Handcuff Do or Dont (1 Viewer)

[TDorBust]

I know this is talked about at times but thought I would get some discussion going again. This came up from the Bell thread on a persons comment that you should always handcuff your RBs.

...

The wake-up call here is that if you have a stud RB, and he's got a clear back-up, there's no reason not to roster the back-up. Bell owner in our league basically just got a huge kick in the nuts.

I have always been of the mindset that you do not handcuff your running back and leverage that roster space towards bigger upside guys. I would much rather take the chance on a guy I think could be a great breakout candidate or could earn significant play time as opposed to locking up a certain teams run game when the backup could fall flat on his face or even turn in to a RBBC once the lead back goes down.

Extreme Example: Do you roster Tre Mason if you have Gurley over Starks or Coleman?

Its hard to find any examples since so many "stud" RBs have went down this season and a lot of backups are coming in. I think that so many RBs are going down suggests even more that you need to worry less about who they are behind and more about what they would look like if they were the starter.

Thoughts?

 

[Loipz]

I would only if the back was any good. I thought D. Will was definitely worth a spot if I owned bell because he showed he could produce. Tre Mason in redraft I would not.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I'm not a fan of handcuffing if/when a player of greater value can be rostered as your plan B.

Your example of Tre Mason is a good one. I say no thanks. I was able to acquire JStew - not thrilled with him as my RB4 but I still think he'll outperform Mason, even in PPR.

My other RB is Forsett. All season I have had zero interest in Taliferro or Buck Whateverlicious. Give me Duke Johnson Jr as a backup all day.

I do like Coleman as a plan B if you own Freeman, but it all depends on roster/league size. But if ADP goes down, you're probably ####ed. McKinnon and the white guy are underwhelming.

The Bell owners out there hopefully had DeAngelo. It's a great short term solution, he was awesome Weeks 1 & 2. But will his 32 year old body hold up for a half season of 20-25 touches per game?

I haven't had a handcuff work out since I took LJ in the 8th the year Priest went down. What was that, 9-10 years ago? IME something working out 5-10% of the time is not a viable strategy. Go for BPA to fill out your bench.

YMMV

 

[Pipes]

For me it depends on league size. For the 10 team leagues I'm in I don't bother unless the value's there at draft time. There is actually guys available to pick up. In the 2 16 team leagues I'm in it's an absolute must as there is complete garbage available on the wire.

 

[DoubleG]

As I mentioned in the Bell thread, I think the issue in this particular case of handcuffs is a little different than most. I generally don't hang on to handcuffs either - but as a Bell owner, I did keep DWill.

First off, in many cases, the handcuff for a starting NFL RB is NOT an NFL-starting caliber RB. DWill is arguably still an NFL starting caliber fill in. This is not usually the case - most NFL teams simply don't have the money to pay two RBs that are starting caliber.

Second, due to the point above, the "handcuff" usually isn't a true handcuff at all - just a "handcuff by committee" used by most coaching staffs. Just take a look at the difference between Houston and Pittsburgh - in Houston, Blue and Polk had 14 and 8 carries respectively yesterday in Foster's absence. Once Bell went down, DWill got all 9 carries (in one half of football).

Third, we have the precedent the Steelers set in weeks 1 & 2. Williams received 21 & 20 carries in those two games - for a total of 204 rushing yards and 3 TDs. That's damn near RB1 land (and also supports point 1 about DWill still being starting NFL talent - and point 2 , that he'll get the lion's share) No, it's not L. Bell numbers, but it's certainly better than most other options (i.e. "best available player", "most upside guy", etc.).

 

[LittlePhatty]

Not as a general rule. It's situational. And sometimes I grab someone else's handcuff, for a player that's not even on my roster, if I think they are valuable enoguh.

 

[Skoo]

As I mentioned in the Bell thread, I think the issue in this particular case of handcuffs is a little different than most. I generally don't hang on to handcuffs either - but as a Bell owner, I did keep DWill.

First off, in many cases, the handcuff for a starting NFL RB is NOT an NFL-starting caliber RB. DWill is arguably still an NFL starting caliber fill in. This is not usually the case - most NFL teams simply don't have the money to pay two RBs that are starting caliber.

Second, due to the point above, the "handcuff" usually isn't a true handcuff at all - just a "handcuff by committee" used by most coaching staffs. Just take a look at the difference between Houston and Pittsburgh - in Houston, Blue and Polk had 14 and 8 carries respectively yesterday in Foster's absence. Once Bell went down, DWill got all 9 carries (in one half of football).

Third, we have the precedent the Steelers set in weeks 1 & 2. Williams received 21 & 20 carries in those two games - for a total of 204 rushing yards and 3 TDs. That's damn near RB1 land (and also supports point 1 about DWill still being starting NFL talent - and point 2 , that he'll get the lion's share) No, it's not L. Bell numbers, but it's certainly better than most other options (i.e. "best available player", "most upside guy", etc.).

Years ago when workhorse RBs were the norm, there seemed to be much-clearer handcuffs. But these days, I only go for the handcuff if:

1. The player I'm handcuffing is a true RB1

2. The player behind him is expected to be a workhorse if the starter goes down

Needless to say, holding on to DWill after we saw what he did in weeks 1 and 2 was the right move...thank god.

 

[FUBAR]

I know this is talked about at times but thought I would get some discussion going again. This came up from the Bell thread on a persons comment that you should always handcuff your RBs.

...

The wake-up call here is that if you have a stud RB, and he's got a clear back-up, there's no reason not to roster the back-up. Bell owner in our league basically just got a huge kick in the nuts.

I have always been of the mindset that you do not handcuff your running back and leverage that roster space towards bigger upside guys. I would much rather take the chance on a guy I think could be a great breakout candidate or could earn significant play time as opposed to locking up a certain teams run game when the backup could fall flat on his face or even turn in to a RBBC once the lead back goes down.

Extreme Example: Do you roster Tre Mason if you have Gurley over Starks or Coleman?

Its hard to find any examples since so many "stud" RBs have went down this season and a lot of backups are coming in. I think that so many RBs are going down suggests even more that you need to worry less about who they are behind and more about what they would look like if they were the starter.

Thoughts?

these are not mutually exclusive. the ideal handcuff has big upside.

 

[TDorBust]

I have always been of the mindset that you do not handcuff your running back and leverage that roster space towards bigger upside guys.

these are not mutually exclusive. the ideal handcuff has big upside.

So you draft your starting RBs based on upside behind them? If we drafted today your passing on guys like Gurley and AP? What you stated does actually fall in to my strategy where if someone happens to be the backup to my starting RB it makes it that much sweeter. For instance someone that I am holding is Coleman and I have Freeman but I wouldn't hold Coleman just because of Freeman its because I see the ability of Coleman to take over that backfield if anything were to happen to Freeman.

It would be the same with Starks and I don't own Lacy anywhere as we have seen Starks can be productive in that offense if given the chance.

 

[MattFancy]

I would only if the back was any good. I thought D. Will was definitely worth a spot if I owned bell because he showed he could produce. Tre Mason in redraft I would not.

I agree with this. Sure, it's not a bad idea to handcuff your top RBs, but if there isn't a clear backup or the backup just isn't any good, it seems kinda pointless.

 

[titusbramble]

i only ever consider it if:

a) the backup is a very clear number 2 so as to avoid a murky rbbc situation, bearing in mind that teams might end up getting some guy off the street in this situation

b) the backup hasn't already proven himself to be awful

c) the backup is close to the BPA

when we're at the rounds where we'd consider handcuffs i'm looking at upside, i'm not looking at limiting downside by clogging my roster for injury insurance purposes. if anything, i'm taking backups on other people's rosters so that in the situations where i'm running decently with injuries, i have more chance of hitting on my upside which i can then use/trade as needed, especially to the players that are suddenly in desperation mode.

edit - i'm not considering situations like in, say, philadelphia/new england/san diego, whereby the rb2 has value independent of what the rb1 is doing, as handcuffs

 

[Wrigley]

After seeing what DWill did in weeks 1-2 you can bet your ### I handcuffed him to Bell

Of course I did this already having some decent RB depth

I think it's situational, if you have the roster space handcuff all day.

All I know is I feel pretty lucky that Abdulah sucked bad enough to make this handcuff

 

[MAC_32]

I think there are two tiers - priority and secondary. If a player falls into priority then do it in the draft. I tried doing it with the Atlanta duo. I got one in some and both in others. The secondary ones? Don't do them until during the season. In most leagues, there are only so many bench spaces that you can use on cuffs. You can't insure everyone. Once getting to this point in the season, if you're mostly through bye week issues, now is the right time to try to lock up those situations. Guys like Oliver and Sims stick out, but obviously it depends on the league when/if it makes sense to roster these types. This isn't just limited to RB's either.

 

[oddsbodkins]

I often never handcuff because there's usually more points out there somewhere else. I may rethink this after watching Bell go down. Jury is still out in my mind over Williams but I'm kicking myself right now for not making this move yesterday morning when my Spidey sense started tingling.

 

[oddsbodkins]

In most leagues, there are only so many bench spaces that you can use on cuffs. You can't insure everyone. Once getting to this point in the season, if you're mostly through bye week issues, now is the right time to try to lock up those situations.

This is my thought process as well. I will draft and play the WW to get great depth at RB/WR/TE and then trade that depth away to make my SL as good as it can be. It can burn you, like with Bell, but it works for me much more often than it doesn't. I don't even consider handcuffs until the byes are over. YMMV of course.

 

[Nemesis]

I missed out on handcuffing JWill to Bell in my league, but another thing that I consider is the strength of the OL. If it is very strong or top tier, then I'm more inclined to handcuff..........if it is weak then i'll look elsewhere for upside RB points.

In the case of ATL, they looked horrible running the ball in preseason and I actually didn't want to get caught up in either part of that nightmare.....much to my dismay now.

 

[BigDave]

I have very short bench in 2 shark leagues.

I lost Foster last week and didn't have Blue or Polk = no worries IMO

How the hell did anyone see Bell going down? Not me. Not two top RB's in two weeks!

Well, I am in first at 7-1 without my 2 top RB's and their backups going forward.

This isn't my first rodeo, so I have Miller and Hillman as my top RB's now.

I guess I typically don't like backups because you never know. It's to hard to carry many RB's with a short bench and then carry backups too. Just been a crappy year for RB injuries this year.

 

[habsfan]

I would handcuff a star (redraft) if:

- I thought the identity of the next man up was clear

- If I believed that he could produce a reasonable percentage (70-80%) of what the star had done; and

- If I thought the team was likely to give him that opportunity.

Often a guy goes down and the conclusion is "RBBC". I'm unlikely to "guess at" who could emerge from that situation or roster a wild guess.

I have Freeman and Coleman and traded something of value for the latter in order to own that "situation".

 

[renesauz]

Interesting discussion. Alot of people saying no, that you should roster BPA. This might be true if you have deeper rosters and multiple viable starters.

But if your stud goes down, will his backup score more than another player you could have had rostered? Upside players not yet producing do little to keep you in the playoff chase if your stud goes down.

In the end, there isn't a stock answer here. It will depend on overall roster composition and size, but the decision should be made based on the better starter if/when the stud gets hurt.

 

[ratbast]

I handcuff often. I buy when its appropriate. I usually handcuff 2 of my 3 top guys. My strategy is that If my guy goes down I should have a guy i could possibly plug in and one most likely to be available where the other guys in that tier are not in same situation. I have a starting RB for the price of a handcuff.