Jonathan Taylor 2022 Outlook

[kp96]

On 5/23/2022 at 9:19 AM, ajs723 said:

I agree with you.  Taylor is the guy. But as a separate point, I think Indy has good depth at RB. I was responding to you laughing at their depth chart, I wasn't saying their depth was bad for JT. I think Hines will have solid value, as you said, and Lindsay is a must own handcuff.

We know JT is incredible.  Not much value to talk about him.

The handcuff question is a good one though.  What do we think happens if JT misses time?  Does Hines take over as every down?  Committee with Lindsay?  Hines really showed out last year and I could see them leaning on him and being spelled by Lindsay.

[ajs723]

1 hour ago, kp96 said:

We know JT is incredible.  Not much value to talk about him.

The handcuff question is a good one though.  What do we think happens if JT misses time?  Does Hines take over as every down?  Committee with Lindsay?  Hines really showed out last year and I could see them leaning on him and being spelled by Lindsay.

One player won't replace JT. I think Lindsay becomes the early down back and Hines gets more playing time in addition to all third down duties. 

[Evincar]

5 hours ago, kp96 said:

We know JT is incredible.  Not much value to talk about him.

The handcuff question is a good one though.  What do we think happens if JT misses time?  Does Hines take over as every down?  Committee with Lindsay?  Hines really showed out last year and I could see them leaning on him and being spelled by Lindsay.

If Taylor misses a lot of time this offense will be bottom 10.  Handcuffs are generally useless until late in the season.

[BGDDYKWL]

Yeah unfortunately this is a situation without a true handcuff. You'd figure Hines would be serviceable in PPR, but that's about it. 

[dmb3684]

9 hours ago, Evincar said:

If Taylor misses a lot of time this offense will be bottom 10.  Handcuffs are generally useless until late in the season.

That's not accurate at all. Just last year, off the top of my head, Chubba and Dillon played great as feature backs. 

This handcuff situation may be useless, with no clear cut backup.

[owenmills]

1 hour ago, dmb3684 said:

That's not accurate at all. Just last year, off the top of my head, Chubba and Dillon played great as feature backs. 

This handcuff situation may be useless, with no clear cut backup.

Yeah saying handcuffs are 'generally useless until late in the season' is an absurd statement. As the season goes on, there is a greater chance opportunity will present itself for them, I guess maybe that's what the guy meant. But there's been plenty of instances where a handcuff got his shot a month or less into the season. Obviously also depends on each handcuff's specific situation(their talent, competition, etc)

[kp96]

1 hour ago, dmb3684 said:

That's not accurate at all. Just last year, off the top of my head, Chubba and Dillon played great as feature backs. 

This handcuff situation may be useless, with no clear cut backup.

Agree.

The handcuff situation is certainly murky (hence my question) but if they do go with say Hines getting 70% of the work, he is valuable.  They have one of the best OLs in the league and a veteran QB that can keep teams honest now.

You're not banking on a league winner in his handcuff.  This is not Mattison or Dillon.  But you could possibly get someone you can limp along with and get some production while the rest of your lineup picks up the slack here.

The question is whether it's Lindsay or Hines that can be a flex-ish guy in JT's absence.  We probably have to see what happens in preseason.  I doubt they give JT more than a handful of carries so we might be able to figure it out.

[Boudewijn]

31 minutes ago, owenmills said:

Yeah saying handcuffs are 'generally useless until late in the season' is an absurd statement. As the season goes on, there is a greater chance opportunity will present itself for them, I guess maybe that's what the guy meant. But there's been plenty of instances where a handcuff got his shot a month or less into the season. Obviously also depends on each handcuff's specific situation(their talent, competition, etc)

Handcuffs are often an illusion and they often just don't pan out.

I started a thread the past 2 years to track in which teams people thought there was a clear handcuff. Turns out in quite a few teams this is not nearly as clearcut as you might think; a team might switch from a clear #1 to RBBC, or the #2 might not take over, or get injured themself. 

In Dynasty I see the benefit of rostering #2s; in auction it makes sense to bid on a clear handcuff is there is one; but in redraft it's often a losing proposition.

With all that said, at the Colts:
- Hines is a 3rd down back and not a handcuff in the sense that he can act as bellcow
- Lindsay is the opposite and is a pure runner. They could use him a bunch but he will have no passing game 
- Ty'Son Williams could maybe have a bellcow role if they decide they trust him more than the Ravens did
- Deon Jackson looks like practice squad material until the other 4 have injuries (which they surely will)

Handcuff? Good luck.

[owenmills]

1 hour ago, Boudewijn said:

and they often just don't pan out.

That can be said about basically any strategy in fantasy football. Handcuffing can be a good way hedge your injury risk in certain situations. The argument against would be you're wasting a roster spot? People do that all the time with non-handcuffs like Michael Thomas last year. It's just up to the manager to weigh the cost/benefit of it. Handcuffing Cook with Mattison was probably helpful for some teams last year. 

People here seem to like making absolute statements about handcuffing being good or bad when it really comes down to your league size and roster makeup. If you have good RB depth you don't really need the insurance. The only place I ever really consider it is in my deep league where I often don't have great RB depth.

In this particular situation(JT/Colts), I wouldn't bother though.

[dmb3684]

1 hour ago, Boudewijn said:

Handcuffs are often an illusion and they often just don't pan out.

I started a thread the past 2 years to track in which teams people thought there was a clear handcuff. Turns out in quite a few teams this is not nearly as clearcut as you might think; a team might switch from a clear #1 to RBBC, or the #2 might not take over, or get injured themself. 

In Dynasty I see the benefit of rostering #2s; in auction it makes sense to bid on a clear handcuff is there is one; but in redraft it's often a losing proposition.

With all that said, at the Colts:
- Hines is a 3rd down back and not a handcuff in the sense that he can act as bellcow
- Lindsay is the opposite and is a pure runner. They could use him a bunch but he will have no passing game 
- Ty'Son Williams could maybe have a bellcow role if they decide they trust him more than the Ravens did
- Deon Jackson looks like practice squad material until the other 4 have injuries (which they surely will)

Handcuff? Good luck.

I don't think  anyone disagrees about this situation. There are always a handful of  must have handcuffst though. It's bad strategy to not cuff CmC with Hubbard for example.

[Boudewijn]

4 minutes ago, owenmills said:

Handcuffing can be a good way hedge your injury risk in certain situations. The argument against would be you're wasting a roster spot?

That wasn't really my point. Note that I wasn't particularly disagreeing with you, I just needed a placeholder to vent when I saw the word "handcuff"

5 minutes ago, owenmills said:

Handcuffing Cook with Mattison was probably helpful for some teams last year. 

And more importantly, it was something that made sense even draft time. So yeah, I agree.

9 minutes ago, dmb3684 said:

I don't think  anyone disagrees about this situation. There are always a handful of  must have handcuffst though. It's bad strategy to not cuff CmC with Hubbard for example.

I wouldn't go so far to call it bad, but it can certainly be defended.

[owenmills]

14 minutes ago, Boudewijn said:

That wasn't really my point. Note that I wasn't particularly disagreeing with you, I just needed a placeholder to vent when I saw the word "handcuff"

No worries. It's hard for me not to vent when I see people making proclamations every year about handcuffings usefulness without any mention of league setup. Like, in a 10 team league sure handcuffing is a waste in 90% of the situations because your worst RB rostered is still prob pretty good. In a deep league, it can actually be very useful sometimes when you have very thin RB depth but a good backup to one of your guys can be had for cheap or free

[dmb3684]

36 minutes ago, Boudewijn said:

That wasn't really my point. Note that I wasn't particularly disagreeing with you, I just needed a placeholder to vent when I saw the word "handcuff"

And more importantly, it was something that made sense even draft time. So yeah, I agree.

I wouldn't go so far to call it bad, but it can certainly be defended.

I would. 

[YoungDro]

In leagues with shallow benches handcuffing is typically more useful if you are rostering the handcuff of another manager's back. You get exposure to another backfield instead of doubling down on the same one. And should the big injury occur you've now got tradebait/at least a flex play 

[FFCollusion]

4 hours ago, Boudewijn said:

Handcuffs are often an illusion and they often just don't work out.

I agree 100% and have said the same for years.  I've never subscribed to handcuffing, I think the stats and data show that for every 1 handcuff that works out, 10+ fail.  Even the 1 that works out, you reached 1-2 rounds to make it work, and passed on a stand alone value that likely produced better for longer anyways.

I'm anti handcuff.  Betting against your own players is not for me.

[Savatage79]

6 minutes ago, FFCollusion said:

I agree 100% and have said the same for years.  I've never subscribed to handcuffing, I think the stats and data show that for every 1 handcuff that works out, 10+ fail.  Even the 1 that works out, you reached 1-2 rounds to make it work, and passed on a stand alone value that likely produced better for longer anyways.

I'm anti handcuff.  Betting against your own players is not for me.

I dunno if its what I'd consider betting against your own players rather than simply a backup plan. So would that mean you're betting against your own vehicle by having a spare tire attached to it? 

[FFCollusion]

26 minutes ago, Savatage79 said:

I dunno if its what I'd consider betting against your own players rather than simply a backup plan. So would that mean you're betting against your own vehicle by having a spare tire attached to it? 

If I have 10 flat tires, and 9 times I go to replace it, my spare is also flat... I'm not wasting my time anymore.

[Evincar]

10 hours ago, dmb3684 said:

That's not accurate at all. Just last year, off the top of my head, Chubba and Dillon played great as feature backs. 

This handcuff situation may be useless, with no clear cut backup.

Chuba wasnt good and had you handcuffed him with CMC you basically wasted a roster spot when you could have spent a waiver/FAAB on RBs like Mitchell or Patterson. Im not sure if Dillion should be considered a true handcuff given he was expected to have a larger role in his 2nd year.

[dmb3684]

1 hour ago, Evincar said:

Chuba wasnt good and had you handcuffed him with CMC you basically wasted a roster spot when you could have spent a waiver/FAAB on RBs like Mitchell or Patterson. Im not sure if Dillion should be considered a true handcuff given he was expected to have a larger role in his 2nd year.

If you say so.

 

[kp96]

1 hour ago, Evincar said:

Chuba wasnt good and had you handcuffed him with CMC you basically wasted a roster spot when you could have spent a waiver/FAAB on RBs like Mitchell or Patterson. Im not sure if Dillion should be considered a true handcuff given he was expected to have a larger role in his 2nd year.

Did someone say that you should not bid on a top free agent because you want to keep a handcuff? 

Mitchell or Patterson are a huge upgrade over a handcuff and you should absolutely should bid and drop the handcuff. 

That doesn't mean a handcuff, in and of itself, is without value.  Wouldn't you rather have a handcuff than an empty bench spot?

[FFCollusion]

11 minutes ago, dmb3684 said:

If you say so.

In full point PPR for the 10 weeks where CMC did not play (wk 4,5,6,7,8,14,15,16,17,18)

Chubba averaged 14 carries for 51 yards. (3.7ypc)

2.6 targets, 1.9 receptions, for 11 yards receiving.

That's a grand total of 11.1 PPR fantasy points per game, which ranks 37th among RBs.  This is ignoring every RB who had similar spot-fill-ins that were better for short stints.

He scored single digits in half of those starts.

[Whitecloud0101]

13 hours ago, dmb3684 said:

That's not accurate at all. Just last year, off the top of my head, Chubba and Dillon played great as feature backs. 

This handcuff situation may be useless, with no clear cut backup.

lol—chubba was not “great” at all. serviceable at times.

[dmb3684]

55 minutes ago, FFCollusion said:

In full point PPR for the 10 weeks where CMC did not play (wk 4,5,6,7,8,14,15,16,17,18)

Chubba averaged 14 carries for 51 yards. (3.7ypc)

2.6 targets, 1.9 receptions, for 11 yards receiving.

That's a grand total of 11.1 PPR fantasy points per game, which ranks 37th among RBs.  This is ignoring every RB who had similar spot-fill-ins that were better for short stints.

He scored single digits in half of those starts.

You're right; Mike Davis the year before would have been a better example. 

[Evincar]

1 hour ago, kp96 said:

Did someone say that you should not bid on a top free agent because you want to keep a handcuff? 

Mitchell or Patterson are a huge upgrade over a handcuff and you should absolutely should bid and drop the handcuff. 

That doesn't mean a handcuff, in and of itself, is without value.  Wouldn't you rather have a handcuff than an empty bench spot?

You are better off not drafting handcuffs to your own RBs. You dont get any sort of advantage of if CMC goes down. If you draft CMC and say for example Mattison and say Cook goes down, you have just gained a huge advantage every other owner in the league. Bench spots are too valuable to waste on drafting a player that only has value if your own player goes down with injury. 

You goal should always to maximize upside and handcuffing your RBs is the complete opposite of that. Your basically trading in that bench spot which should used on an actual potential league winning player for perceived safety and comfort.

Edited June 23 by Evincar

[YoungDro]

4 hours ago, Evincar said:

Chuba wasnt good and had you handcuffed him with CMC you basically wasted a roster spot when you could have spent a waiver/FAAB on RBs like Mitchell or Patterson. Im not sure if Dillion should be considered a true handcuff given he was expected to have a larger role in his 2nd year.

This is spot on. Chuba was a guy who went #1 WW or high FAAB and proceeded to stink up the joint. His mediocre performances were probably why Foreman, a much more capable back up rb, was brought in. Hubbard scored like an rb3 and ended up being one of those pieces that was too valuable to drop but not good enough to start. Was nigh untradeable too since he looked like a JAG per the eye test too 

Edited June 23 by YoungDro