Dynasty 1

[HaroldSeattle]

I don't think the short expansion will actually change rosters much at all. I expect about 95% or more players drafted in rounds 3 thru 5 will be cut. However it will be fun to see who actually drafted a stud or even just solid player in these lower round even if they cut him.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I'm thinking of doing a poll. The question being " How many rounds do plan to actual make a draft pick?" My guess is it would be two rounds, with one round being in second place.

 

[TREFF]

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.

The skill isn't sitting back and waiting, then picking him up, the skill would be drafting that guy to start with and having the cahones to cut bait on someone in order to do so, before he wows everyone in preseason seemingly from out of the blue Expanding the rosters. .and again, this is the same exact point I made about why we shouldn't go from 18 to 20...only makes these choices easier, or in this case, virtually non existent.

The roster expansion vote was pretty darn clear, not really sure why this is any different, just becuase we'll eventually cut back to 18. To me this is the exact same thing as not drafting a kicker in a redraft, so that you can have one more skill position player up until the first week, wait to see which guy at the end of the bench looks to be more promising come week 1, then finally make the call, drop the other guy and add a random kicker. One of the most bush league moves possible, imho. All due respect to those who think it's strategy, but I wholeheartedly disagree, is actually a total lack of strategy. It takes a heckuvalot less "skill" to load up on potential options, wait for one to pan out and cut the rest, then to actually identify one early and make that gut call.
Fundamentally, expanding rosters just for the draft, and cutting down later is the exact same thing as the no kicker issue, and although I'd never call it a deal breaker, I'll never support it. If ya'll want it so be it, I'll go along. But definitely not something I think is good for the league by any means.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

The skill isn't sitting back and waiting, then picking him up, the skill would be drafting that guy to start with and having the cahones to cut bait on someone in order to do so, before he wows everyone in preseason seemingly from out of the blue Expanding the rosters. .and again, this is the same exact point I made about why we shouldn't go from 18 to 20...only makes these choices easier, or in this case, virtually non existent.

The roster expansion vote was pretty darn clear, not really sure why this is any different, just becuase we'll eventually cut back to 18. To me this is the exact same thing as not drafting a kicker in a redraft, so that you can have one more skill position player up until the first week, wait to see which guy at the end of the bench looks to be more promising come week 1, then finally make the call, drop the other guy and add a random kicker. One of the most bush league moves possible, imho. All due respect to those who think it's strategy, but I wholeheartedly disagree, is actually a total lack of strategy. It takes a heckuvalot less "skill" to load up on potential options, wait for one to pan out and cut the rest, then to actually identify one early and make that gut call.
Fundamentally, expanding rosters just for the draft, and cutting down later is the exact same thing as the no kicker issue, and although I'd never call it a deal breaker, I'll never support it. If ya'll want it so be it, I'll go along. But definitely not something I think is good for the league by any means.

Where did you come up with this kicker scenario? As far as I can remember everyone in MBBR drafts a kicker.

"The skill isn't sitting back and waiting," yet that is what actually happens at least 95% or more of the time.

I'd like for you to give me a example of someone drafting the guy to start with and having the cojones to cut bait on a player that actually had some value and keeping the unpolished gem. Just give me a couple in like 2 examples.

 

[TREFF]

Where did you come up with this kicker scenario? As far as I can remember everyone in MBBR drafts a kicker.

"The skill isn't sitting back and waiting," yet that is what actually happens at least 95% or more of the time.

I'd like for you to give me a example of someone drafting the guy to start with and having the cojones to cut bait on a player that actually had some value and keeping the unpolished gem. Just give me a couple in like 2 examples.

I did not draft Thomas Rawls, but I did pick him up in July, LONG before he was in the picture as Lynch's backup, let alone eventual replacement. .so there's one. As for curing bait on someone worthwhile. .this is 14 teams with 18 spots, everyone has 2 or 3 that could be classified as non roster worthy to cut bait on. .not like it's THAT hard of a call. ..expanding rosters just makes it that much easier.
And there's usually at least one similar example every year for one or another of my leagues..not always by me. I can tell ya Tlance isn't a 3 time MBBRL champ by sitting back and waiting either.

And yes everyone does draft a kicker in MBBRL, but, I do know of one who does it in his other leagues, and he and I have had that discussion already. I wasn't referring to anyone specifically doing it, just that it happens, and it's bush league..and it is my opinion, that this is more or less the same thing.

I just have no interest in making anything easier. The hard roster decisions are a critical component of what keeps fantasy football fun. .it's what we talk about on the vast majority of posts here. Why make those easier? I just can't see how is a good thing.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Mmmm guess since this is only the second year, asking for examples are impossible since last year was out first draft, so nobody had to makes cuts. Never the less I think your wrong, I think it's unlikely to happen in this draft or future drafts. By that I mean someone drafting a unknown, unpolished gem and cutting a player that provides depth for a long shot. I confident the up coming draft will prove me right. Even if someone actually did draft a unknown and cut a viable player, my point that as a rule everyone waits for results, a sign, a pulse still holds true.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I did not draft Thomas Rawls, but I did pick him up in July, LONG before he was in the picture as Lynch's backup, let alone eventual replacement. .so there's one. As for curing bait on someone worthwhile. .this is 14 teams with 18 spots, everyone has 2 or 3 that could be classified as non roster worthy to cut bait on. .not like it's THAT hard of a call. ..expanding rosters just makes it that much easier.
And there's usually at least one similar example every year for one or another of my leagues..not always by me. I can tell ya Tlance isn't a 3 time MBBRL champ by sitting back and waiting either.

And yes everyone does draft a kicker in MBBRL, but, I do know of one who does it in his other leagues, and he and I have had that discussion already. I wasn't referring to anyone specifically doing it, just that it happens, and it's bush league..and it is my opinion, that this is more or less the same thing.

I just have no interest in making anything easier. The hard roster decisions are a critical component of what keeps fantasy football fun. .it's what we talk about on the vast majority of posts here. Why make those easier? I just can't see how is a good thing.

Yeah I give you picking up Rawls, I thought you actually drafted him until I checked ( which is why I asked for two examples) However the exception proves the rule IMO.
This is not more or less the same as your kicker scenario, because this is about making the draft interesting, more of a event. Honestly do you think expanding the rosters temporally is going to end up effecting who is on a roster? I find that unlikely and it also would be the exception if it did happen.

 

[TREFF]

Mmmm guess since this is only the second year, asking for examples are impossible since last year was out first draft, so nobody had to makes cuts. Never the less I think your wrong, I think it's unlikely to happen in this draft or future drafts. By that I mean someone drafting a unknown, unpolished gem and cutting a player that provides depth for a long shot. I confident the up coming draft will prove me right. Even if someone actually did draft a unknown and cut a viable player, my point that as a rule everyone waits for results, a sign, a pulse still holds true.

That point may be true in the majority of insurances, I'll give ya that. .still doesn't mean that gives credence to expanding rosters for a draft. Wether we expand rosters for the draft or not, there's still going to be that same wait and see game all throughout the season, so using it as an example of why this is a good idea is somewhat lacking in solid ground. Fundamentally, it's still making things easier, eliminating chances for error, increasing the odds of hitting a jackpot, not by any real skill but rather just by playing the numbers game.

Yeah I give you picking up Rawls, I thought you actually drafted him until I checked ( which is why I asked for two examples) However the exception proves the rule IMO.
This is not more or less the same as your kicker scenario, because this is about making the draft interesting, more of a event. Honestly do you think expanding the rosters temporally is going to end up effecting who is on a roster? I find that unlikely and it also would be the exception if it did happen.

If you don't think it'll affect who ends up in rosters, then why is it even being an issue? If it's about making the draft an event. .I'm not sure anything short of a Hooters catered keger in my garage can make this upcoming rookie draft an event. It's just too short on skill position players who seem likely to make a big impact.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Where is let's " spice things up" Milk at when you need him?

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Got a question @TREFF , when you picked up Rawls, did you have to cut someone that gave you pause to cut?

 

[HaroldSeattle]

@TREFF I'm just going to table my idea, it was just a idea. If your against it, and actual argue against it, it's not going to pass IMO.

 

[TREFF]

Got a question @TREFF , when you picked up Rawls, did you have to cut someone that gave you pause to cut?

Rex Burkhead was the guy I cut. And to me yes, that wasn't the easiest thing to do. First and foremost, he's a Husker I-Back, and I'm a homer. But more importantly, given the Bengals finish in 2014 where they used him as their slot receiver and as the third down guy occasionally, I did have high hopes that his role would expand. But Sanu and Jones staying healthy, plus Eifert's dominance made that evaporate. So yes, there was some hesitation in cutting him loose that early. Likewise when I finally dropped Terrell Pryor for Ray Rice..it doesn't always work out, and often both are the wrong choice.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Rex Burkhead was the guy I cut. And to me yes, that wasn't the easiest thing to do. First and foremost, he's a Husker I-Back, and I'm a homer. But more importantly, given the Bengals finish in 2014 where they used him as their slot receiver and as the third down guy occasionally, I did have high hopes that his role would expand. But Sanu and Jones staying healthy, plus Eifert's dominance made that evaporate. So yes, there was some hesitation in cutting him loose that early. Likewise when I finally dropped Terrell Pryor for Ray Rice..it doesn't always work out, and often both are the wrong choice.

Tell me would you picked Rawls if my temp expanded roster idea were in place last year?

 

[TREFF]

@TREFF I'm just going to table my idea, it was just a idea. If your against it, and actual argue against it, it's not going to pass IMO.

Ya never know. .I didn't get my way on the 3 rounds or five rounds issue

If you think its a good idea, push it. No hard feelings on my end, I may argue passionately for things I like or don't like, but it's never from a personal point of view, even if at times it may come off that way. Honestly, push it if you think it'll be fun, you won't lose any points in my book, your still top shelf! Just keep in mind that my disagreement is with the idea, not with you

 

[TREFF]

Tell me would you picked Rawks if my temp expanded roster idea were in place last year?

Hmmm..I cannot honestly say I would've, becuase I didn't receive the tip on him until July, and being undrafted, behind Lynch, Turbin, CMike..no probably wouldn't have.

Now, if we start drafting in July, after OTA's, but before preseason. .that would change things alot

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Honestly, push it if you think it'll be fun, you won't lose any points in my book, your still top shelf! Just keep in mind

Thanks for the compliment, I don't take your disagreements with my ideas personal, I know your just stating your views on a idea. I do think I need to at least sway you a least a little bit for this idea to pass. As you said your forceful and I consider you one of the leaders here that sway the undecided.
So here's my pitch, while being able to hold on to rookie a bit longer could in theory give the less skilled a chance to get lucky, it actually doesn't. Lets face it, doing your research is what gives the skilled player the edge. Drafting 5 rookies actually gives the edge to those doing their due diligence, I hardly think the little info in holding on to a rookie thru preseason would help the lazy unskilled drafter a whole lot. Your example of picking up Rawls actually supports my argument, since there really wasn't any thing amazing in preseason that would give a clue to the uninformed and lazy owner.

Oh, one more thing....I think your top shelf also and enjoy debating with you.

 

[Chef99]

Examples of waiver pickups? Early on, Dion Lewis and Chris Johnson come to mind...there was some very good unexpected talent on the wire last year...Diggs is another one.

Um...it's 3 AM and I just woke up. I was trying to make a point, but damned if I can figure out what it was.

 

[Microwahevo]

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.

I think it needs to stay as is for this season. The real NFL draft is almost here, and our draft will be taking place almost immediately after.

As for the expanded rosters, I'm completely with @TREFF and @Barilko I think keeping it at 18 makes it a bit harder to manage your team. Making those tough cuts for possible pickups or "gems" is what makes it exciting. Hell, I just declined a trade from chef that I had been pondering for a few days simply b/c the player I would be giving up was still somewhat unproven, but the draft pick was at a certain lower spot that I wasn't certain what type of player I could grab there.

 

[Microwahevo]

@TREFF do you ever have teams you stream Defenses with? If not, what's your take on that? B/c I feel that topic is close to your kicker topic.

 

[leftypower]

I'm pretty sure this has been addressed somewhere in discussions to date but I was just wondering if trades of players/draft positions will be allowed once we begin our draft ??