Draft Strategy - Handcuffing (1 Viewer)

[fantasyplayer]

If you've rounded out your starters at RB and you're to the point in your draft that you're considering adding depth to that position, are you better off drafting the handcuff/complimentary back to one of your studs or getting a guy from another team that could add value even if your stud doesn't suffer an injury.

For example, say you have MJD and are considering adding Fred Taylor as insurance, should you consider Chester Taylor instead? On the one hand, if something happens to MJD, you'll be very pleased to have Fred on your roster. On the other hand, Chester is a guy that could spot start for your team even if MJD stays healthy and productive.

 

[FUBAR]

Some will say that you should never handcuff, but I don't think it's that black-letter a rule.

I consider a few things.

First and most important, is the "handcuff" talented enough to produce well if the main RB gets injured? Michael Turner was, many others are not. As a correlation, is the system so friendly that the RB should produce well, even if the stud gets injured. Kansas City was a place I would handcuff a couple years ago. Minnesota is a place I would now.

Second, is this RB likely to start for you without injury? Having the Lions backup RB adds little, but Taylor (either) could start on bye weeks without injuries - maybe even more often.

Finally, how deep is the league? If you'd be scrounging the bottom depths of the rosters for a waiver pickup I'm more inclined to handcuff. If decent RBs are available, I'd be fine not handcuffing.

 

[BigRed]

Some will say that you should never handcuff, but I don't think it's that black-letter a rule.

No but it's pretty close. Take the best guy avail. "Handcuffing" is almost never a good idea.er regarding fooball anyway.

 

[FantasyTrader]

To me, a good handcuffing strategy begins with taking the correct starter. I happen to upgrade guys who are in a CLEAR order on the depth chart. Clinton Portis and Ladell Betts for example. I love targeting situations like this because you have a clear starter and a backup, who is literally of no use to anybody but the Portis owner. Plus, we already know from past circumstances that Betts would step right in and take the lion's share if Portis goes down.

Ryan Grant and Brandon Jackson are another example. Jackson goes undrafted unless it's to Grant's owner in the second to last round. I try to only handcuff when the team has a well laid out depth chart behind the starter.

 

[fantasyplayer]

Maybe handcuffing was a poor choice of words by me. When choosing between players with roughly the same projected stats, does it make more sense to take the guy that compliments another player on your roster or to "diversify" with the guy from another team? If you already had:

Peterson, would you draft Chester Taylor or Fred Taylor?

Jones-Drew, would you draft Fred or Chester?

Turner, would you draft Norwood or Bradshaw?

 

[FantasyTrader]

Maybe handcuffing was a poor choice of words by me. When choosing between players with roughly the same projected stats, does it make more sense to take the guy that compliments another player on your roster or to "diversify" with the guy from another team? If you already hadeterson, would you draft Chester Taylor or Fred Taylor?Jones-Drew, would you draft Fred or Chester?Turner, would you draft Norwood or Bradshaw?

Ahh okay. A lot of what you're describing would be impacted by how my draft unfolded. If I wasn't feeling at all comfortable with my RB situation I'd double up. But if I went RB heavy at the top and Turner was my #3 or even #4, then I'd be less inclined to take Norwood.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I'm probably going to do an article on this in August.

Basically if you invest heavily in your RB1 and don't come back with strong RB2 and RB3 options, you're banking on your RB1.

If you do that (say go ADP and then wait for RB2 several rounds) you should handcuff - as your team goes belly up if you don't get that RB1 production.

Also - handcuffing doesn't make sense unless there will be a clear starter if the primary back goes down. For example, Ray Rice in Baltimore is a good McGahee handcuff, as is Chester Taylor for ADP. Westbrook's handcuff is cloudy (LoBook, CBuck) so that would likely be a waste of two draft spots.

 

[DropKick]

Some will say that you should never handcuff, but I don't think it's that black-letter a rule.

No but it's pretty close. Take the best guy avail. "Handcuffing" is almost never a good idea.er regarding fooball anyway.

You clipped one line and conveniently ignore the poster's sound rational for handcuff choices.In a 12 team league, you can count on at least 48 RBs being chosen. There are probably only 30 #1 backs and another 10 RBBC guys (+/- depending on PPR). If I know the clear backup and bonus points for a "proven" back or an above average rushing game, then "yes" I will take the handcuff. One exception might be if I felt another backup was more appealing, say due to viability of the starter (age, injury) or the chance for a changing of the guard.

 

[DropKick]

Maybe handcuffing was a poor choice of words by me. When choosing between players with roughly the same projected stats, does it make more sense to take the guy that compliments another player on your roster or to "diversify" with the guy from another team? If you already hadeterson, would you draft Chester Taylor or Fred Taylor?Jones-Drew, would you draft Fred or Chester?Turner, would you draft Norwood or Bradshaw?

Peterson... I'll grab Chester (but strongly consider Fred as he is not a backup and could contribute on an dependable basis)MJD.. FredTurner... Norwood

 

[g5jamz]

I have a theory...I call it my handcuff standard deviation.

If you find you have to expend two picks in the first 6 rounds (12 team redraft), I say it's not worth it. I find too much pressing need to waste two picks on RBs and locking them up on one team with no guarantee that one team has Oline injuries and production goes to crap.

 

[hauser42]

My issue with handcuffing is that people seem to think that you have to take the backup early. Last two years I have had LT in 2 different redraft leagues. I wanted Turner but was not going to spend anythingbefore round 10 on him, both drafts are 20 rounds.

There is usually more value out there in low end starters at RB that you know will get the ball than taking a pick that will only be used if someone gets hurt. RB3 should be a guy that you can fill in for either back if one goes down and be the bye week guy in my book, I also think that the WR backups are more important in my leagues as we start 3. An issue is it seems like there are always an owner or two that draft backups thinking they will trade him for a starter at another spot to the owner that has the starter.

Handcuffing has become a huge buzzword in the last couple of years, because the writers of the industry put a lot out there on it. All the noise about it has made handcuff selection be moved up in drafts as owners are so afraid of an injury.

 

[fantasyplayer]

I'm probably going to do an article on this in August.Basically if you invest heavily in your RB1 and don't come back with strong RB2 and RB3 options, you're banking on your RB1.If you do that (say go ADP and then wait for RB2 several rounds) you should handcuff - as your team goes belly up if you don't get that RB1 production.Also - handcuffing doesn't make sense unless there will be a clear starter if the primary back goes down. For example, Ray Rice in Baltimore is a good McGahee handcuff, as is Chester Taylor for ADP. Westbrook's handcuff is cloudy (LoBook, CBuck) so that would likely be a waste of two draft spots.

For the most part it seems people are advocating taking the player that compliments the guy you already have, instead of the guy that compliments someone else's player. I'll be looking for your article.

 

[twitch]

My issue with handcuffing is that people seem to think that you have to take the backup early. Last two years I have had LT in 2 different redraft leagues. I wanted Turner but was not going to spend anythingbefore round 10 on him, both drafts are 20 rounds. There is usually more value out there in low end starters at RB that you know will get the ball than taking a pick that will only be used if someone gets hurt. RB3 should be a guy that you can fill in for either back if one goes down and be the bye week guy in my book, I also think that the WR backups are more important in my leagues as we start 3. An issue is it seems like there are always an owner or two that draft backups thinking they will trade him for a starter at another spot to the owner that has the starter.Handcuffing has become a huge buzzword in the last couple of years, because the writers of the industry put a lot out there on it. All the noise about it has made handcuff selection be moved up in drafts as owners are so afraid of an injury.

On point. Imo, its all about value with the handcuffs. And Id rather have one of my own guy's cuff, than someone else's. Peterson with Taylor. Taylor with MJD. But ironically, with these 2 sets of players, one of the players in each pair is not likely to have good value. Like with Peterson, for example. If you draft him early, you can count on either not getting his backup, or overpaying a little to make sure you get him. Someone else is going to reach if you dont. So when you draft a guy, you need to be aware of 1)whether or not you even want the cuff and 2) what it may cost to get him.

 

[Bob Henry]

Two things I consider that I haven't seen mentioned yet here:

1. League format - I am more apt to get a "handcuff" in survivor leagues than I am leagues where I turn in a lineup and can do waivers/free agent pickups.

2. Waiver/free agency rules - Some leagues allow owners to grab a backup. I've never liked those leagues. If the waiver system is a bid system, then less likely to handcuff. If it's one that is "first come" or "reverse order of standings" then I'm more likely to consider it..

Ultimately, it comes down to the player and backup. As Pasquino stated, some have clear situations, others do not. It's something to consider not just when you're taking the backup, but when you're taking the starter, too. If you draft a stud RB in the first you, then you'd like the peace of mind knowing that his backup is clear cut and not a grab bag if your player goes down.

 

[BigRed]

You clipped one line and conveniently ignore the poster's sound rational for handcuff choices.In a 12 team league, you can count on at least 48 RBs being chosen. There are probably only 30 #1 backs and another 10 RBBC guys (+/- depending on PPR). If I know the clear backup and bonus points for a "proven" back or an above average rushing game, then "yes" I will take the handcuff.

You're right and wasn't intentional, thought he was talking handcuffing in general. In the example he gives, I would lean to FT.....but those examples are rare, and generally speaking again I'd go to the best player avail.

My issue with handcuffing is that people seem to think that you have to take the backup early. Last two years I have had LT in 2 different redraft leagues. I wanted Turner but was not going to spend anythingbefore round 10 on him, both drafts are 20 rounds. There is usually more value out there in low end starters at RB that you know will get the ball than taking a pick that will only be used if someone gets hurt. RB3 should be a guy that you can fill in for either back if one goes down and be the bye week guy in my book, I also think that the WR backups are more important in my leagues as we start 3. An issue is it seems like there are always an owner or two that draft backups thinking they will trade him for a starter at another spot to the owner that has the starter.Handcuffing has become a huge buzzword in the last couple of years, because the writers of the industry put a lot out there on it. All the noise about it has made handcuff selection be moved up in drafts as owners are so afraid of an injury.

Pretty much sums up where I'm coming from. Handcuffing got "trendy" for awhile, but I think people are getting a clue now.

 

[RJS113]

I'm in a keep 2 league, and my keepers are Portis (3rd round) and Turner (8th round). Unless there is a RB that I can't pass on in rounds 4-6, then I'm just going to cuff both of my starters, and wait to draft my 3rd back. I'd feel comfortable starting either Betts or Norwood if Portis or Turner went down, so I'd really only need my 3rd back for 2 games.

I could see my RBs drafted something like this:

3rd round: Portis (keeper)

8th round: Turner (keeper)

9th round: Norwood

12th round: Dunn (Who I'm very high on this year)

13th round: Betts

15th round: Slayton

This strategy will allow me to focus on my WRs and QB in the early rounds. So if you have 2 backs with solid backups, I like the idea of handcuffing them both and waiting on your RB3.