My point is before the increase 20 made sense. 7 RBs, 7 WRs. Six spots split between QB, TE, D and K. In a 16-team league, most teams will want to roster at least 2 tight ends and 2 QBs. One spot each for D and K. But the choice still was there to have 6 RBs or 6 WRs and hold three TEs or three QBs or two defenses or two kickers. Now, having six RBs or six WRs becomes a little bit less palatable. You're behind the eight ball. Give the teams the ability to hold eight of a position and they likely will. Doesn't make sense to then leave four or even five spots for four positions in the lineup — especially when those four positions are starters and two of which you need to carry depth behind.
Especially when our justification is "Oh, it adds flexibility for teams to add their draft picks." We've been playing with 7 RBs and 7 WRs for years, made it work, made tough choices. I know I was in favor of it, but in retrospect it seems like a rash decision, especially if we're not increasing roster size by one or two spots. And I'm not pushing for this so I can add an eighth running back or something. Right now, my roster is 1 QB, 7 RBs, 8 WRs, 2 TEs, 1 D and 1 K. I have zero flexibility to add a backup QB or a bye week defense or kicker without dropping one of my RBs or WRs. We're not actually giving teams the "ability" or "flexibility" to stash fliers or deep bench guys.
Also, apparently my word of the day was especially lol