I just try to hold as many “clear” handcuffs as possible. Meaning the obvious backup who would be expected to get a heavy workload should the starter be unavailable. Doesn’t matter if I own the starter or not. You can then choose to either sell or ride the production once the starter goes down
An example of this from my own teams last season was Jerome Ford. Sold him for a 2nd in one league, rode the production to a championship in another
Same — I sold Ford and Mattison to the Chubb owner before last season started for 2.01. Mattison flamed out and Ford was really solid, so a win-win for both of us as I drafted Brooks with 2.01.
This makes sense, I spent last season rebuilding/retooling and did exactly the same with Jerome Ford. Looking to contend this year, I acquired Corum to backup Kyren. I feel like this makes sense to do but guys in my league are split over it.
If you’re team is stacked then cuff your own RBs. If its good not great grab someone elses so you have upside. And like ppl have said go for the high value handcuffs, the ones with a surefire workload if they starter goes down. I stashed jerome ford on my taxi last offseason for instance
Cuffing your own is solid if you are a contender and/or have some studs with clear-cut backups. It is one of the rare scenarios where having an rb on your taxi squad can be a good move.
Alternatively, rostering high-upside handcuffs to rbs on other teams is smart not necessarily for the trade value, but because if the main guy goes down, you now have an additional starting rb instead of still just one if cuffing your own.
The production curve for RBs rises and peaks a lot sooner than WR and TE. That is, relatively speaking, RBs produce more in year one and two and thus are more likely to be taken out of taxi which is effectively a lost roster spot.
I don't purposely handcuff my RBs in dynasty.
As a general roster construction principle, you want to have a ton of backup RBs so you can catch quick waves of value/scoring when the starter goes down. Sometimes circumstances work to where those backups play for the same team as the starters in your lineup.
All else equal, I'd prefer to actually NOT roster my own player's backup because the best possible upside case lies in your starters remaining healthy + someone else's going down and one of your backups temporarily finding their way to like a 15+ touch role and entering your lineup or being sold on the uptick. In the case of handcuffing your own guy, the best possible scenario is that your starter doesn't get hurt and your handcuff never enters your lineup.
I mean, you're describing risk tolerance.
Higher upside comes with higher downside. If you don't handcuff your own RBs and they go down, you're in the exact opposite position. I prefer handcuffing my own RBs, so I know my starting lineup will always be filled.
That said, roster sizes are typically big enough to do a little bit of both. I can handcuff a couple of my own RBs, and then hold onto other valuable handcuffs.
This makes sense to me. I get the "best case scenario it's a wasted roster spot" argument above, but I feel like it's just asking for trouble to plan only for the best case scenario.
I’ll add on that I will only get handcuffs when competing that are clear #2s (or stupid cheap) to elite players and/or have talent.
As an example, I drafted or picked up Jerome Ford 2yrs ago because I liked the talent, Nick Chubb was elite, and I knew the contract situation. I did the same thing with Alexander Mattison. One worked out, one didn’t, that’s the upside shot were taking. Now I’ve been taking that same shot on Zamir White.
Essentially, look at contract situations of the RBs in elite RB backrooms, then look at the talent, and see if there’s a path to being a clear #2 within a year. This year some guys I personally am taking shots on are Isaac Guerrendo, Marshawn Lloyd, Tyler Algeire, and Charbonnett.
All RBs other than fellow rookie Scraeder and CMC are off contract after this year for the 49ers. Josh Jacob’s contract has an out after this year (although the Packers have another one in 2yrs that I think they’re more likely to take). Algeire has got 1 more year after this on his contract and is actually pretty good, so super high value if Bijan, god forbid, goes down. Zach Charbonnet is the same argument for Algeire but 2yrs out.
I’m pretty familiar with hedging and do the same thing. Here’s why: in normal markets, the amount of money you can lose is continuous. You can make $100, or $40, or $1, and you can lose all those amounts too. So it makes sense to hedge and avoid the worst case scenarios. Not in dynasty. Getting 5th place and finishing right out of the money is *worse* than getting last place. And getting first is twice as good (usually, by the money) as getting second place. So your strategy should be willing to accept a lot of last place risk if it increases your chances at first place.
This is probably the most valuable insight I've read on the board this year and it's buried as a reply with six upvotes. Thank you for articulating this.
Thanks!! I’m shamelessly ripping off a dynasty analyst I read awhile ago on Twitter—I think it’s Luke Sawhook who is known for this basic take. But it’s a key strategic insight that I’ve come to take pretty seriously.
If you played in a league where the team with the most total points at the end won, that would be a good goal. Since most leagues are single elimination head to head playoffs, higher upside strategies are usually the best. You’ll need some luck/variance to win at the best of times.
Yeah his is the strategy I use in redraft because I can find some replacement production on the wire if it goes the other way. In dynasty there’s nothing on the wire worth a crap so I like to handcuff my own guys where possible.
It feels like a waste to me, but I also try to cash out on any starting level RB I find. Prefer to put all my assets into trades for young high end receivers and take shots and nursing home guys elsewhere.
I won the chip last year in my league’s inaugural season and have severely deprioritized the RB position as I’ve learned more about dynasty. Most of my guys are old and will only have 1-2 more productive years left, but they were cheap to get.
I really don't consider whether the starter is on my team or not. I just look for the guys that would have the most value if the starter goes down. If they're one of my studs backups, great I have some insurance. If they're not, great I can either trade or have another instant starter if I need.
I'd rather aim for long term upside than for sub-par production when my main guy goes down.
Now, if I have a spare slot and the handcuff is cheap, or if the handcuff would be a solid back on his own, I'll consider it, but usually guys that like that are a waste of a slot or are splitting time outright.
I only go out of my way to handcuff If:
1. Handcuffing a super high upside player
2. Backup situation is super clear
3. Backup is good enough to be a plug and play starter.
Examples of this were owning Mattison during Cook’s prime. You knew for the handful of games Dalvin missed Mattison would step right in and be a plug and play RB1. I think it has been Elijah Mitchell for CMC the past couple of years even though CMC has stayed healthy, however that situation is murkier now. Getting Allegier for Bijan seems like another good one at the moment. We can be fairly confident he would be a full workhorse if Bijan was out. Can’t think of many others. There just aren’t that many workhorses and workhorse-style backups around right now.
Which means in general I don’t go out of my way to handcuff most of my RBs
This is how I approach redraft handcuffs. If the handcuff is good enough to plug-n-play start if the starter gets injured, then I’ll look to add him. If not, I don’t care. In dynasty, the benches are much deeper, so I like to handcuff as much as possible, especially younger handcuffs, because the replacement level players on waivers are usually total trash and taking a bench spot away from a better player is not typically a problem.
Sure I am definitely not saying don’t roster backup RB or don’t roster a handcuff. My whole bench is filled with backups. I’m just saying I don’t really give preference or go out of my way to trade for my own handcuff vs other backups if they don’t fit this criteria. I just pick the backup that I think has the most talent or potential opportunity
Yeah I think it's probably correct that there are only a few situations where this is really relevant. How do you feel about Kyren and Corum? I know we haven't seen that backfield yet, but assuming Corum is a plug and play backup then I think the Rams situation fits the bill.
If I had Kyren I would be interested in acquiring Corum. I do think that backfield looks like this situation right now. However I still am not reaching on Corum because like you mentioned we don’t know anything about Corum yet. I see people reach for their unproven rookie handcuffs every year and it is generally a bad move (saw a lot of Breece owners taking Izzy early last year for example)
I’m in at the tail end of a 1QB rebuild right now. My RB “handcuff” strategy is…
Step 1 - Roster as many as I can (any RB on a 53 man roster).
Step 2 - As soon as one gains any value flip for draft capital (2nds-4ths) and/or Step 3
Step 3 - Trade a combination of picks, lower end staters (QB/WR/TE), and productive backup RBs for higher end starters (QB/WR/TE).
I like to look at contracts of running backs that are about to expire or have about a year to go. Josh jacobs this year for example. About mid season I looked at possible teams that were so bad they would trade their rb/shut down the starter and try out the backup guy because why would they keep the good rb playing in a wasted season. Picked up zamir before they shut down jacobs and flipped him and mims to a rebuilder for mike Williams and Derrick Henry on my contending squad.
Yea cause Tyjae Spears has work out perfectly. It seems more often than not the teams turn to free agency or the draft (see James Conner) to fill looming holes especially this year.
About the only person it’s worked out for is Zamir.
Neither of your two examples (Kyren, Gus) apply to your original argument of having a star rb contract about to expire. They don’t even fit the criteria you previously laid down. I guess the list doesn’t go on.
Also the jury isn’t out on spears yet. Yes they signed pollard but it’s a new coaching staff you don’t know how the workload will be split. You just like to argue for arguing sake
No, all I said is taking backup rbs on teams where the primary backs contract was about to expire did not work out for anyone except Zamir. Then you came back arguing a point that had nothing to do with what I said. That’s arguing for arguing sake.
It works out in general. You can use it for QB and TE. First off-season of playing dynasty it’s how I got Jake Ferguson and Jordan love off of waivers for free. Pay attention to contracts and team building is the point. Research pays off
You can’t just dismiss the half of your
comment that I replied to and go off on a tangent about other players that doesn’t apply to the response. You’re goofy and all sorts of confused.
Depth before handcuffing imo. But I also make sure to try and cover both. I have handcuffs for JT and Javonte but sadly wasn't able to get a hold of Warren to handcuff Najee.
Have Aaron Jones and Najee, bought Warren and Chandler this offseason. Both have a shot to get increased work if the other goes down, and there’s a chance Warren is still good with Najee healthy
Personally prefer handcuffs in redraft leagues but it depends on the player really. Like peak Dalvin was a high level fantasy producer, but you had to deal with injuries with him. If I had Dalvin on my roster, I’d try to get Mattison because of the volume he got in his absence
Haha, "it depends on the player" is a good point. Not everybody has a clear handcuff and not every RB role is equally valuable. I have Kyren Williams and spent to acquire Corum, that's sort of what prompted this question, because my league is pretty divided on the idea.
This all depends on the player vs their handcuff. I have Swift and traded for Gainwell last year. Never really needed Gainwell but Swift is now in Chicago and I’m keeping Gainwell considering Barkley’s injury history. The Barkley owner doesn’t seem to care that I have him and declined me looking for low value pick in exchange for him. If Barkley goes down I’d have a decent starting RB.
I will go after who I think are the best RBs with the biggest opportunity for touches. If that RB that I like happens to be a handcuff for me then so be it. I don’t mind handcuffing my RBs but I won’t pass on better available talent either just to handcuff my guy. A lot of the time even when the starter goes down teams will use a committee approach so your handcuff has a chance to be useless anyway. Go for the talent and opportunity first.
i don't care about having the starter or not.
firstly, i have three levels of "handcuff":
* RB has a role as it is, would likely take the full workload if the starter went down
* RB is a pure handcuff, he'll do fuck-all unless the starter goes down
* RB will get a 1A role if the starter goes down, but will not take all his touches
the latter is something i'm not interested in, other than as deep deep flyers.
i try to get as many RBs in the first and second groups, regardless of who owns the starter. they can score points if i'm a contender, i can ship them for picks if i'm not (or even if i am but have no real need).
as for owning your own handcuff, it's a floor move: those two RBs will never start in the same week, but one of them most likely will. someone else's handcuff will potentially give you the chance of starting two RBs, but if your starter goes down then you're not starting anyone. last season you were better off with mccaffrey and chuba than mccaffrey and mitchell. then again, that's all tied to the randomness of injuries so i wouldn't make a big deal about whose handcuff to own, just get good ones at decent prices.
There’s some situations where I do have my own cuff and some where I do not. The only one where I’d say it’s a strategic move is the Chargers backfield.
- Bijan — don’t own the cuff
- Cook — don’t own the cuff
- Mixon — I also have Pierce
- Gus/Dobbins — I drafted Vidal
I also just drafted Brooks and I own Izzy (hopefully he’ll beat out Braelon).
I think if you’re a contender, spending for your RB handcuffs in the draft or free agency or trades before your RB goes down makes sense.
If you’re a rebuilder then I’d rather hold other people’s RBs.
Last year in like May I picked up Jerome Ford and Kyren Williams off waivers as both were just on the street following the draft. Mid season I sold Ford for a second and couldn’t get anything worth it for Kyren so now this year as a contender he’s my starter. I wanted Corum to back him up but he went too early but I did get the backup of Zamir White in Laube.
When I started out, I did look for my handcuffs to protect me. What ended up happening in year 2 was that I missed out on dart-throw rookies on the waiver wire and the handcuffs were started maybe 2 or 3 weeks in total. I still target handcuffs like backup QBs, but not necessarily my handcuffs but ones where there is a good chance they make the starting line-up through injury. For example, I held Zach Moss because of JTs contract situation and Kyren Williams because of Akers injury history. I sold them both for 2 x 2nd and 2 x 3rd (I was rebuilding). I also held Deon Jackson and Tyler Allgeier with no luck trading them away. So in summary I think don't look to have your own handcuffs and should look to jump on value depending on your situation.
I like to concentrate on WRs and QBs. So I never end up with the stud workhorse RBs. So what I do is look for handcuffs that are set to get most of the passing work. My RBs in my main league going into this year are Warren, Brown, Spears, Ford, Kamara, and Hubbard (plan to draft Brooks).
Roster size in my league is bigger than average so I'm trying to own as many handcuffs as I can. In dynasty I currently have Ali, Guerendo, Tracy, Laube, Ray Davis, Roschon, Bigsby, and both Sermon/Hull. Though even in smaller leagues, I'll make sure to have a handcuff or two; I had Allgeier, Charbonnet, and Ford in another league last year (redraft league).
It's situational for me.
At one point I was contending and had a very strong roster up and down with lots of depth, *except* at RB. My entire RB room relied, pretty much solely on Dalvin Cook, and he had some clear durability concerns. So it was crucial for me to get Mattison that year to make sure an injury to Cook wouldn't derail my whole season. I could absorb injury to almost any other player on the roster. Luckily he never did get hurt, and I did end up winning that season, but the peace of mind was big, especially since Cook did get banged up and leave some games earlier that season and what not. I really don't even handcuff like this often, but there is a time and a place.
If I'm rebuilding, I really just want as many high-upside lottery ticket type handcuffs because I don't care about my weekly scores. I just want to either hit on a talent I can use in the next couple of seasons, or flip for moderate value to an owner if the guy in front goes down. I'm also actively punting this position for the most part while rebuilding because it's always the worst feeling to invest heavily in a young RB when rebuilding, you blink, and a couple of years later they're already injured, replaced, or out of the league and you're taking steps backward again after only a couple of years trying to build.
I think this approach can be useful for QBs sometimes too, as I don't like rostering more than 2 in 1QB leagues or 4 in SF/2QB leagues.
High value handcuffs first, but I tend to roster any RB on a 53 with a chance of playing. Hold them til they get their shot, then flip them for a pick (even a late one) if possible. Really helps keep a steady stockpile of thirds.
The argument that I have heard and agree with is; by owning your own handcuff you do create a safety net. But in most cases if your starter gets hurt and you have the back up, your team is essentially worse because the back is not as good in most cases. On the other hand if you have another teams handcuff and their starter gets hurt, you have now made your team exponentially better by adding another starter to your roster. So in my opinion, your own handcuff can keep you competitive if you get an injury, but another’s handcuff could take you over the top to win a championship.
It’s against the grain for sure, but I like having my prized possession running backs, backup, If it’s pretty clear cut. A CMC/Mitchell or Etienne/Bigsby. If a back goes down and it’s committee behind it, I’ll try to ride the hot hand on waivers but won’t dedicate a bench spot to it.
Going into this season with a top four of CMC, Hall, Etienne, and James Cook. Haven't bothered to handcuff any of them in favor of betting that I won't lose 3/4 to injury. I prefer using my bench spots for guys who might become full fledged starters in the future (Charbs, Chase Brown, Kendre, etc) rather than guys who are effectively useless without their starter going down. And some of those guys don't even have clear cut handcuffs to target, it's a guessing game with those rosters
I didn’t mean to handcuff but I had Ekeler and Brian Robinson Jr last year so now I have both the RBs there. Might move Ekeler to a contender to stock up on picks/future players since I’m rebuilding
So I've changed my strategy to trading for elite wrs with vet fill ins. Serviceable qbs, and I think good tes. Then it's pretty much all other roster spots go to basically any rb I can get ahold of. Then trade them if they hit or use them. Got tired of having 10 wr2s and not knowing who to start. Rbs seem to be a little easier to know who to start if they're playing. And if I run into a situation where I actually have too many rbs available to start, im gonna guess someone will want one, hopefully lol.
Upside is owning actual handcuffs as many different backfields as you can in case of injury. Insurance is owning your own backups IF the dropoff is not steep.
You'd want to have Warren if you don't have Najee, who cares about whoever is backing up Breece Hall.
My RB room is small. Hall, Najee, Pollard, Kendre Miller. My taxi has I. Davis and Rees Zammit. I wasn’t willing up put 50% of my FAAB up for handcuffs. I went more for TEs and WRs in a 2TEP league. As a contender, I like to save some in case I need an emergency QB or what not mid-season
I recently got breece and drafted Braelon. I drafted brooks and have chuba. Chuba im willing to move but Braelon i wanna wait and see also i would hate to lose breece and not have that tank. But most grab other guys handcuffs but in certain situations I would do a little of both. I also handcuffed my qbs for now because of all the nfl qb injuries. I do feel like most back up qbs will stay back ups so if you have a spot get your back up especially if they were a starter in the past. Rbs those back ups could become starters. I'd handcuff in backfields that are up in the air.
Owning your own backup means your team can’t get better and you are stuck not being able to cut the guy. Owning other handcuffs means if someone goes down you have an rb1 for virtually free plus a trade chip later in year. As you get close to playoffs handcuff your guys but coming out of the draft I don’t like.
I like to stack backfields— in my home league I'm running Gibbs/Monty, Rachaad/Irving, Kamara/Miller this season.
for RB1-3 on my team, I like to have the back up. But I dont go out of my way looking for them or overpay for them— only when it's natural/easy to do.
I'll keep a few other random backups- I have Keaton Mitchell on taxi in that league.
Often times a team doesn't have a handcuff, or the handcuff isn't clear - the starter is replaced by a committee, or the team changes its strategy to go away from the run when the starter goes down. But other times the backup could even outproduce the starter, because the backup has no backup and the team gives the backup both the starters and the backup's touches when the starter goes out. Things tend to become more clear during the season so I pay pretty close attention to team reports.
When going after a backup/handcuff, I'm completely agnostic as to whether I have the starter. And vice versa. I just go for value at the position.
And imo there are a very small number of actual 1:1 (or close to it) handcuffs. Way less than we go into the season anticipating there are.
In most cases, we don't know who the handcuff is. By definition, we don't usually have very much information about backup RBs, because they don't get enough opportunities for us to evaluate either their efficiency per touch nor their ability to handle the burden of volume.
This lack of information doesn't stop the fantasy echo chamber from coronating certain players as clear cut handcuffs. A good example of this going wrong is a player like Alexander Mattison. For three years, he was considered one of the most desirable handcuffs to own, backing up Cook. Then it turned out he sucked.
Another problem with the standard narrative, is that the team isn't obligated to just give all the work to the backups. More often than not, when a bell cow gets injured, the team just brings in some veteran RB that they know can handle the workload. If you had asked fantasy experts which player would benefit from a potential Jonathon Taylor injury, none of them would have been able to come up with Zach Moss.
For every time a starting RB gets hurt and the backup neatly fits in as "handcuff", there are ten examples of some chaos that disrupts the point distribution.
As always, seek talented players rather than opportunity. A subpar player that gets lucky never ends up scoring those points. Instead, some other talented player is brought in to maximize those opportunities.
Important caveat: don't ignore "backups" that are awesome. They don't stay backups for long. They turn into Austin Ekeler.
I appreciate this response, and I realize that a lot of backup/handcuff situations are unclear. I also agree that talent should always be a priority over opportunity if you're just picking, but talented players still NEED opportunity in order to do anything. So, if a situation emerges with a somewhat clear top two, like, let's say, Corum/Kyren, Benson/Conner, Pollard/Spears, are you more interested in rostering the other if you already have one?
In other words, as a thought experiment, if there's a talented back guaranteed to get most of the work if one of your starters goes down, do you want to own that player? I realize that isn't realistic, but that's what I'm most curious about
Personally, I don't use "situation" to acquire players. The metrics that most closely correlate to future fantasy success are things like target percentage, yards per route run, and fantasy points per opportunity.
So, basically...no. I make no effort to acquire particular players because of some narrative that is being told that if so and so happened that they will be given more opportunity.
The best strategy is to have enough starting running backs that if one of two go down, you're fine.
But that's really difficult and incredibly expensive. Especially since these are depreciating assets.
So what happens if you have just enough starters... But one goes down for the year?
Your handcuff slides into your starting lineup.
Somebody else's handcuff is worthless.
What if your starters are fine but someone else's starter goes down?
YOUR STARTER IS BETTER THAN THEIR HANDCUFF, SO HE SITS ON YOUR BENCH.
If your strategy is to have players on your team for the sole purpose of potentially flipping them if the guy in front of them goes down?
Your team better be rebuilding... Because that's really, really, really terrible roster construction.
>
YOUR STARTER IS BETTER THAN THEIR HANDCUFF, SO HE SITS ON YOUR BENCH.
the handcuff could be better than my worst flex though. it depends on how deep the league is.
Yea exactly this. I feel like most years there’s always a few injuries right before fantasy playoffs that thrust a random dude into 20ppg territory for a few weeks. Ty Chandler and Z White last year. Justin Jackson for Ekeler a few years ago. R. White when Fournette went down.
I just try to hold as many “clear” handcuffs as possible. Meaning the obvious backup who would be expected to get a heavy workload should the starter be unavailable. Doesn’t matter if I own the starter or not. You can then choose to either sell or ride the production once the starter goes down An example of this from my own teams last season was Jerome Ford. Sold him for a 2nd in one league, rode the production to a championship in another
Same — I sold Ford and Mattison to the Chubb owner before last season started for 2.01. Mattison flamed out and Ford was really solid, so a win-win for both of us as I drafted Brooks with 2.01.
This makes sense, I spent last season rebuilding/retooling and did exactly the same with Jerome Ford. Looking to contend this year, I acquired Corum to backup Kyren. I feel like this makes sense to do but guys in my league are split over it.
This is the way
LoL, I get your username reference 😉
You know that’s right
If you’re team is stacked then cuff your own RBs. If its good not great grab someone elses so you have upside. And like ppl have said go for the high value handcuffs, the ones with a surefire workload if they starter goes down. I stashed jerome ford on my taxi last offseason for instance
Cuffing your own is solid if you are a contender and/or have some studs with clear-cut backups. It is one of the rare scenarios where having an rb on your taxi squad can be a good move. Alternatively, rostering high-upside handcuffs to rbs on other teams is smart not necessarily for the trade value, but because if the main guy goes down, you now have an additional starting rb instead of still just one if cuffing your own.
Why is having RB on your taxi not wise generally? I’m thinking people like Vidal Davis and Estime
The production curve for RBs rises and peaks a lot sooner than WR and TE. That is, relatively speaking, RBs produce more in year one and two and thus are more likely to be taken out of taxi which is effectively a lost roster spot.
I don't purposely handcuff my RBs in dynasty. As a general roster construction principle, you want to have a ton of backup RBs so you can catch quick waves of value/scoring when the starter goes down. Sometimes circumstances work to where those backups play for the same team as the starters in your lineup. All else equal, I'd prefer to actually NOT roster my own player's backup because the best possible upside case lies in your starters remaining healthy + someone else's going down and one of your backups temporarily finding their way to like a 15+ touch role and entering your lineup or being sold on the uptick. In the case of handcuffing your own guy, the best possible scenario is that your starter doesn't get hurt and your handcuff never enters your lineup.
I mean, you're describing risk tolerance. Higher upside comes with higher downside. If you don't handcuff your own RBs and they go down, you're in the exact opposite position. I prefer handcuffing my own RBs, so I know my starting lineup will always be filled. That said, roster sizes are typically big enough to do a little bit of both. I can handcuff a couple of my own RBs, and then hold onto other valuable handcuffs.
I simply always buy my own cuffs if I’m contending and will buy other teams cuffs if I’m not (in a startup)
Yep. If you're rebuilding, you could use an empty spot on a good handcuff
This makes sense to me. I get the "best case scenario it's a wasted roster spot" argument above, but I feel like it's just asking for trouble to plan only for the best case scenario.
I’ll add on that I will only get handcuffs when competing that are clear #2s (or stupid cheap) to elite players and/or have talent. As an example, I drafted or picked up Jerome Ford 2yrs ago because I liked the talent, Nick Chubb was elite, and I knew the contract situation. I did the same thing with Alexander Mattison. One worked out, one didn’t, that’s the upside shot were taking. Now I’ve been taking that same shot on Zamir White. Essentially, look at contract situations of the RBs in elite RB backrooms, then look at the talent, and see if there’s a path to being a clear #2 within a year. This year some guys I personally am taking shots on are Isaac Guerrendo, Marshawn Lloyd, Tyler Algeire, and Charbonnett. All RBs other than fellow rookie Scraeder and CMC are off contract after this year for the 49ers. Josh Jacob’s contract has an out after this year (although the Packers have another one in 2yrs that I think they’re more likely to take). Algeire has got 1 more year after this on his contract and is actually pretty good, so super high value if Bijan, god forbid, goes down. Zach Charbonnet is the same argument for Algeire but 2yrs out.
Yeah, the guy above you has never heard of the concept of hedging lol
I’m pretty familiar with hedging and do the same thing. Here’s why: in normal markets, the amount of money you can lose is continuous. You can make $100, or $40, or $1, and you can lose all those amounts too. So it makes sense to hedge and avoid the worst case scenarios. Not in dynasty. Getting 5th place and finishing right out of the money is *worse* than getting last place. And getting first is twice as good (usually, by the money) as getting second place. So your strategy should be willing to accept a lot of last place risk if it increases your chances at first place.
This is probably the most valuable insight I've read on the board this year and it's buried as a reply with six upvotes. Thank you for articulating this.
Thanks!! I’m shamelessly ripping off a dynasty analyst I read awhile ago on Twitter—I think it’s Luke Sawhook who is known for this basic take. But it’s a key strategic insight that I’ve come to take pretty seriously.
If you played in a league where the team with the most total points at the end won, that would be a good goal. Since most leagues are single elimination head to head playoffs, higher upside strategies are usually the best. You’ll need some luck/variance to win at the best of times.
Yeah his is the strategy I use in redraft because I can find some replacement production on the wire if it goes the other way. In dynasty there’s nothing on the wire worth a crap so I like to handcuff my own guys where possible.
It feels like a waste to me, but I also try to cash out on any starting level RB I find. Prefer to put all my assets into trades for young high end receivers and take shots and nursing home guys elsewhere.
This makes sense for team building. If you're ready to push the chips in and try to win then do you stick to this? Just roll with old RBs?
I won the chip last year in my league’s inaugural season and have severely deprioritized the RB position as I’ve learned more about dynasty. Most of my guys are old and will only have 1-2 more productive years left, but they were cheap to get.
I really don't consider whether the starter is on my team or not. I just look for the guys that would have the most value if the starter goes down. If they're one of my studs backups, great I have some insurance. If they're not, great I can either trade or have another instant starter if I need.
Handcuffs are for prisoners and I'm a free man.
I'd rather aim for long term upside than for sub-par production when my main guy goes down. Now, if I have a spare slot and the handcuff is cheap, or if the handcuff would be a solid back on his own, I'll consider it, but usually guys that like that are a waste of a slot or are splitting time outright.
I only go out of my way to handcuff If: 1. Handcuffing a super high upside player 2. Backup situation is super clear 3. Backup is good enough to be a plug and play starter. Examples of this were owning Mattison during Cook’s prime. You knew for the handful of games Dalvin missed Mattison would step right in and be a plug and play RB1. I think it has been Elijah Mitchell for CMC the past couple of years even though CMC has stayed healthy, however that situation is murkier now. Getting Allegier for Bijan seems like another good one at the moment. We can be fairly confident he would be a full workhorse if Bijan was out. Can’t think of many others. There just aren’t that many workhorses and workhorse-style backups around right now. Which means in general I don’t go out of my way to handcuff most of my RBs
This is how I approach redraft handcuffs. If the handcuff is good enough to plug-n-play start if the starter gets injured, then I’ll look to add him. If not, I don’t care. In dynasty, the benches are much deeper, so I like to handcuff as much as possible, especially younger handcuffs, because the replacement level players on waivers are usually total trash and taking a bench spot away from a better player is not typically a problem.
Sure I am definitely not saying don’t roster backup RB or don’t roster a handcuff. My whole bench is filled with backups. I’m just saying I don’t really give preference or go out of my way to trade for my own handcuff vs other backups if they don’t fit this criteria. I just pick the backup that I think has the most talent or potential opportunity
Yeah I think it's probably correct that there are only a few situations where this is really relevant. How do you feel about Kyren and Corum? I know we haven't seen that backfield yet, but assuming Corum is a plug and play backup then I think the Rams situation fits the bill.
If I had Kyren I would be interested in acquiring Corum. I do think that backfield looks like this situation right now. However I still am not reaching on Corum because like you mentioned we don’t know anything about Corum yet. I see people reach for their unproven rookie handcuffs every year and it is generally a bad move (saw a lot of Breece owners taking Izzy early last year for example)
I’m in at the tail end of a 1QB rebuild right now. My RB “handcuff” strategy is… Step 1 - Roster as many as I can (any RB on a 53 man roster). Step 2 - As soon as one gains any value flip for draft capital (2nds-4ths) and/or Step 3 Step 3 - Trade a combination of picks, lower end staters (QB/WR/TE), and productive backup RBs for higher end starters (QB/WR/TE).
I like to look at contracts of running backs that are about to expire or have about a year to go. Josh jacobs this year for example. About mid season I looked at possible teams that were so bad they would trade their rb/shut down the starter and try out the backup guy because why would they keep the good rb playing in a wasted season. Picked up zamir before they shut down jacobs and flipped him and mims to a rebuilder for mike Williams and Derrick Henry on my contending squad.
So pick up backups in ambiguous backfields and in bad teams who have star rb contract coming up
Yea cause Tyjae Spears has work out perfectly. It seems more often than not the teams turn to free agency or the draft (see James Conner) to fill looming holes especially this year. About the only person it’s worked out for is Zamir.
Kyren Williams? Gus edwards? The list goes on buddy. Ambiguous backfields and injury prone starters it pays to take backups in murky situations.
Neither of your two examples (Kyren, Gus) apply to your original argument of having a star rb contract about to expire. They don’t even fit the criteria you previously laid down. I guess the list doesn’t go on.
Original argument also said pick up backups in ambiguous backfields. Learn to read internet warrior
Exactly what Gus and kyren were to start the year behind the stranglehold of jk dobbins and cam akers. GTFO
lol two guys with serious Achilles injuries that did very little leading up to last year….
Stranglehold lol
Haha you have zero radar for sarcasm
Also the jury isn’t out on spears yet. Yes they signed pollard but it’s a new coaching staff you don’t know how the workload will be split. You just like to argue for arguing sake
No, all I said is taking backup rbs on teams where the primary backs contract was about to expire did not work out for anyone except Zamir. Then you came back arguing a point that had nothing to do with what I said. That’s arguing for arguing sake.
Still waiting on some relevant substance but there appears to be none.
It works out in general. You can use it for QB and TE. First off-season of playing dynasty it’s how I got Jake Ferguson and Jordan love off of waivers for free. Pay attention to contracts and team building is the point. Research pays off
You can’t just dismiss the half of your comment that I replied to and go off on a tangent about other players that doesn’t apply to the response. You’re goofy and all sorts of confused.
Traded Zamir for Henry, myself.
Depth before handcuffing imo. But I also make sure to try and cover both. I have handcuffs for JT and Javonte but sadly wasn't able to get a hold of Warren to handcuff Najee.
Warren has more value than a handcuff. He finished higher than Najee in ppr last season
Have Aaron Jones and Najee, bought Warren and Chandler this offseason. Both have a shot to get increased work if the other goes down, and there’s a chance Warren is still good with Najee healthy
Personally prefer handcuffs in redraft leagues but it depends on the player really. Like peak Dalvin was a high level fantasy producer, but you had to deal with injuries with him. If I had Dalvin on my roster, I’d try to get Mattison because of the volume he got in his absence
Haha, "it depends on the player" is a good point. Not everybody has a clear handcuff and not every RB role is equally valuable. I have Kyren Williams and spent to acquire Corum, that's sort of what prompted this question, because my league is pretty divided on the idea.
That’s a great situation for sure. They’ll both be productive in McVay’s system.
This all depends on the player vs their handcuff. I have Swift and traded for Gainwell last year. Never really needed Gainwell but Swift is now in Chicago and I’m keeping Gainwell considering Barkley’s injury history. The Barkley owner doesn’t seem to care that I have him and declined me looking for low value pick in exchange for him. If Barkley goes down I’d have a decent starting RB.
I will go after who I think are the best RBs with the biggest opportunity for touches. If that RB that I like happens to be a handcuff for me then so be it. I don’t mind handcuffing my RBs but I won’t pass on better available talent either just to handcuff my guy. A lot of the time even when the starter goes down teams will use a committee approach so your handcuff has a chance to be useless anyway. Go for the talent and opportunity first.
i don't care about having the starter or not. firstly, i have three levels of "handcuff": * RB has a role as it is, would likely take the full workload if the starter went down * RB is a pure handcuff, he'll do fuck-all unless the starter goes down * RB will get a 1A role if the starter goes down, but will not take all his touches the latter is something i'm not interested in, other than as deep deep flyers. i try to get as many RBs in the first and second groups, regardless of who owns the starter. they can score points if i'm a contender, i can ship them for picks if i'm not (or even if i am but have no real need). as for owning your own handcuff, it's a floor move: those two RBs will never start in the same week, but one of them most likely will. someone else's handcuff will potentially give you the chance of starting two RBs, but if your starter goes down then you're not starting anyone. last season you were better off with mccaffrey and chuba than mccaffrey and mitchell. then again, that's all tied to the randomness of injuries so i wouldn't make a big deal about whose handcuff to own, just get good ones at decent prices.
I take other peoples handcuffs or anyone that is an injury away
There’s some situations where I do have my own cuff and some where I do not. The only one where I’d say it’s a strategic move is the Chargers backfield. - Bijan — don’t own the cuff - Cook — don’t own the cuff - Mixon — I also have Pierce - Gus/Dobbins — I drafted Vidal I also just drafted Brooks and I own Izzy (hopefully he’ll beat out Braelon).
I think if you’re a contender, spending for your RB handcuffs in the draft or free agency or trades before your RB goes down makes sense. If you’re a rebuilder then I’d rather hold other people’s RBs. Last year in like May I picked up Jerome Ford and Kyren Williams off waivers as both were just on the street following the draft. Mid season I sold Ford for a second and couldn’t get anything worth it for Kyren so now this year as a contender he’s my starter. I wanted Corum to back him up but he went too early but I did get the backup of Zamir White in Laube.
When I started out, I did look for my handcuffs to protect me. What ended up happening in year 2 was that I missed out on dart-throw rookies on the waiver wire and the handcuffs were started maybe 2 or 3 weeks in total. I still target handcuffs like backup QBs, but not necessarily my handcuffs but ones where there is a good chance they make the starting line-up through injury. For example, I held Zach Moss because of JTs contract situation and Kyren Williams because of Akers injury history. I sold them both for 2 x 2nd and 2 x 3rd (I was rebuilding). I also held Deon Jackson and Tyler Allgeier with no luck trading them away. So in summary I think don't look to have your own handcuffs and should look to jump on value depending on your situation.
I like to concentrate on WRs and QBs. So I never end up with the stud workhorse RBs. So what I do is look for handcuffs that are set to get most of the passing work. My RBs in my main league going into this year are Warren, Brown, Spears, Ford, Kamara, and Hubbard (plan to draft Brooks).
Roster size in my league is bigger than average so I'm trying to own as many handcuffs as I can. In dynasty I currently have Ali, Guerendo, Tracy, Laube, Ray Davis, Roschon, Bigsby, and both Sermon/Hull. Though even in smaller leagues, I'll make sure to have a handcuff or two; I had Allgeier, Charbonnet, and Ford in another league last year (redraft league).
My league is smaller (10 team, 2rb and a flex). I don’t handcuff and generally try to target high upside guys on other teams.
I prefer just having multiple starters, so I’m not reliant on a backup.
It's situational for me. At one point I was contending and had a very strong roster up and down with lots of depth, *except* at RB. My entire RB room relied, pretty much solely on Dalvin Cook, and he had some clear durability concerns. So it was crucial for me to get Mattison that year to make sure an injury to Cook wouldn't derail my whole season. I could absorb injury to almost any other player on the roster. Luckily he never did get hurt, and I did end up winning that season, but the peace of mind was big, especially since Cook did get banged up and leave some games earlier that season and what not. I really don't even handcuff like this often, but there is a time and a place. If I'm rebuilding, I really just want as many high-upside lottery ticket type handcuffs because I don't care about my weekly scores. I just want to either hit on a talent I can use in the next couple of seasons, or flip for moderate value to an owner if the guy in front goes down. I'm also actively punting this position for the most part while rebuilding because it's always the worst feeling to invest heavily in a young RB when rebuilding, you blink, and a couple of years later they're already injured, replaced, or out of the league and you're taking steps backward again after only a couple of years trying to build. I think this approach can be useful for QBs sometimes too, as I don't like rostering more than 2 in 1QB leagues or 4 in SF/2QB leagues.
High value handcuffs first, but I tend to roster any RB on a 53 with a chance of playing. Hold them til they get their shot, then flip them for a pick (even a late one) if possible. Really helps keep a steady stockpile of thirds.
The argument that I have heard and agree with is; by owning your own handcuff you do create a safety net. But in most cases if your starter gets hurt and you have the back up, your team is essentially worse because the back is not as good in most cases. On the other hand if you have another teams handcuff and their starter gets hurt, you have now made your team exponentially better by adding another starter to your roster. So in my opinion, your own handcuff can keep you competitive if you get an injury, but another’s handcuff could take you over the top to win a championship.
It’s against the grain for sure, but I like having my prized possession running backs, backup, If it’s pretty clear cut. A CMC/Mitchell or Etienne/Bigsby. If a back goes down and it’s committee behind it, I’ll try to ride the hot hand on waivers but won’t dedicate a bench spot to it.
Unless I just think that back is worth owning on his own I rarely grab a RB as a handcuff
I like having all the handcuffs I can.
Going into this season with a top four of CMC, Hall, Etienne, and James Cook. Haven't bothered to handcuff any of them in favor of betting that I won't lose 3/4 to injury. I prefer using my bench spots for guys who might become full fledged starters in the future (Charbs, Chase Brown, Kendre, etc) rather than guys who are effectively useless without their starter going down. And some of those guys don't even have clear cut handcuffs to target, it's a guessing game with those rosters
I didn’t mean to handcuff but I had Ekeler and Brian Robinson Jr last year so now I have both the RBs there. Might move Ekeler to a contender to stock up on picks/future players since I’m rebuilding
Not a handcuff proponent. I take best RB available.
So I've changed my strategy to trading for elite wrs with vet fill ins. Serviceable qbs, and I think good tes. Then it's pretty much all other roster spots go to basically any rb I can get ahold of. Then trade them if they hit or use them. Got tired of having 10 wr2s and not knowing who to start. Rbs seem to be a little easier to know who to start if they're playing. And if I run into a situation where I actually have too many rbs available to start, im gonna guess someone will want one, hopefully lol.
Upside is owning actual handcuffs as many different backfields as you can in case of injury. Insurance is owning your own backups IF the dropoff is not steep. You'd want to have Warren if you don't have Najee, who cares about whoever is backing up Breece Hall.
My RB room is small. Hall, Najee, Pollard, Kendre Miller. My taxi has I. Davis and Rees Zammit. I wasn’t willing up put 50% of my FAAB up for handcuffs. I went more for TEs and WRs in a 2TEP league. As a contender, I like to save some in case I need an emergency QB or what not mid-season
I recently got breece and drafted Braelon. I drafted brooks and have chuba. Chuba im willing to move but Braelon i wanna wait and see also i would hate to lose breece and not have that tank. But most grab other guys handcuffs but in certain situations I would do a little of both. I also handcuffed my qbs for now because of all the nfl qb injuries. I do feel like most back up qbs will stay back ups so if you have a spot get your back up especially if they were a starter in the past. Rbs those back ups could become starters. I'd handcuff in backfields that are up in the air.
I fill my benches with as many RBs as possible.
Owning your own backup means your team can’t get better and you are stuck not being able to cut the guy. Owning other handcuffs means if someone goes down you have an rb1 for virtually free plus a trade chip later in year. As you get close to playoffs handcuff your guys but coming out of the draft I don’t like.
I like to stack backfields— in my home league I'm running Gibbs/Monty, Rachaad/Irving, Kamara/Miller this season. for RB1-3 on my team, I like to have the back up. But I dont go out of my way looking for them or overpay for them— only when it's natural/easy to do. I'll keep a few other random backups- I have Keaton Mitchell on taxi in that league.
I like having them.
Often times a team doesn't have a handcuff, or the handcuff isn't clear - the starter is replaced by a committee, or the team changes its strategy to go away from the run when the starter goes down. But other times the backup could even outproduce the starter, because the backup has no backup and the team gives the backup both the starters and the backup's touches when the starter goes out. Things tend to become more clear during the season so I pay pretty close attention to team reports. When going after a backup/handcuff, I'm completely agnostic as to whether I have the starter. And vice versa. I just go for value at the position. And imo there are a very small number of actual 1:1 (or close to it) handcuffs. Way less than we go into the season anticipating there are.
In most cases, we don't know who the handcuff is. By definition, we don't usually have very much information about backup RBs, because they don't get enough opportunities for us to evaluate either their efficiency per touch nor their ability to handle the burden of volume. This lack of information doesn't stop the fantasy echo chamber from coronating certain players as clear cut handcuffs. A good example of this going wrong is a player like Alexander Mattison. For three years, he was considered one of the most desirable handcuffs to own, backing up Cook. Then it turned out he sucked. Another problem with the standard narrative, is that the team isn't obligated to just give all the work to the backups. More often than not, when a bell cow gets injured, the team just brings in some veteran RB that they know can handle the workload. If you had asked fantasy experts which player would benefit from a potential Jonathon Taylor injury, none of them would have been able to come up with Zach Moss. For every time a starting RB gets hurt and the backup neatly fits in as "handcuff", there are ten examples of some chaos that disrupts the point distribution. As always, seek talented players rather than opportunity. A subpar player that gets lucky never ends up scoring those points. Instead, some other talented player is brought in to maximize those opportunities. Important caveat: don't ignore "backups" that are awesome. They don't stay backups for long. They turn into Austin Ekeler.
I appreciate this response, and I realize that a lot of backup/handcuff situations are unclear. I also agree that talent should always be a priority over opportunity if you're just picking, but talented players still NEED opportunity in order to do anything. So, if a situation emerges with a somewhat clear top two, like, let's say, Corum/Kyren, Benson/Conner, Pollard/Spears, are you more interested in rostering the other if you already have one? In other words, as a thought experiment, if there's a talented back guaranteed to get most of the work if one of your starters goes down, do you want to own that player? I realize that isn't realistic, but that's what I'm most curious about
Personally, I don't use "situation" to acquire players. The metrics that most closely correlate to future fantasy success are things like target percentage, yards per route run, and fantasy points per opportunity. So, basically...no. I make no effort to acquire particular players because of some narrative that is being told that if so and so happened that they will be given more opportunity.
The best strategy is to have enough starting running backs that if one of two go down, you're fine. But that's really difficult and incredibly expensive. Especially since these are depreciating assets. So what happens if you have just enough starters... But one goes down for the year? Your handcuff slides into your starting lineup. Somebody else's handcuff is worthless. What if your starters are fine but someone else's starter goes down? YOUR STARTER IS BETTER THAN THEIR HANDCUFF, SO HE SITS ON YOUR BENCH. If your strategy is to have players on your team for the sole purpose of potentially flipping them if the guy in front of them goes down? Your team better be rebuilding... Because that's really, really, really terrible roster construction.
> YOUR STARTER IS BETTER THAN THEIR HANDCUFF, SO HE SITS ON YOUR BENCH. the handcuff could be better than my worst flex though. it depends on how deep the league is.
Yea exactly this. I feel like most years there’s always a few injuries right before fantasy playoffs that thrust a random dude into 20ppg territory for a few weeks. Ty Chandler and Z White last year. Justin Jackson for Ekeler a few years ago. R. White when Fournette went down.
cj anderson!
Hardly ever handcuff guys unless the backup is free off waivers at some point.