Depth chart governance discussion

My team was particularly hammered by this through most of last season, but I have not had a single even minor issue this season. As far as my team goes, the bugs have been worked out. I have not watched to see what other teams might be experiencing.

If league allows RB/FB interchangeably, then wouldn't the total minimum be 2 - 2 RBs, play 1 as FB?
Unless formations (31) are part of it, then adding number of RB to FB doesn't make sense to me ?

Now I'll expand that further - TE/FB.

If TE can play FB (something in most if not all leagues), then the requirement for 1 FB on the roster loses it's value; 2 RB + 3 TEs could meet formation requirements.

This whole area is horrendously complicated and I'm wondering if it can be simplified.

<<Duplicate>>

The point of the minimums is to ensure you have enough players on your roster to place on the field. So if you only have 2 RB's you are still short a player to cover the FB position. But if you have 3 RB's you are able to cover the FB position. In my example it's obviously simplified because I'm only assuming RB's can play FB, in reality you have a bunch of other positions that can move around, if you just have RB's on your roster for those positions, as long as you have enough to cover all the positions, you shouldn't experience any roster moves.

Cpu team Seattle is fine with 10 offensive skill positions. All at roster minimums except FB I think.

Ol and DB are pretty clear on minimums because they don’t allow for TE and LB conversions anymore.

Right now in the position distribution I had two G vacancies with enough ol men and there was zero wacky signings by the cpu. So it’s working.


Still for dl/lbs idk the minimum players to roster cause currently were at minimum for dl with a ton of lbs due to an all goaline set defensive test. Zero wacky signings or cuts there too

PLEAS Do not sign any of the players that Las Vegas cut. Please do not sign them. Please do not claim them off of waivers. Please please please. Exclamation exclamation exclamation
I will resign each and every one of them because the AI cut them.

So please do me a good turn and don't mess me over.
Thanks in advance for those with the kindness.
Further explanation below.

Im really struggling with the way the depth chart works. I have plenty of defensive line and more than enough linebackers. More linebackers than I've ever had on any team at any time. Right now, in fact, and for the entire season my d-line has been chewed up. And it keeps getting more and more chewed up because the current depth chart system will not allow me to manage my injuries in a way that allows me to maximize the players I have.
Because I must have x amount of defensive lineman and linebackers, I have been suffering from not meeting the x amount due to injury. Which in turn causes me to play injured players which causes them to get more injured.
If I put all the players that I do not want to play as inactive, the AI will activate players to meet the X requirement, and deactivate players that are critical to my game planning.

Furthermore, in alpha, if I put a contract out on a game Sim, the player does not get signed until midweek. Last night I put out three contracts, two on defensive linemen and one on a kicker. To my surprise, they all got signed at the game sim. The AI cut 3 players (including 2 rookies that are big boomers and including one of the d linemen that I just signed).
What the heck?
Not ok. Not releaseable.
Garbage.

This is not okay. I'm making roster moves simply to meet the ai's requirements., even though I have more than enough players at those positions. 15 players for 6 positions...
Multiple backups at each position.
Allowing 3 inactives for the dl and lb positions is not ok, not an NFL thing.

The entirety of the beta depth chart changes are not NFL requirements.

The AI is doing whatever it wants to do. The entire system is so radically different than what's in alpha. I've yet to really figure it out.
Anytime the ai is doing things on a user manged team - it's a bad thing.

Right now I have ~15 defensive, linemen and linebackers. The current roster requirements in the depth chart only allow the user to inactivate three of their defensive linemen and linebackers.
In alpha, there is simply not enough quality players and there's definitely not enough linebackers even created To fulfill these demands.
The current depth chart system forces difficult choices: either play players that are injured, Allow the AI to do what it wants to do with the roster and inactives, or cut players that you want to keep in order to sign some garbage trash scab for 2 weeks.

UNACCEPTABLE.

Back to the front :
please folks please please please please please please. Please do not claim any of my players that really were released this week off the waiver wire. I really got to go back and spend my entire day fixing this mess, hoping and having to trust the waiver wire that nobody understands how it works and, and begging for people to show me some kindness so I can fix the AIS devastation of my roster..

Total yuck fest.
Depth chart/ai roster management is untenable.

Sigh.
I'm going back to bed.
FML.

Had similar happen to me WH. 3 of my best starters at the time at key positions, a couple of them I had to buy back at premium contract amounts. Its no fun but survivable. Would like to see the auto manager decision making process for minimum roster requirements be substantially improved. No player who is listed in the depth chart as a starter should be cut. injured or otherwise

Hope you get all the players back that you want back. My understanding is that Waiver claims run only for midweek, but contracts for FA's not on the waiver wire run every sim. If you are signing a FA for a game sim, you need to make room for him before the sim runs. This is the way I recall it has always worked.

Oh, I like that as a restriction - or at least as a control rule that can only be broken if there are no other choices.

As CBs have speed advantage over SS and FS, we should adjust the draft table from DB only to CB and S, and additional the elegibility should be adjusted accordingly
Just a point for discussion