Fantasy Football 32

Right now we have 24 total players on our NFL active roster with only a max applied to kickers (2) and team Defense (2). We should have a max at QB of 3. An NFL team never has more than 3 QBs on their roster and we shouldn't either. Note this does not count the Rookie Roster, only the active NFL roster.

RB/WR/TE has no max because those positions can be used in the flex spot and you have multiple positions to fill in your starting roster. However, with QB you can only start 1 so you don't need 4, 5, or 6 on your bench.

This would also prevent a team from stacking their bench with QBs thus making the waiver pool thinner and harder for other managers to find a suitable QB in the event they need one.

This rule should go into effect for this upcoming season (2019-2020) because it doesn't affect any scoring.

I would vote yes on this one as well.

Yes

Yes

I'd vote yes

Yes, but I don't feel strongly on this issue.

I'm not a fan of this QB limit personally so I would vote no

Agreed

I'm fine with a limit of 3. No one really needs more than that anyways.

I'm leaning towards YES.

But would like to suggest that 2 QBs currently on the same NFL team shouldn't count as 2 against this limit in case an owner wants to keep the backups to his QBs just to be safe.

Yes

rafastw wrote: ↑

Sat May 18, 2019 7:12 am

I'm leaning towards YES.

But would like to suggest that 2 QBs currently on the same NFL team shouldn't count as 2 against this limit in case an owner wants to keep the backups to his QBs just to be safe.

I actually like this twist....as this was the scenario I envisioned having issue with.

Yea for cap

edit to add: i like the idea of allowing same-team back-ups to not count toward QB count

rafastw wrote: ↑

Sat May 18, 2019 7:12 am

But would like to suggest that 2 QBs currently on the same NFL team shouldn't count as 2 against this limit in case an owner wants to keep the backups to his QBs just to be safe.

The only thing I'll add is that we need to go with a rule that I can cleanly enter into Fantrax to monitor. I don't want a bunch of exceptions that we have to personally police on each roster because I don't have the time or ability to self check every roster to make sure it is being followed. If we go with a cap it needs to be 3 or 4, with no exceptions, so we can set it on Fantrax and allow the system to police it. So, unfortunately, we may not be able to accommodate this part of the suggestion.

I agree on a limit, I would probably vote for 4 as the limit.

I dont think its a good idea.
Lets say you draft a Daniel Jones this year hoping he becomes good a couple years from now.
And you have 2 startable QBs. If one of them gets hurt. Youre down to one. Youre out of QBs for the Bye week of your last startable QB.
That would make you have to drop the guy you picked or your original qb that got hurt.
Maybe the rule should limit you to 3 QBs that are starting in the NFL, i would even go for 2 Starting QBs, making it that every team can get 2. But a rule that limits the ability to stash a pick for the future i am against. People wont be able to draft qbs in the rookie draft.
No for me.

detroitlions wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2019 2:10 am

Lets say you draft a Daniel Jones this year hoping he becomes good a couple years from now.
And you have 2 startable QBs. If one of them gets hurt. Youre down to one. Youre out of QBs for the Bye week of your last startable QB.
That would make you have to drop the guy you picked or your original qb that got hurt.
Maybe the rule should limit you to 3 QBs that are starting in the NFL, i would even go for 2 Starting QBs, making it that every team can get 2. But a rule that limits the ability to stash a pick for the future i am against. People wont be able to draft qbs in the rookie draft.
No for me.

Don't forget this suggestion also states "Note this does not count the Rookie Roster, only the active NFL roster." So QBs you draft in the Rookie Draft wouldn't even count towards this until they lose their rookie status after 24 games played. That gives you time to stash away future prospects without it counting towards your limit. Also, players who are injured and end up on IR wouldn't count either. Now yes they would have to go on IR to qualify for the IR spot, but just making it clear those would not count towards the limit either.

Oh i did not see that.. it makes a lot more sense then. I can agree with it now

Oh... It is a NO NO NO for me then.

Let's use a hypothetical 2018 example. I had both Winston and Fitzpatrick. If I was only allowed 1 more QB, let's say my third QB gets injured in the same week the Bucs are on bye. I would be forced to trade for another QB because I wasn't allowed to have the other backup. Or not start a QB that week. No way.

rafastw wrote: ↑

Mon May 20, 2019 4:30 pm

Oh... It is a NO NO NO for me then.

Let's use a hypothetical 2018 example. I had both Winston and Fitzpatrick. If I was only allowed 1 more QB, let's say my third QB gets injured in the same week the Bucs are on bye. I would be forced to trade for another QB because I wasn't allowed to have the other backup. Or not start a QB that week. No way.

Sounds like a team management problem. Don't have two QBs (neither of whom have rookie status) from the same team on your roster. Seems like a simple fix.

And just FYI we're not set on 3. It's 3 or 4. I think the main point is to limit it and then decide if we think 3 or 4 is the better option. I think most could handle 3 if you dont handcuff yourself like you did in that example.

I don't care either way.

There aren't enough starting QBs for everyone to have 3 of those. Some will have a backup anyways. I would find it still safer to have the backup to your own guy. I'll stick with NO.

My vote would be no here based on some of the arguments already presented about having a couple QBs from the same team and the fact that would need to count as 2 QBs against the max. I might be able to get on board with a max of 4 or 5 which would simply be to prevent mass hoarding by a single team, but otherwise my vote is no.

Voting against

Vote no

I vote yes on limit

I vote no