I generally follow the "Always play your studs" philosophy (Yes, I realize the contradiction between my use of the terms "generally" and "always." Bear with me), but at what point does a stud become a dud and someone who needs to be benched? Let's say, for example, that I have Larry Johnson as a starter week after week, with Ryan Grant as a reserve. Then a number of weeks pass and Larry appears to be a clone of Lamont Jordan circa 2006. Meanwhile, Grant has become the Second Coming of Ahman Green and pretty much kicking a##. At what point does Larry get the boot so Grant can get me the loot (or at least save me a loss fee)? After two weeks? Three? Five? Ten? Next year? Never? How many Linuses waited until Week 17 for the Great Pumpkin to arrive in Oakland last year? (I had both Lamont and Randy Moss and stomped out of the pumpkin patch about the time Moss threw his third tantrum.) If I decide to give Larry until Week 6 when his matchups improve so he can show that he really is the "Chief Stud," isn't this validating the idea of making decisions to play or not play particular players based on matchups? I sense an incongruity here.
Also, doesn't every rule have an exception? For example, I have a feeling more than a few stud wide receivers will be benched this week by Santana Moss owners salivating over the Giants' crummy pass defense. For those of you who follow the "Always play your studs" mantra, why would this not be a good strategy? Intuitively, it seems to make sense.
Also, doesn't every rule have an exception? For example, I have a feeling more than a few stud wide receivers will be benched this week by Santana Moss owners salivating over the Giants' crummy pass defense. For those of you who follow the "Always play your studs" mantra, why would this not be a good strategy? Intuitively, it seems to make sense.
