Let’s just define it now: What does “Stud” mean (1 Viewer)

[BigJ]

What does it really mean?

1) Does it only relate to draft position?

2) Do you include injury status in your decision?

3) What is a player is really hot, how long do they have to be hot before they are considered a "stud".

So lets have it, define "Stud".

 

[BigJ]

PS

What spawned this question is this quote:

if Lee Evans=Stud and Stud=Starter then Lee Evans=Starter.

In this post: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=338380People just use it so much I think its time to finally define it.

 

[bostonfred]

You're a little early. The definition usually becomes clear on Monday mornings.

 

[BigJ]

You're a little early. The definition usually becomes clear on Monday mornings.

LOL, so true!

 

[CrossEyed]

It rhymes?

 

[meeka]

Since it rhymes people love to throw this expression around, but what does it really mean?

1) Does it only relate to draft position?

2) Do you include injury status in your decision?

3) What is a player is really hot, how long do they have to be hot before they are considered a "stud".

So lets have it, define "Stud".

ETA: just a minute to late.

 

[BeachBums]

Tops 'studs' are clear - LT, SJ, LJ, Gore - S. Smith, Ocho Cinqo (benched him mid season last year and paid), Fitz, Holt, Marvin, Reggie - Gates - Manning, Palmer, Brees, Brady, McNabb. But once you get past the top tier, it gets a little murky for me. I personally do not consider Lee Evans a stud (and don't own him either so no worries for me).

 

[BeachBums]

BTW, I don't get the rhyme part either - 'stud' rhymes with ... ?

 

[BigJ]

Tops 'studs' are clear - LT, SJ, LJ, Gore - S. Smith, Ocho Cinqo (benched him mid season last year and paid), Fitz, Holt, Marvin, Reggie - Gates - Manning, Palmer, Brees, Brady, McNabb. But once you get past the top tier, it gets a little murky for me. I personally do not consider Lee Evans a stud (and don't own him either so no worries for me).

Makes sense, thanks man!Anyone else?

 

[-OZ-]

Tops 'studs' are clear - LT, SJ, LJ, Gore - S. Smith, Ocho Cinqo (benched him mid season last year and paid), Fitz, Holt, Marvin, Reggie - Gates - Manning, Palmer, Brees, Brady, McNabb. But once you get past the top tier, it gets a little murky for me. I personally do not consider Lee Evans a stud (and don't own him either so no worries for me).

Evans is a stud, but not one of the "Absolutely must start studs". Same level as Boldin, Willie Parker, and Westbrook. You pretty much have to start them in a competitive redraft (unless you're extremely lucky), but you might be so loaded in a dynasty league that you don't have to. I would also put McNabb in this group. FWIW, there were only 3 weeks (1,2,7) that you would have regretted starting Evans last year. Same amount as Ocho Cinco.But, I suppose that is the question. Do you want to be 90% sure you "won't regret" starting a player, or have a decent chance of having him blow up? Or is it a combination? To me, it's the combo. I don't want to regret it, but I want the chance for greatness. Some players you won't regret (most likely), Plaxico Burress last year for example - only had 1 truly bad week. But, he never really blew up. Galloway is the opposite, he had some great weeks, and many subpar. I wouldn't consider either a stud.

 

[Less Than Zero]

Rhyming is not the same as alliteration.

Tops 'studs' are clear - LT, SJ, LJ, Gore - S. Smith, Ocho Cinqo (benched him mid season last year and paid), Fitz, Holt, Marvin, Reggie - Gates - Manning, Palmer, Brees, Brady, McNabb. But once you get past the top tier, it gets a little murky for me. I personally do not consider Lee Evans a stud (and don't own him either so no worries for me).

This is a fairly accurate group of must-start studs. As usual though, the season bears watching; I could see LJ, Gore, Steve Smith, and McNabb all disappointing this year a bit, maybe dropping so far that you'd start to consider sitting them in favor of a bench guy with a great matchup if you've got good depth. Arguably, lack of depth at TE means that you can probably consider other top 5 TEs "studs" because you don't have a remotely acceptable backup to be playing matchup games with though. I wouldn't consider Todd Heap or Gonzo (given KC's situation) "studs" but it's doubtful that you've got someone else you can plug in when they're up against tough defenses.But yeah, that's a pretty solid list of this year's studs.

 

[proninja]

I define stud

 

[CrossEyed]

I define stud

But do you rhyme?

 

[proninja]

I define stud

But do you rhyme?

All the time

 

[BeachBums]

Tops 'studs' are clear - LT, SJ, LJ, Gore - S. Smith, Ocho Cinqo (benched him mid season last year and paid), Fitz, Holt, Marvin, Reggie - Gates - Manning, Palmer, Brees, Brady, McNabb. But once you get past the top tier, it gets a little murky for me. I personally do not consider Lee Evans a stud (and don't own him either so no worries for me).

Evans is a stud, but not one of the "Absolutely must start studs". Same level as Boldin, Willie Parker, and Westbrook. You pretty much have to start them in a competitive redraft (unless you're extremely lucky), but you might be so loaded in a dynasty league that you don't have to. I would also put McNabb in this group. FWIW, there were only 3 weeks (1,2,7) that you would have regretted starting Evans last year. Same amount as Ocho Cinco.But, I suppose that is the question. Do you want to be 90% sure you "won't regret" starting a player, or have a decent chance of having him blow up? Or is it a combination? To me, it's the combo. I don't want to regret it, but I want the chance for greatness. Some players you won't regret (most likely), Plaxico Burress last year for example - only had 1 truly bad week. But, he never really blew up. Galloway is the opposite, he had some great weeks, and many subpar. I wouldn't consider either a stud.

OZ you're the man, but in terms of *defining* stud, isn't absolutely must start (barring severe injury or a bye), no matter the matchup, the definition? Or are there two categories of stud, the 'absolutely must start no matter what' variety and the 'borderline stud' variety like Evans or Westbrook? I'm splitting hairs here I know, but I'm tryin to answer the man's question and gain a little education myself. TIA.

 

[coolnerd]

there are essentially two definitions

1) Stud no matter what team the player is on. The people earlier in the thread have defined those guys well.

2) Stud on your squad. The player is clearly a better football player than anyone else at his position.

For example, Lee Evans may or may not be a stud in the larger scheme of the league, but on plenty of fantasy teams Lee Evans is clearly better than the 4thWR (assuming start 3) no matter how bad Evans' match-up is or good your 4th WRs' match-up is.

 

[-OZ-]

Tops 'studs' are clear - LT, SJ, LJ, Gore - S. Smith, Ocho Cinqo (benched him mid season last year and paid), Fitz, Holt, Marvin, Reggie - Gates - Manning, Palmer, Brees, Brady, McNabb. But once you get past the top tier, it gets a little murky for me. I personally do not consider Lee Evans a stud (and don't own him either so no worries for me).

Evans is a stud, but not one of the "Absolutely must start studs". Same level as Boldin, Willie Parker, and Westbrook. You pretty much have to start them in a competitive redraft (unless you're extremely lucky), but you might be so loaded in a dynasty league that you don't have to. I would also put McNabb in this group. FWIW, there were only 3 weeks (1,2,7) that you would have regretted starting Evans last year. Same amount as Ocho Cinco.But, I suppose that is the question. Do you want to be 90% sure you "won't regret" starting a player, or have a decent chance of having him blow up? Or is it a combination? To me, it's the combo. I don't want to regret it, but I want the chance for greatness. Some players you won't regret (most likely), Plaxico Burress last year for example - only had 1 truly bad week. But, he never really blew up. Galloway is the opposite, he had some great weeks, and many subpar. I wouldn't consider either a stud.

OZ you're the man, but in terms of *defining* stud, isn't absolutely must start (barring severe injury or a bye), no matter the matchup, the definition? Or are there two categories of stud, the 'absolutely must start no matter what' variety and the 'borderline stud' variety like Evans or Westbrook? I'm splitting hairs here I know, but I'm tryin to answer the man's question and gain a little education myself. TIA.

If we're going with one definition, LT and Peyton Manning are the only STUDs in the game. (maybe SJax, but you may decide to start Gore instead)

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Always start your studs depends on the studness of your studs, and the talent of your bench. I'll provide 2 examples to show you what I mean:

QB - Peyton, Campbell

RB - LT, SJax, Dunn, Norwood, LenDale,

WR - Steve Smith, Chad, TO, Lelie, Kevin Walter

TE - Gates, Scheffler

Using the above team in a 1QB, 2RB, 3WR, 1TE league, you would only use your backups during your studs bye weeks. No exceptions!

QB - Bulger, Romo

RB - Rudi, MJD, Benson, Jordan

WR - Santana, Coles, VJax, Holmes, Jennings

TE - Watson, Heath Miller

Using this team, I could make a case for benching every player, based on matchups.

 

[hellz_fireflies]

Stud is the solid point of your team (whom ever they are)!

example of solid point: make a fist punch a wall made of sheetrock if you hit somthing hard thats a stud (solid point).