Friendly reminder (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

Randy Moss, LaMont Jordan and Cadillac Williams were first or second round draft picks that people could have benched this week based on the difficult opponent and the awful week one. People always remember when they bench a stud and he goes off, but here's a friendly reminder that you shouldn't forgot that there's no good rule that states "never bench your studs."

Of course, all three of those players may lose that "stud" label after this week. But if Cadillac goes off next week, you'll surely hear "how could you bench him? You never bench your studs!"

 

[Raider Nation]

I told peeps all week long to bench ALL of their Raiders. Hell, I started 87 year-old Ike Bruce over Moss today, and it worked out. I always trust fans' opinions of other teams, as they pay closer attention to their team than I do. I hope someone listened.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I told peeps all week long to bench ALL of their Raiders. Hell, I started 87 year-old Ike Bruce over Moss today, and it worked out. I always trust fans' opinions of other teams, as they pay closer attention to their team than I do. I hope someone listened.

Agreed. This week things looked really bad for Oakland. But that doesn't mean people wouldn't follow some rule instead of playing the matchups here.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Randy Moss, LaMont Jordan and Cadillac Williams were first or second round draft picks that people could have benched this week based on the difficult opponent and the awful week one. People always remember when they bench a stud and he goes off, but here's a friendly reminder that you shouldn't forgot that there's no good rule that states "never bench your studs."Of course, all three of those players may lose that "stud" label after this week. But if Cadillac goes off next week, you'll surely hear "how could you bench him? You never bench your studs!"

CS, I think we have differing opinions of what "stud" means.I think only a very select few can be classified as a stud...which makes the axiom true. For example, if you only classified LJ, LT, SA, and Tiki (as I do) as studs at the RB position, then yes, you ALWAYS start your studs.I don't consider a late first rounder or early second rounder for running backs as a "stud". I consider them low-end RB1 material instead.I think people misuse the label, and that's what gets themselves into trouble, NOT the saying.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Randy Moss, LaMont Jordan and Cadillac Williams were first or second round draft picks that people could have benched this week based on the difficult opponent and the awful week one. People always remember when they bench a stud and he goes off, but here's a friendly reminder that you shouldn't forgot that there's no good rule that states "never bench your studs."Of course, all three of those players may lose that "stud" label after this week. But if Cadillac goes off next week, you'll surely hear "how could you bench him? You never bench your studs!"

CS, I think we have differing opinions of what "stud" means.I think only a very select few can be classified as a stud...which makes the axiom true. For example, if you only classified LJ, LT, SA, and Tiki (as I do) as studs at the RB position, then yes, you ALWAYS start your studs.I don't consider a late first rounder or early second rounder for running backs as a "stud". I consider them low-end RB1 material instead.I think people misuse the label, and that's what gets themselves into trouble, NOT the saying.

I think most people considered Randy Moss a stud two weeks ago. I agree with you though, that those four RBs should not be benched unless there are some very unusual circumstances.

 

[Garts]

Randy Moss, LaMont Jordan and Cadillac Williams were first or second round draft picks that people could have benched this week based on the difficult opponent and the awful week one. People always remember when they bench a stud and he goes off, but here's a friendly reminder that you shouldn't forgot that there's no good rule that states "never bench your studs."Of course, all three of those players may lose that "stud" label after this week. But if Cadillac goes off next week, you'll surely hear "how could you bench him? You never bench your studs!"

CS, I think we have differing opinions of what "stud" means.I think only a very select few can be classified as a stud...which makes the axiom true. For example, if you only classified LJ, LT, SA, and Tiki (as I do) as studs at the RB position, then yes, you ALWAYS start your studs.I don't consider a late first rounder or early second rounder for running backs as a "stud". I consider them low-end RB1 material instead.I think people misuse the label, and that's what gets themselves into trouble, NOT the saying.

Always start Rudi Johnson.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Randy Moss, LaMont Jordan and Cadillac Williams were first or second round draft picks that people could have benched this week based on the difficult opponent and the awful week one. People always remember when they bench a stud and he goes off, but here's a friendly reminder that you shouldn't forgot that there's no good rule that states "never bench your studs."Of course, all three of those players may lose that "stud" label after this week. But if Cadillac goes off next week, you'll surely hear "how could you bench him? You never bench your studs!"

CS, I think we have differing opinions of what "stud" means.I think only a very select few can be classified as a stud...which makes the axiom true. For example, if you only classified LJ, LT, SA, and Tiki (as I do) as studs at the RB position, then yes, you ALWAYS start your studs.I don't consider a late first rounder or early second rounder for running backs as a "stud". I consider them low-end RB1 material instead.I think people misuse the label, and that's what gets themselves into trouble, NOT the saying.

I think most people considered Randy Moss a stud two weeks ago. I agree with you though, that those four RBs should not be benched unless there are some very unusual circumstances.

Really? Randy Moss?He was the 8th rated receiver by you guys, and was being drafted right around there in most leagues I was in.He had a pretty mediocre year last year, and was on a team that many people didn't like going into this year.I considered (and still do) Donald Driver as more of a stud than he is (and no, Driver's not a "stud").Honestly, I'm trying to think of ONE receiver right now that I'd classify in that category. Is there one I can count on to put up points week in and week out?Holt's struggled, for his standards. Boldin/Fitz have become a little inconsistent with the new running game. Smith is hurt...Harrison is losing balls to Wayne...Chad doesn't know what city he's in right now, and TO can't write his own name.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Randy Moss, LaMont Jordan and Cadillac Williams were first or second round draft picks that people could have benched this week based on the difficult opponent and the awful week one. People always remember when they bench a stud and he goes off, but here's a friendly reminder that you shouldn't forgot that there's no good rule that states "never bench your studs."Of course, all three of those players may lose that "stud" label after this week. But if Cadillac goes off next week, you'll surely hear "how could you bench him? You never bench your studs!"

CS, I think we have differing opinions of what "stud" means.I think only a very select few can be classified as a stud...which makes the axiom true. For example, if you only classified LJ, LT, SA, and Tiki (as I do) as studs at the RB position, then yes, you ALWAYS start your studs.I don't consider a late first rounder or early second rounder for running backs as a "stud". I consider them low-end RB1 material instead.I think people misuse the label, and that's what gets themselves into trouble, NOT the saying.

Always start Rudi Johnson.

I could agree with that. He'd be the fifth.

 

[BaBastage]

Randy Moss, LaMont Jordan and Cadillac Williams were first or second round draft picks that people could have benched this week based on the difficult opponent and the awful week one. People always remember when they bench a stud and he goes off, but here's a friendly reminder that you shouldn't forgot that there's no good rule that states "never bench your studs."Of course, all three of those players may lose that "stud" label after this week. But if Cadillac goes off next week, you'll surely hear "how could you bench him? You never bench your studs!"

Yeah, I get tired of hearing this mantra over and over again. Let's face it... it's a good rule of thumb, but everything depends on what choices you have available, and the matchup. Sure, you're not going to bench LT if your next best thing is a Droughns. But you might bench say, Ronnie Brown in a bad matchup if you were choosing between him and FWP against a run-soft d.It depends on who YOUR studs are, and how good they are in respect to what's next in line for you.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Randy Moss, LaMont Jordan and Cadillac Williams were first or second round draft picks that people could have benched this week based on the difficult opponent and the awful week one. People always remember when they bench a stud and he goes off, but here's a friendly reminder that you shouldn't forgot that there's no good rule that states "never bench your studs."Of course, all three of those players may lose that "stud" label after this week. But if Cadillac goes off next week, you'll surely hear "how could you bench him? You never bench your studs!"

CS, I think we have differing opinions of what "stud" means.I think only a very select few can be classified as a stud...which makes the axiom true. For example, if you only classified LJ, LT, SA, and Tiki (as I do) as studs at the RB position, then yes, you ALWAYS start your studs.I don't consider a late first rounder or early second rounder for running backs as a "stud". I consider them low-end RB1 material instead.I think people misuse the label, and that's what gets themselves into trouble, NOT the saying.

Always start Rudi Johnson.

I could agree with that. He'd be the fifth.

A good question now is whether there is a 6th RB.I'd vote that Ronnie Brown is getting close.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I think it's a pride thing with many people: "I spent my 1st & 2nd picks on those guys; I'm not benching them". I think that, deep down, they feel that doing so somehow means they were "wrong" & so stubbornly stick with them. I've been guilty of this in the past, for sure. But I now pay no attention to where I drafted guys once I walk out of my draft. They become a pool of players to make weekly decisions on. Things change so fast in the NFL that what seemed smart on September 7th is shot to hell on the 18th.

BTW, I'm with Keys in my own definition of stud: to me, there's 4 of them (LJ, LT, SA, Manning). But I think most people call a stud their 1st & 2nd round picks.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I never considered Cadillac or Jordan studs. I gasped in horror with Cadillac went 6th in my league's draft and I never even considered Jordan at 1.9.

 

[Ilov80s]

Randy Moss, LaMont Jordan and Cadillac Williams were first or second round draft picks that people could have benched this week based on the difficult opponent and the awful week one. People always remember when they bench a stud and he goes off, but here's a friendly reminder that you shouldn't forgot that there's no good rule that states "never bench your studs."Of course, all three of those players may lose that "stud" label after this week. But if Cadillac goes off next week, you'll surely hear "how could you bench him? You never bench your studs!"

CS, I think we have differing opinions of what "stud" means.I think only a very select few can be classified as a stud...which makes the axiom true. For example, if you only classified LJ, LT, SA, and Tiki (as I do) as studs at the RB position, then yes, you ALWAYS start your studs.I don't consider a late first rounder or early second rounder for running backs as a "stud". I consider them low-end RB1 material instead.I think people misuse the label, and that's what gets themselves into trouble, NOT the saying.

Always start Rudi Johnson.

I could agree with that. He'd be the fifth.

A good question now is whether there is a 6th RB.I'd vote that Ronnie Brown is getting close.

I'd vote Frank Gore is getting closer.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Randy Moss, LaMont Jordan and Cadillac Williams were first or second round draft picks that people could have benched this week based on the difficult opponent and the awful week one. People always remember when they bench a stud and he goes off, but here's a friendly reminder that you shouldn't forgot that there's no good rule that states "never bench your studs."

Of course, all three of those players may lose that "stud" label after this week. But if Cadillac goes off next week, you'll surely hear "how could you bench him? You never bench your studs!"

CS, I think we have differing opinions of what "stud" means.I think only a very select few can be classified as a stud...which makes the axiom true. For example, if you only classified LJ, LT, SA, and Tiki (as I do) as studs at the RB position, then yes, you ALWAYS start your studs.

I don't consider a late first rounder or early second rounder for running backs as a "stud". I consider them low-end RB1 material instead.

I think people misuse the label, and that's what gets themselves into trouble, NOT the saying.

I think most people considered Randy Moss a stud two weeks ago. I agree with you though, that those four RBs should not be benched unless there are some very unusual circumstances.

Boldin/Fitz have become a little inconsistent with the new running game.

Huh? You mean the running game that got 64 yards this week? Or the 73 yards last week vs. SF? And the YPC is even suckier...

 

[pizzatyme]

There is hardly a more consistent Wr in the game than Marvin Harrison. Yes, wayne is getting more balls. But, not at the expense of Harrison.

If you listened in the preseason, I projected Manning to increase his numbers this season. I thought both Wayne and Harrison would have more than 1200+ and 10 TDs+. That was basically the FBGs projections.

Consistency is the Colts passing game. Studs are the Colts QB/WR1/WR1a

 

[barndog]

I think it's a pride thing with many people: "I spent my 1st & 2nd picks on those guys; I'm not benching them". I think that, deep down, they feel that doing so somehow means they were "wrong" & so stubbornly stick with them.

This is the fantasy analog of the idea that owners/coaches start less deserving players just because they're getting paid more than their backups

 

[Arm Chair Express]

[

I think most people considered Randy Moss a stud two weeks ago.

I agree with you though, that those four RBs should not be benched unless there are some very unusual circumstances.

I haven't considered Moss a stud in a few years now. When is the last time he was even in the top 5 in fantasy points?

 

[Sabertooth]

I started Moss of Jerricho Cotchery this past week. Dang, that was a mistake. I guess I did it off name recognition or whatever. Mistake though.

I have them basically as equals at this point and will rotate Cotchery, Evans, and Moss depending on the best matchups.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Randy Moss, LaMont Jordan and Cadillac Williams were first or second round draft picks that people could have benched this week based on the difficult opponent and the awful week one. People always remember when they bench a stud and he goes off, but here's a friendly reminder that you shouldn't forgot that there's no good rule that states "never bench your studs."

Of course, all three of those players may lose that "stud" label after this week. But if Cadillac goes off next week, you'll surely hear "how could you bench him? You never bench your studs!"

CS, I think we have differing opinions of what "stud" means.I think only a very select few can be classified as a stud...which makes the axiom true. For example, if you only classified LJ, LT, SA, and Tiki (as I do) as studs at the RB position, then yes, you ALWAYS start your studs.

I don't consider a late first rounder or early second rounder for running backs as a "stud". I consider them low-end RB1 material instead.

I think people misuse the label, and that's what gets themselves into trouble, NOT the saying.

I think most people considered Randy Moss a stud two weeks ago. I agree with you though, that those four RBs should not be benched unless there are some very unusual circumstances.

Boldin/Fitz have become a little inconsistent with the new running game.

Huh? You mean the running game that got 64 yards this week? Or the 73 yards last week vs. SF? And the YPC is even suckier...

Please, Sonny, tell me where in that sentence did I say the new running game was GOOD. I was just saying that they're using it more, which decreases pass attempts.

 

[thayman]

Randy Moss, LaMont Jordan and Cadillac Williams were first or second round draft picks that people could have benched this week based on the difficult opponent and the awful week one. People always remember when they bench a stud and he goes off, but here's a friendly reminder that you shouldn't forgot that there's no good rule that states "never bench your studs."Of course, all three of those players may lose that "stud" label after this week. But if Cadillac goes off next week, you'll surely hear "how could you bench him? You never bench your studs!"

CS, I think we have differing opinions of what "stud" means.I think only a very select few can be classified as a stud...which makes the axiom true. For example, if you only classified LJ, LT, SA, and Tiki (as I do) as studs at the RB position, then yes, you ALWAYS start your studs.I don't consider a late first rounder or early second rounder for running backs as a "stud". I consider them low-end RB1 material instead.I think people misuse the label, and that's what gets themselves into trouble, NOT the saying.

Always start Rudi Johnson.

I could agree with that. He'd be the fifth.

A good question now is whether there is a 6th RB.I'd vote that Ronnie Brown is getting close.

Warrick Dunn baby!!!

 

[pizzatyme]

Randy Moss, LaMont Jordan and Cadillac Williams were first or second round draft picks that people could have benched this week based on the difficult opponent and the awful week one. People always remember when they bench a stud and he goes off, but here's a friendly reminder that you shouldn't forgot that there's no good rule that states "never bench your studs."Of course, all three of those players may lose that "stud" label after this week. But if Cadillac goes off next week, you'll surely hear "how could you bench him? You never bench your studs!"

CS, I think we have differing opinions of what "stud" means.I think only a very select few can be classified as a stud...which makes the axiom true. For example, if you only classified LJ, LT, SA, and Tiki (as I do) as studs at the RB position, then yes, you ALWAYS start your studs.I don't consider a late first rounder or early second rounder for running backs as a "stud". I consider them low-end RB1 material instead.I think people misuse the label, and that's what gets themselves into trouble, NOT the saying.

Always start Rudi Johnson.

I could agree with that. He'd be the fifth.

A good question now is whether there is a 6th RB.I'd vote that Ronnie Brown is getting close.

Warrick Dunn baby!!!

I pimped WD as a pre-season top 10 RB and got laughed out of the threads!

 

[packersfan]

I'd say what we saw out of LJ yesterday was a pretty strong example of why you always start your studs -- especially early in the season when so much is in flux.

 

[coolnerd]

I think the "problem" is going to be one of options. Realistically, in your garden variety 12 team league how many teams have a 3rd option that is worth a start. If you want set the standard of 32 NFL starting RBs in the league, this means evenly divided 4 of your leaguemates don't have an NFL "starter." Of course, this does not factor in the teams Titans, Texans , Jets, etc where it totally unclear who the starter is or it hasn't mattered fantasywise if you had the starter. Quite honestly, I suspect that a large (most) number of I am starting my late 1st/early 2nd RB crowd have no choice but to start those guys versus they are refusing to sit thier "studs"

 

[BowlingBartenderCory]

always start your studs, but the guys anybody on the Raiders, due to their situation, is NOT A STUD just a blown high round pick.

 

[thayman]

Randy Moss, LaMont Jordan and Cadillac Williams were first or second round draft picks that people could have benched this week based on the difficult opponent and the awful week one. People always remember when they bench a stud and he goes off, but here's a friendly reminder that you shouldn't forgot that there's no good rule that states "never bench your studs."Of course, all three of those players may lose that "stud" label after this week. But if Cadillac goes off next week, you'll surely hear "how could you bench him? You never bench your studs!"

CS, I think we have differing opinions of what "stud" means.I think only a very select few can be classified as a stud...which makes the axiom true. For example, if you only classified LJ, LT, SA, and Tiki (as I do) as studs at the RB position, then yes, you ALWAYS start your studs.I don't consider a late first rounder or early second rounder for running backs as a "stud". I consider them low-end RB1 material instead.I think people misuse the label, and that's what gets themselves into trouble, NOT the saying.

Always start Rudi Johnson.

I could agree with that. He'd be the fifth.

A good question now is whether there is a 6th RB.I'd vote that Ronnie Brown is getting close.

Warrick Dunn baby!!!

I pimped WD as a pre-season top 10 RB and got laughed out of the threads!

I love the quiet boring player that puts up quality reliable stats week in and week out.

 

[bostonfred]

Randy Moss, LaMont Jordan and Cadillac Williams were first or second round draft picks that people could have benched this week based on the difficult opponent and the awful week one. People always remember when they bench a stud and he goes off, but here's a friendly reminder that you shouldn't forgot that there's no good rule that states "never bench your studs."Of course, all three of those players may lose that "stud" label after this week. But if Cadillac goes off next week, you'll surely hear "how could you bench him? You never bench your studs!"

CS, I think we have differing opinions of what "stud" means.I think only a very select few can be classified as a stud...which makes the axiom true. For example, if you only classified LJ, LT, SA, and Tiki (as I do) as studs at the RB position, then yes, you ALWAYS start your studs.I don't consider a late first rounder or early second rounder for running backs as a "stud". I consider them low-end RB1 material instead.I think people misuse the label, and that's what gets themselves into trouble, NOT the saying.

Always start Rudi Johnson.

I could agree with that. He'd be the fifth.

A good question now is whether there is a 6th RB.I'd vote that Ronnie Brown is getting close.

I'd vote Frank Gore is getting closer.

I can agree with Ronnie Brown, who put up solid numbers against Pittsburgh and Buffalo in PPR leagues, but Frank Gore? Who has he played? St. Louis and Arizona aren't the type of defenses we're talking about when we say "always start your studs". I can't think of a matchup where I'd bench Tomlinson, LJ, Alexander, Rudi, Jackson, Brown, and now Dunn. But that's just me.

 

[BigRed]

Randy Moss, LaMont Jordan and Cadillac Williams were first or second round draft picks that people could have benched this week based on the difficult opponent and the awful week one. People always remember when they bench a stud and he goes off, but here's a friendly reminder that you shouldn't forgot that there's no good rule that states "never bench your studs."Of course, all three of those players may lose that "stud" label after this week.

Implying they still have it? It may be only 2 weeks but "what have you done for me lately" also applies, along wiht "always start your studs" - which remains a good rule. These guys are proving not to be studs.

 

[tietzjd]

Sat Caddy for Gore this week. Very happy about that today!

Not sure what to do with Caddy at this point. James at 9 in my scoring system is 5th for RB scoring so he been doing good.

Starting to wish I would taken CJ in 2nd and Dunn in 3rd insteed of Caddy and Wyane.

 

[GregR_2]

I've never followed "never bench your studs". I've always followed "never bench your studs without good reason."

There is good reason to bench Moss right now, whether you consider him a stud or not.