Limit number of one position player you can have on bench?

[mothaudio]

A couple of guys in our league have lobbied to put a limit on the number of QBs/WRs/RBs, etc... that any one owner can have on their team/bench. In the past we've had six bench spots with no limit on how you divided that up among position players. If you wanted six RBs that was fine but some guys feel that's "unfair". Is this just sour grapes because they either didn't draft or aquire those players 1st or do they have a point? Common practice or not? I've yet to see one league with a rule like that. This year we dropped the two QB format and added a 7th bench position. TIA.

QB, WR, WR, RB, RB, TE, W/R, K, DEF, BN, BN, BN, BN, BN, BN, BN

[BGbootha]

Wow, thats just bull*#&$ in my opinion, if you want to have 6 RB on your bench why should you not???

My suggestion is to tell him to think ahead and manage his own team

[flotsamnjetsam]

Total sour grapes IMO. I've never seen a league that limits the number of bench spots at each position. That's a big part of the draft strategy. If someone wants to load up on RB's and be weak at other positions they should be allowed to. The strategy might be to trade one or more of the RB's for other players or just to keep away a few RB's from everyone else. Bottom line is that everyone has the option to employ this strategy if they want to so just because other owners don't want to do it they think it isn't fair. I've seen guys draft 4 RB's in a row and then post a message to the league saying "come to me with trade offers when you need a RB".

Sour grapes.

[Kilroy]

Um, no.

Wanna carry 7 RBs? Fine.
Wanna carry 12 WRs? Cool
Wanna carry 4 TEs? Whatever
Wanna carry 6 Kickers? H**l, why not?

Bench spots are up to the individual. Nuff Said.

[stomperrob]

I wouldn't join a league with that rule - I like to grab extra RB's in some leagues. If your fellow owners don't like pepole doing that, then they should be drafting extra RB's (to use RB's as the most likely example).

[mothaudio]

That was my strategy and opinion from the get go. I had 6 strong RB's last year and then people questioned that. I think they were pissed they didn't do it 1st!

[Sixxgunn]

I had a couple of whiny biznatches that complained of the same thing last year. Thing was, the alleged "hoarding" occurred well after the draft when myself and another owner made a sweep of the WW and picked it clean of QBs and RBs. This year they actually threatened to sit out if a "No hoarding" rule wasn't instituted. When informed two other people would be notified of their intent to leave and their spots would be filled within the hour, they quickly shut their traps.

[mothaudio]

>>Thing was, the alleged "hoarding" occurred well after the draft when myself and another owner made a sweep of the WW and picked it clean of QBs and RBs. <<

Same here. I picked up L.Johnson off waivers and the moaning never ended.

[Berge20]

I had a similar thing happen last year. I happened to load up on back-up RBs and several ended up being productive.

Nobody would trade for them, even at fair value (I wasnt jacking up the price or anything) so they complained I was hording.

[Sixxgunn]

I had a similar thing happen last year. I happened to load up on back-up RBs and several ended up being productive.

Nobody would trade for them, even at fair value (I wasnt jacking up the price or anything) so they complained I was hording.

I tried several times to give Caddy and Parker for Randy Moss, and those two for Galloway, then those two plus Driver for Holt and was refused each time despite either of the first two owners having a top 15 RB (the third had LJ, but that's it). I had no WRs, so I was desperate, and thought I could survive on Edge and Anderson, so giving up a WW pickup and a budding stud was worth it IMO. These guys just don't want to trade.