Autumn Wind 0 Posted July 19, 2004 Please make your suggestions for how the rosters should be set for the football league. Here are the eligible positions: QB WR RB TE K D - Any defensive player DB - Safeties and corners DL - Includes LBs Bench - any player. Can be 0-20 spots. We will have 16 owners, 2 teams (basically) per owner. So what I'd like to see is what you want for a starting lineup and a total bench. GO! Currently we're set at: Starters 1 QB 2 WR 2 RB 1 TE 1 K 1 D 2 DB 2 DL 8 bench Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 773 Posted July 19, 2004 I'd say up it to 3 starting receivers and we're good Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
buffalobillsffl2003 0 Posted July 19, 2004 Roster setup is fine..... How are you going to factor in the statistics of retired players? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 773 Posted July 19, 2004 Roster setup is fine..... How are you going to factor in the statistics of retired players? It's just current players that have played for or are playing for you two assigned teams. Christian Okoye does me no good Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Autumn Wind 0 Posted July 19, 2004 I'd say up it to 3 starting receivers and we're good That's 48 starting WRs, plus whatever gets put on the bench. Makes things a bit thin, doesn't it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 773 Posted July 19, 2004 I'd say up it to 3 starting receivers and we're good That's 48 starting WRs, plus whatever gets put on the bench. Makes things a bit thin, doesn't it? but we're all getting two teams, with two starters on each team which makes 64. Plus, doesnt return yards count? Which makes guys like Dante Hall even that more valuable Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Autumn Wind 0 Posted July 20, 2004 Hall ain't worth jack if the Chiefs aren't clipping the opposing team during the runback. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 773 Posted July 20, 2004 Hall ain't worth jack if the Chiefs aren't clipping the opposing team during the runback. how you guys gonna cover Gonzo this year now that the refs are gonna start calling holding and interference calls on you LBs and defenders??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thin Spirit 0 Posted July 20, 2004 I like the idea of starting 2 QBs it adds more and makes the scoring more exciting. I'm also down with starting 3 WR, it wont make anything thin, everyone will be able to field suitable starters. The rest is fine as it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 5,690 Posted July 20, 2004 I like the idea of starting 2 QBs it adds more and makes the scoring more exciting. I'm also down with starting 3 WR, it wont make anything thin, everyone will be able to field suitable starters. The rest is fine as it is. starting 2 QB's is focking retarded. What if someone else drafts one of the QB's of the team you have? what do you do then? start a backup? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GuardBum 73 Posted July 20, 2004 2RB 2WR 1TE 1Flex(if possible or make it a receiver) agree that 2QB would put great pressure on an owner and not necessarily level the field We should go deep but not make her bleed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thin Spirit 0 Posted July 20, 2004 AW, whats the final word? 1 QB 2 RB 2-3 WR (?) 1 TE 1 K 1 Defensive Player 2 DB 2 DL/LB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ozzie1 0 Posted July 20, 2004 my preference: 1 QB 2 RB 2 WR 1 TE 1 K 1 Defensive Player 2 DB 2 DL/LB 10 Bench Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Autumn Wind 0 Posted July 20, 2004 I'll go with the average of each person's suggestions. Don't forget to tell me how big you want the bench to be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Autumn Wind 0 Posted July 20, 2004 2RB 2WR 1TE 1Flex(if possible or make it a receiver) I added a spot for WR/TE, which is basically a flex position. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 773 Posted July 20, 2004 I like the way you have the starting lineups set right now. Just thinking in my head, here is where I would want backups, this is what I would want on my team. QB QB RB RB RB RB WR WR WR WR WR TE K DL DL LB LB DB DB DB Which would mean I would want 7 bench spots, and an extra one wouldnt be bad either (say TE backup). I like the way you have it and I like the 8 bench spots Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GuardBum 73 Posted July 20, 2004 10 bench would initiate more trading since we could keep more players on our teams as exclusives can sit on the WW of course it makes the draft 23 rounds and not 21 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thin Spirit 0 Posted July 20, 2004 I like the way the rosters are now. Leave them along with the 8 bench spots. I'm actually pretty excited for this league, at first I thought the concept would be pretty shitty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GuardBum 73 Posted July 20, 2004 I like the way the rosters are now. Leave them along with the 8 bench spots. I'm actually pretty excited for this league, at first I thought the concept would be pretty shitty. I didn't know Shaun King did that for you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Autumn Wind 0 Posted July 20, 2004 OK, we'll keep the way the rosters are now set: Starters: QB WR WR RB RB TE WR/TE K D DB DB DL DL 8 bench spots Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 773 Posted July 20, 2004 OK, we'll keep the way the rosters are now set: Starters: QB WR WR RB RB TE WR/TE K D DB DB DL DL 8 bench spots so 21 rounds? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cdub100 3,447 Posted July 20, 2004 What no flex spot? Shouldn't the wr/te be rb/wr/te? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Autumn Wind 0 Posted July 20, 2004 What no flex spot? Shouldn't the wr/te be rb/wr/te? You get either WR/TE or WR/RB. I chose WR/TE. As far as I know, RBs can get points for receiving stats so not having a spot for WR/RB made sense. Plus, there are more productive receivers available for starting than there are RBs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cdub100 3,447 Posted July 20, 2004 What no flex spot? Shouldn't the wr/te be rb/wr/te? You get either WR/TE or WR/RB. I chose WR/TE. As far as I know, RBs can get points for receiving stats so not having a spot for WR/RB made sense. Plus, there are more productive receivers available for starting than there are RBs. I'd like to see it changed to RB/WR then. I don't see any teams starting 2 TE. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ozzie1 0 Posted July 20, 2004 What no flex spot? Shouldn't the wr/te be rb/wr/te? You get either WR/TE or WR/RB. I chose WR/TE. As far as I know, RBs can get points for receiving stats so not having a spot for WR/RB made sense. Plus, there are more productive receivers available for starting than there are RBs. I'd like to see it changed to RB/WR then. I don't see any teams starting 2 TE. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
