SatchDork

Already had switched to Tate (thanks for the help guys) and then read Foster is inactive. Love easy decisions.

Or would I be better served by starting Ben Tate in my Super Bowl? Thanks in advance.

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.

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.

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."

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).

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?"

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.

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.

I've come to consider my Michigan State Spartans to be a factory for talented, often headcase, wide receivers. Plaxico Burress, Charles Rogers, Derrick Mason, Blair White, Courtney Hawkins, Devin Thomas, and Mark Ingram, Sr. off the top of my head. Penn State has the rep as "Linebacker U" and also for bust RBs. Many schools that produce tons of pros overall tend to have "runs" of good players at certain positions. If you start consistently at QB or OL at Michigan, you're getting drafted somewhere. OSU tends to produce good LBs (Hawk, Lauranitis, Carpenter, etc.) and OL. USC just had all 3 LBs go in the first two rounds (Cushing, Mathews, Malaluga) and also produces solid Safeties (Lott, Polamalu, Mays), QBs (Sanchez, Palmer, Leinart?), and OL. Miami was an NFL factory, particularly for Safeties, for awhile. Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Florida, Florida State, Cal, UCLA, etc. consistently contribute players of various positions and skill levels (stars, back-ups, busts, etc.) to the NFL.

+1. If someone wants to give me odds, I'd take Fisher in Denver in 2011. Seems like exactly the kind of coach Pat Bowlen wants/needs to hire.

I don't get the Josh Gordon reference. Really, he seems to be handling the situation as positively as any player in recent history as the substance in question is apparently a medication he just failed to get clearance for. That being said, I don't get how these guys don't run absolutely everything they put in their bodies through the appropriate channels. I don't know off-hand what Spikes' contract is, but I'm guessing that four game checks is in the neighborhood of half a mill. How do you put that kind of coin at risk when all you have to do is ask the team doc if "Medicine X" is cool to take?

I'm hoping next season's Arian Foster is Arian Foster as I snagged him in my auction league for $29 out of a $200 cap and can keep him for $39 next season. As for Ivory, I think he's got the potential to be a solid RB1 next year, but, honestly, there is just too much time between now and then. If you want to stash him now with hopes for next season, that's probably a good move, but you really won't know where he stands until stuff with Thomas & Bush shakes out over the off-season.

With this in mind, what do folks think of Welker? I've got Jennings and Steve Johnson starting alongside him right now, with The Ocho and Amendola as other options. Opinions greatly appreciated (link me to your own advice question and I'd be more than happy to reply).