Settle a serious league debate

[SatchDork]

When you hear the term "Stud" in the context of fantasy football, what does it mean to you? Is it an elite handful of players at each position who would essentially start every game for any fantasy football team? Is it any guy who would probably start most games on most teams? Is it the few guys who are head-and-shoulders above the rest or anyone who's like half-a-head about the rest of the league. Basically, does it mean the ultra-elite or anyone/everyone decent? Please feel free to expound on what you think "Stud" means and why.

[wiegie]

Is it an elite handful of players at each position who would essentially start every game for any fantasy football team?

IMO, yes

[Jimmy_22]

Top handful of guys at each position - based on history and current performance. Could be both or independent of each other (ie Fred Jackson). At this point in the season, they're pretty clearly defined.

[flemingd]

You're going to get 21 different definitions for each 20 answers. How does this even pertain to a league debate?

[Outshined]

When you hear the term "Stud" in the context of fantasy football, what does it mean to you? Is it an elite handful of players at each position who would essentially start every game for any fantasy football team? Is it any guy who would probably start most games on most teams? Is it the few guys who are head-and-shoulders above the rest or anyone who's like half-a-head about the rest of the league. Basically, does it mean the ultra-elite or anyone/everyone decent? Please feel free to expound on what you think "Stud" means and why.

 

 

As the old saying goes; "always start your studs". You start them every week no questions asked and no matter who they are playing.

[jberg]

Studs are the guys you never bench and can be counted on to consistently put up big numbers. I think this year there is no better example than Rodgers. In every league I'm in the guy who has him is in the top 2 in the league and he hasn't had a single performance this year that was less than amazing. He is the definition of Stud. These are the guys who will single handily win you games week to week.

[BA Baracus]

You start them every week no matter the matchup...until their goddamn ACL blows out.

[overworkedirish]

You don't sit them.

[historymike]

Little to add beyond what has been already said except that creating a statistical definition of "stud" is going to be tricky. Perhaps "stud" could be defined as a player whose PPG is at least 1.5 times the league average of the top 32 or 64 players at that position (1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 DEF).

 

Using QBs as an example, the top 32 QBs in PPG using Yahoo standard scoring right now are averaging just over 18 PPG. This would mean only Brady (27), Brees (28), and Rodgers (32) would be studs. These numbers are slightly skewed since newcomers like Caleb Hanie (currently 24 PPG) are in the mix.

[tazinib1]

Stud = Taz

 

Pretty simple, really.

[SatchDork]

Stud = Taz

 

Pretty simple, really.

 

Why didn't I think of that?!?!

 

Seriously, though, thank you all for the help. This is exactly what I was looking for, a general sense of what the word "Stud" means to the fantasy football community (a specific definition, I think, is a little beyond reach, though I like historymike's system).

 

Follow-Up Query: It seems to me that general consensus is that a Stud is a player that is so consistently and highly productive that they would literally start every single game for any fantasy football team in any kind of league/scoring system (except in the most extreme of circumstances). Does that sound about right for a definition? Do you feel that this general definition is also the general consensus in the FF community of what the word "Stud" means? Sure, you can use it situationally (like "Player X has been a total Stud the last 4 weeks and it looks like that will continue), but if someone says "Player X is a Stud" we, the fantasy football community, would all generally interpret that to mean Player X is one of the top handful (1-5) of players at his position and is absolutely unbenchable at any time for any other player (again, outside of the most extreme of scenarios). Does that sound right?

 

Thanks again for the help.

Edited December 5, 2011 by SatchDork

[WaterMan]

You start them every week no matter the matchup...until their goddamn ACL blows out.

 

 

+1

[BeachBum]

Why didn't I think of that?!?!

 

Seriously, though, thank you all for the help. This is exactly what I was looking for, a general sense of what the word "Stud" means to the fantasy football community (a specific definition, I think, is a little beyond reach, though I like historymike's system).

 

Follow-Up Query: It seems to me that general consensus is that a Stud is a player that is so consistently and highly productive that they would literally start every single game for any fantasy football team in any kind of league/scoring system (except in the most extreme of circumstances). Does that sound about right for a definition? Do you feel that this general definition is also the general consensus in the FF community of what the word "Stud" means? Sure, you can use it situationally (like "Player X has been a total Stud the last 4 weeks and it looks like that will continue), but if someone says "Player X is a Stud" we, the fantasy football community, would all generally interpret that to mean Player X is one of the top handful (1-5) of players at his position and is absolutely unbenchable at any time for any other player (again, outside of the most extreme of scenarios). Does that sound right?

 

Thanks again for the help.

 

OK now we're all curious - why does 'your league debate' need to have a definition of a 'stud'?

[Azazello1313]

tim tebow.

[delusions of grandeur]

OK now we're all curious - why does 'your league debate' need to have a definition of a 'stud'?

That's what I'm wondering too...

 

In essence, the definitions given are based on the idea of "always start your studs", so it's guys that you pretty much start no matter what for our purposes... But it's like trying to define "good". It's completely relative, when it might mean that you do well, but not as well as others (or oppositely better than most else). It's can't be tangible unless based entirely on tangible comparable factors, which in that case means that top-scoring players would be the most "studly".

 

Thus, I'm not really sure how you can define it any other way than being consistently at the top of your position every year (I don't think you even have to be consistent, just consistently end up with good numbers every season, to where it makes them near impossible to sit).

 

So pretty much, looking at total fantasy points scored is really the only tangible way to measure "studliness", or else it's just a completely arbitrary definition (and really is fairly pointless anyway to not just say they're "top" players, with no regard to an intangible and relative "studliness").

[SatchDork]

OK now we're all curious - why does 'your league debate' need to have a definition of a 'stud'?

 

The debate IS over the definition of "Stud." And it's not a rules-related thing at all. Just one of those debates that's gotten a little heated. One side is arguing that Stud means those few truly elite guys at each position (at WR, for instance, this year the Studs are Calvin Johnson, Wes Welker, and that's about it) and also that this "elitest" definition is the generally accepted one in the FF community (even though any individual may have his/her own specific definition). Another party is arguing that a Stud is anyone you start consistently (we start 3 WRs plus a flex, so guys like Roddy White, Vincent Jackson, or Marques Colston are "Studs" because they are probably going to be one of your 3 starters every week) and that the definition of Stud is completely up to the opinion of each individual - so, I can label anyone I like a Stud and it's beyond reproach 'cause, hey, that's my opinion.

 

I thought a good way to settle the debate would be to simply ask "the fantasy football community" what they think of when they hear "Stud" or what they mean when they say it.

 

Another general follow-up: we've all heard the phrase "always start your studs." Do you take this to be team-specific or more of a general statement? For instance, if my WR corps was Welker, Roddy White, Colston, Denarius Moore, and Michael Jenkins (start 3), are White and Colston "Studs" 'cause I'm starting them every week? What if I acquired Lance Moore (all else remaining the same), is Colston still a Stud...or was he never one to begin with? How about keep Lance, but replace Denarius and Jenkins with Vincent Jackson and Santonio Holmes; Who are the Studs now? Or is the definition general, rather than team-specific, and the only real Stud in the whole hypothetical is Welker? Does "always start your studs" mean just ride your particular best available players and don't worry about match-ups or is it more of a warning against "getting cute" with a guy like Welker and benching him 'cause, say, "Greg Little has a great match-up and is due for a breakout."?

 

Maybe the easiest way to ask is simply: What players, right now, would you say are "bonafide Studs?" Which of the players I mentioned in this thread would you call "Studs?"

[Eagle2003]

A "Stud" is anyone who would start on everyone's roster (90 plus percent at least) in any league. I.e. Peterson, when healthy, should start in over 95 to 100 percent of the leagues, same with Rodgers etc. They are STUDS. Not Colston. I only say 95 to 100 percent, because there are the lucky few that may bench a Tom Brady for Cam Newton this year when the matchup is right.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Eagle2003

[stevegrab]

Its a silly debate to have in a fantasy football league, but I'll over some feedback anyway.

 

I see the angle of some in your league. They're talking about "studs" (really top players) on their own team, not in all of fantasy football.

 

Lets look at WR, fantasy football studs are as you said Calvin and Welker. On my team (we start 3 WR), Calvin and Fitzgerald are studs, because I don't (and probably never will/would) have another WR better than Fitz, so he starts every week. Then I platoon the WR3 spot with a bunch of mediocre (or less) guys.

 

Another example, Rivers used to be a stud, he isn't anymore. (not even a "team" stud as people are sitting him for better options).

 

Everybody's opinion will differ slightly on who are studs, but there are studs and then there are "my top players who are regular starters".

 

For example I have Tony Gonzalez, and he's done very good for me and started every week (may have sat him once for Celek). He's my regular starter, but I don't think he's a stud TE (Gronkowski & Graham own that class).

[SatchDork]

That's what I'm wondering too...

 

In essence, the definitions given are based on the idea of "always start your studs", so it's guys that you pretty much start no matter what for our purposes... But it's like trying to define "good". It's completely relative, when it might mean that you do well, but not as well as others (or oppositely better than most else). It's can't be tangible unless based entirely on tangible comparable factors, which in that case means that top-scoring players would be the most "studly".

 

Thus, I'm not really sure how you can define it any other way than being consistently at the top of your position every year (I don't think you even have to be consistent, just consistently end up with good numbers every season, to where it makes them near impossible to sit).

 

So pretty much, looking at total fantasy points scored is really the only tangible way to measure "studliness", or else it's just a completely arbitrary definition (and really is fairly pointless anyway to not just say they're "top" players, with no regard to an intangible and relative "studliness").

 

Good stuff! First, as I've said, the debate isn't about finding a written-in-stone definition; it's more about determining what the generally-accepted concept that the word refers to is (or if there isn't one). Your 2nd paragraph is intriguing because it introduces a longevity angle. Is Larry Fitzgerald still a Stud today because of his past credentials even though is certainly "benchable" right now or has he lost the label for 2011? Is Rob Gronkowski a Stud TE right now today or does he have to do it for another season before he's earned Stud status?

 

IMO, your last point pretty much sums it up. Either Studs are the "cream of the crop" which, at this point in the season, can be pretty easily determined by looking at a list sorted by total points scored or it's an arbitrary/meaningless term which any individual can apply to any player they think is "good" or "a starter" (the latter being my own preferred term for those "good" players outside the realm of "studliness"). Roddy White has been a "solid starter" this season, but not a "Stud" (it's borderline, but, IMO thru Week 13, he hasn't been a Stud in 2011).

[lkirc]

You need to remove the term "serious" from your title.

 

What is the point of this post? Or this debate for that matter.

 

A stud to one person may not be a stud to another. Studliness is in the eye of the beholder. If someone calls Denarius Moore a stud, I may not agree, but on his team, in his league, Moore may be. It is all relative.....

[SatchDork]

Its a silly debate to have in a fantasy football league, but I'll over some feedback anyway.

 

I see the angle of some in your league. They're talking about "studs" (really top players) on their own team, not in all of fantasy football.

 

Lets look at WR, fantasy football studs are as you said Calvin and Welker. On my team (we start 3 WR), Calvin and Fitzgerald are studs, because I don't (and probably never will/would) have another WR better than Fitz, so he starts every week. Then I platoon the WR3 spot with a bunch of mediocre (or less) guys.

 

Another example, Rivers used to be a stud, he isn't anymore. (not even a "team" stud as people are sitting him for better options).

 

Everybody's opinion will differ slightly on who are studs, but there are studs and then there are "my top players who are regular starters".

 

For example I have Tony Gonzalez, and he's done very good for me and started every week (may have sat him once for Celek). He's my regular starter, but I don't think he's a stud TE (Gronkowski & Graham own that class).

 

Yes, it is, but thanks for contributing. On your fifth paragraph: so someone who said "I start Vincent Jackson every week. He's a bonafide stud." Would be mis-using the term? Yes, it's a free country and anyone CAN say whatever they want, but this person would be better served by referring to Jackson as, say, a "solid starter" or "on my team, he's an every-week starter" than "a bonafide Stud."

Edited December 5, 2011 by SatchDork

[SatchDork]

You need to remove the term "serious" from your title.

 

Why? It's a relative term, isn't it? The point is in the eye of the beholder. If I say it's a "serious" debate, doesn't that make it so? On what grounds would you disagree with me? If it's all relative, does anything mean anything? Does "anything" mean "anything" or can I decide that it means "everything?" In that case, we can call into the question the definition of even the simplest of words, such as "is"?

 

It's surely a silly debate, but not completely without merit. After all, you decided it was worth voluntarily participating in.

Edited December 5, 2011 by SatchDork

[stevegrab]

Why? Isn't that a relative term, isn't it? The point is in the eye of the beholder. If I say it's a "serious" debate, doesn't that make it so? If all is relative, does anything mean anything? Couldn't we then call into the question the definition of even the simplest of words, such as "is"?

 

Why is it a serious debate? How does it affect your league? Do you award points for players that are studs?

[SatchDork]

Why is it a serious debate? How does it affect your league? Do you award points for players that are studs?

 

Cause I said so. Just like I say Vincent Jackson is a Stud, so he is and no one can say otherwise 'cause it's all relative.

 

Hopefully it's obvious that I'm sarcastically playing devil's advocate.

 

Honestly, it's "serious" cause what started out as a civil discussion has devolved into name-calling and hurt feelings. This post is my attempt to bring closure to it by consulting a respected third party (the Huddle boards). Sorry if you feel it's a waste of your time and Huddlespace. Feel free to disengage at any point.

[delusions of grandeur]

Good stuff! First, as I've said, the debate isn't about finding a written-in-stone definition; it's more about determining what the generally-accepted concept that the word refers to is (or if there isn't one). Your 2nd paragraph is intriguing because it introduces a longevity angle. Is Larry Fitzgerald still a Stud today because of his past credentials even though is certainly "benchable" right now or has he lost the label for 2011? Is Rob Gronkowski a Stud TE right now today or does he have to do it for another season before he's earned Stud status?

 

IMO, your last point pretty much sums it up. Either Studs are the "cream of the crop" which, at this point in the season, can be pretty easily determined by looking at a list sorted by total points scored or it's an arbitrary/meaningless term which any individual can apply to any player they think is "good" or "a starter" (the latter being my own preferred term for those "good" players outside the realm of "studliness"). Roddy White has been a "solid starter" this season, but not a "Stud" (it's borderline, but, IMO thru Week 13, he hasn't been a Stud in 2011).

 

In essence you've just proven why it's a completely subjective and arbitrary term, because you could just as easily say Gronk and Cruz are studs because they've been performing like ones this year, even though they do not have the sample size of guys I defined as "studs"; Or you could say that Fitz or even Vincent Jackson are studs, but due to situation and other factors are riskier starts, even though they could blow up any given week you bench them.... And either way, you'd be right.

 

So even though I think we've beaten the dead horse on why "studliness" is completely subjective, if you're absolutely set on a definition, then I think it's anyone with sustained success who is still in a good position to continue to produce at a high level.... But that's just the FF definition, because I don't think that anyone would argue that Larry Fitz isn't a real-life stud, being one of the top players at his position, without regard to current production that can be influenced by other factors like situation.... Maybe that's the clarification you're looking for, because there can be a big difference between NFL stud and FF stud.

Edited December 5, 2011 by delusions of granduer