Handcuff vs. No Handcuff (1 Viewer)

[GroveDiesel]

Curious as to what the general consensus is on drafting handcuffs for your studs versus not handcuffing.

If it depends on the situation, or running back, let’s discuss!

 

[GroveDiesel]

For me personally, I view it as a wasted spot if I have 2 RBs from one team. It just means that I’m either wasting a spot all year or I’m downgrading if my stud is injured.

My much preferred method is to draft other RBs and then grab handcuffs who could be really good options for guys not on my team (Pollard and Matthison paid off handsomely last year). You could 80% of the upside of the stud at a fraction of the draft cost.

 

[zamboni]

For me personally, I view it as a wasted spot if I have 2 RBs from one team. It just means that I’m either wasting a spot all year or I’m downgrading if my stud is injured.

I've read a lot of varying viewpoints on handcuffing, but I've come around to this stance. I used to handcuff my top RBs, but it does indeed seem to cap your upside. Any roster needs multiple chances to make up for injuries/bye weeks, etc. and handcuffing limits that upside.

The other thing is that you often think you're getting a high end handcuff, but often it turns out that handcuff either doesn't replace the production and/or is stuck in an RBBC if the starter goes down. Outside of maybe Mattison, I don't think there is a true handcuff that can replicate the starter, and not sure if Mattison would be the true bellcow handcuff any more in the new regime. Even a Pollard, Gordon, Hunt - all top end handcuffs - may not be asked to carry a full load if the guys ahead of them went down.

 

[Maggot Brain]

I like Nyheim Hines particularly because of the coach's prediction of increased usage this year. So even without anything bad happening to Taylor (
:knocksonwood: )there's good expectations built in.

I guess Kareem Hunt is another one I'd consider for obvious reasons, but the cost may be too high, as there's plenty of prime WR options in his current ADP range IMO

Those are probably the only 2 that I would even remotely gameplan for.

 

[BassNBrew]

Curious as to what the general consensus is on drafting handcuffs for your studs versus not handcuffing.

If it depends on the situation, or running back, let’s discuss!

I'll be in the minority but I've been very successful handcuffing where a handcuff is obvious. I even handcuff my WRs when possible. Let's face it, most players round 12 and on are roster cloggers anyway. Leagues are won in the middle rounds if you don't blow you early round picks. If I can ensure 70-80% of Chubb, Cook, Taylor, Montgomery, etc with a handcuff, I'm doing so.

This doesn't apply in contest leagues where you are facing more than your usual 7-13 teams for a title.

 

[Cjw_55106]

For me personally, I view it as a wasted spot if I have 2 RBs from one team. It just means that I’m either wasting a spot all year or I’m downgrading if my stud is injured.

My much preferred method is to draft other RBs and then grab handcuffs who could be really good options for guys not on my team (Pollard and Matthison paid off handsomely last year). You could 80% of the upside of the stud at a fraction of the draft cost.

Im not sure I entirely understand what you are saying here. Lets say you have Chubb. Are you saying you'd rather draft a Pollard type player than Hunt?

 

[BobbyLayne]

For me personally, I view it as a wasted spot if I have 2 RBs from one team. It just means that I’m either wasting a spot all year or I’m downgrading if my stud is injured.

I've read a lot of varying viewpoints on handcuffing, but I've come around to this stance. I used to handcuff my top RBs, but it does indeed seem to cap your upside. Any roster needs multiple chances to make up for injuries/bye weeks, etc. and handcuffing limits that upside.

The other thing is that you often think you're getting a high end handcuff, but often it turns out that handcuff either doesn't replace the production and/or is stuck in an RBBC if the starter goes down. Outside of maybe Mattison, I don't think there is a true handcuff that can replicate the starter, and not sure if Mattison would be the true bellcow handcuff any more in the new regime. Even a Pollard, Gordon, Hunt - all top end handcuffs - may not be asked to carry a full load if the guys ahead of them went down.

Handcuffs are roster cloggers. Agree with all of the points @zamboni makes here.

Better off just drafting backup RBs with stand alone value (Dillon, Hunt, Pollard, Cook) who could be flexed regardless of the starters healthy. I roster a lot of lottery ticket RBs throughout the season who have no relation to my starting RBs. It's very hard to predict in August who might benefit to changing situations.

 

[VikingFrog]

The other thing is that you often think you're getting a high end handcuff, but often it turns out that handcuff either doesn't replace the production and/or is stuck in an RBBC if the starter goes down

I would put Herbert in the mix as a guy that can/will carry a full load if Monty goes down.

He proved he could do it last year, and not a clue who the Bears third option is.

He’s also really cheap in redraft.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Hunt is not a handcuff. He is a RB with a role to play. He has scored well when Chubb is healthy and has scored about the same when Chubb is hurt.

D'Ernest Johnson is the handcuff/lottery ticket.

 

[zamboni]

The other thing is that you often think you're getting a high end handcuff, but often it turns out that handcuff either doesn't replace the production and/or is stuck in an RBBC if the starter goes down

I would put Herbert in the mix as a guy that can/will carry a full load if Monty goes down.

He proved he could do it last year, and not a clue who the Bears third option is.

He’s also really cheap in redraft.

Good call - I did think of putting Herbert in that handcuff tier and he looked good last year. My only concern is that rookie Trestan Ebner seems to be making some noise, and he's a product of the new regime compared to Montgomery and Herbert as holdovers. So it may not be Herbert's backfield to himself if Monty went down.

 

[BassNBrew]

For me personally, I view it as a wasted spot if I have 2 RBs from one team. It just means that I’m either wasting a spot all year or I’m downgrading if my stud is injured.

I've read a lot of varying viewpoints on handcuffing, but I've come around to this stance. I used to handcuff my top RBs, but it does indeed seem to cap your upside. Any roster needs multiple chances to make up for injuries/bye weeks, etc. and handcuffing limits that upside.

The other thing is that you often think you're getting a high end handcuff, but often it turns out that handcuff either doesn't replace the production and/or is stuck in an RBBC if the starter goes down. Outside of maybe Mattison, I don't think there is a true handcuff that can replicate the starter, and not sure if Mattison would be the true bellcow handcuff any more in the new regime. Even a Pollard, Gordon, Hunt - all top end handcuffs - may not be asked to carry a full load if the guys ahead of them went down.

Handcuffs are roster cloggers. Agree with all of the points @zamboni makes here.

Better off just drafting backup RBs with stand alone value (Dillon, Hunt, Pollard, Cook) who could be flexed regardless of the starters healthy. I roster a lot of lottery ticket RBs throughout the season who have no relation to my starting RBs. It's very hard to predict in August who might benefit to changing situations.

This is what I don't get. If you're a Jones owner, then Dillon not only gives you a flex = Pollard, he protects your invest in Jones.

I'm in the middle of a draft now (one flex) where either Godwin or Dobbins will be on my bench along with Patterson and Lockett. I don't need another guy like that to come to fruition latter in the year and create a worse WDIS nightmare

 

[BobbyLayne]

The other thing is that you often think you're getting a high end handcuff, but often it turns out that handcuff either doesn't replace the production and/or is stuck in an RBBC if the starter goes down

I would put Herbert in the mix as a guy that can/will carry a full load if Monty goes down.

He proved he could do it last year, and not a clue who the Bears third option is.

He’s also really cheap in redraft.

Good call - I did think of putting Herbert in that handcuff tier and he looked good last year. My only concern is that rookie Trestan Ebner seems to be making some noise, and he's a product of the new regime compared to Montgomery and Herbert as holdovers. So it may not be Herbert's backfield to himself if Monty went down.

I have Cook and Herbert as my RB4 & RB5 - starters are Kamara/Connor with Edmonds as a Flex possibility. Might even Flex Cook Week 1.

Herbert had almost no value in the weeks when Monty was healthy. He saw 87 touches Weeks 5-8. The other 13g he had only 30.

 

[BobbyLayne]

For me personally, I view it as a wasted spot if I have 2 RBs from one team. It just means that I’m either wasting a spot all year or I’m downgrading if my stud is injured.

I've read a lot of varying viewpoints on handcuffing, but I've come around to this stance. I used to handcuff my top RBs, but it does indeed seem to cap your upside. Any roster needs multiple chances to make up for injuries/bye weeks, etc. and handcuffing limits that upside.

The other thing is that you often think you're getting a high end handcuff, but often it turns out that handcuff either doesn't replace the production and/or is stuck in an RBBC if the starter goes down. Outside of maybe Mattison, I don't think there is a true handcuff that can replicate the starter, and not sure if Mattison would be the true bellcow handcuff any more in the new regime. Even a Pollard, Gordon, Hunt - all top end handcuffs - may not be asked to carry a full load if the guys ahead of them went down.

Handcuffs are roster cloggers. Agree with all of the points @zamboni makes here.

Better off just drafting backup RBs with stand alone value (Dillon, Hunt, Pollard, Cook) who could be flexed regardless of the starters healthy. I roster a lot of lottery ticket RBs throughout the season who have no relation to my starting RBs. It's very hard to predict in August who might benefit to changing situations.

This is what I don't get. If you're a Jones owner, then Dillon not only gives you a flex = Pollard, he protects your invest in Jones.

I'm in the middle of a draft now (one flex) where either Godwin or Dobbins will be on my bench along with Patterson and Lockett. I don't need another guy like that to come to fruition latter in the year and create a worse WDIS nightmare

I don't lock up backfields. If I have Zeke I would rather own Hunt. If I had Chubb I would rather own Hunt. Dillon went early in most drafts, well inside RB2 range. Mattison has been a popular handcuff the last few years but a lot of Vikings fans think he might not even be the beneficiary this year - and he's not very productive when Cook is healthy. James Cook should have a role regardless of what they do with Singletary or if he stays healthy.

If you have CMC do you own Foreman or Chubba? Neither has value if he plays every game for the 4th time in his career.

 

[BobbyLayne]

If you handcuff, there is one scenario where you might benefit. Maybe.

If you draft RBs with a role, they may be the beneficiary if the starter gets hurt. But they'll have value either way.

If I own a bellcow (loose usage - say one of the 20-24 lead backs in the league), and I draft a backup with a role, I can Flex that second RB (my 3rd/4th/5th RB.) If I draft a guy like Hubbard or Mattison, it's an either or situation. I either ride the bell cow or hope the handcuff really is, but if the stud stays healthy, he's just clogging my roster.

 

[Chaka]

It depends on the stud I'm backing up, who the backup is and who I pass up to grab the backup.

Usually I like a backup that has standalone value. Melvin Gordon, AJ Dillon, Tony Pollard, Kareem Hunt & maybe, possibly Khalil Herbert I would all take as a handcuffs. Then again I would draft all of them even if I didn't have the guy in front of them.

Donta Foreman, Jamaal Williams & maybe Kenneth Walker III may have varying degrees of standalone value, but maybe not, too and certainly would see big bumps if the starters went down.

Nyheim Hines has some standalone value in PPR formats, maybe a lot of you believe they August coachspeak but, personally, I don't see a huge bump for him if Taylor gets hurt.

Maybe a few others deserve honorable mentions.

So, yeah it really depends on where I am at those later stages of the draft.

 

[zamboni]

For me personally, I view it as a wasted spot if I have 2 RBs from one team. It just means that I’m either wasting a spot all year or I’m downgrading if my stud is injured.

I've read a lot of varying viewpoints on handcuffing, but I've come around to this stance. I used to handcuff my top RBs, but it does indeed seem to cap your upside. Any roster needs multiple chances to make up for injuries/bye weeks, etc. and handcuffing limits that upside.

The other thing is that you often think you're getting a high end handcuff, but often it turns out that handcuff either doesn't replace the production and/or is stuck in an RBBC if the starter goes down. Outside of maybe Mattison, I don't think there is a true handcuff that can replicate the starter, and not sure if Mattison would be the true bellcow handcuff any more in the new regime. Even a Pollard, Gordon, Hunt - all top end handcuffs - may not be asked to carry a full load if the guys ahead of them went down.

Handcuffs are roster cloggers. Agree with all of the points @zamboni makes here.

Better off just drafting backup RBs with stand alone value (Dillon, Hunt, Pollard, Cook) who could be flexed regardless of the starters healthy. I roster a lot of lottery ticket RBs throughout the season who have no relation to my starting RBs. It's very hard to predict in August who might benefit to changing situations.

This is what I don't get. If you're a Jones owner, then Dillon not only gives you a flex = Pollard, he protects your invest in Jones.

I'm in the middle of a draft now (one flex) where either Godwin or Dobbins will be on my bench along with Patterson and Lockett. I don't need another guy like that to come to fruition latter in the year and create a worse WDIS nightmare

I don't lock up backfields. If I have Zeke I would rather own Hunt. If I had Chubb I would rather own Hunt. Dillon went early in most drafts, well inside RB2 range. Mattison has been a popular handcuff the last few years but a lot of Vikings fans think he might not even be the beneficiary this year - and he's not very productive when Cook is healthy. James Cook should have a role regardless of what they do with Singletary or if he stays healthy.

If you have CMC do you own Foreman or Chubba? Neither has value if he plays every game for the 4th time in his career.

The bolded is what I was referring to above re: Mattison. Kind of a supersized version of the Herbert situation a few posts up.

If you're a Cook owner and tempted to cuff him with Mattison, you may not end up with a true cuff. Ty Chandler is getting some buzz as well and is the guy the new regime drafted. Mattison is likely to walk next year.

 

[Maggot Brain]

Hunt is not a handcuff. He is a RB with a role to play. He has scored well when Chubb is healthy and has scored about the same when Chubb is hurt.

D'Ernest Johnson is the handcuff/lottery ticket.

This is correct

 

[worrierking]

Handcuffing is something I am very likely to do in deeper leagues. I have a 16-team league with 24-man rosters. All of these RBs are going to be picked anyway, so they might as well be insurance policies for my studs. If the stud goes down in this league, there is absolutely nobody to pick up to help.

I'm much less likely to cuff in a 10-teamer. You can always find something on the wire if your guy gets hurt.

 

[BassNBrew]

If you handcuff, there is one scenario where you might benefit. Maybe.

If you draft RBs with a role, they may be the beneficiary if the starter gets hurt. But they'll have value either way.

If I own a bellcow (loose usage - say one of the 20-24 lead backs in the league), and I draft a backup with a role, I can Flex that second RB (my 3rd/4th/5th RB.) If I draft a guy like Hubbard or Mattison, it's an either or situation. I either ride the bell cow or hope the handcuff really is, but if the stud stays healthy, he's just clogging my roster.

If the stud stays health, I don't need the roster clogger. In my main league your role players are bench fodder just like your "roster cloggers". In a 1-2-3-1- 2 flex league I can see your point. When I already have Cooper or Dobbins pinned to the bench in my league, a role player isn't a priority.

Best option is a mix of both. Handcuff one or two of your key investments and sprinkle in role players. I think the perfect draft article mentioned role players and upside guys.

 

[Insein]

As strictly a handcuff? It depends on the situation and the runner I'm backing up. For example, I took Henry this year. He's coming off injury. Titans are going to be very run heavy I think so having Hilliard would be good to mitigate any disaster should Henry go down. Other situations it may not be possible or necessary as the backup or offense is such a downgrade without the player that it's not worth it.

 

[zamboni]

If you handcuff, there is one scenario where you might benefit. Maybe.

If you draft RBs with a role, they may be the beneficiary if the starter gets hurt. But they'll have value either way.

If I own a bellcow (loose usage - say one of the 20-24 lead backs in the league), and I draft a backup with a role, I can Flex that second RB (my 3rd/4th/5th RB.) If I draft a guy like Hubbard or Mattison, it's an either or situation. I either ride the bell cow or hope the handcuff really is, but if the stud stays healthy, he's just clogging my roster.

If the stud stays health, I don't need the roster clogger. In my main league your role players are bench fodder just like your "roster cloggers". In a 1-2-3-1- 2 flex league I can see your point. When I already have Cooper or Dobbins pinned to the bench in my league, a role player isn't a priority.

Best option is a mix of both. Handcuff one or two of your key investments and sprinkle in role players. I think the perfect draft article mentioned role players and upside guys.

The bolded is the challenge, as I mentioned upthread. The number of true handcuffs is shrinking along with the number of true bellcows.

 

[zamboni]

As strictly a handcuff? It depends on the situation and the runner I'm backing up. For example, I took Henry this year. He's coming off injury. Titans are going to be very run heavy I think so having Hilliard would be good to mitigate any disaster should Henry go down. Other situations it may not be possible or necessary as the backup or offense is such a downgrade without the player that it's not worth it.

I am facing the same issue, but will it be Hilliard, Haskins or both?

 

[Fear The Turtle]

My style is more conservative. I handcuff when I can. On top of everything else, I don't want to be forced into blowing 80% of my FAAB In Week 2 or 3 when I'm left scrambling when my starter goes down.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

NFL Owners could slash payroll if they just got rid of all the back ups behind their starting 22, they don't play all that much and just eat up resources that could be used to entice better players from other teams to start on theirs.

 

[zamboni]

My style is more conservative. I handcuff when I can. On top of everything else, I don't want to be forced into blowing 80% of my FAAB In Week 2 or 3 when I'm left scrambling when my starter goes down.

That's the thing though. If you diversify your bets/risk and take chances on other team's starters, you may not be backed into a corner having to blow your FAAB money on your starter's backup.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I used to handcuff religiously.

I found that when my dude went down, my "handcuff" performed ~75% (or worse) as the starter. Which makes sense, because the starter is the elite player and the handcuff often is not. Sometimes the backup is trash (hellllooooo Chubba Hubbard last year)

The only time handcuffing truly paid off for me was when I took Larry Johnson after Priest Holmes.

But the fact is, I would have been better off taking any other player then Larry Johnson because Holmes was a risky/bad pick that year.

Now I play with the idea that I'd rather have someone else's handcuff - a RB with league-winner upside if the main dude gets hurt. That next Larry Johnson. For this year my favorite two are Pollard and Jamaal Williams. They both have flex-appeal (Pollard maybe RB2 appeal if he is indeed running routes out of the slot) and if Swift goes down for his annual 4 game vacation, or Zeke's balky knee becomes a problem again, you've got a feature back on your hands as your 4th or 5th RB.

So in a way, yes - I want handcuffs. I want my league-mate's handcuffs. If my RB1 or 2 goes down I have a RB3 to fill in. But I also have a couple of lotto tickets, both of whom could contribute periodically. They are also excellent trade bait for the owners who wanted them as their handcuffs.

 

[zamboni]

Now I play with the idea that I'd rather have someone else's handcuff - a RB with league-winner upside if the main dude gets hurt. That next Larry Johnson. For this year my favorite two are Pollard and Jamaal Williams. They both have flex-appeal (Pollard maybe RB2 appeal if he is indeed running routes out of the slot) and if Swift goes down for his annual 4 game vacation, or Zeke's balky knee becomes a problem again, you've got a feature back on your hands as your 4th or 5th RB.

Don't forget about Craig Reynolds.

 

[BobbyLayne]

If you handcuff, there is one scenario where you might benefit. Maybe.

If you draft RBs with a role, they may be the beneficiary if the starter gets hurt. But they'll have value either way.

If I own a bellcow (loose usage - say one of the 20-24 lead backs in the league), and I draft a backup with a role, I can Flex that second RB (my 3rd/4th/5th RB.) If I draft a guy like Hubbard or Mattison, it's an either or situation. I either ride the bell cow or hope the handcuff really is, but if the stud stays healthy, he's just clogging my roster.

If the stud stays health, I don't need the roster clogger. In my main league your role players are bench fodder just like your "roster cloggers". In a 1-2-3-1- 2 flex league I can see your point. When I already have Cooper or Dobbins pinned to the bench in my league, a role player isn't a priority.

Best option is a mix of both. Handcuff one or two of your key investments and sprinkle in role players. I think the perfect draft article mentioned role players and upside guys.

There are lottery tickets, and there are scratch offs. One is a hold in the hopes you can one day use them, but that day may never come. Scratch offs tell us in the first few weeks if they have a role to play.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Now I play with the idea that I'd rather have someone else's handcuff - a RB with league-winner upside if the main dude gets hurt. That next Larry Johnson. For this year my favorite two are Pollard and Jamaal Williams. They both have flex-appeal (Pollard maybe RB2 appeal if he is indeed running routes out of the slot) and if Swift goes down for his annual 4 game vacation, or Zeke's balky knee becomes a problem again, you've got a feature back on your hands as your 4th or 5th RB.

Don't forget about Craig Reynolds.

In his last year in GB, Williams had a couple high volume, productive games when Jones went down. That didn't happen last year, in part bc Jamaal was hurt himself. He's an awesome team leader and I love having him in Detroit, but I have zero interest in Jamaal as a FF player.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Don't forget about Craig Reynolds.

I didn’t. His usage this preseason (played into the 4th yesterday) suggests he’s clearly behind Williams.

He’d get some run if Swift goes down, because that’s always gonna be a RBBC of sorts. I just see Williams as the clear “next man up” in DET.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Now I play with the idea that I'd rather have someone else's handcuff - a RB with league-winner upside if the main dude gets hurt. That next Larry Johnson. For this year my favorite two are Pollard and Jamaal Williams. They both have flex-appeal (Pollard maybe RB2 appeal if he is indeed running routes out of the slot) and if Swift goes down for his annual 4 game vacation, or Zeke's balky knee becomes a problem again, you've got a feature back on your hands as your 4th or 5th RB.

Don't forget about Craig Reynolds.

In his last year in GB, Williams had a couple high volume, productive games when Jones went down. That didn't happen last year, in part bc Jamaal was hurt himself. He's an awesome team leader and I love having him in Detroit, but I have zero interest in Jamaal as a FF player.

As a 6th RB you could do worse.

 

[BassNBrew]

If you handcuff, there is one scenario where you might benefit. Maybe.

If you draft RBs with a role, they may be the beneficiary if the starter gets hurt. But they'll have value either way.

If I own a bellcow (loose usage - say one of the 20-24 lead backs in the league), and I draft a backup with a role, I can Flex that second RB (my 3rd/4th/5th RB.) If I draft a guy like Hubbard or Mattison, it's an either or situation. I either ride the bell cow or hope the handcuff really is, but if the stud stays healthy, he's just clogging my roster.

If the stud stays health, I don't need the roster clogger. In my main league your role players are bench fodder just like your "roster cloggers". In a 1-2-3-1- 2 flex league I can see your point. When I already have Cooper or Dobbins pinned to the bench in my league, a role player isn't a priority.

Best option is a mix of both. Handcuff one or two of your key investments and sprinkle in role players. I think the perfect draft article mentioned role players and upside guys.

The bolded is the challenge, as I mentioned upthread. The number of true handcuffs is shrinking along with the number of true bellcows.

Yup...handcuffs are shrinking. When I'm referring to handcuffing, I mean situation where one is there, not forcing it.

 

[Insein]

As strictly a handcuff? It depends on the situation and the runner I'm backing up. For example, I took Henry this year. He's coming off injury. Titans are going to be very run heavy I think so having Hilliard would be good to mitigate any disaster should Henry go down. Other situations it may not be possible or necessary as the backup or offense is such a downgrade without the player that it's not worth it.

I am facing the same issue, but will it be Hilliard, Haskins or both?

Supposedly they say Hilliard is entrenched as the #2. At least that's the blurb from Rotowire.

 

[Fear The Turtle]

My style is more conservative. I handcuff when I can. On top of everything else, I don't want to be forced into blowing 80% of my FAAB In Week 2 or 3 when I'm left scrambling when my starter goes down.

That's the thing though. If you diversify your bets/risk and take chances on other team's starters, you may not be backed into a corner having to blow your FAAB money on your starter's backup.

I hear you. Believe me, there is flexibility in my approach, it's just that I prefer the peace of mind knowing that I've got my guy's quality backup locked up "when I can". It works for me. Definitely not saying it's for everyone. I guess it's been reinforced by the fact that I haven't had the greatest luck when holding other guys' starters' backups in the past.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Now I play with the idea that I'd rather have someone else's handcuff - a RB with league-winner upside if the main dude gets hurt. That next Larry Johnson. For this year my favorite two are Pollard and Jamaal Williams. They both have flex-appeal (Pollard maybe RB2 appeal if he is indeed running routes out of the slot) and if Swift goes down for his annual 4 game vacation, or Zeke's balky knee becomes a problem again, you've got a feature back on your hands as your 4th or 5th RB.

Don't forget about Craig Reynolds.

In his last year in GB, Williams had a couple high volume, productive games when Jones went down. That didn't happen last year, in part bc Jamaal was hurt himself. He's an awesome team leader and I love having him in Detroit, but I have zero interest in Jamaal as a FF player.

As a 6th RB you could do worse.

I drafted 5, picking up a couple more off WW this week...

• Ameer Abdullah (Zamir was drafted but AA might even have a 3rd down role)
• D'Ernest Johnson
• Dontrell Hilliard
• Craig Reynolds
• Boston Scott

All 3rd/4th stringers with a path to relevance if injuries hit.

Aside - will Sermon get cut? What do you think of Davis-Price? Seems like Wilson will be the depth chart backup.

Will pass on roster cloggers Mike Davis and Mark Ingram, even though the former might see starters snaps early and I own Alvin

 

[humpback]

Handcuffs are roster cloggers. Agree with all of the points @zamboni makes here.

Better off just drafting backup RBs with stand alone value (Dillon, Hunt, Pollard, Cook) who could be flexed regardless of the starters healthy. I roster a lot of lottery ticket RBs throughout the season who have no relation to my starting RBs. It's very hard to predict in August who might benefit to changing situations.

Without factoring in the cost, of course you'd be better off with those guys. We don't have that luxury.

The times where I've found cuffs to be valuable are the "game time decision" type calls, where the starter is questionable and it's nice to know that you have a starter either way. When a starter has a major injury, that's different.

So yeah, like with most of these questions, "it depends" on a lot of factors.

 

[TVT 0 N S T A]

I refuse to handcuff my RB's for various reasons provided above - think Chuba Hubbard last year. I would rather draft a guy with standalone value and play the waiver wire if my RB goes down than to be chasing perceived value in case something happens to my guy. Additionally, I am willing to take a Mattison, Pollard type if the ADP is right, but it almost never is. Those players are being overdrafted as handcuffs and I would rather chase better value as guys that don't need an injury to have a successful role on my team.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Ameer Abdullah (Zamir was drafted but AA might even have a 3rd down role)

I think he is absolutely the 3rd down back.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Pollard type if the ADP is right, but it almost never is.

Still can't believe I got him in the 10th on Saturday. It's IDP, so that's more like the 8th, but still a value.

FWIW I don't have Mattison in the came category. Pollard is going to be plenty valuable without a Zeke injury. Mattison is more of a breather back unless Cook goes down.

I think Mattison is over-drafted this year. Of course he's a boom if Cook goes down.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Ameer Abdullah (Zamir was drafted but AA might even have a 3rd down role)

I think he is absolutely the 3rd down back.

He was in Carolina, his best year as a pass catcher. You could say the same for Brandon Bolden though, and who is the HC now? They're both on the WW, the guy who is 3-4 years younger probably gets it but no way we'll know until the season starts. I don't think McDaniels will be tweeting us the info before then.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

will Sermon get cut?

Some are speculating that he's the RB2.

I've not seen anything on the field that indicates he deserves that, but Peter King thinks it's Sermon. I thought he was gonna get cut.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I don't think McDaniels will be tweeting us the info before then.

No, but I've seen a lot of local chatter - when word was out that Drake was a cut, his name came up a ton as the reason why.

 

[BobbyLayne]

will Sermon get cut?

Some are speculating that he's the RB2.

I've not seen anything on the field that indicates he deserves that, but Peter King thinks it's Sermon. I thought he was gonna get cut.

I usually go 180 out from what Peter predicts so thanks for the info.

 

[zamboni]

As strictly a handcuff? It depends on the situation and the runner I'm backing up. For example, I took Henry this year. He's coming off injury. Titans are going to be very run heavy I think so having Hilliard would be good to mitigate any disaster should Henry go down. Other situations it may not be possible or necessary as the backup or offense is such a downgrade without the player that it's not worth it.

I am facing the same issue, but will it be Hilliard, Haskins or both?

Supposedly they say Hilliard is entrenched as the #2. At least that's the blurb from Rotowire.

Yes, seems to be the case, but those blurbs are often just conjecture. We'll have to see when the games are played and not even sure we'll even know until something actually happened.

 

[VikingFrog]

https://twitter.com/NFL_DovKleiman/status/1564283099743408128?s=20&t=mYSX1tOgxCNXcJtTDVF8pw

“The #Vikings are listening to trade offers regarding RB Alexander Mattison, sources tell @MattLombardoNFL”

Just posted this in the Mattison thread… but it’s been dead since 2021.

Figured it fits in here as well.

Who’s calling asking about Mattison?

Washington? Philly? Any other usual suspect.

I assume he’d want to go somewhere to start. Could be an awesome dart throw for anyone that snagged him late in their drafts.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Hunt is not a handcuff. He is a RB with a role to play. He has scored well when Chubb is healthy and has scored about the same when Chubb is hurt.

D'Ernest Johnson is the handcuff/lottery ticket.

That’s a great point. If you’re drafting a 2nd RB from the same team because that player has standalone value, that is a different proposition. I still would never do it because now you’re loading way more risk into your team (if you start them both and they play a tough run D and the run offense sucks, you’re screwed. If their O-line gets a bunch of injuries you’re screwed. Same bye week=trouble).

In general, I think there are just more scenarios and more likely scenarios that benefit your team by drafting RBs from different teams than there are drafting multiple RBs from the same team.

 

[eighsse2]

It depends.
(1) I might handcuff regularly if I did redraft, but I only do dynasty.
(2) In dynasty, I pretty much only go for a handcuff if the guy I own involves great uncertainty (this is why I traded for James Robinson recently to go with Etienne), OR if I think the handcuff has potential on his own, whether alongside the one I already have, or if they should end up on different teams (this is also why I traded for James Robinson recently to go with Etienne).

ETA: As a converse example, I just cut Samaje Perine before our rookie draft, even though I have Mixon. Perine is sounding pretty good and well ahead of Chris Evans. But he doesn't fit the conditions listed above, in my opinion. Though I did carry him last season.

Oh, and as for why I tend to operate this way, in dynasty it just seems to me that you are better off filling that spot with someone you fully expect, or at least hope, to be something in the coming years. Not a "shrug, just-in-case" guy. I want value. But yes I'll be sorry when my main guys go down.

 

[candian fantasy guy]

I used to handcuff religiously.

I found that when my dude went down, my "handcuff" performed ~75% (or worse) as the starter. Which makes sense, because the starter is the elite player and the handcuff often is not. Sometimes the backup is trash (hellllooooo Chubba Hubbard last year)

The only time handcuffing truly paid off for me was when I took Larry Johnson after Priest Holmes.

But the fact is, I would have been better off taking any other player then Larry Johnson because Holmes was a risky/bad pick that year.

Now I play with the idea that I'd rather have someone else's handcuff - a RB with league-winner upside if the main dude gets hurt. That next Larry Johnson. For this year my favorite two are Pollard and Jamaal Williams. They both have flex-appeal (Pollard maybe RB2 appeal if he is indeed running routes out of the slot) and if Swift goes down for his annual 4 game vacation, or Zeke's balky knee becomes a problem again, you've got a feature back on your hands as your 4th or 5th RB.

So in a way, yes - I want handcuffs. I want my league-mate's handcuffs. If my RB1 or 2 goes down I have a RB3 to fill in. But I also have a couple of lotto tickets, both of whom could contribute periodically. They are also excellent trade bait for the owners who wanted them as their handcuffs.

This is the way.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I answered “dependent” on the situation. I generally am not a fan of “expensive” handcuffs. For example—if you draft Zeke with the intention of also taking Pollard. I don’t like that—because you are wasting two valuable picks for a situation where you can really only start one of the players weekly. That’s too big an investment for the reward imo. If that situation—I think you’re better off drafting only one of those players—and hoping that they can provide you with being healthy and performing. However—I am a fan of insuring a stud player if it can be done very cheaply. For example—I got Najee Harris in my redraft league this season (auction draft). I got his handcuff (Jaylen Warren) for $1 as one of my last picks. When I looked at my final roster spot or two—and saw who else was left on the board—it just made sense to me to get the guy who I think has the highest potential upside value for my team.

 

[titusbramble]

Lol, it's situational every single time. How deep is my bench? What are the options I would take instead of the handcuff and do they offer substantially better upside? What clarity do we have on the rushing situation in the event our guy goes down? Is the backup actually a good back, or does he suck and someone hits some emergency Latavius Murray button or something?