

I honestly don't understand it. .embarrassing yet true

 

[Chef99]

I honestly don't understand it. .embarrassing yet true

Didn't say I understood it.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

i used Red for Harold`s post in the Trade thread

the black is my reply in that thread

the Blue is Treff`s

i wanted all to see it here


↑
Something out the box perhaps, I'd like to see expanded rosters until the NFL season starts. Kind of like they actual do in the NFL. That would give owners a chance to at least see rookies in preseason and then make a choice.

Thoughts on this idea?

i will post my thoughts below Treff`s thoughts but want to start by saying that that question does carry some weight and further thoughts

however if we implement any changes that lean in this direction that would need be settled before this season ends and could only come into effect in next years preseason



↑
Thers a small part of me that likes it, better odds at hitting a winning lottery ticket. But, there's a much bigger part that says that's taking the easy way out. It eliminates hard choices. .do I take the chance on this guy over this other guy? With expanded rosters, there's no longer that decision to be made, take em both, cover the bases, kick the decision on down the road. .maybe hope one of them gets injured so the choice is that much easier.

I can definitely see the appeal, no doubts, but imho, it's taking away a key strategy component, at a time where keen instincts, player study, and research, and yes a little luck and perhaps some heuvos, are where the advantages should be gained.

i second everything that Treff replied with Perfect analogy Mr Treff


as for my additional thoughts on the idea

1-At Seasons end after Super Bowl all rosters are locked shut (no adds drops or trades)

2-A date should be set to determine the beginning of a new season (example March 1st)

3-The New Season would commence (March 1st) with its Pre Season until Deadline Day just before Draft Day(as i describe below within number 8)

4-Pre Season has begun and at this time trades can commence to happen (but no adds or drops)

5-The Rosters could now be expanded with no max ( but this would only be to allow imbalanced trades) and still no adds or drops are allowed

6-During this time period (Pre Season) and Draft Day

yes we would have imbalanced rosters as a result of any imbalanced trades
yet no one would fear dropping a player that would otherwise would have to be dropped with the current off season-preseason-in season Max of 18 and it would also allow the team to carry the acquired players and use them in subsequent potential trades

7-ie: lets just say Chef trades 5 players to Steeler and receives 2 players in return
Chef would now have a roster of 15 players and maintain that roster of 15 until a further trade expands it again or until Draft Day where he obviously will fill his Roster needs

Using the above scenario Steeler will now carry a Roster of 21 players until Draft Day or until further trades add or subtract from his Roster

8-With all that i have described above i would set a Deadline Day just prior to Draft Day where all teams that ended with Rosters in excess of 18 ( as a result of imbalanced trades ) would be now forced to drop players and cut down to 18

9-Deadline Day should be as close to Draft Day as possible and could even be Deadline Hour

Apologies for my improper method of writing and especially of english punctuation

i do hope this is clear and as ugly as the description above may appear i do feel that it is clear and actually very simple and will facilitate the ease of making off season trades without roster restrictions


guys im going to copy and post this on the main Dynasty page for all eyes to see

Good one Harold ya got the Crazy Canuck going

@TREFF @Chef99 @leftypower @TKOSpikes @SteelersPride @Microwahevo @MilkSpiller22 @Trudem @The Foot @broncosmitty @Ram Tough

That's a lot different then what I had in mind. We got 5 rounds for this draft, that's a lot of players for a 14 team league. Not sure if any team is going to draft round 4 or 5, only a few in round 3. Unless we expand rosters for a limited time. I'd suggest when the NFL teams have to be cut down to 53 is about right.
The advantage to this is skill in finding a gem or two in the later rounds. There some bragging rights in finding and drafting some unknown gem. It will lead to a lot more research for those who really care about something like this. It will make all 5 rounds more relevant, that's a good thing.....right?

 

[broncosmitty]

Are we talking about doing it for this season?

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Are we talking about doing it for this season?

I liked that, but think that since picks have already been traded, some may object. We could have a poll.

 

[broncosmitty]

I liked that, but think that since picks have already been traded, some may object. We could have a poll.

That's my hangup, cuts have already been made on account of the current restrictions.

But I'm thinking a poll definitely is in order.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

That's my hangup, cuts have already been made on account of the current restrictions.

But I'm thinking a poll definitely is in order.

That's my hangup, cuts have already been made on account of the current restrictions

Easy enough to allow teams to add players cut for roster space, if we vote for this. I suspect many of those cut are going to stay cut, for example I cut the Falcons defense, but others, like you cutting Floyd may become uncut so to speak.

I'd like to hear from at least half of team owners before a poll is considered.

 

[TREFF]

That's a lot different then what I had in mind. We got 5 rounds for this draft, that's a lot of players for a 14 team league. Not sure if any team is going to draft round 4 or 5, only a few in round 3. Unless we expand rosters for a limited time. I'd suggest when the NFL teams have to be cut down to 53 is about right.
The advantage to this is skill in finding a gem or two in the later rounds. There some bragging rights in finding and drafting some unknown gem. It will lead to a lot more research for those who really care about something like this. It will make all 5 rounds more relevant, that's a good thing.....right?

That advantage for that skill is even more important without expanding the rosters, which is why I'd be voting for just staying as is

 

[TKOSpikes]

@MilkSpiller22 - offer sent

 

[Barilko]

I would also vote to stay as it is

When Harold's thought triggered my speech I suggested to allow for roster space for trades. Not to add or draft more players

We already voted on a max of 18

all I suggest is when you make an off season trade you can carry the players forward until you trade them away or until you are forced to drop to get back to 18 max just before we draft

at no time should anyone be adding between the Super bowl and the following season's draft

 

[HaroldSeattle]

That advantage for that skill is even more important without expanding the rosters,

Well it's not like we'll quit looking for skill because of limited roster space, just means that RB X who plays for who ever will have to be picked via waivers once he starts producing. In the mean time the draft for the most part isn't relevant, because nobody is dropping a limited, but still useful backup for a long shot draft pick chosen after say 70 picks, or 60 picks or 50 pick or 40 picks.... Everyone will just sit back and let a rookie prove he's worthy of a roster spot, then pick him up. Don't see that as more skillful, more skill in actually drafting a rookie before he proves himself. Also the expanded roster would only be temporary, everyone will still have to make those cuts, once rosters are required to be cut to 18. Basically expanding is just allowing teams a small amount of info to make more informed decisions.

On the hand, we can stick to 18 man roster from start to finish. Much easier that way, no need to study the draft in depth, because all you to know about are like the top 25 player for FF.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I would also vote to stay as it is

When Harold's thought triggered my speech I suggested to allow for roster space for trades. Not to add or draft more players

We already voted on a max of 18

all I suggest is when you make an off season trade you can carry the players forward until you trade them away or until you are forced to drop to get back to 18 max just before we draft

at no time should anyone be adding between the Super bowl and the following season's draft

We all ready decided the draft would be five round, a temporary expansion main purpose would be to make the draft more fun, more skill and research involved , and most importantly to make the draft more of a event and more relevant. How can anyone disagree with that?