Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

It seems like handcuffing is the great strategy question of fantasy football these days.  My sense is that when there were few RBBC’s, and teams gave 20 carries to whoever their RB was, handcuffing basically always made sense.  Plus, the thing that makes a team a good running team is not just the RB, but also an offensive line geared toward the run and an offensive philosophy that matches that commitment, so even backups can do decently.  With the widespread RBBC’s of today, I think it’s hard to pick up backups for RBBC teams at the value a handcuff pick used to get.

My thinking on it now is that handcuffing is appropriate (1) when you can do it in a late round or off waivers, or (2) when you have relatively good backups that could be RB3 level starters on other teams as the backup for your RB1 or RB2.  So, prior to this year, handcuffing LT with Turner made a lot of sense, because Turner wasn’t a big drop off compared to other starters.  This year, I think Pittsburgh has a similar situation, as do others. 

So maybe handcuffing makes less sense than it used to.  I still think it’s appropriate for many players, though.

Even if you want to handcuff, it is tough to do on some teams.  Last year in San Diego, it was Turner.  The PB.com team with Tomlinson handcuffed with Darren Sproles.  However, if Tomlinson goes down Sproles may not get the bulk of the carries with Jacob Hester on the roster.  The same is true in Indy where Mike Hart could share touches with Rhodes if Addai goes down. 

I would rather draft someone who stands a better chance of being productive if I start them in a flex spot rather than plan for my RB1 getting hurt.  Also, I am thrilled if someone is using a draft choice to thwart my perceived need to handcuff.  Chances are they will be looking at cutting the back later when they need a roster spot for the bye-week for their K, TE, or D/ST.