Position Limits on Rosters

[LibertyCountyBrawler]

A member of the league I'm in brought up an interesting point today. There are 82 RBs on 12 teams in my league. Over 20 of them are on 2 teams.

This members concern is that when the injury bug strikes, as it does to the majority of us, there is nothing left on the waiver wire. The top RB on the wire right now is Marcel Reese. So if you need to hit the Waiver Wire for a rb your ultimately screwed.

This brought up the question, should we have Position Limits on our rosters. He would like to see a limit of 4 running backs. This is too low in my opinion and does not give the ability to stash rookies, or backups who are looking to take over a year down the road.

What do you think though, with a 33(+2 IR) man roster, should you have position limits?

[KAT]

I dont like limits. Let a guy have 2 kickers and 2 defenses if he wants, or 6 QBs or 12 RBs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Telperion]

I've said this before on the topic.

1) They'll be shallow elsewhere, so it balances. 2) If your league allowed them to amass so many players at a position without competing for the same players, then it's everybody else's fault.

[LibertyCountyBrawler]

I agree, they'll definitely be shallow elsewhere.

Ultimately I feel it doesn't matter how many of one position you have, as most likely if you have 13 of one position you have a ton of scrubs.

Just thought it to be an interesting discussion.

[palevermilion]

To me this is dynasty. If you have to have hit the waiver wire for a startable RB you should be screwed.

[Balzac]

To me this is dynasty. If you have to have hit the waiver wire for a startable RB you should be screwed.

this. If you are relying on waiver wire adds then you are already screwed.

[maxhyde]

Position limits are amateur hour type garbage rules I avoid.
If I want to have 18 WR's and can still field a starting lineup who cares?

[zjdlmt]

I joined a league this offseason without noticing that it had roster limits. I didn't even check for such a thing because it had never even occurred to me that anyone would want that. This was a startup and I'd been in a startup before where there were limits during the draft but they were waived once the draft was over. I assumed it would be the same once I noticed, but nope...we've still got roster limits.

Roster limits are the worst. I was right at the limit after the draft, stashed a guy on IR and picked up another prospect I liked and suddenly I'm compelled to shed an asset I like anytime a guy loses his IR eligibility. I don't see any reason why anyone would want to have these. Let everyone build their team however they want. If some teams are loaded at RB then they're likely weak elsewhere or maybe they just cornered the market and good for them.

[wingnutty]

with 33 player rostesr your ww is going to be slim pickings at all positions. That is the way it is.

I play in one league that is a 10-player keeper league and you can only keep a max of 4 wrs and 4 rbs...at first i hated it, but now i actually like it because if FORCES trading and adds an element of strategy. It also helps keep the annual rookie/FA draft more full of talent and more fun. normally i don't like position limits, but in this case I do like it.

[bonscott]

Hate position limits, especially in dynasty. If someone wants 10 QBs, rock on.

And as a couple others have stated, this is dynasty...unless you have really shallow rosters you aren't getting startable players off the waiver wire anyway. The point of a dynasty league is to build up that depth so if you lose your #1 RB you have another guy to step up (hopefully). This isn't redraft where if your #1 guy goes down you can just add a starter off the waiver wire and rock on.

I and I'm sure many saw this in keeper/redraft leagues this year. In my two local keeper leagues owners have picked up in season starters like West, Langford, Rawls, Buck and others because of course those guys weren't drafted. Picked them up and put them right in the starting lineup. But I had to laugh to myself that all these guys were long gone last spring in all my dynasty leagues.

[DLF3000]

I hate positional limits, yet we've used them for all 8 years. They're reasonable half the time, but by mid-season, they're just an arbitrary, administrative pain in the bleep with the avalanche of injuries and byes.

We have active roster positional limits of:
QB 3
RB 7
WR 8
TE 3

I've campaigned to at least increase RB by 1 and TE by 1. Those positions get hurt all the time, and we all know how RB is a laugher of a position to fill week in and out. My angle was GMs should have more freedom to build their roster however they like - everyone has their own style.

The whole hoarding a position thing doesn't hold water for me as a concern anymore. Especially since I wasn't saying increase roster size - just positional limits. If anything, you'd encourage more trades with no positional limits. Thin waiver wire? So what. It's always thin by mid-late season.

[1standgoal]

All my leagues have position limits. I though that was the norm!

[Dynasty DeLorean]

I joined a redraft with positional limits this year and it's the stupidest thing ever.

[ComingDoom]

I agree with most here. Position limits don't make sense to me. If you need the ww for a starter, you should probably be rebuilding anyway.

[FantasyFreak]

The only position we limit in our league is team D's, because their will always be 32 of them, but even this I don't agree with 100%. If you don't have enough RB's because you only rostered 5 and got hit by the injury bug, too bad. I have lost 4 starters. Bell, Hyde, Foster and CJ2K. Still have D-Willy, Draughn, and Starks I can at least plug in there and get some touches. I decided to grab a ton of RB's myself because of the nature of the position, and it's a good thing I did. I had foresight that injuries may occur. If I could only roster 6 backs, where would that leave me now? Another reason I don't like it is lack of diversity. Some guys want a ton of WR's, some want a ton of RB's. Some guys will roster 4-5 QB's. It's all fair game IMO.