Frank Black
Footballguy
In week 1, should you always start your studs regardless of the matchups?
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Week 1 - always start your studs? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Frank Black
- Start date
True, but by definition a QBBC team doesn't have a stud.
SteelerMurf
Footballguy
I think it depends on the matchup and what other options you have.
I may be sitting Rudi Johnson vs. Balt for Ahman Green vs KC and I really won't feel bad about it.
I may be sitting Rudi Johnson vs. Balt for Ahman Green vs KC and I really won't feel bad about it.
Longshot88
Footballguy
i am thinking of doing this myself
Statcruncher
Footballguy
Always start your studs works very well 95% of the time. However plugging someone in and leaving them all season can be pretty shortsighted. ASYS seems like an easy way to cop out of a difficult decision at times. Unless you have no other player at that position there might be better options out there based on match-ups. For example in week 1 ignoring that the stud Chicago D plays against uber offensive San Diego seems unwise. We will see how it works out but I'm benching Chicago and playing Washington against offensively challenged Miami. For the record there is no other team in the NFL that would make me bench the Bears.
The fun part of fantasy football to me is making the decisions and knowing that if I win or lose it's because of my skills alone. I have seen people who draft strictly from a mass-produced cheatsheet and start people based upon mass-produced "start-sit" rankings. Congratulations, you can follow directions. What's the fun and accomplishment in that? Some years I suck because my gut feelings were wrong. My gut feelings have also gotten my name on the championship plaque so it all evens out.
The fun part of fantasy football to me is making the decisions and knowing that if I win or lose it's because of my skills alone. I have seen people who draft strictly from a mass-produced cheatsheet and start people based upon mass-produced "start-sit" rankings. Congratulations, you can follow directions. What's the fun and accomplishment in that? Some years I suck because my gut feelings were wrong. My gut feelings have also gotten my name on the championship plaque so it all evens out.
I don't know if you can consider anyone on Chicago a true stud at this point. IMO a stud is only someone who had demonstrated that they can consistently put up numbers week in week out. Nobody on Chicago has proven that yet.
-OZ-
Footballguy
Let's say we can rank "studliness" on a scale of 1-10. 1 being the 5th string WR for the Chiefs, 10 being SJax.
LT is a 12, so you never bench him. Peyton and Gates might be on the same level, nobody else is.
You give a -1 for a bad matchup, +1 for a great matchup.
You can bench a 9 for an 8 fairly easily, but only for a 7 if it's a bad matchup and your 7 has a great matchup. i.e. you can bench Lee Evans (9) for Braylon Edwards (7) this week.
LT is a 12, so you never bench him. Peyton and Gates might be on the same level, nobody else is.
You give a -1 for a bad matchup, +1 for a great matchup.
You can bench a 9 for an 8 fairly easily, but only for a 7 if it's a bad matchup and your 7 has a great matchup. i.e. you can bench Lee Evans (9) for Braylon Edwards (7) this week.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mungo Burrows
Footballguy
Problem with this approach is, if Tomlinson is a 10, there are no 9's
So you are saying that there are not any defenses in the entire league that should be conidered in the "stud" catergory?? If the Chicago defense isn't considered a stud then nobody is.FWIW, I am benching my "stud" Bulger against the Carolina D for Leinart vs SF. I am afraid that STL and Car will be low scoring while Ariz vs SF should be a shootout. I am also fearful of the Rams history of slow starts and the Holt injury.
Wow, I actually like Bulger to start for me (if Holt does play) over my "stud" Palmer because I like Bulgers match up against Carolinas poor db's at home, better than Carson facing Baltimore. I also have Housh, so if Palmer does go off, I should get some of it, but if the the Bengal O struggles though, I could suffer at two positions.
Actually after I answered I realized he was talking about their defense. Although, because of Hester returning kicks I would never bench the Chicago D
brednbuddah
Footballguy
unfortunately, I have to go with match ups because all my players are studs. 
TheFanatic
Footballguy
I expect huge numbers from Lee Evans this year and I own him in one league. He is going to sit the bench this week. Colston gets the nod over Evans as Evans will likely have Champ on him all game. I have learned to greatly respect the coverage ability of Champ Bailey and the fear OC's and QB's have in calling plays that the ball goes anywhere near him. This week I go with Steve Smith and Colston and Evans can wait till next week to get the start.
Raging weasel
Footballguy
If you are not starting a healthy "stud' week 1 you probably shouldn't have drafted them.How can you play matchups the first week when you have no idea what this years version of the team/teams is like?if you are in a 6 or 8 team league and all you have are studs to choose from that would be different.
-OZ-
Footballguy
True. Perhaps LT should be a 12.
Iwannabeacowboybaby!
Footballguy
Start your top players that you drafted if they're healthy.
It's way to early for anyone to know for absolute sure if opposing defenses are as good as they were last year or as good as the hype for this year.
It can be a little tricky if you have a weaker RB2 and your RB3 is almost as good or you start 3 Wr's and your 3, 4 and 5 are relatively close in ability.
Then, you can look at matchups and predict to the best of your ability.
For example, I have Rudi Johnson vs. Baltimore. That's supposed to be a horrible matchup and quite frankly not one I'm looking forward to having but I'm not benching Rudi. Who's to say Baltimore's defense hasn't lost a step this year and they somehow just arten't as good vs. the run.
Odds are they'll be good but I'm not sitting him.
It's way to early for anyone to know for absolute sure if opposing defenses are as good as they were last year or as good as the hype for this year.
It can be a little tricky if you have a weaker RB2 and your RB3 is almost as good or you start 3 Wr's and your 3, 4 and 5 are relatively close in ability.
Then, you can look at matchups and predict to the best of your ability.
For example, I have Rudi Johnson vs. Baltimore. That's supposed to be a horrible matchup and quite frankly not one I'm looking forward to having but I'm not benching Rudi. Who's to say Baltimore's defense hasn't lost a step this year and they somehow just arten't as good vs. the run.
Odds are they'll be good but I'm not sitting him.
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
week 1,you're playing matchups based on the 2006 a/o pre-season results. that's not such great input. certainly not enough to sit a proven player for a less-proven one.
