Handcuff = Handicap ? (1 Viewer)

[Texican]

Well I think I have handicapped my team by stickpiling my RBs handcuffs. Due to trades, I have no depth but a decent starting lineup. I currently only have 3 starting RBs in a start 2 plus 1 flex league. However, I have 7 Rbs on my roster. I have LJ, so I have Bennett, Brown, and Priest (just got him - just to want to hear something official in the next week or so).

I feel like I am hurting myself by not going after waiver wire possibilities, but if LJ goes I have to have a starting Rb.

Anyways, just venting some I guess. It just seems like I have dug a pit for myself because I am stuck.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Why are you stuck? Cut ties with Priest and be done with it. He's not coming back.

 

[Maik Jeaunz]

I've always had mixed feelings about handcuffing. I generally only do it for a player who is an injury risk (in my opinion), or if the loss of a stud would decimate my team.

For instance, in 2 leagues I have Frank Gore and Michael Robinson, and in 1 league I have Steven Jackson and Stephen Davis. it's been hard to hang onto Stephen Davis when there are players on the waiver wire that have even a little more value than he does. but if Steven Jackson was to go down, and I didn't have Davis to plug in, that team would be done.

I look at a handcuff as insurance...you can either pay the premiums and have peace of mind, or take your chances and hope you never have an accident.

 

[top dog]

Handcuffing is beneficial as long as the backup is:

#1 - OBVIOUS backup to stud. Folks in a RBBC to replace said stud RB are not such a great pick

#2 - Good enough to be a contributor if given the chance.

Best example of this is Michael Turner.

 

[the rover]

I've always had mixed feelings about handcuffing. I generally only do it for a player who is an injury risk (in my opinion), or if the loss of a stud would decimate my team.For instance, in 2 leagues I have Frank Gore and Michael Robinson, and in 1 league I have Steven Jackson and Stephen Davis. it's been hard to hang onto Stephen Davis when there are players on the waiver wire that have even a little more value than he does. but if Steven Jackson was to go down, and I didn't have Davis to plug in, that team would be done.I look at a handcuff as insurance...you can either pay the premiums and have peace of mind, or take your chances and hope you never have an accident.

As a Rams fan, I don't think Stephen Davis is the answer if Jackson goes down. I think they'd give the ball to Tony Fisher.

 

[coolnerd]

I look at a handcuff as insurance...you can either pay the premiums and have peace of mind, or take your chances and hope you never have an accident.

I think argument can be made is that you should be selective on what you insure and how much you insure it for. Often you are better served to use the extra assets to make some calculated investments than betting on the worse to happen. If those investments develop you may actually have the portfolio to overcome something unexpected.

 

[pantofful]

Personally (though I do it if I need to) I try to avoid handcuffs if I can early in the season, especially this year with the monster bye weeks we're seeing. The lack of depth can cost you a game or two. That said once bye weeks are past, I don't mind dropping players I am unlikely to ever start WR5/6 for a handcuff for starters...

 

[FFdork]

I think handcuffs make sense when you are a believer in the backup. Turner (or LJ last year) are obvious ones. When you get into rostering 2 or even 3 guys per situation that's tough--especially if you have limited roster sizes. Maybe in the original poster's league there's nothing on the waiver wire, but I have no idea if they would just use one guy if LJ went down this year (RBBC?). For the sake of argument, if, say, Dee Brown was the guy, would he be all that productive? This isn't the old KC O-line or Al Saunders offense any more. If you've been passing on the good waiver wire stuff like a Colston to hold on to a bunch of possible handcuffs to LJ, that can't be helping your team.

Plus, if you're drafting handcuffs, you have to ask yourself if your team would be better served by addressing another position with that pick (i.e. you're spending 2 picks on what will amount to one starter). If you're cornering the market on a can't lose situation like KC RB last year? Yes. If you pick 2 guys that end up in a mediocre RBBC? No

 

[SickThing]

Maybe it's because I usually play in leagues with short benchs, but I really hate the idea of sacrificing a roster spot for the mere possibility of a problem instead of using it for the best depth possible.

 

[badmofo]

tomlison - turner - yes

lj - no

tatum bell - m bell - yes

l jordan - fargas - maybe

f taylor - drew - yes

dillon - maroney - yes

r brown - l suggs - maybe

mcgahee - a train- maybe

t henry - l white - yes

w parker - davenport/haynes - maybe

rhodes - addai - yes

droughns - no

please help with the rest or edit.

 

[FFdork]

Gore - Robinson: yes

Rudy - (healthy) Perry: yes

Dunn - Norwood: yes

K. Jones - ???: no

I would actually be very reluctant to be carrying White + Henry or Jordan + Fargas unless I had a lot of roster spots.

 

[bobbytuff]

Portis/Betts - Yes (Can't imagine Duckett would siphon off too many carries)

Alexander/Morris - SA owners better hope they cuffed Morris

Jones/Benson - Definitely, Benson may even have standalone value late if the Bears clinch

 

[fatness]

r brown - l suggs - maybe

Suggs was cut this week.

 

[shutupayaface]

If you are a westbrook owner... especially in a ppr league. It is a must that you have buckhalter. Especially considering every week he is a game time decision.

 

[SSOG]

Well I think I have handicapped my team by stickpiling my RBs handcuffs. Due to trades, I have no depth but a decent starting lineup. I currently only have 3 starting RBs in a start 2 plus 1 flex league. However, I have 7 Rbs on my roster. I have LJ, so I have Bennett, Brown, and Priest (just got him - just to want to hear something official in the next week or so). I feel like I am hurting myself by not going after waiver wire possibilities, but if LJ goes I have to have a starting Rb.Anyways, just venting some I guess. It just seems like I have dug a pit for myself because I am stuck.

I feel like "handcuffing" is a big hot strategy, but very few players are actually worth handcuffing.For instance, it's not worth handcuffing Kevin Jones with Brian Calhoun. He's just not that good, and would likely have no fantasy impact if he was the starter. Likewise, nobody is going to handcuff Reuben Droughns with Wright/Harrison, because if Droughns goes out, you've got an RBBC (so neither would really have a fantasy impact).To decide whether or not you should handcuff, you have to ask several questions.#1) Does this RB have NFL-level talent? Is he one of the best backups in the league? Could he potentially be starting elsewhere?#2) Does this RB play in a solid system? Is his O-Line any good? Is his coach dedicated to the run, or does he give up on it at the drop of a hat?#3) Is this RB the clear-cut #2? Does he have any competition for the job? Would he share carries if the starter went down?If you didn't answer yes to all three questions, then don't even bother handcuffing. From where I sit, there are only a handful of handcuffs that are actually worth rostering. Off the top of my head, the only handcuffs I'd even CONSIDER devoting a roster spot to are: Michael Turner, Brandon Jacobs, Jerious Norwood, Mike Bell, Chris Perry, Marion Barber III, Maurice Morris, and maybe, MAYBE Mike Anderson/Musa Smith (they don't pass the clear-cut #2 test, but then again, Jamal Lewis is running like crap and might lose his job). Maybe Michael Robinson or Maurice Jones-Drew, I'm not that familiar with SF's situation. Turner/Jacobs/Norwood/Bell are the gold-standard handcuffs, though, IMO.This is, obviously, only looking at clear-cut #1 RB situations, not RBBCs like New England, Indy, Carolina, etc.

 

[Lauryn]

For instance, it's not worth handcuffing Kevin Jones with Brian Calhoun. He's just not that good

how do you know?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Handcuffs make sense in bigger leagues with deep benches simply because when a starting RB goes down, everyone will want to jump on the backup as the new starter. You'll be competing for his services and his price rose a ton.

The problems are (1) the price of a roster spot, (2) who will get hurt?, and (3) which RBs will perform if they are the starter?

I view it this way - if over 60 RBs are rostered, then you need at least one handcuff in case your top RB gets hurt. You have all your eggs in the basket of Tiki Barber - if he goes down, what's your contingency plan? You better have Brandon Jacobs.

My

 

[Judge Smails]

I've had 2 handcuffs this year: Leinart for Warner (since cut Warner) and Benson for Jones (staying put on that. I have LJ, and not even considering a handcuff for him. If you have small rosters, most handcuffs have limited value.

Some obvious one's, like Turner, or Drew if you have Taylor. But not a whole lot are really as valuable as most people make them out to be..

 

[SSOG]

For instance, it's not worth handcuffing Kevin Jones with Brian Calhoun. He's just not that good

how do you know?

My bad, I was confusing Calhoun with Bryson. I caught myself on the verge of saying "if he was so good, why'd they go out and draft KJ in the first?".Either way, I'd probably rather invest my roster spot on something other than a 3rd round rookie backup with two career carries who is playing behind an unquestioned #1... especially when that rookie backup had a ton of durability concerns coming out, and isn't projected to be the full-time starter if KJ goes down, anyway.

 

[nutssfan]

Your top RB must be cuffed. take it from a Priest owner in '04 & '05.

 

[Oh the Humanity]

I think a lot depends on how good the rest of your team is. If you have a good team and your just trying to preserve what you have, the handcuff works. If you have to improve, then any handcuff

other than stud w/real good back (e.g. Tomlinson/Turner) is probably a misuse of the roster spot.

Actually I have Westbrook and I'm not desperate to get Buckhalter, because he doesn't

have the trust of the coaching staff. He's not getting the ball in the red zone a lot, and

when he's in there they tend to throw to WR/TE a lot, so having him is no garauntee that

you'll get the 70-80% production that you might hope from the sub.

 

[CalBear]

If you are a westbrook owner... especially in a ppr league. It is a must that you have buckhalter. Especially considering every week he is a game time decision.

You have to be sure to secure those 11 carries for 49 yards that Buckhalter got against the awful Green Bay defense with Westbrook out?

 

[SSOG]

Your top RB must be cuffed. take it from a Priest owner in '04 & '05.

A Priest owner isn't the guy to ask. His backup (LJ) answered yes to all three questions.Once again,#1) Does this RB have NFL-level talent? Is he one of the best backups in the league? Could he potentially be starting elsewhere?#2) Does this RB play in a solid system? Is his O-Line any good? Is his coach dedicated to the run, or does he give up on it at the drop of a hat?#3) Is this RB the clear-cut #2? Does he have any competition for the job? Would he share carries if the starter went down?If Tiki Barber was my #1 RB in 2002, should I have handcuffed him with Ron Dayne? If Corey Dillon was my #1 in 2004, should I have handcuffed him with Kevin Faulk? If you can't honestly answer yes to all three questions, (or at the least answer STRONGLY yes to two of the three), then he's not worth handcuffing.

 

[thatguy]

Well I think I have handicapped my team by stickpiling my RBs handcuffs. Due to trades, I have no depth but a decent starting lineup. I currently only have 3 starting RBs in a start 2 plus 1 flex league. However, I have 7 Rbs on my roster. I have LJ, so I have Bennett, Brown, and Priest (just got him - just to want to hear something official in the next week or so). I feel like I am hurting myself by not going after waiver wire possibilities, but if LJ goes I have to have a starting Rb.Anyways, just venting some I guess. It just seems like I have dug a pit for myself because I am stuck.

I feel like "handcuffing" is a big hot strategy, but very few players are actually worth handcuffing.For instance, it's not worth handcuffing Kevin Jones with Brian Calhoun. He's just not that good, and would likely have no fantasy impact if he was the starter. Likewise, nobody is going to handcuff Reuben Droughns with Wright/Harrison, because if Droughns goes out, you've got an RBBC (so neither would really have a fantasy impact).To decide whether or not you should handcuff, you have to ask several questions.#1) Does this RB have NFL-level talent? Is he one of the best backups in the league? Could he potentially be starting elsewhere?#2) Does this RB play in a solid system? Is his O-Line any good? Is his coach dedicated to the run, or does he give up on it at the drop of a hat?#3) Is this RB the clear-cut #2? Does he have any competition for the job? Would he share carries if the starter went down?If you didn't answer yes to all three questions, then don't even bother handcuffing. From where I sit, there are only a handful of handcuffs that are actually worth rostering. Off the top of my head, the only handcuffs I'd even CONSIDER devoting a roster spot to are: Michael Turner, Brandon Jacobs, Jerious Norwood, Mike Bell, Chris Perry, Marion Barber III, Maurice Morris, and maybe, MAYBE Mike Anderson/Musa Smith (they don't pass the clear-cut #2 test, but then again, Jamal Lewis is running like crap and might lose his job). Maybe Michael Robinson or Maurice Jones-Drew, I'm not that familiar with SF's situation. Turner/Jacobs/Norwood/Bell are the gold-standard handcuffs, though, IMO.This is, obviously, only looking at clear-cut #1 RB situations, not RBBCs like New England, Indy, Carolina, etc.

I sincerely hope the omission of Benson from your list is an oversight.

 

[SSOG]

I sincerely hope the omission of Benson from your list is an oversight.

Wasn't sure whether I should classify him as a "handcuff" or an RBBC. I didn't see the Chicago game, just the stat line, and I haven't really looked into it since I don't own TJ in any leagues.

 

[thatguy]

I sincerely hope the omission of Benson from your list is an oversight.

Wasn't sure whether I should classify him as a "handcuff" or an RBBC. I didn't see the Chicago game, just the stat line, and I haven't really looked into it since I don't own TJ in any leagues.

Could very well turn into a full-blown RBBC. At this point, though, it's looking like the carry distribution will be similar to Anderson and Bell last season (TJ should be good for ~20 carries a game, Benson ~10). With the Bears likely to run 30-40 times per game, I would still consider TJ a "feature back", which would make Benson his handcuff. I suppose the best comparison this season would be to LT and Turner (not in terms of value, but in terms of type).

 

[Mapmaker]

Like most have already stated, roster size, league size (waver wire depth of talent), talent of the handcuff and your current roster strength should be your primary considerations when deciding "to handcuff or not to handcuff".

If your playing in a 10 team league with 8-9 starters and a bench of 6-7 Why bother ... there should be talent hanging about on the WW should you lose a key player to injury .. in smaller size leagues the talent on a per team basis is much deeper so the loss of 1 key player surely will hurt, but not to the same extent as if in a 14 team or greater sized league.

The handcuff should only be considered when the cost of the draft choice justifies the pick ... you don't consider Turner in round 2 if you draft LT in round 1, but you certainly may consider him in round 10 when teams are looking at D/st and adding roster depth. Your primary lineup positions QB, RB, WR, TE should be filled and covered for bye week protection before adding a handcuff.

The talent of the handcuff must justify the pick ... Bennett does not in my mind justify himself as a handcuff player although he's in a great running offence and the opportunity provided should LJ go down would be great ... Bennett has proven over the past 4 seasons he just doesn't have "it". Guy's I consider viable handcuffs; Turner, Betts, Morris, Jacobs ... other than that I think most other backs are in RBBC situations for the most part.

 

[flranger]

If you are a westbrook owner... especially in a ppr league. It is a must that you have buckhalter. Especially considering every week he is a game time decision.

You have to be sure to secure those 11 carries for 49 yards that Buckhalter got against the awful Green Bay defense with Westbrook out?

Yea, I disagree with cuffing Westbrook as well. Buckhalter doesn't catch much and won't run much. He's the #1 RB in our league (mine) but I have LT and Chester Taylor too. I can start a 3rd RB in a flex. If Westy goes down, in comes a QB or WR as a flex.I do however keep the burner on my roster, M Turner.

 

[Slinger]

Caddy : Pittman - Yes, especially in PPR leagues.

 

[njxbean]

If you are a westbrook owner... especially in a ppr league. It is a must that you have buckhalter. Especially considering every week he is a game time decision.

You have to be sure to secure those 11 carries for 49 yards that Buckhalter got against the awful Green Bay defense with Westbrook out?

Yea, I disagree with cuffing Westbrook as well. Buckhalter doesn't catch much and won't run much. He's the #1 RB in our league (mine) but I have LT and Chester Taylor too. I can start a 3rd RB in a flex. If Westy goes down, in comes a QB or WR as a flex.I do however keep the burner on my roster, M Turner.

Im in a 14 team league with 19 roster spots. Very deep league. we start 1qb, 2rb, 2wr 1 flex... And i just traded to get buckhalter. he and many other handcuffs are essential in a league like mine.

 

[nutssfan]

Your top RB must be cuffed. take it from a Priest owner in '04 & '05.

A Priest owner isn't the guy to ask. His backup (LJ) answered yes to all three questions.Once again,#1) Does this RB have NFL-level talent? Is he one of the best backups in the league? Could he potentially be starting elsewhere?#2) Does this RB play in a solid system? Is his O-Line any good? Is his coach dedicated to the run, or does he give up on it at the drop of a hat?#3) Is this RB the clear-cut #2? Does he have any competition for the job? Would he share carries if the starter went down?If Tiki Barber was my #1 RB in 2002, should I have handcuffed him with Ron Dayne? If Corey Dillon was my #1 in 2004, should I have handcuffed him with Kevin Faulk? If you can't honestly answer yes to all three questions, (or at the least answer STRONGLY yes to two of the three), then he's not worth handcuffing.

I should also say that I'm in a 14 team, 20 man roster league. There is nothing on the WW and slim pickens late in the draft. In a 12 teamer, you are probably wasting roster space with a handcuff unless it is an elite RB with a solid, plug-in backup, ie, Turner, Morris, etc. Tough call w/Dee Brown but, as an LJ owner, he is on my roster. I would definately not handcuff a WR (and most wouldn't).

 

[SSOG]

Caddy : Pittman - Yes, especially in PPR leagues.

Great posting. I forgot all about Pittman, which is silly because I rostered him this offseason for just that reason- Caddy's got an injury history, and Pittman has the ability to be a stud in PPR scoring systems.

 

[KoolKat]

I've always had mixed feelings about handcuffing. I generally only do it for a player who is an injury risk (in my opinion), or if the loss of a stud would decimate my team.For instance, in 2 leagues I have Frank Gore and Michael Robinson, and in 1 league I have Steven Jackson and Stephen Davis. it's been hard to hang onto Stephen Davis when there are players on the waiver wire that have even a little more value than he does. but if Steven Jackson was to go down, and I didn't have Davis to plug in, that team would be done.I look at a handcuff as insurance...you can either pay the premiums and have peace of mind, or take your chances and hope you never have an accident.

I think Tony Fisher would get the majority of carries if SJax goes down. Davis' knees are about to fall apart