Do certain superstars ever get benched in fantasy? (1 Viewer)

[xcheck2430]

The topic for debate here is would you bench current superstars for players with better matchups?

For example, you put Peyton Manning against the denver in week 8. do you benc him for someone like david carr @ tennessee the same week? or Brett Farve vs Arizona?

Same thing with runningbacks. Say larry johnson vs Baltimore week 14. Do you bench him for say, kevin jones vs minnesota? or say ahman green @ SF?

my input is never ever ever. someone give me some feedback

 

[kutta]

The topic for debate here is would you bench current superstars for players with better matchups?

For example, you put Peyton Manning against the denver in week 8. do you benc him for someone like david carr @ tennessee the same week? or Brett Farve vs Arizona?

Same thing with runningbacks. Say larry johnson vs Baltimore week 14. Do you bench him for say, kevin jones vs minnesota? or say ahman green @ SF?



my input is never ever ever. someone give me some feedback

I suspect your input will be very similar to everyone else's input...

 

[CrossEyed]

I bench them anytime they are playing BYE. Their defense is AMAZING.

 

[thatguy]

Certain players should never be benched. LJ. LT. Peyton. To name a few. But the rule, "never bench your studs" should not be adhered to too rigidly... unless, of course, you only believe a handful of players are truly studs. Most people throw the term "stud" around in rerference to maybe the top 10 RBs, top 10 WRs, top 5 QBs, and top 3 TEs. Given that definition, there are many cases where you should, in fact, bench your "studs". Ultimately, it really just depends on the player. I would never, under any circumstances, bench LJ if I owned him (assuming KC has a game and LJ is the starter).

 

[Garts]

Certain players should never be benched. LJ. LT. Peyton. To name a few. But the rule, "never bench your studs" should not be adhered to too rigidly... unless, of course, you only believe a handful of players are truly studs. Most people throw the term "stud" around in rerference to maybe the top 10 RBs, top 10 WRs, top 5 QBs, and top 3 TEs. Given that definition, there are many cases where you should, in fact, bench your "studs". Ultimately, it really just depends on the player. I would never, under any circumstances, bench LJ if I owned him (assuming KC has a game and LJ is the starter).

I never bench Carson Palmer. Everytime he goes to Pittsburgh for example inwhat seems like a TOUGH match-up...he lights them up for 3-4 TDS.

 

[UrlacherIsGod]

Question this year is: define "stud". Unless you have Donovan McNabb (so far) there is no such thing as a "stud".

 

[thatguy]

Certain players should never be benched. LJ. LT. Peyton. To name a few. But the rule, "never bench your studs" should not be adhered to too rigidly... unless, of course, you only believe a handful of players are truly studs. Most people throw the term "stud" around in rerference to maybe the top 10 RBs, top 10 WRs, top 5 QBs, and top 3 TEs. Given that definition, there are many cases where you should, in fact, bench your "studs". Ultimately, it really just depends on the player. I would never, under any circumstances, bench LJ if I owned him (assuming KC has a game and LJ is the starter).

I never bench Carson Palmer. Everytime he goes to Pittsburgh for example inwhat seems like a TOUGH match-up...he lights them up for 3-4 TDS.

Agree. He's another guy I wouldn't bench... unless I had Peyton, too (or DNabb right now).

 

[xcheck2430]

in terms of Wide recievers, the only studs i see are tory holt and steve smith. anyone else?

 

[videoguy505]

I'm seriously considering benching Larry Johnson this week. He's facing a tough run defense and I have two guys with great matchups--Rudi Johnson vs. TB and Tatum Bell vs. Oakland. My opponent isn't much of a threat this week, and if I lose I'd still be a game ahead of everyone else in my division. So I'm shooting for scoring the most points.

He's got the little red cross next to his name on the website, and I have a guy facing Oakland. Every cheat sheet, ranking guide, and projection says I'm making the right move, so I'm gonna do it.

 

[delusional]

the never bench your studs theory can go out the window this year as expected/past studs are well, not being studs.

 

[Ilov80s]

in terms of Wide recievers, the only studs i see are tory holt and steve smith. anyone else?

Andre Johnson

 

[delusional]

berrian o0

 

[jon_mx]

I'm seriously considering benching Larry Johnson this week. He's facing a tough run defense and I have two guys with great matchups--Rudi Johnson vs. TB and Tatum Bell vs. Oakland.

Larry is hard to bench, but if you have a couple of semi-studs behind him in better match up that is your choice. I agree with the post above, the only stud that has outshined everyone so far is McNabb.

 

[Riffraff]

Ever? Would you ever bench Brett Favre on your fantasy team?

I think you can answer that one yourself.

 

[faulkfan]

The best thing about having a superstar is that you just start him.

I may have to decide on Colston or Berrian for my #2WR, but I don't ever hesitate to start Harrison, matchups be damned.

I also know that on some fluke weeks Bensen will outscore all my other RBs, but I don't care how good the matchups I win or lose with the stars on my team. There is a security that goes with that and I prefer it to trying to play whims and gut feelings.

 

[lod2005]

Of course they do. When you have Eli and Favre, 1 has to sit.

 

[SSOG]

Certain players should never be benched. LJ. LT. Peyton. To name a few. But the rule, "never bench your studs" should not be adhered to too rigidly... unless, of course, you only believe a handful of players are truly studs. Most people throw the term "stud" around in rerference to maybe the top 10 RBs, top 10 WRs, top 5 QBs, and top 3 TEs. Given that definition, there are many cases where you should, in fact, bench your "studs". Ultimately, it really just depends on the player. I would never, under any circumstances, bench LJ if I owned him (assuming KC has a game and LJ is the starter).

I never bench Carson Palmer. Everytime he goes to Pittsburgh for example inwhat seems like a TOUGH match-up...he lights them up for 3-4 TDS.

Agree. He's another guy I wouldn't bench... unless I had Peyton, too (or DNabb right now).

Aha, and here we get to the crux. I'd have no problem benching either Peyton or McNabb for the other. That's the whole weakness of the "don't bench your studs" arguement- it's totally oblivious to roster composition.There are other times I'd consider benching Peyton for a clearly lesser QB, too. I mean, let's say I have a fantasy behemoth (LJ, LT, KWII, Berrian, Holt, etc, etc). Let's also say that the other guy only has one quality player, maybe a Santana Moss- somebody capable of beating me all by himself- and then nothing else of any note. If the matchups were good, I might consider starting Brunell over Manning- not because I expect Manning to perform worse, but because I'm "neutralizing" Moss. Of course, a lot of times such a strategy would be absolutely ludicrous, but there are a few rare instances where, when you clearly have the better team, eliminating the possibility for variance is actually the percentage play.

 

[Lobo237]

It depends, most of the time I won't, I figure I can more easily deal with a back-up blowing up on my bench while my stud underpeforms than vice versa. Still, there are times when you go for the homerun. I remember a couple years ago I had McNabb and Brees on a team, and my options were start McNabb vs Pitt who'd shut down the Pats the weak before or Brees vs I think NO, someone with a horrible pass defense. My opponent had Manning who was in the midst of his video game season so I ended up gambling on Brees. Worked out great for me since McNabb did squat and Brees matched Manning point for point, but the big reason I was willing to risk this was McNabb was #3 in qb scoring at the time, but Brees was #7 or #8 so I wasn't risking a huge drop-off. I wouldn't bench a stud for some one week waiver wire fill-in, but if you've got another guy playing at close to that level it can pay-off.

 

[Wingnut]

I never bench my true studs.

Id rather have my stud get 50yds and no tds in my lineup than watch him get 150 and 2tds on my bench.

Injures players aside

QBs I would NEVER bench: Mannings, McNabb, Brady, Bulger, Palmer, Hass

RBs I would NEVER bench: LJ, LT, SA, Portis, Rudi, S Jackson

WRs I would NEVER bench: CJ, Holt, Fitz/Boldin, S Smith, TO, Harrison/Wayne, Housh, A Johnson, DJax, S Moss, R Williams

TEs I would NEVER bench: Gates, LJ Smith, Heap, Witten

Thats about it.

 

[SSOG]

I never bench my true studs.Id rather have my stud get 50yds and no tds in my lineup than watch him get 150 and 2tds on my bench.Injures players asideQBs I would NEVER bench: Mannings, McNabb, Brady, Bulger, Palmer, HassRBs I would NEVER bench: LJ, LT, SA, Portis, Rudi, S JacksonWRs I would NEVER bench: CJ, Holt, Fitz/Boldin, S Smith, TO, Harrison/Wayne, Housh, A Johnson, DJax, S Moss, R WilliamsTEs I would NEVER bench: Gates, LJ Smith, Heap, WittenThats about it.

No way are there 6 QBs who should be considered "studs". No way. Historically speaking, there are never 6 QBs who are ever anything more than MARGINALLY better than the rest of the top 10. The difference between a Brady/Bulger/Palmer/Hass and the rest of the league, right now, is so miniscule that I would have no problem benching them for a 7-12 range QB with a favorable matchup.Same thing with the TEs. No way does Witten deserve to be classified as a stud (although KWII should probably take his place), and I haven't seen enough from LJ to put him on that list, either.

 

[Wingnut]

I never bench my true studs.

Id rather have my stud get 50yds and no tds in my lineup than watch him get 150 and 2tds on my bench.

Injures players aside

QBs I would NEVER bench: Mannings, McNabb, Brady, Bulger, Palmer, Hass

RBs I would NEVER bench: LJ, LT, SA, Portis, Rudi, S Jackson

WRs I would NEVER bench: CJ, Holt, Fitz/Boldin, S Smith, TO, Harrison/Wayne, Housh, A Johnson, DJax, S Moss, R Williams

TEs I would NEVER bench: Gates, LJ Smith, Heap, Witten

Thats about it.

No way are there 6 QBs who should be considered "studs". No way. Historically speaking, there are never 6 QBs who are ever anything more than MARGINALLY better than the rest of the top 10. The difference between a Brady/Bulger/Palmer/Hass and the rest of the league, right now, is so miniscule that I would have no problem benching them for a 7-12 range QB with a favorable matchup.Same thing with the TEs. No way does Witten deserve to be classified as a stud (although KWII should probably take his place), and I haven't seen enough from LJ to put him on that list, either.

Actually there are 7 QBs (Mannings)Id still never bench any of those players for a lesser player with a better matchup...Well, take Witten off the list...I had him last year but didnt look at his this years numbers...But the rest I stick by. I probably agree with KWII as well. This year you could possibly put Grossman in the QB list, but Im not a believer in the long term for him yet. Brady has come back to earth some, but hes still able to get it done any given week regardless of matchup.

 

[thatguy]

I never bench my true studs.

Id rather have my stud get 50yds and no tds in my lineup than watch him get 150 and 2tds on my bench.

Injures players aside

QBs I would NEVER bench: Mannings, McNabb, Brady, Bulger, Palmer, Hass

RBs I would NEVER bench: LJ, LT, SA, Portis, Rudi, S Jackson

WRs I would NEVER bench: CJ, Holt, Fitz/Boldin, S Smith, TO, Harrison/Wayne, Housh, A Johnson, DJax, S Moss, R Williams

TEs I would NEVER bench: Gates, LJ Smith, Heap, Witten

Thats about it.

No way are there 6 QBs who should be considered "studs". No way. Historically speaking, there are never 6 QBs who are ever anything more than MARGINALLY better than the rest of the top 10. The difference between a Brady/Bulger/Palmer/Hass and the rest of the league, right now, is so miniscule that I would have no problem benching them for a 7-12 range QB with a favorable matchup.Same thing with the TEs. No way does Witten deserve to be classified as a stud (although KWII should probably take his place), and I haven't seen enough from LJ to put him on that list, either.

I'm referring primarily to Carson here. The fact that, to date, he hasn't separated himself from the herd is not necessarily reason to think he won't. I for one believe that Carson will return to '05 form and be a top QB going forward. Since I believe that, I think he is a must start every week (unless you have Peyton or DNabb) because he has proven that he can put up big numbers REGARDLESS of opponent. I would not bench him for anyone but those two. I would imagine that few teams are lucky enough to own 2 of those 3. If in a few weeks, he still looks shaky and Cincy is still struggling, I might change my tune. The same goes for guys like LJ or LT. Basically, just because there aren't many true studs so far this season does not mean that it is necessarily justifiable to bench guys like Carson or LJ when the matchup looks unfavorable.

 

[Bad_Mo]

I never bench my true studs.Id rather have my stud get 50yds and no tds in my lineup than watch him get 150 and 2tds on my bench.Injures players asideQBs I would NEVER bench: Mannings, McNabb, Brady, Bulger, Palmer, HassRBs I would NEVER bench: LJ, LT, SA, Portis, Rudi, S JacksonWRs I would NEVER bench: CJ, Holt, Fitz/Boldin, S Smith, TO, Harrison/Wayne, Housh, A Johnson, DJax, S Moss, R WilliamsTEs I would NEVER bench: Gates, LJ Smith, Heap, WittenThats about it.

I have LT, Boldin and Gates......and have had them active every week that they haven't been on a bye.I will live and die with them.

 

[TFN1995]

you cant ever bench them. Thats why thier superstars.

 

[kmswim03]

If you say that you don't always start your studs, then give an example. Don't just say that you would in certain circumstances. For example, in week one this year I started Kurt Warner over Peyton Manning and it won me the game. People thought I was crazy, but I had the last laugh.

Match-ups have more importance than some arbitrary "stud" title given to certain players.

 

[cubbie5150]

Match-ups have more importance than some arbitrary "stud" title given to certain players.

Exactly...the "never bench your studs" theory is just an excuse to not have to make a difficult decision. I remember my first year in one redraft league, I made it to the championship (it was Fred taylor's rookie year). I also had Curtis Martin on my team (back then he clearly was a "stud"). On championship weekend, CMar had a very tough macthup (can't remember who) so I started Fred Taylor @ Minny instead even though Minny had great defensive stats vs. the run, but those stats were deceiving b/c that year they were blowing people out early, & teams never had a chance to run the ball. I knew Tom Coughlin would run the ball w/ Fred Taylor no matter the score. The result? CMar had something like 30 yds in his game, fred Taylor put up something like 100 yds, and I won our championship by 2 pts. If I'm lucky enough to make it deep into the playoffs this year, I will not hesitate to sit SA week 16 vs. SD & go w/ Thomas Jones or Cedric benson vs GB instead (of course assuming SD run D is still dominant)...

 

[Statorama]

I benched PManning when Culpepper had a good matchup (Titans). Pep's rushing TD made it closer than it should have been.