Dynasty League Football Forum

Kcarr wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 7:11 am I am a fan of the idea of making rosters as deep as the rest of the league will allow. This makes the waiver wire less valuable and therefore makes drafting and trading the only real ways to improve your team and therefore much more important

100% agree, and that was my intention when I originally set up the league (I've since stepped down as commissioner). One of the arguments for making rosters smaller is that it would require more strategy, but honestly it's a point I just don't understand. I can understand it being a preference, but to me it takes more strategy to pick out long term sleepers and trade/draft for players to build your team around than it does being able to hit the waiver wire before other teams can to get those players.

UnitedLoon wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:16 am

Kcarr wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 7:11 am I am a fan of the idea of making rosters as deep as the rest of the league will allow. This makes the waiver wire less valuable and therefore makes drafting and trading the only real ways to improve your team and therefore much more important

100% agree, and that was my intention when I originally set up the league (I've since stepped down as commissioner). One of the arguments for making rosters smaller is that it would require more strategy, but honestly it's a point I just don't understand. I can understand it being a preference, but to me it takes more strategy to pick out long term sleepers and trade/draft for players to build your team around than it does being able to hit the waiver wire before other teams can to get those players.

Ok, then increase starting requirements for the league to make up for 2 less teams. Maybe add 2 extra flex plays? Make sure it's SF.

TheNuts wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:48 pm

UnitedLoon wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:16 am

Kcarr wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 7:11 am I am a fan of the idea of making rosters as deep as the rest of the league will allow. This makes the waiver wire less valuable and therefore makes drafting and trading the only real ways to improve your team and therefore much more important

100% agree, and that was my intention when I originally set up the league (I've since stepped down as commissioner). One of the arguments for making rosters smaller is that it would require more strategy, but honestly it's a point I just don't understand. I can understand it being a preference, but to me it takes more strategy to pick out long term sleepers and trade/draft for players to build your team around than it does being able to hit the waiver wire before other teams can to get those players.

Ok, then increase starting requirements for the league to make up for 2 less teams. Maybe add 2 extra flex plays? Make sure it's SF.

It's already 2QB.

If it's a league for friends, keep it manageable.

If it's for dyansty managers, expand to 16 teams and roster a total of at least 425 players.

As you can see from my sig, and in a similar boat as you, some local leagues with friends so a lot of 10 man leagues. All of the leagues have IDP.

Team 1 is just start one of each for IDP and we use 28 man rosters...but it is also 2qb/2rb/3wr/1te/2flex/1dl/1lb/1db so 13 total starters.

Team 2 has the same offensive setup but we start 1dt, 1de, 1lb, 1cb, 1s, then 1 pure idp flex and 1 flex(non-lb) so17 total starters and use a 37 man roster.

These are leagues I run and Team 2 has a 3 man TS, Team 1, there is no TS. I like to run with the idea of you need a backup for each spot, plus room for some developmental prospects, which can be TS or extra roster spots.

Make them as big as you can get them. My shallowest league is Team 2 in my sig, 12 teams and only 17 keepers, with 21 player rosters and 2 IR in-season. This off-season I had to cut Vance McDonald, Gus Edwards, Daesean Hamilton, and Mike Davis. Irritating. Makes our in-season FAAB almost worthless for the good teams because half the time we have to cut who we added, even though they may still have some value.

snaps06 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:37 pm Make them as big as you can get them. My shallowest league is Team 2 in my sig, 12 teams and only 17 keepers, with 21 player rosters and 2 IR in-season. This off-season I had to cut Vance McDonald, Gus Edwards, Daesean Hamilton, and Mike Davis. Irritating. Makes our in-season FAAB almost worthless for the good teams because half the time we have to cut who we added, even though they may still have some value.

I see it the opposite way. It makes your in-season FAAB worth more because you can pick up useable assets off the WW and plug them into your lineup with bye weeks + injuries stacking up during the season.

IBall2 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:05 am

snaps06 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:37 pm Make them as big as you can get them. My shallowest league is Team 2 in my sig, 12 teams and only 17 keepers, with 21 player rosters and 2 IR in-season. This off-season I had to cut Vance McDonald, Gus Edwards, Daesean Hamilton, and Mike Davis. Irritating. Makes our in-season FAAB almost worthless for the good teams because half the time we have to cut who we added, even though they may still have some value.

I see it the opposite way. It makes your in-season FAAB worth more because you can pick up useable assets off the WW and plug them into your lineup with bye weeks + injuries stacking up during the season.

He did say "for the good teams", and I can definitely see that. Nothing worse than having to cut a player you want to keep because benches are shallow. Also, in dynasty I feel like if you're able to pick up startable assets off waivers every week it's just a glorified keeper league at that point. It punishes the deep teams and rewards those who have weak teams IMO.

I'd caution you if you think more on waivers helps the weaker teams.

Good owners thrive with small rosters from my experiences. There is constant value at their expense and they take advantage.

UnitedLoon wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:06 pm

IBall2 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:05 am

snaps06 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:37 pm Make them as big as you can get them. My shallowest league is Team 2 in my sig, 12 teams and only 17 keepers, with 21 player rosters and 2 IR in-season. This off-season I had to cut Vance McDonald, Gus Edwards, Daesean Hamilton, and Mike Davis. Irritating. Makes our in-season FAAB almost worthless for the good teams because half the time we have to cut who we added, even though they may still have some value.

I see it the opposite way. It makes your in-season FAAB worth more because you can pick up useable assets off the WW and plug them into your lineup with bye weeks + injuries stacking up during the season.

He did say "for the good teams", and I can definitely see that. Nothing worse than having to cut a player you want to keep because benches are shallow. Also, in dynasty I feel like if you're able to pick up startable assets off waivers every week it's just a glorified keeper league at that point. It punishes the deep teams and rewards those who have weak teams IMO.

Exactly. I spent all my FAAB this year on players that should be keepers, but aren't good enough for my roster. I was able to find plenty of plug and play guys and use them, but isn't the point of dynasty to build the strongest and deepest team? Guys that I've dropped during roster cutdowns in the past have been rookie/FA 2nd round draft picks, and nobody would trade me a pick for them because they knew I'd have to drop them anyways.

sloth8u wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:37 pm I'd caution you if you think more on waivers helps the weaker teams.

Good owners thrive with small rosters from my experiences. There is constant value at their expense and they take advantage.

Good owners thrive regardless of roster size. But a stronger team having to cut a possible startable asset doesn't help their team, but it does potentially help the a weaker team. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but the question isn't "good vs. bad owner", it's "stronger vs. weaker roster". A good owner can have a weaker roster for various reasons (injury, rebuild, etc).

A good owner doesnt typically cut because he's/she's already moved that "waiver guy".

Ask around.... If a guy's worth a 1st...you sell him. Imagine the waiver claims an/some owners could bank.


Waivers does play a part in this discuss, but it works both ways. I own several picks and some very valuable just by trading waivers claims...make your argument, but the finality of it is.....some owners can claim the likes of lindsay and bank by moving him and others will hold and hope he's the real deal. The opportunity is equal for all.

Roster cuts are tough, but owners that are advangeous will mine the field and reap the rewards.

Lot of personal preference is what it comes down to. Can argue it to death.

Some people hate having to cut guys. Some people enjoy the process of working the roster reqs and agonizing over cuts.

Some guys will want useable players on the wire. Some won’t.

Me, I like variance here, so I play in a few leagues with differing settings.

30 is the minimum. Optimally I'd say closer to 35, but I prefer the wire to be pretty bare.