Handcuffing/Doubling Up/Hookup: For or Against? (1 Viewer)

[Brothers Mayhem]

Thought it would be interesting to get some opinions on using Handcuffing/Doubling Up/Hookup as a strategy. Simple enough - are you for or are you against it? And why?

I'll start by saying that I feel handcuffing could be a good strategy as long as you are cuffing players that produce. A good example to me is AJ and Schaub. Both are top fantasy producers and by getting them both, you are assuming a little more risk, but get great weekly production that can lead to a really good H2H record. However, should you handcuff middle of the pack players, or one solid producer with a hit or miss guy, this can be a terrible strategy. An example of a bad handcuff, IMO, is something like Brees/Meachem or Stafford/CJohnson (which may change this year).

Thoughts?

 

[fsufan]

for it if the back up is very good/talented.

turner handcuff LT for example

and I do not consider players like barber, Jones and Stewart to be handcuffs

ETA- just read the title . thought you meant handcuffing a player with his back up.

i would not call having a QB and WR from the same team a handcuff

 

[Sylira21]

Yeah, I've most often seen "handcuffing" used as taking a player's backup as insurance against injury, most often with RBs. Whether it's a good thing depends a lot on whether the player's backup is any good (example of Tomlinson/Turner was a good one) and your league's roster rules - if you've got lots of roster spots, that's one thing, but with only a few backups, this starts to become a pretty costly strategy.

The QB-WR thing, I'm not so sure about. With explosive players you are doubling down on a really big week, that's for sure, but it does increase your injury exposure risk - do you really want Miles Austin (at the price he would cost) if Romo gets hurt?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Yeah, handcuff is almost always used to refer to taking a player's backup -- it's a technique used to reduce variance, not increase it, so I wouldn't call grabbing a QB/WR tandem as handcuffing. I'd call that doubling up.

You hit on the major point, though. Draft good players. For the most part, taking the same QB/WR doesn't do much than taking a QB and WR on different teams, if they're similarly rated. The difference, of course, is that the future success of the QB and WR on the same team are correlated. This can be useful in tournament leagues, where you really want to maximize upside. Last year in the NFFC I doubled up on Brady and Moss, thinking that to win a 500+ person league, it would really help if my first round pick and my second round pick went nuts. Well, I took Moss with my first pick. If Moss was going to have a crazy good year, his QB would, too. So I took Brady in the second round, on the assumption that the odds that Brady and Moss both had huge years was more likely to happen at the same time than say Manning and Moss.

 

[SoopaCee]

no i hate handcuffing.....thats why they have a waiver wire

plus thats why you try to draft good team.....instead of stashing a "maybe starter" on my bench, i rather have an actual starter.....because even if someone gets hurt, your handcuff is still a #2 on an nfl team, remember, when gore went down coffee looked like crap

but all in all....if someone gets hurt....there is always the waiver wire......

 

[Brothers Mayhem]

I have never heard it called "doubling up"...but it does seem to suit the situation better. I have just always used the term "handcuffing" as in the success of one player depends upon the other. Generally speaking - if Manning, Brady, Schaub, etc. have a bad year, or go out with injury - Wayne, Brady & AJ's production suffers & vice versa.

For certain it isn't a lock that would happen because their are times when the QB2 that takes over can fill the shoes and keep the offense going. However, for the most part, IMO, one needs the other to get their production. I guess since I am a minority in this - I should stop using it that way and limit it to just starters and their back-ups.

 

[mjr]

I call pairing up a QB/WR from the same team a tandem, and IMO it's not a bad strategy if you're doing it with a QB that can spread the ball around (like Brady, Rodgers, etc). There were several weeks last season where a struggling Jennings only gave me 6 or 7 fantasy points, yet Rodgers still gave me 40+ because of his ability to find an open man one way or another.

I think the most obvious challenge with the tandem move is in knowing your own strengths and weaknesses. If you don't have a consistent knack for picking out stud RBs just before they break out, or if you tend to neglect your TE spot and so on, then going QB/WR (especially with your first 2 redraft picks) will only create deficiencies in your team that will usually out-weigh any benefits to a tandem (if there really are any).

Great move if you can find those sleepers. Not good at all if that's esentially your whole team.

 

[GoBears84]

no i hate handcuffing.....thats why they have a waiver wireplus thats why you try to draft good team.....instead of stashing a "maybe starter" on my bench, i rather have an actual starter.....because even if someone gets hurt, your handcuff is still a #2 on an nfl team, remember, when gore went down coffee looked like crapbut all in all....if someone gets hurt....there is always the waiver wire......

In my leagues we have thin benches, so until we get through the BYE weeks it's generally not a good strategy to have a handcuff. However, since I usually carry one player I know I'm going to drop the next week (especially for a DEF as I fill BYE's) I will sometimes pick up an unclaimed handcuff in the off chance that the primary gets injured that week. It depends on the size of your league and the depth of your benches as to whether or not a handcuff works for you.

 

[-jb-]

if you've got a league that pays out on weekly high point totals, connecting a QB and WR/TE can be a very good thing.

 

[unckeyherb]

There's no upside to doing this (unless you get bonus points for big weeks of scoring). Its all about value, as is all positions you draft. Say you take Brees, because he is the highest ranked QB on the board. And say on your next pick you are targeting a WR. If Colston is the top ranked WR, then by all means, take him. However, if you take Colston with say, Andre still out there, thinking that this is a shark move...well no. Take the best player on the board; if you happen to get a tandem then expect some awesome refreshes on your scoreboard (90 yard bomb from QB to WR resulting in +20 points) and some weeks where you want to kill yourself.

Also, prepare for that teams' bye week accordingly. I've inadvertently drafted/traded for multiple players from the same 1-2 teams and their bye weeks are like gimmees.

 

[massraider]

Taking a QB cause you have a WR from the same team, or vice versa, is not a sound strategy. Better to target players you think will get the most points, if they happen to play for the same team, great.

 

[Khalua83]

Yeah this is defintly a double dip question not a handcuff question........

 

[Pickle Rody]

I call having a QB/WR from the same NFL team a "hookup". I have no problem with this strategy. I've had Manning/Wayne on my keeper team for 4 years now, winning 2 titles ('06, '09). They have each been a big part of why I consistently have winning seasons. As others have said though, you need to have a really solid team surrounding your "hookup" to make it work. That takes a little skill to accomplish....just a little. Plus a little luck.

eta: I've also rolled with at least 3 fantasy starters from the same NFL team, more than once. I've also used 5 fantasy starters from one NFL team at least once. By once, I mean throughout the year.

Rody

 

[Monsters of the Midway]

I call having a QB/WR from the same NFL team a "hookup".

That's what we call it in my leagues. Some of my friends are big fans, I'm pretty indifferent-I go for whoever I rank higher. It is definitely nice when you get a high octane hookup, feast or famine as others have described.

 

[GregR_2]

Assuming total points would be the same either way, having the QB and WR from the same team would result in bigger up and down swings in your scoring as they have good/bad days together more often. So is that a good thing or a bad thing?

If you're an above average team it's a bad thing. If you average 100 and most of your opponents average 90, you should be ecstatic about every team always being consistent and hitting their average. You'd win every one of those games.

But if you're a below average team, you want the higher variance in your scoring (again, assuming total points is equal). You'd rather have a 75-100 blow out loss and a 105-100 win than you would a pair of 90-100 losses.

So all other things equal, the hookup is a positive for a bad team and a negative for a good team. I imagine the effect is probably pretty small though. Since odds are the two WRs you're considering won't both score the same, which player actually does better is probably going to dwarf the effect of having the hookup or not.

 

[Jersey35]

Assuming total points would be the same either way, having the QB and WR from the same team would result in bigger up and down swings in your scoring as they have good/bad days together more often. So is that a good thing or a bad thing?If you're an above average team it's a bad thing. If you average 100 and most of your opponents average 90, you should be ecstatic about every team always being consistent and hitting their average. You'd win every one of those games.But if you're a below average team, you want the higher variance in your scoring (again, assuming total points is equal). You'd rather have a 75-100 blow out loss and a 105-100 win than you would a pair of 90-100 losses.So all other things equal, the hookup is a positive for a bad team and a negative for a good team. I imagine the effect is probably pretty small though. Since odds are the two WRs you're considering won't both score the same, which player actually does better is probably going to dwarf the effect of having the hookup or not.

This.Also, just to chime in, "handcuffing" is definitely the acquiring of a stud player's backup in the hopes recouping some of the loss in the event of an injury to the stud player.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I am against this strategy for these reasons:

1) If one or the other is injured of your fantasy tandem, it directly affects the other, more risk than choosing equal talents on separate teams.

2) A lot of times, the hype of a great year can change by quite a bit in the offseason for whatever reason. Sometimes it's a coaching change, or a key lineman or linemen go down. Too many variables to predict the same success from one year to the next.

3) It can really put you in a bind when playing H2H as you will have one week where you could be seriously shorthanded and end up losing to a lesser team.

Overall, I think diversity is better. Just make sure you chose talent over situation. I guess that's my philosophy.

 

[Fly]

I go back and forth on the issue. But I think it really depends on the make up of your team and what players you are doubling up. Doubling up on Mark Sanchez and Braylon Edwards probably won't win you a lot of FF games. If you double up with Schaub and AJ, though, then there are a lot of weeks where you can flat out dominate.

Last year I had the Warner/Fitz combo but also had a solid supporting cast of MJD/R Rice/G Jennings. If Warner/Fitz went bananas no one was going to beat me. If they had a solid/mediocre day I still had a a shot at winning because of MJD and Rice. I made it to the championship game (and lost).

In the semi-finals in that league I held a 24 point lead over my opponent going into Monday night (week 15). He still had Favre, Peterson, and Harvin left. I thought I was done. Favre threw 0 TDs and had 224 yards while Harvin only had 10 yards receiving. I ended up winning by 1 and moved onto the finals. To compound the issue, he loved his Vikings lineup so much that he left Roethy and his 500 yards and 3 TDs on the bench.

Take from the examples what you will. I just wanted to provide a couple of scenarios for and against the double points strategy (that's what we call it in our league).