Define stud (1 Viewer)

[editor47]

Differentiate between studs. I read NEVER BENCH YOUR STUDS on guys all the time. But if you've drafted well, gotten lucky, picked up good players, sometimes, you have a lot of depth and that causes these tough decisions.

It'e easy to start Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson and Wes Welker and bench Mark Clayton, Antwaan Randle El and Jeremy Maclin.

I don't want to turn this into a thread about my team, but my RBs are Jones-Drew, CJ, Turner and Pierre Thomas. My WRs are Colston, VJackson, Boldin and Sims-Walker. I have 6 lineup spots - 1 WR, 1 RB, 4 flex. Great when there are byes but then you get weeks like this - no byes, what appears to be great matchups for Thomas and Colston and not a good matchup for Sims-Walker.

I've been doing this for years. Yet I continue to struggle making these weekly decisions. It's part of what makes fantasy football so much fun.

I try to gather as much info as possible each week from various projections, simple matchup evaluations, etc.

 

[Incog]

I would say CJ and Welker and definite studs. Even when they don't make TDs they rack up the yards and are golden in PPR.

 

[Maroney=Sped]

A stud is someone who is consistent (in the context of their position) and explosive (in terms of fantasy points). In my book there are few studs.

To give an example, here are the top 10 WR's in my PPR league:

Moss, Randy

Wayne, Reggie

Fitzgerald, Larry

Welker, Wes

Jackson, DeSean

Jackson, Vincent

Smith, Steve

Ward, Hines

Rice, Sidney

Johnson, Andre

Of these guys, I'd put Moss, Wayne, Fitz, Welker, V. Jackson, and Johnson in the "stud" category. These guys can easily rack up 25+ points (to pick an arbitrary threshhold) in a given game, and moreover they only extremely rarely give you less than 5-10. That points floor versus ceiling leaves a relatively big middle ground, but then welcome to the WR position, which is why the context of each position is very important. I'd expect the stud RB production floor to be higher than that of WR's just because it's generally easier to feed a RB carries than it is to get a WR catches.

Why not Desean Jackson? He's certainly explosive but is too inconsistent - he's been invisible in a few games. Ditto Sidney Rice (though Rice is on an upswing).

Why not Steve Smith or Hines Ward? They're consistent but not explosive enough.

In addition, a "stud" is present tense, redraft analysis if you will. Whether someone is a "stud" in 2009 does not necessarily mean that they are more valuable long term in dynasty than is someone who is not.

 

[PewterFan]

It's like that one genre of tv that's available to us on HBO at 3 in the morning. You know it when you see it.

 

[ft_ball_fan]

I agree with your definition for the most part MSped.. but one area I disagree is the explosiveness. A stud IMO is someone who performs every week no matter who they're playing. MSW fits that bill... only one down week since he's been a starter... otherwise he comes through every week.. even against Revis.

Same with Thomas Jones. 100 yards vs NE. Not HUGE points (very little potential for him or MSW to have 3 TD's and 200 yards) but still they're a lock to produce.

So its more a lower expectation of the 'top end' potential. But I agree with the produce every week part (at an above average level, not at a Witten 40 yards every game w/0 TDs level).

IMO that's a stud.

You have to pay attention to studs too and see trends... Boldin is typically a stud... but he was hurt and this year DEFINITELY was not studly early on. Now he's looking studly. CJ was not studly early on either... but now is a must start.

 

[editor47]

A stud is someone who is consistent (in the context of their position) and explosive (in terms of fantasy points). In my book there are few studs.

To give an example, here are the top 10 WR's in my PPR league:

Moss, Randy

Wayne, Reggie

Fitzgerald, Larry

Welker, Wes

Jackson, DeSean

Jackson, Vincent

Smith, Steve

Ward, Hines

Rice, Sidney

Johnson, Andre

Of these guys, I'd put Moss, Wayne, Fitz, Welker, V. Jackson, and Johnson in the "stud" category. These guys can easily rack up 25+ points (to pick an arbitrary threshhold) in a given game, and moreover they only extremely rarely give you less than 5-10. That points floor versus ceiling leaves a relatively big middle ground, but then welcome to the WR position, which is why the context of each position is very important. I'd expect the stud RB production floor to be higher than that of WR's just because it's generally easier to feed a RB carries than it is to get a WR catches.

Why not Desean Jackson? He's certainly explosive but is too inconsistent - he's been invisible in a few games. Ditto Sidney Rice (though Rice is on an upswing).

Why not Steve Smith or Hines Ward? They're consistent but not explosive enough.

In addition, a "stud" is present tense, redraft analysis if you will. Whether someone is a "stud" in 2009 does not necessarily mean that they are more valuable long term in dynasty than is someone who is not.

Interesting. So a guy who goes 1/10 and an 4.56 in back to back weeks is still a stud? good post, though.

i guess my question is, how do you decide from one week to the next wich 'stud' to sit?

 

[gianmarco]

A "stud" to me is a guy you plug and play regardless of matchup. There are only a handful of studs in the league at each position.

If you're in the lucky position to own more than you have starting spots, then you have to consider things like matchup, weather, recent trends to break the tie.

 

[bucs4life_99]

Stud

 

[Zoomanji]

If you think: "Man, if I bench this guy I know he'll go off for 100 yards again this week" and he does, then he's a stud

 

[glumpy]

A "stud" to me is a guy you plug and play regardless of matchup. There are only a handful of studs in the league at each position.If you're in the lucky position to own more than you have starting spots, then you have to consider things like matchup, weather, recent trends to break the tie.

There you go! Last year I was in that spot, carrying both Brees and Cutler when they were #1-2 in our league rankings. It was exciting to have that choice, and frustrating when you missed the best one--but odds are you weren't going to lose a game when they were still scoring well even on a "down" week. I did finally trade Cutler away after week 10, both to ease the prepwork and to shore up somewhere else--got lucky with the timing on that one as it turned out.

 

[BobbyLayne]

In my 3 redraft leagues we start 9, 10 and 14 (latter is IDP). For each lineup I have 7-10 guys on each team I start every week. I'll be honest, only a couple are true studs. But the others are either consistent week to week and/or likely to blow up, so I just plug them in every week without thinking about it too much. If someone on the bench outperforms them for 2, 3, 4 weeks, then I might change.I'm no good at this:

consider things like matchup, weather, recent trends

I've got above average intelligence, played amateur football for 9 years, and have been a fan for more than 4 decades. Been playing FF for more than 10 years. I stay abreast of all pertitent information. I have yet to identify a reliable system that works. So I just identify my starters and play them every week.I don't like making too many lineup calls, because frankly, I'm not much more likely to get it right than if I was flipping coins.

 

[gianmarco]

In my 3 redraft leagues we start 9, 10 and 14 (latter is IDP). For each lineup I have 7-10 guys on each team I start every week. I'll be honest, only a couple are true studs. But the others are either consistent week to week and/or likely to blow up, so I just plug them in every week without thinking about it too much. If someone on the bench outperforms them for 2, 3, 4 weeks, then I might change.I'm no good at this:

consider things like matchup, weather, recent trends

I've got above average intelligence, played amateur football for 9 years, and have been a fan for more than 4 decades. Been playing FF for more than 10 years. I stay abreast of all pertitent information. I have yet to identify a reliable system that works. So I just identify my starters and play them every week.I don't like making too many lineup calls, because frankly, I'm not much more likely to get it right than if I was flipping coins.

I've been doing a whole lot more of plugging and playing recently and not so much twiddling around with the lineup and I just find that overall it works better (so it seems). I may miss on a couple here or there that I may have normally switched out, but I'm not missing any of the good games that get mixed in with the bad ones and find I'm leaving less overall pts on the bench.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Yep, that's the case with me too gianmarco. Funny, if you draft and build a solid team, your just about guarenteed to leave some points on the bench. I noticed a couple of my league mates have OK lineups but terrible benches...like super long shots or past their primes...and I wonder if some of them do that on purpose just so they don't have to make decisions.

 

[Sammy Traveller]

There are so many ways to define "stud." None of them involve football.

stud 1 |stəd|noun1 a large-headed piece of metal that pierces and projects from a surface, esp. for decoration.• a small, simple piece of jewelry for wearing in pierced ears or nostrils.• a fastener consisting of two buttons joined with a bar, used in formal wear to fasten a shirtfront or to fasten a collar to a shirt.• (usu. studs) a small projection fixed to the base of footwear, esp. athletic shoes, to allow the wearer to grip the ground.• (usu. studs) a small metal piece set into the tire of a motor vehicle to improve roadholding in slippery conditions.2 an upright support in the wall of a building to which laths and plasterboard are attached.• the height of a room as indicated by the length of this.3 a rivet or crosspiece in each link of a chain cable.stud 2noun1 an establishment where horses or other domesticated animals are kept for breeding : [as adj. ] a stud farm | the horse was retired to stud.• a collection of horses or other domesticated animals belonging to one person.• (also stud horse) a stallion.• informal a young man thought to be very active sexually or regarded as a good sexual partner.2 (also stud poker) a form of poker in which the first card of a player's hand is dealt face down and the others face up, with betting after each round of the deal.