Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2015 14:41:01 GMT -5
iffhl.proboards.com/thread/641/roster-position-flexibility
Please continue discussion here and cast your vote on the poll when ready.
The challenge is on the rule:
--4 centres
--7 to 8 wingers
--6 to 7 defencemen
--2 goaltenders in line up per week, maximum
--0 to 3 bench
Suggested change is to allow any of the following combos:
1)4C 8W 6D 2G
2)4C 7W 7D 2G
3)4C 8W 7D 1G
4)4C 9W 6D 1G
5)5C 8W 6D 1G
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2015 16:08:34 GMT -5
I would vote yes if option 4 was not in there. I think allowing 9 wingers is too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Apr 19, 2015 21:24:34 GMT -5
I like it the way it is
|
|
|
|
Post by zigzag (Zagreb) on Apr 20, 2015 4:53:37 GMT -5
If we change, then why to just those 5 option above? We could go between 7 and 9 W (3 options), but other 3 positions are limited to just to 2 options.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2015 6:29:08 GMT -5
If we change, then why to just those 5 option above? We could go between 7 and 9 W (3 options), but other 3 positions are limited to just to 2 options.
It's a good point. I don't think that have a 3 goalie option is good for league; based on my previous concerns of goalie hoarding. 5D might not be that great as D are considered to be lower value compared to forwards in most cases. I also think there are way too many C's or dual C's to drop down to 3 C's.
Basically, I was wondering why Fantrax allowed dressing one goalie and adding an extra D man. Then I thought why not add and extra forward instead? That's why only the five options originally suggested.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2015 6:49:07 GMT -5
i voted no, as I don't like considering rule changes in a myopic fashion, without considering the bigger picture.
this proposal doesn't consider other related issues, such as the ridiculous number of players with c/w eligibility, or the completely random nature in which Fantrax awards these positions and changes them from year to year.
I also think a change like this, if approved, would need a substantial lag period, as it would give C-heavy teams a ridiculous advantage, which is not fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltcompton (Red Army) on Apr 20, 2015 11:25:24 GMT -5
Mid-stream rules changes are always problematic because GMs have constructed their rosters based on the rules as they now exist. I think the positions are fine as they are now though I wouldn't be averes to adding another roster player either as an enforcer or a penalty killer, but no more goalies and no increased flexibility.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 17:01:41 GMT -5
Will lock this poll for now. The opinions are trending no.
|
|
