IR Or roster increase

[Bier Meister 1,514]

Currently:

16 with 2 IR

 

Discuss 

[Bier Meister 1,514]

Interesting.  Earlier, I was not able to move Conor to ir but tonight I could.

 

are you guys able to use the function?

if so, this may be moot 

[bostonlager 2,465]

I like having 18 roster spots, but I have hoarding disorder. 

[WhiteWonder 2,172]

since there are already 2 IR spots and anyone can be placed there once designated as O, I would not be in favor of increasing roster size

[Bier Meister 1,514]

In general, i tend to like to have 20 spots (whether it is 18/2ir flat 20 would not matter to me).

 

even a flat 18 would be a better option imo

[Alias Detective 1,179]

How the Fock do you use the IR.  I tried to pick up a free agent on IR and put him on my IR and was denied.

On 10/12/2023 at 11:23 PM, Bier Meister said:

Interesting.  Earlier, I was not able to move Conor to ir but tonight I could.

 

are you guys able to use the function?

if so, this may be moot 

If this should be then fine, otherwise there are bugs that need worked out.

[Bier Meister 1,514]

2 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

How the Fock do you use the IR.  I tried to pick up a free agent on IR and put him on my IR and was denied.

If this should be then fine, otherwise there are bugs that need worked out.

I believe (I could be mistaken) that we cannot  pick up a player and directly add them to IR.

- they go to our regular roster (so either an open spot or add/drop)

- then deactivate to IR.

[WhiteWonder 2,172]

Correct. You cant add someone off free agency and place them directly to IR. You need to have a regular open roster spot. So you can add them, then "manage IR" and move them to an open IR spot and have that bench spot freed up again. 

[WhiteWonder 2,172]

3 hours ago, Bier Meister said:

In general, i tend to like to have 20 spots (whether it is 18/2ir flat 20 would not matter to me).

 

even a flat 18 would be a better option imo

not to be argumentative in any way, as obviously if you guys put it to a vote and majority wants more roster spots then it is what it is... but to me a change like this falls into making the league too simple (ala extra flex spots, no HTH, the decrease in negative scoring for mistakes, etc). 

I think expanding the bench is just a way to placate the owners who want to stash as many players as possible. There are always going to be players on free agency that some of us wish we had room to stash (myself included). To me, this is where decision making takes over. I'd rather see owners make harder choices on who to stash and who to cut versus more roster spots to hoard everyone they want. 

[Bier Meister 1,514]

53 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

not to be argumentative in any way, as obviously if you guys put it to a vote and majority wants more roster spots then it is what it is... but to me a change like this falls into making the league too simple (ala extra flex spots, no HTH, the decrease in negative scoring for mistakes, etc). 

I think expanding the bench is just a way to placate the owners who want to stash as many players as possible. There are always going to be players on free agency that some of us wish we had room to stash (myself included). To me, this is where decision making takes over. I'd rather see owners make harder choices on who to stash and who to cut versus more roster spots to hoard everyone they want. 

it is a matter of perspective. 

 

for the first one- a larger roster rewards the more prepared... I believe that a smaller roster makes it easier to recover from poor drafting (24 more desirable players not rostered).

 

For the second bolded statement- it is not necessarily about stashing ( i think only a small amount of people think this way).

Personal experience this year: Weeks 2-4, i was dealing with injuries to my 1 and 2 wrs (waddle/aiyuk). While not on ir, i do not believe we should have to drop quality starters (or bench to accommodate short term injuries). additionally, larger bench allows us opportunity for prospects.... maybe someone should not have to drop gibbs quite yet.

[WhiteWonder 2,172]

2 hours ago, Bier Meister said:

it is a matter of perspective. 

 

for the first one- a larger roster rewards the more prepared... I believe that a smaller roster makes it easier to recover from poor drafting (24 more desirable players not rostered).

 

For the second bolded statement- it is not necessarily about stashing ( i think only a small amount of people think this way).

Personal experience this year: Weeks 2-4, i was dealing with injuries to my 1 and 2 wrs (waddle/aiyuk). While not on ir, i do not believe we should have to drop quality starters (or bench to accommodate short term injuries). additionally, larger bench allows us opportunity for prospects.... maybe someone should not have to drop gibbs quite yet.

I don't want to belabor this. I'm sure it will be voted on in the offseason. Yes, in some ways it is a matter of perspective. I'm not sure a larger roster rewards the more prepared as much as it rewards those with more time (the two often go hand in hand). I could easily counter that a larger roster makes it easier to recover from poor drafting for a few reasons. 1. less need to ever entertain the thought of cutting bait on an earlier round pick who looks like a bust in the early going..... 2. the ability to take a few extra fliers and if they work out, they can cover your ass if you drafted poorly earlier on.  BUT, going back to perspective, I agree that watering down the free agent pool makes it a tad harder to replace poor draft picks in that manner. 

I view taking fliers on late round picks as very similar to stashing. Stashing doesn't have to be hoarding handcuff RB's or picking up and stashing injured players.... It can be any player you feel good about who might take a little longer to start making an impact. 

As for your personal example, the weeks that Waddle and Aiyuk were out, they could have been moved to an IR spot. No need to entertain dropping them or using up a bench spot for their short term injuries . If your IR spots were already full, then you simply have decisions to make. 

Prospects are stashes. As I mentioned earlier, late round fliers and prospects are just as much guys you want to stash as anything else. ... Jahmyr Gibbs was a 3rd round selection. Nowhere near qualifying as a prospect. A prepared owner doesn't draft him that high unless he is willing to take on the risk that it might take some time for the rookie to really contribute. 

[Bier Meister 1,514]

Aiyuk and waddle were out, not on ir.

I don’t have time for extended discourse. 

 

I’ve put my opinion out there. I care more about what the league as a whole wants. I would like to see more from our other league mates. I know where you stand.

[WhiteWonder 2,172]

3 minutes ago, Bier Meister said:

Aiyuk and waddle were out, not on ir.

I don’t have time for extended discourse. 

 

I’ve put my opinion out there. I care more about what the league as a whole wants. I would like to see more from our other league mates. I know where you stand.

I’m just responding to your posts. No harm in thoughtful conversation. 
 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, players designated as out are eligible to be moved to IR.  

[Alias Detective 1,179]

The IR is a clusterfuck and clearly is benefiting Beir since he knows how to use it.  My fault for not knowing, but it’s a clear advantage stashing a back up RB’s just in case.

[Bier Meister 1,514]

41 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

The IR is a clusterfuck and clearly is benefiting Beir since he knows how to use it.  My fault for not knowing, but it’s a clear advantage stashing a back up RB’s just in case.

It was not straight forward and I did not see perameters on the site, nor in our discussions prior to ww mentioning that players with “out” status being eligible for IR.

 

i have not experienced that. Every league I have been in has required players being designated by the nfl on IR

 

I had no advantage here. This should be cleared up for this season, and verified for future seasons.

[WhiteWonder 2,172]

In the words of the great horseman, fantasy 101 know your league rules. 
 

kidding but every espn league I’ve been in has a standard setting to allow players listed as out to be moved to IR. Our yahoo league last year was the same, I believe. 
 

we can certainly vote to adjust this for next season

[Bier Meister 1,514]

On 10/15/2023 at 5:45 PM, WhiteWonder said:

In the words of the great horseman, fantasy 101 know your league rules. 
 

kidding but every espn league I’ve been in has a standard setting to allow players listed as out to be moved to IR. Our yahoo league last year was the same, I believe. 
 

we can certainly vote to adjust this for next season

I think our fundamental issue is our rules can be hard to track (a major reason why i wanted separate threads per topic). I would like to tighten that up.  Too many issues have arisen after week 1.

 

I do not recall ever using ESPN for my leagues.  on ESPN's site it only states that we have  16 man roster, with 2 IR spots, but does not list the parameters. As mentioned, every league that i have played in with IR has required players to be designated by the NFL.

[WhiteWonder 2,172]

18 minutes ago, Bier Meister said:

I think our fundamental issue is our rules can be hard to track (a major reason why i wanted separate threads per topic). I would like to tighten that up.  Too many issues have arisen after week 1.

 

I do not recall ever using ESPN for my leagues.  on ESPN's site it only states that we have  16 man roster, with 2 IR spots, but does not list the parameters. As mentioned, every league that i have played in with IR has required players to be designated by the NFL.

my rules comment was in jest (alluding back to the improper QB scoring situation).

ESPN has been my main platform for a long time, so I never even gave it a second thought... especially because the mechanics were the same on Yahoo last season. I also play in leagues where IR is limited to NFL IR designated players. 

Just like it was determined that the wrong QB scoring had to stay for this season, I think any desire to see IR limited to the NFL IR list would need to be voted on and changed in the offseason. 

Personally, with the NFL being such an injury heavy league from week to week, I am in favor of the IR slots being open to any player once listed as OUT. I think it helps teams to not have to waste a bench spot for a player who is out 2-3 weeks while also keeping some talent in free agency by not expanding the bench. I've always viewed fantasy IR as more of an injured slot than matching up exactly with the real life NFL IR designation. 

That's just my take. I would suggest creating clear and concise voting threads around June

[Bier Meister 1,514]

I almost completely agree.

 

much of this is bookmarking thoughts for later and not intended for immediate action.

[Alias Detective 1,179]

30 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

I've always viewed fantasy IR as more of an injured slot than matching up exactly with the real life NFL IR designatio

Not me. Oh well. 

[WhiteWonder 2,172]

I am "working" from home today and had some time to re-read this discussion and think on it. 

 

On 10/17/2023 at 4:42 PM, Bier Meister said:

I think our fundamental issue is our rules can be hard to track (a major reason why i wanted separate threads per topic). I would like to tighten that up. 

You are correct but it didn't need to be that way. This is where most of my frustration came from. 

Technically, our rules were very easy to track. All anyone had to do was look at the 2022 yahoo league setup/rules/scoring etc. I understand people wanted to move to ESPN, but the logical thing to do would have been to "copy and paste" everything from 2022 as a starting point and then make any changes from there. The willy-nilly creation of the new ESPN league is the main reason for any clusterfock.... and IMO the secondary issue was the mass amount of suggested changes posted in multiple threads. I think to some degree people are addicted to change for the sake of change.

but getting Mike to set us up with our own forum was a good idea.  At least it keeps everything in one place and on the front page 

 

 

On 10/17/2023 at 5:08 PM, Bier Meister said:

much of this is bookmarking thoughts for later and not intended for immediate action.

Absolutely. I think the creation of the ESPN league was done with partial immediate action before you guys even did your voting threads, etc. We shouldn't have that issue moving forward unless you guys change the league hosting site again 

 

On 10/17/2023 at 5:30 PM, Alias Detective said:

Not me. Oh well. 

I think I'm just used to my long running ESPN leagues and the fact that the NFL has changed so much in the last 2-3 seasons. I really think the expanded regular season and expanded playoffs give teams a little more incentive to place players on IR for the minimum 4 weeks as opposed to just having them be "OUT" for 2-3 weeks. That extra game and extra playoff spot keeps more teams alive longer in the season and maybe they feel like they can afford to let a key player get fully healthy with an IR stint. And more incentive to rule players OUT for a week due to something minor that would have been gutted out in the past... that's my take, at least. 

several years ago it seemed like FF teams had more players constantly listed O for weeks at a time. 

[WhiteWonder 2,172]

So this seems like a key thing to vote on in the offseason.   "Should IR be used for OUT/IR or only players who are on the NFL IR list?"

 

My preference would be keeping it as it is, but that's mostly because I don't like the idea of potentially increasing our bench. Not counting DST and Kicker we have 7 starting players and 7 bench. I never liked the idea of having a bench that was larger than the starting lineup.  I feel like allowing players designated as OUT for the week to be placed in an injured slot is a decent compromise. Less need to think about dropping a player due to injury, but when that player is no longer listed as out, you won't be able to add/drop or trade until you clear your IR