A. Peterson / the Chester handcuff (1 Viewer)

[ForWhoForWhat]

I'm a Peterson owner in a 12 team, keep 2 league. In the mocks I'm doing, I have to take Chester in the late 6th or early 7th round in order to lock up the handcuff. That equates to a late 4th or early 5th in my keeper league. Taylor is overvalued if you ask me, as I see Peterson being much more involved in the passing game, and not sharing as many carries this year. I see Taylor in more of a pure backup role - but his ADP doesn't reflect this. I guess the Peterson injury risk is also factoring into the mix here, as well as Chester's last year's stats.

Question - are you Peterson owners going to target Chester and pay the price?

If I didn't have Chester last year to plug in when Peterson misssed those two games, it's pretty safe to say that I would have missed the playoffs (and not won the title). Therefore, I'm very likely going to pay the price. It's tough having to take backups/bench guys before you fill out your starters, but I'm thinking it's necessary here. If I wait a few rounds and draft a different backup RB, he likely wouldn't have the same upside as Chester if Peterson were to go down.

I guess LT2 owners can breathe a sigh of relief this year as they can get their handcuff much later than in the past.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Another route you can go is to just let another person draft Chester, then trade for him after about week 4. My reasoning for this is simple. After the first few games of the season, after ADP has been given the lion's share of the workload, Chester's value will still be the same to you, but it will have decreased to the Chester owner.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Another route you can go is to just let another person draft Chester, then trade for him after about week 4. My reasoning for this is simple. After the first few games of the season, after ADP has been given the lion's share of the workload, Chester's value will still be the same to you, but it will have decreased to the Chester owner.

That's WAY too logical for fantasy football. Everybody over-values their players, and you can bet that the Chester owner is going to try and really rake the AP owner over the coals. They know that he's worth a lot to those owners.I think if the AP owner doesn't draft/purchase them himself, they might not get him at all. Or they'll certianly pay a heavy price, no matter how involved he is the first few weeks.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

There is no way I would spend a 6th or 7th on a handcuff. It's poor from a value standpoint, which means its poor period that early in the draft.

 

[JPeso]

There is no way I would spend a 6th or 7th on a handcuff. It's poor from a value standpoint, which means its poor period that early in the draft.

Same thing happened with Betts last year. Let others draft him, watch the starter for a few games, and then trade for him cheaper.

 

[Londo]

There is no way I would spend a 6th or 7th on a handcuff. It's poor from a value standpoint, which means its poor period that early in the draft.

Same thing happened with Betts last year. Let others draft him, watch the starter for a few games, and then trade for him cheaper.

I have used this strategy too over the years. It works pretty well most of the time. As long as you use the pick you would have "wasted" on the handcuff to make your team better in other areas, you should be in a good place.

 

[JPeso]

There is no way I would spend a 6th or 7th on a handcuff. It's poor from a value standpoint, which means its poor period that early in the draft.

Same thing happened with Betts last year. Let others draft him, watch the starter for a few games, and then trade for him cheaper.

I have used this strategy too over the years. It works pretty well most of the time. As long as you use the pick you would have "wasted" on the handcuff to make your team better in other areas, you should be in a good place.

Right after the draft, would you trade Coles for Chester? I think not. You'd get the bump in that deal, even if you decided to trade directly post-draft. Obviously and injury CAN happen early on, but I will play percentages on this one.

 

[ForWhoForWhat]

Another route you can go is to just let another person draft Chester, then trade for him after about week 4. My reasoning for this is simple. After the first few games of the season, after ADP has been given the lion's share of the workload, Chester's value will still be the same to you, but it will have decreased to the Chester owner.

That's WAY too logical for fantasy football. Everybody over-values their players, and you can bet that the Chester owner is going to try and really rake the AP owner over the coals. They know that he's worth a lot to those owners.I think if the AP owner doesn't draft/purchase them himself, they might not get him at all. Or they'll certianly pay a heavy price, no matter how involved he is the first few weeks.

The owners in my league will not sell me Chester on the cheap after the season starts. The Betts owner last year refused to sell, and he had QB and WR issues that I could have helped solve.

 

[LionsFan78]

I've always believed in at least grabbing a handcuff for your top stud, if the price is right. This year is ridiculous though. Not spending anywhere near what it'll cost to get him. If someone else wants to draft him in the 6-8 range, more power to them. There's just too much left on the board at that point.

 

[jurb26]

Chester's value will always be higher than Peterson owners think it should be and what they think they should have to pay. The reasons for this are simple. Most Peterson owners are the ones that have convinced themselves that Peterson will not be in any sort of RBBC, most other FFer's think he will. On top of this most all FFer's know that Peterson has not finished a whole season of football in 4 straight year. Basically he has never finished a full season of football at a highly competitive level (college or NFL). Chester should be one of the 1st none "starting" RBs to go in any draft. He plays on the far and away best rushing team in the NFL. A team which will, while maybe not a full fledged RBBC, will run so often he is likely to get significant touches. He also plays behind a guy with a rather extensive injury history. The star potential for Taylor if Peterson goes down is simply too high for anyone who owns him to give him up cheaply.

 

[Londo]

There is no way I would spend a 6th or 7th on a handcuff. It's poor from a value standpoint, which means its poor period that early in the draft.

Same thing happened with Betts last year. Let others draft him, watch the starter for a few games, and then trade for him cheaper.

I have used this strategy too over the years. It works pretty well most of the time. As long as you use the pick you would have "wasted" on the handcuff to make your team better in other areas, you should be in a good place.

Right after the draft, would you trade Coles for Chester? I think not. You'd get the bump in that deal, even if you decided to trade directly post-draft. Obviously and injury CAN happen early on, but I will play percentages on this one.

I may not have said it clearly, but I was agreeing with your point. My additional point is that there is a tremendous advantage that can be gained from intentionally NOT taking your handcuff, rather letting someone else spend a high pick on someone who will (Hopefully) ride their bench while you bolster your team in other ways. On a side note, I have found that the whole handcuff strategy rarely works out the way we plan. It is an unpredictable beast. Granted, Taylor to Peterson looks like a no-brainer, but lots of times it doesn't work out at all.

 

[Chunky Soup]

There is no way I would spend a 6th or 7th on a handcuff. It's poor from a value standpoint, which means its poor period that early in the draft.

:( Don't do it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think it's wise to grab Taylor at 6.11. Yes, it's no fun having to spend that early pick on him. But you've just about locked up your #1 pick, and that RB spot can take you very far all by its lonesome. You can go ADP, RB, WR, WR, RB/WR, Taylor, TE, QBBC and field an excellent team.

The highest risk/highest reward play is to just grab Taylor. Another high risk/high reward move is to just grab Peterson. But the safest, and largest expected value play will generally come from grabbing both of them. If you play in a 12 team league, I'd go for the highest expected value move. If you're playing in WCOFF, then sure, I'd avoid handcuffing and maybe I'd simply just grab Taylor.

 

[Gleep]

There is no way I would spend a 6th or 7th on a handcuff. It's poor from a value standpoint, which means its poor period that early in the draft.

As a general rule, I'd agree but I have done this with Larry Johnson and Michael Turner before. Worked very well with LJ, not so much with Turner.

 

[Chase Stuart]

There is no way I would spend a 6th or 7th on a handcuff. It's poor from a value standpoint, which means its poor period that early in the draft.

As a general rule, I'd agree but I have done this with Larry Johnson and Michael Turner before. Worked very well with LJ, not so much with Turner.

Well, that's not really true. The year you handcuffed Turner, you ended up with the #1 RB in fantasy football.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Chester's value will always be higher than Peterson owners think it should be and what they think they should have to pay. The reasons for this are simple. Most Peterson owners are the ones that have convinced themselves that Peterson will not be in any sort of RBBC, most other FFer's think he will.

I don't agree that most FFers think there will be a RBBC. I think it's the exact opposite. If Peterson gets less than 65-70% of the work, I'll be shocked. And I'm not a Peterson owner in any league.

 

[Chase Stuart]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=334

Insurance policies and lottery tickets

On their face, the two items named in the title are almost identical. In both cases:

1. you pay a relatively small amount of money;

2. you might or might not receive an enormous amount of money at some point in the future;

3. the long term expected value of the investment is negative. In other words, it’s not likely that you’ll come out ahead on the deal.

So, aside from the fact that the expected value is probably a bit lower on most lotteries, why is an insurance policy considered a sound financial decision while the powerball-ticket-a-day plan is frowned upon? The answer has to do with what a mathematician might call independence of events. In the case of insurance, the receipt of the enormous sum of money is directly tied to some other random event, like your house burning down. If you never get that enormous sum, that just means you never needed it. With the lottery, on the other hand, the payoff is independent of the rest of the events that might impact your financial situation. If you spend your money on lottery tickets instead of insurance premiums, you might end up homeless, or you might end up with a lot of money that won’t necessarily make your life any better.

This is why fantasy football owners of LaDainian Tomlinson will also be drafting Michael Turner this year, and overpaying for the privilege. And why that’s OK.

If you have Tomlinson, then Turner is an insurance policy. If Turner finishes the year with 65 carries, who cares? That probably means Tomlinson stayed healthy and productive. If Turner rushes for 1200 yards, it’s extremely likely that you will be in desperate need of those yards.

If you don’t have Tomlinson, then Turner is a lottery ticket. Sure, the upside is that you get a 1200-yard back with your 9th round pick. But if so, you may not even have a place in your lineup for him. And the more likely scenario is that Turner finishes with fewer than 100 rushes and provides no help if and when your top back gets hurt.

 

[benbadman]

I think it's wise to grab Taylor at 6.11. Yes, it's no fun having to spend that early pick on him. But you've just about locked up your #1 pick, and that RB spot can take you very far all by its lonesome. You can go ADP, RB, WR, WR, RB/WR, Taylor, TE, QBBC and field an excellent team.The highest risk/highest reward play is to just grab Taylor. Another high risk/high reward move is to just grab Peterson. But the safest, and largest expected value play will generally come from grabbing both of them. If you play in a 12 team league, I'd go for the highest expected value move. If you're playing in WCOFF, then sure, I'd avoid handcuffing and maybe I'd simply just grab Taylor.

Back in 2005 on a team where i took Priest Holmes as my RB1, believe me I took LJ as my 6th rounder. Great move then, and Chester is probably worth a 6th/7th rd pick in 2008.Think of it this way, if you realyl believe the Vikings running game will be uber elite and have 2100+ yards with 20-24 rushing TDs, if your RB2 is injured or on a bye week you can even start Taylor AND Peterson and get respectable production at RB.

 

[Chase Stuart]

http://footballguys.com/07tremblay_drafting.php

Handcuffing refers to the practice of drafting two players at the same position from the same NFL team. Suppose I draft Jacksonville Jaguars RB Maurice Jones-Drew in the second round. I might then "handcuff" Jacksonville Jaguars RB Fred Taylor to Jones-Drew by picking Taylor in the sixth round. Since Jones-Drew's playing time will be negatively correlated with Taylor's playing time, and I already have Jones-Drew on my team, Taylor will be worth more to me than his VBD value would indicate.

Here's why. Fred Taylor has direct value to my fantasy team when he starts for my fantasy team (rather than when he is on the bench). When is Taylor likely to start for my fantasy team? When both of the following occur: (a) one of my starting RBs is injured or is performing poorly, and (b) Taylor starts playing a lot for the Jaguars.

Situations (a) and (b) are more likely to coincide for me if I own Jones-Drew than if I do not own Jones-Drew. (Do you see why?) Therefore, Taylor is more likely to have value for me if I own Jones-Drew than if I do not own Jones-Drew. Raw VBD values do not take this into account.

 

[jurb26]

Chester's value will always be higher than Peterson owners think it should be and what they think they should have to pay. The reasons for this are simple. Most Peterson owners are the ones that have convinced themselves that Peterson will not be in any sort of RBBC, most other FFer's think he will.

I don't agree that most FFers think there will be a RBBC. I think it's the exact opposite. If Peterson gets less than 65-70% of the work, I'll be shocked. And I'm not a Peterson owner in any league.

Taylor will likely touch the ball 170+ times in 2009. He will do so in the best possible situation for fantasy RBs. Peterson got basically 50% of the RB touches last year and there was no tip toeing around him early on because he was a rookie as Taylor missed the 1st 2 games. I'd be shocked if the % goes up to the level you are expecting. Peterson couldn't make it through the season healthy and clearly wore down as the season progressed. Taylor will be involved in this offense.BTW, Anthony can you tell me exactly how many RBs had 65% or greater of the RB touches last year? I'd assume it's a rather small number.

 

[ForWhoForWhat]

http://footballguys.com/07tremblay_drafting.php

Handcuffing refers to the practice of drafting two players at the same position from the same NFL team. Suppose I draft Jacksonville Jaguars RB Maurice Jones-Drew in the second round. I might then "handcuff" Jacksonville Jaguars RB Fred Taylor to Jones-Drew by picking Taylor in the sixth round. Since Jones-Drew's playing time will be negatively correlated with Taylor's playing time, and I already have Jones-Drew on my team, Taylor will be worth more to me than his VBD value would indicate.

Here's why. Fred Taylor has direct value to my fantasy team when he starts for my fantasy team (rather than when he is on the bench). When is Taylor likely to start for my fantasy team? When both of the following occur: (a) one of my starting RBs is injured or is performing poorly, and (b) Taylor starts playing a lot for the Jaguars.

Situations (a) and (b) are more likely to coincide for me if I own Jones-Drew than if I do not own Jones-Drew. (Do you see why?) Therefore, Taylor is more likely to have value for me if I own Jones-Drew than if I do not own Jones-Drew. Raw VBD values do not take this into account.

Excellent stuff Chase. I think (hope) my drafting is strong enough to snag Chester at 6.11 and not suffer with regards to overall team depth. Im doing it!

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

But the safest, and largest expected value play will generally come from grabbing both of them.

Perhaps we have a different definition of expected value. High risk typically equates to high reward - so if grabbing ADP and Taylor is the lowest risk option, then it should also be the lowest NPV option - in other words, lowest expected value vs. the cost paid.Are you only referring to expected value, absent the cost paid?

 

[Pictus Cat]

Fred Taylor & Chester Taylor seem to go pretty near eachother.

Is Chester Taylor the Larry Johnson of 06?

I don't think so.

When I took Preist back then, I was not going to spend that high a pick on him. I took Gates, and kept him.

The problem with LJ was he was scoring like an RB 2. Otherwise I would have had him for peanuts.

So you gotta ask yourself, will Chester put up RB 2 numbers? RB 3?

That's where you pick him IMO with a half round jump for ADP owners.

 

[Chase Stuart]

But the safest, and largest expected value play will generally come from grabbing both of them.

Perhaps we have a different definition of expected value. High risk typically equates to high reward - so if grabbing ADP and Taylor is the lowest risk option, then it should also be the lowest NPV option - in other words, lowest expected value vs. the cost paid.Are you only referring to expected value, absent the cost paid?

Yes, I'm referring to it absent the cost paid. Think of it, very, very, very roughly, as this.If you take just Taylor, there's a 10% chance that pick will be incredible, a 10. There's also a 45% chance the pick will be a 5, and a 45% chance the pick will be a 1. Expected value = 3.7.

If you take just Peterson, there's a 45% chance that pick will be incredible, a 10. There's also a 45% chance the pick will be a 5, and a 10% chance the pick will be awful, at 1. Expected value = 6.85.

If you take both, there's a 55% chance that pick will be a 10, a 45% chance that pick will be an 8, and a 10% chance that pick will be a 5. Expected value = 9.6.

Taylor alone is clearly the high risk, high reward pick. Taylor's the lottery ticket. Now in a huge league, lottery tickets are good. Taking Peterson alone is just risky. Of course, more often than not, taking Peterson alone will be better than taking both Peterson and Taylor. Now taking both Peterson and Taylor is almost a guaranteed awesome pick, but obviously it comes at a price. Quite specifically, you eliminate your chance to get two studs with your 1st and 6th round picks. It's worth it, though, and that's why that combination is the lottery ticket.

If I wanted to keep pulling numbers out of my ###, I could say using a top 2 pick is expensive, and costs 5.5 points. Using a 6th round pick is a bit less expensive, and costs 2.5 points. So Taylor is 1.2 points better than his pick, Peterson is 1.35 points better than his pick, but the combination of the two is 1.60 points better than their picks; i.e., the sum is worth more than the parts. Now obviously every number in this post was made up, so it's up to you to determine what the true FP distributions are for each player, along with the costs of the pick. I think the risky play is to grab Peterson, the insurance policy (and if we simulated the fantasy season 1,000 times, the best play most often) is to grab them both, and the lottery ticket is to take Taylor.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

But the safest, and largest expected value play will generally come from grabbing both of them.

Perhaps we have a different definition of expected value. High risk typically equates to high reward - so if grabbing ADP and Taylor is the lowest risk option, then it should also be the lowest NPV option - in other words, lowest expected value vs. the cost paid.Are you only referring to expected value, absent the cost paid?

Yes, I'm referring to it absent the cost paid. Think of it, very, very, very roughly, as this.

No need to explain further, I completely understand the concept of expected value. (math major + CFA exams) Absent the cost paid, of course it's the highest expected value. If I add every player on an NFL roster - without taking into account the cost to obtain those players - then I'd have the highest expected value option.

What matters is risk tolerance vs. desire for a high "rate of return". That's what this debate boils down to.

 

[QUEZILLA]

If the Vikes are looking to make the playoffs they will probably save Peterson. That means Chestor Taylor +20 point games in your fantasy playoffs. I agree, you can probably pull a trade for him week 4.

 

[Gleep]

There is no way I would spend a 6th or 7th on a handcuff. It's poor from a value standpoint, which means its poor period that early in the draft.

As a general rule, I'd agree but I have done this with Larry Johnson and Michael Turner before. Worked very well with LJ, not so much with Turner.

Well, that's not really true. The year you handcuffed Turner, you ended up with the #1 RB in fantasy football.

while true, I also could have had a better WR2. The Turner pick didn't help me.

 

[Gleep]

But the safest, and largest expected value play will generally come from grabbing both of them.

Perhaps we have a different definition of expected value. High risk typically equates to high reward - so if grabbing ADP and Taylor is the lowest risk option, then it should also be the lowest NPV option - in other words, lowest expected value vs. the cost paid.Are you only referring to expected value, absent the cost paid?

Yes, I'm referring to it absent the cost paid. Think of it, very, very, very roughly, as this.If you take just Taylor, there's a 10% chance that pick will be incredible, a 10. There's also a 45% chance the pick will be a 5, and a 45% chance the pick will be a 1. Expected value = 3.7.

If you take just Peterson, there's a 45% chance that pick will be incredible, a 10. There's also a 45% chance the pick will be a 5, and a 10% chance the pick will be awful, at 1. Expected value = 6.85.

If you take both, there's a 55% chance that pick will be a 10, a 45% chance that pick will be an 8, and a 10% chance that pick will be a 5. Expected value = 9.6.

Taylor alone is clearly the high risk, high reward pick. Taylor's the lottery ticket. Now in a huge league, lottery tickets are good. Taking Peterson alone is just risky. Of course, more often than not, taking Peterson alone will be better than taking both Peterson and Taylor. Now taking both Peterson and Taylor is almost a guaranteed awesome pick, but obviously it comes at a price. Quite specifically, you eliminate your chance to get two studs with your 1st and 6th round picks. It's worth it, though, and that's why that combination is the lottery ticket.

If I wanted to keep pulling numbers out of my ###, I could say using a top 2 pick is expensive, and costs 5.5 points. Using a 6th round pick is a bit less expensive, and costs 2.5 points. So Taylor is 1.2 points better than his pick, Peterson is 1.35 points better than his pick, but the combination of the two is 1.60 points better than their picks; i.e., the sum is worth more than the parts. Now obviously every number in this post was made up, so it's up to you to determine what the true FP distributions are for each player, along with the costs of the pick. I think the risky play is to grab Peterson, the insurance policy (and if we simulated the fantasy season 1,000 times, the best play most often) is to grab them both, and the lottery ticket is to take Taylor.

I won't disagree, but let's not forget that you're passing on other players like Stewert, KSmith, Holmes, Bowe, LWhite, etc. Depending on the format, I'd rather take the chance that Peterson stays healthy and one of those players is a strong contributor. Plus, I doubt Taylor outproduces those players by much even if AD gets hurt.

If AD missed the entire season, do you believe Taylor does better than his best year of 1500/6 total? White will probably come close to that right now.

I would target Taylor if he goes around his ADP (#84), but not in the 6th.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Chester's value will always be higher than Peterson owners think it should be and what they think they should have to pay. The reasons for this are simple. Most Peterson owners are the ones that have convinced themselves that Peterson will not be in any sort of RBBC, most other FFer's think he will. On top of this most all FFer's know that Peterson has not finished a whole season of football in 4 straight year. Basically he has never finished a full season of football at a highly competitive level (college or NFL). Chester should be one of the 1st none "starting" RBs to go in any draft. He plays on the far and away best rushing team in the NFL. A team which will, while maybe not a full fledged RBBC, will run so often he is likely to get significant touches. He also plays behind a guy with a rather extensive injury history. The star potential for Taylor if Peterson goes down is simply too high for anyone who owns him to give him up cheaply.

Brilliant posting Jurb

 

[DropKick]

I think it's wise to grab Taylor at 6.11. Yes, it's no fun having to spend that early pick on him. But you've just about locked up your #1 pick, and that RB spot can take you very far all by its lonesome. You can go ADP, RB, WR, WR, RB/WR, Taylor, TE, QBBC and field an excellent team.The highest risk/highest reward play is to just grab Taylor. Another high risk/high reward move is to just grab Peterson. But the safest, and largest expected value play will generally come from grabbing both of them. If you play in a 12 team league, I'd go for the highest expected value move. If you're playing in WCOFF, then sure, I'd avoid handcuffing and maybe I'd simply just grab Taylor.

I'm in complete agreement with this and many other points Chase makes within this thread. While I wouldn't handcuff every situation, the Minnesota running game from a productivity and injury perspective makes it worthwhile to pay the market price in this case.It could be a season saver, as it was last season for the OP. And what if ADP stays healthy? Obviously, I'm OK with that. I don't regret having car insurance when I was accident free last year.Late 6th, early 7th... I feel I'm at a point where my starters are set and I can afford a pick like this one. I am confident enough to expect to find good value through the rest of the draft to be comfortable with a team built around ADP/Taylor.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Chester's value will always be higher than Peterson owners think it should be and what they think they should have to pay. The reasons for this are simple. Most Peterson owners are the ones that have convinced themselves that Peterson will not be in any sort of RBBC, most other FFer's think he will.

I don't agree that most FFers think there will be a RBBC. I think it's the exact opposite. If Peterson gets less than 65-70% of the work, I'll be shocked. And I'm not a Peterson owner in any league.

Vikes will try to run the ball 35 times a game and I see ADP getting about 20-22 of those carries and Chester to get all the remaining carries. Chester will ikely see action and i bet he manages to to do some damage when he is on the field and fresh.

 

[DropKick]

But the safest, and largest expected value play will generally come from grabbing both of them.

Perhaps we have a different definition of expected value. High risk typically equates to high reward - so if grabbing ADP and Taylor is the lowest risk option, then it should also be the lowest NPV option - in other words, lowest expected value vs. the cost paid.Are you only referring to expected value, absent the cost paid?

Yes, I'm referring to it absent the cost paid. Think of it, very, very, very roughly, as this.If you take just Taylor, there's a 10% chance that pick will be incredible, a 10. There's also a 45% chance the pick will be a 5, and a 45% chance the pick will be a 1. Expected value = 3.7.

If you take just Peterson, there's a 45% chance that pick will be incredible, a 10. There's also a 45% chance the pick will be a 5, and a 10% chance the pick will be awful, at 1. Expected value = 6.85.

If you take both, there's a 55% chance that pick will be a 10, a 45% chance that pick will be an 8, and a 10% chance that pick will be a 5. Expected value = 9.6.

Taylor alone is clearly the high risk, high reward pick. Taylor's the lottery ticket. Now in a huge league, lottery tickets are good. Taking Peterson alone is just risky. Of course, more often than not, taking Peterson alone will be better than taking both Peterson and Taylor. Now taking both Peterson and Taylor is almost a guaranteed awesome pick, but obviously it comes at a price. Quite specifically, you eliminate your chance to get two studs with your 1st and 6th round picks. It's worth it, though, and that's why that combination is the lottery ticket.

If I wanted to keep pulling numbers out of my ###, I could say using a top 2 pick is expensive, and costs 5.5 points. Using a 6th round pick is a bit less expensive, and costs 2.5 points. So Taylor is 1.2 points better than his pick, Peterson is 1.35 points better than his pick, but the combination of the two is 1.60 points better than their picks; i.e., the sum is worth more than the parts. Now obviously every number in this post was made up, so it's up to you to determine what the true FP distributions are for each player, along with the costs of the pick. I think the risky play is to grab Peterson, the insurance policy (and if we simulated the fantasy season 1,000 times, the best play most often) is to grab them both, and the lottery ticket is to take Taylor.

I won't disagree, but let's not forget that you're passing on other players like Stewert, KSmith, Holmes, Bowe, LWhite, etc. Depending on the format, I'd rather take the chance that Peterson stays healthy and one of those players is a strong contributor. Plus, I doubt Taylor outproduces those players by much even if AD gets hurt.

If AD missed the entire season, do you believe Taylor does better than his best year of 1500/6 total? White will probably come close to that right now.

I would target Taylor if he goes around his ADP (#84), but not in the 6th.

Most of those players (Stewart, Kevin Smith, Holmes, Bowe) will likely be off the board in my league.Lendale, I'm not so sure. 1,500 yards seems pretty optimistic for White....

 

[MAC_32]

I think the number of Chester's touches will be directly corelated with the number of touches of Minnesota RB's each given week, All Day is going to get 20-25 touches per game but I'd be surprised if he gets much more (or less) than that any given week. If Minnesota RB's net 29 touches in a given game I would not expect much of anything from Chester, if they get 40 he may have put together a quality week. Problem being, good luck guessing which weeks the RB's will get that many touches.

I equate this situation to Indy's, where I believe Addai will always get between 20 and 25 touches and his backup gets whatever's left, whether it be 3 or 15. It's not about percentages, it's about quantity.

I believe in handcuffing your studs, but I also don't think it's worth a 6/7 elbow pick to do it (I drafted Portis just about everywhere last year but never got Betts because he went too damn early). The guy who took Betts too early last year was a fool and the guy who takes Chester too early this year will be too, I think Chester's a much better comparison with Betts than LJ. LJ's a player, Chester and Betts are backups. Remember, Chester had the feature role in 06 behind a similar line, only put up RB2 numbers, and wore down toward the end of the season. I'd pass on the handcuff and try to trade for him midseason, if you don't get him, oh well, hopefully AD stays healthy. I'd recommend looking for a RB2 with a definitive (but cheap) backup though - Jamal Lewis, Edgerrin James, and Reggie Bush immediately come to mind.

 

[RC94]

I wouldn't go that far out of my way to get Taylor. Taylor's main value is not as a RBBC member each week because I think Peterson will be the primary guy when healthy (IMO it won't be a real RBBC like in JAX). Taylor's main value will be for when Peterson is injured, so IMO he isn't that different than any other good handcuff. If you are starting Taylor on a weekly basis even when Peterson is healthy, you are pretty weak at that starting position.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chestor Taylor averaged 5.4 YPC last year. I think he'd be a top 5 RB if Peterson went down today.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I wouldn't go that far out of my way to get Taylor. Taylor's main value is not as a RBBC member each week because I think Peterson will be the primary guy when healthy (IMO it won't be a real RBBC like in JAX). Taylor's main value will be for when Peterson is injured, so IMO he isn't that different than any other good handcuff. If you are starting Taylor on a weekly basis even when Peterson is healthy, you are pretty weak at that starting position.

I agree with this, but I think all good handcuffs are valuable, and Taylor's clearly the most valuable handcuff out there.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Chestor Taylor averaged 5.4 YPC last year. I think he'd be a top 5 RB if Peterson went down today.

That seems a bit optimistic.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

There is no way I would spend a 6th or 7th on a handcuff. It's poor from a value standpoint, which means its poor period that early in the draft.

People used to spend a 1st and a 4th on Priest and Larry Johnson for the Chiefs.I don't think you can look at this like a handcuff situation. Chest Taylor was a top 25 back last season, he produced along with ADP. A guy like Michael Turner to me is more of a handcuff situation when he was in SD. I expect Taylor to be a top 30 back, if something happens to ADP, he would be a weekly top 10 starter.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chestor Taylor averaged 5.4 YPC last year. I think he'd be a top 5 RB if Peterson went down today.

That seems a bit optimistic.

Maybe. But Taylor's pretty talented, Minnesota's offensive line is excellent, and the Vikings have a strong commitment to the running game. I wouldn't hesitate to grab Taylor in the top 5 if Peterson didn't play this season. YMMV. I agree that if you don't view Taylor as a stud RB when Peterson isn't healthy, then your desire to handcuff should be quite a bit lower.

 

[jabarony]

Peterson owner here, and I'm targeting Taylor in our 3rd round (5th round after keepers) because I know my league. It happens every year where handcuffs are taken well before serviceable starters (Dunn, C. Brown etc.). 14 team league makes the risk worth it, but mostly it's a screwyou to the other owner - in a friendly competitive way. I did it myself last year by taking M. Turner in the 4th, which I subsequently traded late in the year for a 2nd rounder this year (war stories rule).

By the end of the season, I'll pick up my 3rd WR off the wire most likely anyways. Or, my next picks in the upcoming 2-3 rounds will not fall-off significantly by waiting 1 more round each for my QB, TE, D etc.

However, if Peterson goes down, and I'm left with Portis leading my team and no Taylor to put in there - season over.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Peterson owner here, and I'm targeting Taylor in our 3rd round (5th round after keepers) because I know my league. It happens every year where handcuffs are taken well before serviceable starters (Dunn, C. Brown etc.). 14 team league makes the risk worth it, but mostly it's a screwyou to the other owner - in a friendly competitive way. I did it myself last year by taking M. Turner in the 4th, which I subsequently traded late in the year for a 2nd rounder this year (war stories rule).By the end of the season, I'll pick up my 3rd WR off the wire most likely anyways. Or, my next picks in the upcoming 2-3 rounds will not fall-off significantly by waiting 1 more round each for my QB, TE, D etc.However, if Peterson goes down, and I'm left with Portis leading my team and no Taylor to put in there - season over.

The double whammy comes when you have Peterson, he goes down, and someone else on your team gets Taylor. That team will be pretty tough to beat.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Peterson owner here, and I'm targeting Taylor in our 3rd round (5th round after keepers) because I know my league. It happens every year where handcuffs are taken well before serviceable starters (Dunn, C. Brown etc.). 14 team league makes the risk worth it, but mostly it's a screwyou to the other owner - in a friendly competitive way. I did it myself last year by taking M. Turner in the 4th, which I subsequently traded late in the year for a 2nd rounder this year (war stories rule).By the end of the season, I'll pick up my 3rd WR off the wire most likely anyways. Or, my next picks in the upcoming 2-3 rounds will not fall-off significantly by waiting 1 more round each for my QB, TE, D etc.However, if Peterson goes down, and I'm left with Portis leading my team and no Taylor to put in there - season over.

I drafted Taylor at 8.12 in the newly formed HyperActive 3 dynasty league. I took ADP at 1.01. Our league has 2 conferences, and Taylor went at 8.11 in the other conference. The other ADP owner did not get Taylor. Instead, he took Julius Jones and Edge James with his two picks prior to Taylor being selected.

 

[MAC_32]

Chestor Taylor averaged 5.4 YPC last year. I think he'd be a top 5 RB if Peterson went down today.

Chester Taylor averaged 4.0 YPC in 06 when he was the feature back behind a younger version of the current OLine, he put up #2 type numbers that season, your expectations are unreasonable.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chestor Taylor averaged 5.4 YPC last year. I think he'd be a top 5 RB if Peterson went down today.

Chester Taylor averaged 4.0 YPC in 06 when he was the feature back behind a younger version of the current OLine, he put up #2 type numbers that season, your expectations are unreasonable.

The 2006 Vikings didn't start Cook, Herrera, Shancoe, Sidney Rice or Tarvaris Jackson. The 2006 Vikings didn't have Bernard Berrian, either. Taylor played like a stud last year when Peterson went down (over 50 FPs in those two games), and I don't doubt that he'd be a stud again if Peterson wasn't there. That offense is tailor made for an elite running game.

 

[Phurfur]

Chester's value will always be higher than Peterson owners think it should be and what they think they should have to pay. The reasons for this are simple. Most Peterson owners are the ones that have convinced themselves that Peterson will not be in any sort of RBBC, most other FFer's think he will. On top of this most all FFer's know that Peterson has not finished a whole season of football in 4 straight year. Basically he has never finished a full season of football at a highly competitive level (college or NFL). Chester should be one of the 1st none "starting" RBs to go in any draft. He plays on the far and away best rushing team in the NFL. A team which will, while maybe not a full fledged RBBC, will run so often he is likely to get significant touches. He also plays behind a guy with a rather extensive injury history. The star potential for Taylor if Peterson goes down is simply too high for anyone who owns him to give him up cheaply.

 

[MAC_32]

Chestor Taylor averaged 5.4 YPC last year. I think he'd be a top 5 RB if Peterson went down today.

Chester Taylor averaged 4.0 YPC in 06 when he was the feature back behind a younger version of the current OLine, he put up #2 type numbers that season, your expectations are unreasonable.

The 2006 Vikings didn't start Cook, Herrera, Shancoe, Sidney Rice or Tarvaris Jackson. The 2006 Vikings didn't have Bernard Berrian, either. Taylor played like a stud last year when Peterson went down (over 50 FPs in those two games), and I don't doubt that he'd be a stud again if Peterson wasn't there. That offense is tailor made for an elite running game.

I don't think Cook, Herrera, and Shancoe have much of a positive (or negative) net impact on the running game, likewise with Tavaris Jackson who isn't any better or worse than Kelly Holcomb was in 06. I don't see how upgraded WR's have a positive impact on the running game either, I've seen bad QB play statistically proven to be a negative to the running game but never seen anything regarding WR's.I'll trust the 16 game sample size in 06 over a 2 game sample size last year, Chester was a fine #2 (and would be a fine #2 if AD misses any time again) but he's no #1.

 

[Chunky Soup]

Chestor Taylor averaged 5.4 YPC last year. I think he'd be a top 5 RB if Peterson went down today.

Chester Taylor averaged 4.0 YPC in 06 when he was the feature back behind a younger version of the current OLine, he put up #2 type numbers that season, your expectations are unreasonable.

The 2006 Vikings didn't start Cook, Herrera, Shancoe, Sidney Rice or Tarvaris Jackson. The 2006 Vikings didn't have Bernard Berrian, either. Taylor played like a stud last year when Peterson went down (over 50 FPs in those two games), and I don't doubt that he'd be a stud again if Peterson wasn't there. That offense is tailor made for an elite running game.

I don't think Cook, Herrera, and Shancoe have much of a positive (or negative) net impact on the running game, likewise with Tavaris Jackson who isn't any better or worse than Kelly Holcomb was in 06. I don't see how upgraded WR's have a positive impact on the running game either, I've seen bad QB play statistically proven to be a negative to the running game but never seen anything regarding WR's.I'll trust the 16 game sample size in 06 over a 2 game sample size last year, Chester was a fine #2 (and would be a fine #2 if AD misses any time again) but he's no #1.

Surprised Chase, who loves stats wasn't on top of this.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chestor Taylor averaged 5.4 YPC last year. I think he'd be a top 5 RB if Peterson went down today.

Chester Taylor averaged 4.0 YPC in 06 when he was the feature back behind a younger version of the current OLine, he put up #2 type numbers that season, your expectations are unreasonable.

The 2006 Vikings didn't start Cook, Herrera, Shancoe, Sidney Rice or Tarvaris Jackson. The 2006 Vikings didn't have Bernard Berrian, either. Taylor played like a stud last year when Peterson went down (over 50 FPs in those two games), and I don't doubt that he'd be a stud again if Peterson wasn't there. That offense is tailor made for an elite running game.

I don't think Cook, Herrera, and Shancoe have much of a positive (or negative) net impact on the running game, likewise with Tavaris Jackson who isn't any better or worse than Kelly Holcomb was in 06. I don't see how upgraded WR's have a positive impact on the running game either, I've seen bad QB play statistically proven to be a negative to the running game but never seen anything regarding WR's.I'll trust the 16 game sample size in 06 over a 2 game sample size last year, Chester was a fine #2 (and would be a fine #2 if AD misses any time again) but he's no #1.

Offensive lines are most productive when they're a cohesive group. A line that sticks together is a line that is very effective. 2006 was a transition year for the Vikings OL, and it was much better in '07, and should be excellent in '08. Cook and Herrera are young and make up almost half the OL, so I'm not sure how you can ignore them. Either way, the 2008 OL looks to me, much better than the 2006 OL. And while Taylor only started 2 games last year, he did have 150+ carries. So it's not really a question of a 16 game sample size or a 2 game sample size, but a 300 carry sample size or a 150 carry sample size.A mobile QB, like Jackson, makes it more difficult for defenses to contain RBs. That's part of the reason the ATL running game fell through the floor last season. Warrick Dunn looked like a star when Vick was there, but was awful last season. Jackson provides a big upgrade over Brad Johnson and Kelly Holcomb in that regard. I'd expect Chestor Taylor to average about 4.5 YPC for the season if ADP was hurt. On 320 carries, that's 1440 yards and probably 10 TDs. Give him 300 receiving yards and 1 TD, and that's 240 FP, which makes him a top 5 RB in a lot of years.

 

[gregjcross]

Chester's value will always be higher than Peterson owners think it should be and what they think they should have to pay. The reasons for this are simple. Most Peterson owners are the ones that have convinced themselves that Peterson will not be in any sort of RBBC, most other FFer's think he will. On top of this most all FFer's know that Peterson has not finished a whole season of football in 4 straight year. Basically he has never finished a full season of football at a highly competitive level (college or NFL). Chester should be one of the 1st none "starting" RBs to go in any draft. He plays on the far and away best rushing team in the NFL. A team which will, while maybe not a full fledged RBBC, will run so often he is likely to get significant touches. He also plays behind a guy with a rather extensive injury history. The star potential for Taylor if Peterson goes down is simply too high for anyone who owns him to give him up cheaply.

If I have studs, rarely would I pursue handcuffs that other owners have, i would simply gather other handcuffs or wait for an owner came to me offering.I am holding 3 handcuffs without the starters. Chester T., Ray Rice and Lo Booker. While i dont expect i can call that any one of the three will be good, I expect that at least one of them will be a viable bye week filler by October; its all you can ask for.

 

[Doug Drinen]

If you really want to have fun, you take Peterson in the first round, Taylor in the sixth or seventh, and no RBs in between. Last year, Taylor was RB20 and Peterson was RB3. Nothing wrong with that as your RB duo, especially if you have the luxury of using four of your first five picks on non-RBs.

If Taylor doesn't do much, it probably means Peterson is having one of those win-the-league-by-himself type seasons. If Peterson gets hurt, then you've probably got a top-10ish RB in Taylor as a consolation prize, and you hope your strength at WR/QB/TE will make up for the weak RB2 slot. (And hey, what team doesn't have to hope for some breaks if they lose their #1 pick to injury?) If both stay healthy and the line continues to gel as Chase suggests, then you might have RB2 and RB15 or RB1 and RB17 or some such.

In 2005, David Yudkin was telling anyone who would listen to draft Holmes and Larry Johnson, not as a handcuff but as your two starters. It was a very smart move that year. While this situation isn't quite as foolproof, I think it's a pretty good play if you see good QB/WR value at the 24/25 turn.