"Handcuffing"

[Chloroform Rx]

Been playing FFB (money leagues) going on 4 years, and I've "cuffed" every one of my top picks. Not once have I ever benefitted from it. This year I have AP and picked up Gerhart with my last pick but I feel like he's burning a hole in my roster. The thing that makes me want to drop him even more is that the owners of CJ, Gore, Turner etc. (except MJD) are not cuffed. Should this have any barring on my decision?

 

The Gore/Coffee situation from last year should be a good indication of how "handcuffing" should not be the rule.

 

Thoughts?

[BigTen]

Too hard to say without seeing a line-up. If you got the spot I would add the handcuff. Otherwise, unless it is an injury prone guy, why "wait" on an injury and take a roster spot? Hindsight is 20/20, and unless you have a crystal ball, why take a guy that will not play if things go according to plan?

[Big Country]

If the "handcuff" was the best player available at that position when you decide to draft that position, then it makes sense. Otherwise, it is a overhyped "strategy" like going for QB-WR combos, etc., although, in a sense, there is a bit of logic to the handcuff from an "insurance" perspective, but, if the handcuff is not likely to perform at the level of another available player even if the primary starter goes down, again, it is still an overblown "strategy".

[SLGRAF]

If you have plenty of bench spots, then handcuffing makes sense. But, if your bench is limited, then I would rather pickup some RB's with genuine upside.

[wildbluefan]

The thing I DON'T like about handcuffing is that you , for instance , may have the WRONG guy....maybe ALBERT YOUNG is the real handcuff for AP, not Gerhart !!!

[gsxunv04]

I dont necessarily agree with handcuffing backups to people on my roster, but I do like the idea of having someone on your bench that could go into the starting role pending injury. For instance, I have Bernard Scott on my bench in case/when Cedric Benson gets injured. I dont have Cedric but I do have Bernard.