Handcuff or Reach for stars (1 Viewer)

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Debating Fred Jackosn (have lynch) or Norwood. Don't want to focus too much on these guys, but one has an RB ranking 15 slots lower than the other. Just curious how much u willing to sacrifice to handcuff your studs?

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

In the same vain, do you base this on your bench, or do you just stockpile the best backs possible and let the chips fall where they may. I guess it really depends on how valuable the RB is, and prolly with RB 1 u should handcuff (if there is a CLEAR RB2) but if RB2, I'd go with the gusto.

really dont wanna drop norwood.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Does the decision change based on the position?

 

[baconisgood]

Really depends on what your team looks like. How bad is your RB situation if Lynch goes down? Is Norwood going to crack your starting lineup without sig injuries?

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I think it depends on who you're handcuffing, but more importantly how risky your primary backups are.

If I got a solid, NFL-starting RB3/4, I'd probably forget the handcuff and go total lottery ticket upside with the last pick (i.e. in one league I was able to get Edge as RB3 behind Lynch and Turner, so I took Rice, Slaton and A Bradshaw on my bench instead of Fred Jackson). Whereas if I take riskier primary backups, I might try to get the handcuff to ensure a starting RB spot on a team.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Really depends on what your team looks like. How bad is your RB situation if Lynch goes down? Is Norwood going to crack your starting lineup without sig injuries?

nah I have good depth (RW/Jacobs/Jlewis/) as such I opted just to shore up the BUF RB sit, as even though I like Norwood/his opp more, I just can't lose that 1st round production (Cadillac owners who failed to get graham, or Brandon Jackson owners who passed on Grant can attest). Plus there is the ever loving possibility that Atlanta blows this year, I happen to think that increases his value, and I still feel that handcuffing your Studs is prolly the way to go, unless you have a really think bench?

 

[piratemike]

It also depends on your waiver situation. If you're in a worst to first or bidding situation, and you can't guarantee that you can pick up any FA you want, then you could face trouble if your first rounder goes down.

 

[sterjs]

I think handcuffing is generally overrated. For handcuffs, you only want someone who won't be mired in an RBBC if the starter goes down and who can be productive as the #1.

I think baconisgood's advice on your situation is solid.

 

[David Yudkin]

I generally am not a big fan of handcuffing unless the success of the player is based largely on the offensive scheme. For example, I would have killed to get the Chiefs backup RBs a few years ago. Would I make an effort to go after the handcuffs in Chicago or Detroit this year? Probably not.

I also would be more predisposed to target OTHER people's handcuffs if there were guys that could be very productive (as I just outlined) based on the strength of the team, QB, system, etc. That way you could conceivably get a productive player if an injury happened or great trade bait to the owner of the starter.

 

[ffguru56]

Debating Fred Jackosn (have lynch) or Norwood. Don't want to focus too much on these guys, but one has an RB ranking 15 slots lower than the other. Just curious how much u willing to sacrifice to handcuff your studs?

I think it depends on many different situations. If you have a starter that is injury prone then it may be a good idea to snag their backup. If you don't feel confident on getting any good sleepers and you're merely grabbing a "nobody" then pick up your stud RB's backup for insurance.I'm in a Dynasty League and last year I grabbed Watson as Rudi's backup but only because there wasn't anyone else appealing to draft. This year however I kept 4 Rb's and grabbed with my only 2 spots remaining on my roster both Mendenhall and Forte.

As I said, I like the grabbing the backup concept but only if it doesn't hinder your team for the future if you're in a Dynasty League. For example, I would rather draft Tim Hightower than a RB who's only role is backup with no plans for the future with him, since Hightower has potential not only for this year but certainly for the future.

If you could, please answer my question.... http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=418283

 

[baconisgood]

Really depends on what your team looks like. How bad is your RB situation if Lynch goes down? Is Norwood going to crack your starting lineup without sig injuries?

nah I have good depth (RW/Jacobs/Jlewis/) as such I opted just to shore up the BUF RB sit, as even though I like Norwood/his opp more, I just can't lose that 1st round production (Cadillac owners who failed to get graham, or Brandon Jackson owners who passed on Grant can attest). Plus there is the ever loving possibility that Atlanta blows this year, I happen to think that increases his value, and I still feel that handcuffing your Studs is prolly the way to go, unless you have a really think bench?

Assuming a standard 2 RB 1 flex league you haveLynchLewisJacobsRWilliamsI would have gone with Norwood. If Lynch goes down are you going to start Jackson over Lewis or Jacobs? I wouldn't (certainly not right off the bat) odds are against you playing him over Williams right now. Norwood though ought to see 9-10 touches a game this year even with Turner healthy and will likely be picked up early in the season. Jackson will probably hang out on the wire until Lynch goes down.

 

[Paddy O'Seanessy]

both

Tim Hightower

 

[p00h]

Personally, I don't think it should ever solely depend on your starting back, whether it be his skillset or his penchant for injury. Take SJax for example. If he goes down, is his backup really going to be somebody you're willing to plug in every week?!? Some stud backs have solid backups, in which case I would actually reach a bit to cuff. Turner with LT would have been a prime example. Guys run around asking who's the #2 in KC, or here or there, I think its foolish chasing those cuffs. Got a better chance grabbing a ray rice and a chris johnson and a kenny watson, if any ends up getting primary back touches, you can actually start them. It is somewhat of a tightrope you must walk, but unless a backup is half decent, someone you can see plugging into you lineup on a weekly basis, you roll the dice with who you drafted and try and grab the best value available at rb in the later rounds of your draft...

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Personally, I don't think it should ever solely depend on your starting back, whether it be his skillset or his penchant for injury. Take SJax for example. If he goes down, is his backup really going to be somebody you're willing to plug in every week?!? Some stud backs have solid backups, in which case I would actually reach a bit to cuff. Turner with LT would have been a prime example. Guys run around asking who's the #2 in KC, or here or there, I think its foolish chasing those cuffs. Got a better chance grabbing a ray rice and a chris johnson and a kenny watson, if any ends up getting primary back touches, you can actually start them. It is somewhat of a tightrope you must walk, but unless a backup is half decent, someone you can see plugging into you lineup on a weekly basis, you roll the dice with who you drafted and try and grab the best value available at rb in the later rounds of your draft...

I agree with this and the poster before it in general. But see F jackson as the clear cut backup, who will be askd to shoulder the load in his absence. Whereas for norwood to start, turner most likely has to go down (they don't play the Lions EVERY week) and as such, I think I'd start Jackson over Norwwod, as I'm not sure that norwoodcan shoulder the load, with a ?able falcons line.Ergo, i went with clear backup over who I consider the better player, but mostly b/c of the fact that Lynch was my Blue chip RB1.