When is a hand cuff more important than owning a better player? (1 Viewer)

[Breesisdaman]

I am curious how owners of stud players value the handcuff to those players. For example if you own DMC, Turner, Foster would you rather own their replacements than another top 20-25 RB?

For example lets say you own Arien Foster , Steven Jackson and Lesean McCoy and Fred Jackson but Ward is on waivers. Would it make more sense to keep a higher ranked player like Fred Jackson or would you drop him for Ward to protect the Texan's gravy train your accustomed to each week? Or do you always stash the most valuable players and not pay any attention to handcuff scenario.

 

[davidwb]

this is a great question -- and the answer is one of the keys to having a successful ffb team. i think it depends on the rb, and especially on the quality of the backup and the system. if you think that the backup would do as well as the starter (i.e, ward would do as well as foster if he started), then picking up the backup is a good strategy. but if you think that you could do better with someone else, then i wouldn't pick up the backup. for example, i wouldn't have picked up brandon jackson early in the year because he didn't have the upside -- i'd rather have picked up another second-level starter instead.

 

[Breesisdaman]

this is a great question -- and the answer is one of the keys to having a successful ffb team. i think it depends on the rb, and especially on the quality of the backup and the system. if you think that the backup would do as well as the starter (i.e, ward would do as well as foster if he started), then picking up the backup is a good strategy. but if you think that you could do better with someone else, then i wouldn't pick up the backup. for example, i wouldn't have picked up brandon jackson early in the year because he didn't have the upside -- i'd rather have picked up another second-level starter instead.

I tried to pick examples of backs I thought would do just as well as the starters. Any of the backups mentioned could put up top 10 numbers if they were the lone back when the Starter ahead of them goes down. What are the chances you go the whole season and never need the handcuff? What are the chances that this week is Fosters last game for the season?

 

[The_Fonz]

When I had Portis, I grabbed Lynch off of the waiver wire(pre trade) instead of Torain.. THere is one example where I thought I was getting a better player with a better chance of seeing more touches, even with Buffalo he was starting to heat up enough to be a decent flex. I wish I had grabbed Torain....but in most cases I go for a better player with more chances to touch the ball instead of hoping the backup will be as good as the original starter.

 

[schu]

A factor I consider is bye weeks. After a bye week has passed, I'm more likely to trade-away or drop starting depth and carry his clear handcuff. Hopefully you can pair a marginal starting RB (fred jackson is a great example) with a WR2 and get a WR1 in return. You might even look like you're not getting the best of it in the deal. However, the implied 4th player is the waiver-wire handcuff RB.

 

[two_dollars]

The answer is: When the backup (B) can step up and produce 75% or better of the starter (A) he is replacing, you would then keep him over a ww rb © who can only hit up to 50-60% of A's CEILING.

 

[hip80]

The answer is: When the backup (B) can step up and produce 75% or better of the starter (A) he is replacing, you would then keep him over a ww rb © who can only hit up to 50-60% of A's CEILING.

I'm holding McGahee for Rice based on this thinking

 

[FantasyTrader]

When you lack depth and you'd feel more comfortable with the backup (in the event the starter missed time) than the other option.

 

[flranger]

As long as your league actively trades..........keep the higher rated/lower upside starter towards the beginning of the year. After bye weeks begin transitions towards bellcows and backups while gearing up for playoffs. Hopefully along the way you parlayed some of that depth into better starters (if everything works properly).

 

[Angus82]

I'm on a locked roster of 4 RB's. Locking up a handcuff is just a roster waste. When the play-offs roll around I may look to the back ups, but I am just not a handcuff fan.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

I think part of the answer has to lie, in part, with where you are in the season. If you find yourself now at the midway point a lock or near-lock for the playoffs, you can afford to be a little conservative, meaning you try to get your solid handcuffs. But if you're battling for a spot or in the lower tier of your league, go for the guy who could help boost your team to the next level, maybe even hit a home run and score a Larry Johnson-type of player a la 2005.

 

[first round bust]

imo, a combination of how talented you think the backup is and how good the system is- but generally the decision of whether to handcuff should be weighted more toward how talented you think the backup rb is. a lot of times though it is really tricky determining how talented the backup actually is since the backup probably hasnt been in game action much recently or ever. sometimes though, the system is so good, like kc when they had vermeil, that the talent level of the backup matters a lot less.

 

[BespokeJort]

When you lack depth and you'd feel more comfortable with the backup (in the event the starter missed time) than the other option.

I think part of the answer has to lie, in part, with where you are in the season. If you find yourself now at the midway point a lock or near-lock for the playoffs, you can afford to be a little conservative, meaning you try to get your solid handcuffs. But if you're battling for a spot or in the lower tier of your league, go for the guy who could help boost your team to the next level, maybe even hit a home run and score a Larry Johnson-type of player a la 2005.

It's a combination of these two factors. Handcuffs mitigate risk, at the cost of decreased ceiling/reward (the possibility of having both your starter and the other 'lesser' starter firing on all cylinders as opposed to knowing you'll have one guy producing no matter what). If your team blows, you don't care about risk and would rather end up with an extra startable player. If your team is strong, you likely don't want to risk losing that if your horse gets injured (unless you have sufficient depth you wouldn't start the cuff, in which case you should go for the extra starter).

 

[Breesisdaman]

When you lack depth and you'd feel more comfortable with the backup (in the event the starter missed time) than the other option.

I think part of the answer has to lie, in part, with where you are in the season. If you find yourself now at the midway point a lock or near-lock for the playoffs, you can afford to be a little conservative, meaning you try to get your solid handcuffs. But if you're battling for a spot or in the lower tier of your league, go for the guy who could help boost your team to the next level, maybe even hit a home run and score a Larry Johnson-type of player a la 2005.

It's a combination of these two factors. Handcuffs mitigate risk, at the cost of decreased ceiling/reward (the possibility of having both your starter and the other 'lesser' starter firing on all cylinders as opposed to knowing you'll have one guy producing no matter what). If your team blows, you don't care about risk and would rather end up with an extra startable player. If your team is strong, you likely don't want to risk losing that if your horse gets injured (unless you have sufficient depth you wouldn't start the cuff, in which case you should go for the extra starter).

Great answer! This makes perfect sense.All responses have been good though. Thanks to everyone.