"Start your studs" no longer applies? (1 Viewer)

[Phokus]

I was watching ESPN2's fantasy show yesterday and they said an interesting thing: This year, the 'start your studs' concept doesn't apply as it did in years past and now you have to look at your matchups. Does anyone agree with this sentinment? It certainly does feel differently than last year with nobody really dominating (except for maybe mcnabb and chicago/ravens d)...

 

[Capt Hook]

sounds like to me - who was this? Matthew Berry?

 

[Love to Bet football]

depends on which studs you're talking about....I'll NEVER sit LJ,LT,Palmer,Manning,Brady,Bulger,Holt,etc,etc

 

[PatsWillWin]

"Start your studs" wouldn't apply if you could look at how the games turned out AFTER the fact like this ####### did.

 

[Rogi]

I recommend you stop watching fantasy shows. Honestly, how much more insight do these guys have than anybody else? How many people said T.O. would be huge last week (one example of thousands).

 

[thatguy]

It still applies for the most part--problem is only a handful of players have proven themselves studs so far this season.

 

[thatguy]

That show is unbearably unentertaining, by the way. I watched about ten minutes of it the other day and was ready to claw my eyeballs out.

 

[jetpack]

"Benched studs" is an oxymoron.

 

[tandl71]

Guys like Berrian, Jennings, Colston, Maroney, Gore, LJ Smith have been killing me and my "studs" CJ, Chambers, R Moss, L. Jordan, McGahee, Gates, etc. 2-5. Don't know about matchups, but do know there have been plenty of underperforming "studs" that have begun to sink fantasy teams. I lost to Robbie Gould, Bears DST, and B. Berrian last week on a team which started J. Lewis as its #1 RB. Joy.

 

[shuke]

"Start your studs" is just a stupid cliche' since "studs" is obviously subjective.

 

[videoguy505]

Went to college with Matt Berry, he's a dingus.

I'm benching LJ this week in favor of Tatum Bell. It happens. Every situation is different.

 

[Octagon]

"Start your studs" is just a stupid cliche' since "studs" is obviously subjective.

llo

 

[EdwardCat]

depends on which studs you're talking about....I'll NEVER sit LJ,LT,Palmer,Manning,Brady,Bulger,Holt,etc,etc

You would start LT every time even though he, against the best run defenses in the league, posted stats that culminated in his being the 33rd best running back over the last 2 weeks? I think that's a strong vote that starting LT against tough matchups is a bad idea. LJ doesn't show the same ferocity he has in the past now that his o-line is depleted. He was shut down pretty much all game. Yes, this is a year when the phrase "start your studs" does not apply.

 

[NoCheese]

depends on which studs you're talking about....I'll NEVER sit LJ,LT,Palmer,Manning,Brady,Bulger,Holt,etc,etc

How in the world is Bulger unbenchable? Did I miss something?

 

[Marc Levin]

It still applies for the most part--problem is only a handful of players have proven themselves studs so far this season.

TO - not a stud.CJohn - not a stud.Grossman = stud.Colston = stud.It's a different season, and you need a different definition of "stud."

 

[Marc Levin]

depends on which studs you're talking about....I'll NEVER sit LJ,LT,Palmer,Manning,Brady,Bulger,Holt,etc,etc

You would start LT every time even though he, against the best run defenses in the league, posted stats that culminated in his being the 33rd best running back over the last 2 weeks? I think that's a strong vote that starting LT against tough matchups is a bad idea. LJ doesn't show the same ferocity he has in the past now that his o-line is depleted. He was shut down pretty much all game. Yes, this is a year when the phrase "start your studs" does not apply.

There is exactly one week where LT is a bench candidate, and week three already passed.It is ridiculous to argue the last two weeks as indicative of LT not being a stud. He's top-8 (at least) for RBs in every performance scoring system that exists, and he's already had his bye week, so he's a week's worth of production behind a lot of others in the top-8 list.

 

[SteelerMurf]

Problem is people carry over their stud label from year to year.

NEWS FLASH: Randy Moss is not a stud.

TO is not a stud

Edge is not a stud

you get the point

 

[BaBastage]

Problem is people carry over their stud label from year to year. NEWS FLASH: Randy Moss is not a stud. TO is not a stud Edge is not a studyou get the point

Exactly. By definition, a "stud" is a guy that doesn't need benching. Any guy you might bench != stud.

 

[gman74]

depends on which studs you're talking about....I'll NEVER sit LJ,LT,Palmer,Manning,Brady,Bulger,Holt,etc,etc

you lost me at brady bulger

 

[videoguy505]

Benched Larry Johnson for Tatum Bell: +7 points.

Benched Randy Moss for Plaxico Burress: -4 points.

Lost by 2.

 

[Arm Chair Express]

Guys like Berrian, Jennings, Colston, Maroney, Gore, LJ Smith have been killing me and my "studs" CJ, Chambers, R Moss, L. Jordan, McGahee, Gates, etc. 2-5. Don't know about matchups, but do know there have been plenty of underperforming "studs" that have begun to sink fantasy teams. I lost to Robbie Gould, Bears DST, and B. Berrian last week on a team which started J. Lewis as its #1 RB. Joy.

I guess, if you consider all those guys studs. In my opinion the only 2 studs in there are CJ and Gates. Moss has been too inconsistant the last couple of years to be considered a stud. I think the term stud is thrown out there too often when talking about players. A stud in my opinion is a player that is in the top 5 of his position for a period of time longer than one season. Which Moss was way back then, but sometimes you have to move on.

 

[(HULK)]

The term stud needs to equal a Tier 1 player.

Meaning no more than 3 or 4 players at a given position.

Everyone else should be considered benchable.

I absolutely hate seeing people call a tier 2/3 player a stud. The meaning of the word stud has been killed.

 

[flapgreen]

flapgreen=stud

 

[reg]

paging Pony Boy...

 

[The Swarm]

I think the rule is still valid, but the tone needs to be modified. Instead of:

"Never bench your studs."

the rule should be:

"Never fear a defense."

It is a slightly different take on the same issue. Instead of blindly plugging your #1 draft pick in every week no matter what as per rule #1, you instead are encouraged to start the guys you love against any defense. As we've seen this year, the big players produce even against big Ds. Do I like seeing the Chargers and Bears on my schedule? Hell no, they put an icy clamp around my heart. Do I bench starting RB's with no RBBC threats to take away their carries? No... unless I have a really compelling option.

 

[Ilov80s]

The number of studs is just very narrow. I have LJ (and am deep at RB) and there are 3 or 4 games where I will likely bench him. Unless the return of Green brings new like into KC, then LJ is not a must start against teams like SD and Den. He is a strong start, but not a must start.