Just one issue to vote on this year.  Please send you vote to me ASAP. Teams with multiple owners need to get together and submit one vote for the team.

1) Roster Size             In 2009 we went back to 1 QB and 1 DEF. This brought back the flexibility to make free agent moves at those positions. It did bring back bye week moves, but it was not the issue as in year's past. One suggestion I had from multiple teams was to bring back the TE position, separating it again from WR. I also had suggestions on how to create more roster flexibility. As Commish I am still a little leery of the bye week moves, but think we have reached some middle ground on one proposal. Here are the 3 options for Roster Size:

            Option A         Change to 1 TE, 1 K and 1 Optional Player with full flexibility

In this Option the TE would go back to it's own position, separate from WR. We would go to 1 Kicker as well. The Optional Position would now be eligible to have any player or unit put there, not just RB/WR. First, the TE position is now deeper than probably any time in the last decade. Many teams did not enjoy having the TE combined with WR. Owners felt it took away the flexibility to have an advantage by taking a stud TE early in the draft. The depth of the TE pool alleviates the concerns that forced the original change of combining them with WR. Specifically the concern that there was only a handful of point producing TE's. Second, by separating the TE we would go back to one Kicker to keep the roster balanced. This would also bring back the roster flexibility so many owners desire. Third, we would open the optional position to any player or unit, not just RB/WR. For example, you could draft a 2nd QB in the optional position if you took your 1st QB late and wanted to give your team depth in case the starter doesn't pan out. During the year you can use this new optional position to address needs across your roster. Maybe your DEF is pretty average and has a bad match up, you could pick up a DEF for just that week. Another possibility is how bye weeks come into play. You may not want to wait for bye week claims and add a QB, TE or DEF in the optional position to ensure you get the player you want. If many teams start putting non RB/WR in the optional position it would free up that many more RB/WR on the free agent market, another plus. The use of the optional position under this proposal would probably vary greatly across the league. Some teams will likely stay with the extra RB/WR for depth at those positions, while other teams will probably swap out the optional position on a weekly basis based upon their team needs. Teams will be required to monitor the bye weeks of their players. If a team is using the optional position for players other than RB/WR they need to watch their bye weeks. For example, a team has just 2 RB on their roster, and both have the same bye week. They have a 2nd QB at optional on the RB's bye week. They would have to pick up a RB at optional or go a player short. The key to this entire proposal is allowing maximum roster flexibility, which was a major concern of many owners. The down side is the expansion of bye week subs. Hopefully the new optional position will eliminate some of that, and the league was much better last year with bye week moves. As Commish, I am willing to try the 4 positions with bye week subs again, mainly because I like the flexibility it brings throughout the year and gives teams the maximum chance to improve throughout the year. We had taken away quite a bit of roster flexibility in recent years, and owners did not like it. I think this proposal addresses those concerns.

            Option B         Change to 1 Team TE

The proposal is to draft a Team TE. This means each week at the TE position you would declare two active players from an NFL team to start at the Team TE position. You would only accrue stats from the two specifically declared players. A concern merging the TE’s was that have taken away the “natural” football lineup. The TE position is a key one for NFL teams and by merging them with WR it just wasn’t a very natural look at the football roster. The downside is concerns of using a “Team” type of position. The number of quality point producing TE's has increased significantly the past few years. While increasing the depth of the two TE NFL teams, the “Team” position also has the potential for some huge games not earned by just the starting TE. One of the reasons we did away with Team QB is that a team would get a big lead, the stud QB (TE in this case) would have a big day. They would get pulled in the 3^rd quarter after putting up solid stats. The backup would come in and keep rolling up the stats making a good day an unbelievable day. That "luck factor" of a backup coming in and adding to a big game was very frustrating. Another concern is how teams accurately rank or project the Team TE position for the draft? Yes, most teams would be looking for that top stud TE, but how will the 2^nd TE help and how do you project the NFL team with 2 active TE’s but no clear #1 TE? Another part of that concern is what other leagues use Team TE? It is not a common practice and would make the prep work even throughout the year difficult. The final concern is by adding just one position the roster will be an uneven number. Teams will not have the opportunity to draft in the same potion the same amount of times. The team drafting 16th will draft at the end of a round one more time than they draft first in a round.

            Option C         Keep the rosters at the 2009 Format           

While the concerns have been expanded upon above, the bringing back of 2 bye week subs was not a major issue. While many did not like TE's combined with WR, the team that won the 2009 championship did so with 3 TE's on their roster at the WR/Optional position. The going back to 1 QB and 1 DEF was a welcome change for many.

Thanks             Jeff