HandCuffing is Over-Rated!

[footballallyear 0]

The only clear hand cuff this year is Turner for LT and maybe Maroney for Dillon, But that's clearly a RBBC now.

 

Last year it was LJ for Priest.

 

Look at the Westy situation...you starting Moats or Fumblehalter?...

 

I have Westy and rather than choose between these two point drainers, I have Thomas Jones, Deangelo Willams or Gado to stick in his place...all better choices than the above two.

 

FYI My other starting RB is Tiki.

 

Not to mention it will turn into an RBBC anyhow.

 

My Point is have a starter in reserve not a handcuff.

 

Whaddaya think??

 

[ACL's 0]

Part of the equation is how your league handles transactions and how savvy the league is. My money league goes thru the waiver process twice a week and you can bet you would never get most backups when the number one goes down unless you have one of the top three waiver picks. Certainly Morris would never have made it to me, an Alexander owner. And a starting running back in my league is much like hens teeth. We also have a 20 transaction limit for the year which really makes things interesting. You better draft well and spend frugally.

 

However, I totally agree that you should not handcuff to every single number one running back or even in a RBBC situation. Morris, such as he is, IS the starter in Seattle. Even Mewelde Moore would be the starter in Minnesota should Chester go down. I don't think they are bad handcuffs if you have the space. But if you don't have the roster spot and/or are carrying a starting RB already on your bench then using the room for other depth would be recommended.

[RealDeal5781 0]

to each his own

 

Morency looked solid in place of Ahman.

[rambler 0]

Exactly. Only 'cuff if you feel the backup would be an impact player in the event his services are required... I usually use my 4RB spot for cuffing if necessary. (I'd cuff Rudi with Kenny Watson if I had Rudi, btw)

 

-R

[Mark_it_8_Dude 0]

to each his own

 

Morency looked solid in place of Ahman.

 

Yeah but at draft time Morency would have been the hand-cuff to Dom Davis or Wali Lundy not Ahman Green, but I see your point as a ww addition to back-up Green.

[Restricted 0]

The only true handcuffs are players that are in position to excell when the person in front of them on the roster chart goes down. All of your examples are dead on.

 

FYI My other starting RB is Tiki.

 

Brandon Jacobs makes a great handcuff for Tiki.

[footballallyear 0]

The only true handcuffs are players that are in position to excell when the person in front of them on the roster chart goes down. All of your examples are dead on.

Brandon Jacobs makes a great handcuff for Tiki.

 

Agreed on Jacobs...but if Westy and Tiki both go down for the year I might as well work on next years draft board in that league!

[aeropushb4 0]

Look at the Westy situation...you starting Moats or Fumblehalter?...

 

 

 

My Point is have a starter in reserve not a handcuff.

 

Whaddaya think??

 

 

as A westbrook owner who needed 3 points to win last night I sure would have loved to have had the option to put one of these guys in

[TimmySmith 2,783]

My Point is have a starter in reserve not a handcuff.

 

Whaddaya think??

 

Sure, in a perfect world. But in deeper leagues a back-up may be your only shot to have starter during injuries. That said, I agree that there are only about 5-6 legit handcuffs in the NFL (SD, NE, NYG, WASH, BALT immediately come to mind) the rest are like starting a 2nd teamer.

[Restricted 0]

Thinking about this some more, one REAL benefit to having a handcuff is for players that are game time decisions. If you find out that the player you expected to start is a game time scratch, often you won't have too much you can throw in his place except the person right below him on the depth chart. Especially in examples like last night where if someone had Westbrook in their RB slot when the news came through that he was not going to play, the only option would be to put a Philly or GB runningback in his place for your line-up.

[shadow2k 0]

My Point is have a starter in reserve not a handcuff.

 

Whaddaya think??

 

 

I think that it's not viable for every team to have three starting RB's on their roster in a 12-team league.

 

I have 3 starters. And handcuffed my top RB. And I also own Buckhalter, which screwed the Westbrook owner that I was playing this week.

 

While my own handcuff hopefully will never see the light of day...I'm more than willing to give up a roster spot for him, even with a small bench (8 starters 6 bench). Because I don't want to be put in the spot that I put the Westbrook owner into yesterday. Buckhalter may have sucked last night...but he still put up points, and that's always better than taking a zero at that spot.

[beantownbrown 0]

Depends on the backup's talent, the coaching staff's faith in the backup, and the system (run heavy or not).

 

Mo Morris was everybody's hot pickup...SA owners were mocked who didn't carry him. Now we see why some people preferred to have someone else sitting on their bench int he case Alexander went down. Morris played against Chicago, yes, but you know that SA going down means more passing as Holmgren will go 4-wide on teams until SA returns.

 

Some teams will run no matter what, Philly is not one of them. They are pass first team WITH Westbrook, that doesn't bode well when he goes down and you have his backup. Westbrook is an elite receiving back which is why he is so valuable, Buckhalter and Moats haven't proven to be as effective and their touches will not match what Westy's will if they start in his place.

 

Now a guy like Norwood is a great handcuff. If Dunn goes down that team is still going to run and do it effectively. He's also very talented. Maurice Drew is another good one. Turner is probably the best handcuff in the league today, DeAngelo Williams and Reggie Bush are both involved a lot in the offense already and if Foster or Deuce go down (always pretty likely) they would instantly become very valuable obviously.

 

I can't call Maroney a handcuff anymore for Dillon...I think he is full on RBBC...just like Rhodes/Addai in Indy. If one goes down though the other's stock rises dramatically.

 

Forgot to mention Mike Bell...if you have Tatum you should have Mike on your bench. Another run first team with a great o-line...whoever starts will produce there.

[cubbie5150 0]

Depends on the backup's talent, the coaching staff's faith in the backup, and the system (run heavy or not).

 

Mo Morris was everybody's hot pickup...SA owners were mocked who didn't carry him. Now we see why some people preferred to have someone else sitting on their bench int he case Alexander went down. Morris played against Chicago, yes, but you know that SA going down means more passing as Holmgren will go 4-wide on teams until SA returns.

 

Some teams will run no matter what, Philly is not one of them. They are pass first team WITH Westbrook, that doesn't bode well when he goes down and you have his backup. Westbrook is an elite receiving back which is why he is so valuable, Buckhalter and Moats haven't proven to be as effective and their touches will not match what Westy's will if they start in his place.

 

Now a guy like Norwood is a great handcuff. If Dunn goes down that team is still going to run and do it effectively. He's also very talented. Maurice Drew is another good one. Turner is probably the best handcuff in the league today, DeAngelo Williams and Reggie Bush are both involved a lot in the offense already and if Foster or Deuce go down (always pretty likely) they would instantly become very valuable obviously.

 

I can't call Maroney a handcuff anymore for Dillon...I think he is full on RBBC...just like Rhodes/Addai in Indy. If one goes down though the other's stock rises dramatically.

 

Kudos...great post dude.

[dominus florenzus 0]

It's all about the offensive line. Eagles do not have good run blocking. Westbrook is talented and that is the only way he gets rushing yards. So many times he gets stuffed running and makes it up in receiving. Look at Edge this year - terrible offensive line, no stats. Some running backs are "OK" but do great because of their O-line. In that case, handcuffs are good options. If not, then don't bother.

[EndAround 0]

It all depends on your situation.

 

My backs are S Alexander, C Taylor, L Jordan(via Droughns trade), and D Williams I start 2.

 

Sure I could have picked up Morris instead of Williams (Morris was undrafted in my league) but I (incorrectly as it turned out) figured Alexander was more durable than Foster and Williams was more talented than Morris. I saw more positives in Williams, even if only as trade bait for the Foster owner, than I saw in handcuffing any of my starting backs. Now if I owned Tiki or Dunn or Foster I would have probably picked up the handcuff as those backups all look pretty good.

 

RBBC gets trickier - for every happy Maroney or Addai owner there is a M Bell or W Lundy owner who is less than pleased. It's hard for me to weigh in here as I targeted feature backs in the draft to avoid the uncertainty of RRBC.

[cp429 0]

The thing I would say about handcuffing is thats its an effective strategy in progressively deeper leagues. Ultimately the most valuable players as the season goes on will be RBs and they tend to break down and get hurt. So, approach a draft with the belief that you will be drafting the more likely backups. Anyone who drafted Larry Johnson in the fifth last year triumphed whether they traded him or started him. Dominic Rhodes was my savior a few years ago. Likewise Gado last year.

 

I would rather hold a potential backup any day over a 3rd or 4th WR (granted you can fill a lineup for byes and whatnot). You are always one injury away from a potentially good back or from trading for a high level Skill player. Backups are essentially options on starting RB spot, or effectively the offense,in general. And considering the lack of solid RBS each year, it makes it even more important in a year like this.

[shadow2k 0]

It's all about the offensive line. Eagles do not have good run blocking. Westbrook is talented and that is the only way he gets rushing yards. So many times he gets stuffed running and makes it up in receiving. Look at Edge this year - terrible offensive line, no stats. Some running backs are "OK" but do great because of their O-line. In that case, handcuffs are good options. If not, then don't bother.

 

I'm not going to argue Philly's O-line. But Westbrook is rushing at a 5.8ypc avg this year. Even if you take away his 71-yd run...he's still got a 4.3ypc. And his next longest run after that is something like 17yds.

 

He may get stuffed a lot, I haven't seen him play yet this year. But he's not making it up through the air, he's making it up on the ground.

[mambokings 0]

Let me throw in a plug for Ladell Betts as a great handcuff to Clinton Portis. Al Saunders loves Ladell Betts and there's every reason to know why: Betts has good running speed, power, and great hands. Half the time when I'm watching the Redskins and I see a running back make a nice run I think it's Portis only to find out it was Ladell Betts (it also doesn't help that Betts wears #46 to Clinton's #26). Portis isn't 100% healthy yet and his shoulder could easily become a problem again with the right amount of stress on it. Keep in mind how much Washington loves to run the ball and how Betts would see a bucket load of carries in Clinton's absence. I consider Betts to Portis what Michael Turner is to Ladainian Tomlinson: a productive reserve who can be just as capable if asked to assume the role of a starter.

[kcBlitzkrieg 29]

I agree completely with the starter of the thread...there are only a handful of backs in the league that I would see necessary to "handcuff" (I hate this term for how often it is overused & overrated). Besides the backs already mentioned in this thread there is no reason to "handcuff the vast majority of RBs in the league, no matter if they are #1s. If you have solid enough depth then why not just plug in that #3 or #4 back for the week, they are going to put up better numbers than your #1 or #2 RB's backup (except in the few circumstances already mentioned). I just get tired of seeing all the threads, stories & captions next to a piece of crap RBs name such as "must handcuff"....provide yourself adequete depth & you will be much more successfull than the guy who handcuffs "Lamont with Huggy Bear Jr." or all the suckers who traded for Duckett to handcuff Betts (to Portis).

[waterwolves 0]

I know it was already said but Betts is on my team because I have Portis. I got Portis in the second round but he is still my stud and I always have an insurance policy on my #1 RB. Thats just me. I don't handcuff the rest of my RB just my stud.

[davidbostonisgood 2]

The only clear hand cuff this year is Turner for LT and maybe Maroney for Dillon,

 

Try Dillon a handcuff for Maroney

[wildbluefan 0]

Exactly. Only 'cuff if you feel the backup would be an impact player in the event his services are required... I usually use my 4RB spot for cuffing if necessary. (I'd cuff Rudi with Kenny Watson if I had Rudi, btw)

 

-R

 

 

BINGOP...BOINGO....Couldnt have said it better....that fits TURNER to a tee !!

[xenophobe 1]

The biggest attribute to the handcuff is that their value increases when you need them most. Perhaps a back like Thomas Jones is just as good a replacement for Alexander as Mo Morris. But when you compare where Jones drafted verses Morris, it's easy to see the appeal of a guy like Morris to Alexander owners. Similarly, a guys like Betts provides more value to Portis owners than he does other owners because he has very little value when Portis plays, which may not be when a non Portis owner needs him. So Betts is a very viable backup to Portis that likely could be had for good value in the draft because his value to everyone else is a lot less.

 

The biggest drawback to the handcuff, and one that often gets overlooked, is that when a guy is a "gametime decision" you are forced into a situation where both backs become risky plays. The other drawback is that handcuffs only serve as replacements to injured players and doesn't address your need as a bye week replacement. These are two significant drawbacks to the handcuff strategy, virtually guaranteeing that, even with a handcuff, you would need another viable replacement option to go along with the handcuff in order to cover your bases with a player.

 

This along with the quality of the handcuff must all be factored into the decision.

[rtcr 0]

I have Turner and DON'T even own LT. If LT does down, it's like winning the FF lottery.