View on "handcuffed" WR and RB combos? (1 Viewer)

[cloudofdust]

Wrapped up a 14 team .5 PPR draft tonight and ended up with two WR-RB same-team combos - Charles and Bowe, and Best and Johnson. Didn't plan it this way; just worked out that way (especially when Charles fell to me in the 11th spot.... what? Yeah, I can't explain that either. Just glad it happened.) Setting aside the bye week issue, I'm wondering what the consensus is on the upside/downside of this sort of roster composition. The obvious thought is that if your RB-WR combo is on a team that has a generally powerful offense, you're benefitting because any TDs or yards that your RB would normally lose to your same-team WR, you stand a good chance of picking up, and vice versa. But I'm sure there's downside risk to this sort of move as well (e.g., on a week you're up against a very strong D, you're in twice as much trouble than you would be if you were more diversified.) Anyway, just wondering what the views are on this approach. Thanks.

(PS - not relevant to the question, which is meant to be generally about the RB-WR same-team strategy, and not my team in particular, but here's how the team shaped up overall: .5 PPR, 1/2/3/1/1/1/2IDP: Sanchez, Kolb / Charles, Best, Ingram, Bush, Lynch / Calvin Johnson, Bowe, J. Jones / A. Hernandez, Lance Kendricks / New England / Cundiff / Laurinatis, Lofton. Gonna have to swap an RB for a bench WR...)

PPS - I know this isn't the technical meaning of "handcuffed" as normally used. Just seemed a convenient bit of shorthand to use for the subject line...

 

[100]

From a draft and rostering standpoint I feel having 2 of my starters wr/rb being on the same team to be mostly trivial, for the reasons you mentioned. There is basically no player I would pass up at the proper value just to avoid this 'handcuff' or reach for just to make this 'handcuff'.

I'd say overall if choosing between two rosters with equal projections/values, I wouldn't want the one with the wr/rb from the same team because of the flexibility lost, as you mentioned, is more meaningful than chasing the highest floor.