Photo: Noah K. Murray, USA Today Sports

We're looking back and looking forward this week:

• State of the Basement
• Floor-Ceiling
• The Business of Football

Let's roll...

State of the Basement

Choose one of the Rams, Browns, Jaguars, or 49ers and answer the following: 

• Identify at least 2 of the best fantasy talents from your team of choice and the chances they perform to their potential in 2017.
• Name at least one thing that will make this team better immediately.
• Name one player (any position) whose exit (whether realistic or otherwise) from this organization would make this team better. 
• Name an unproven talent (a reserve or contributor) that you'd stash on dynasty rosters if you had the room. 

DeAndre Hopkins vs Cincinnati

Chris Kuczynski: Hopkins actually had a better game this past week than he has most of the season. With that said, I think whoever is at QB you have to treat Hopkins the same way you have all season. He has the potential to be a mid-range WR2 especially if he can find the end zone, but his floor is as low as a borderline flex starter. I'd probably feel alright about starting him just hoping that the change at QB has a lasting spark on the offense, but if you've gotten along with better options this whole time, stick to what's been working.

Daniel Simpkins: I’m excited to use Hopkins in my lineup for the first time all year. Changing quarterbacks matters and Hopkins showed us last week that the talent is still there, it has just been held down by Osweiler’s poor play. Hopkins could very well put up a WR1 performance of old if he hits his ceiling. His floor is most likely in the low-end WR2 range.

Chris Feery: Hopkins is intriguing with a new signal caller at the helm, and perhaps we will get the chance to see him flash the upside that made him a Top 5 pick in several drafts this year. If everything breaks correctly and Savage plays lights out, we could be looking at WR1 production from Hopkins, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. I anticipate a more conservative ceiling of WR2 and a floor of WR3. 

Jason Wood: Hopkins' season has been a disappointment, to say the least. He's on pace for 78 receptions for 900 yards and 5 touchdowns, which would be marked discounts from his 2014-2015 feats. One has to ascribe much of that letdown to the enigmatic (if not downright awful) play of Brock Osweiler. With that in mind, Tom Savage takes over at quarterback and some fantasy owners will bet on a resurgence for Hopkins over the final few weeks.

I think betting on that is risky, but I will acknowledge that Hopkins is a significantly better player than anyone else on this list. Hopkins proved in 2014-2015 that he can be an All-Pro receiver with a mediocre quarterback. Is Savage capable of mediocrity versus the Bengals? Of course. Hopkins upside is a legitimate WR1 performance (100+ yards, 2TDs) and I would dare say his downside is no worse than a WR3/flex in PPR formats because of the sheer volume of targets.

dion Sims vs Buffalo

Jason Wood: Sims is reminiscent of a fantasy TE from a decade ago. Newer fantasy enthusiasts may not remember a time when all but a few tight ends were non-factors and even a "Top 5" guy was really someone that would catch 2 or 3 passes per game but add value in the weeks he caught a touchdown. We all remember Wesley Walls, right? Sims has caught two or fewer passes in all but five games, but he's scored at least one touchdown in three of his last four. I would say his downside is close to zero (1 or 2 catches for 10-25 yards and no scores) while his upside is 4-5 catches for 40+ yards and a TD, which would be good enough for a middling TE1.

Chris Kuczynski: There have not been any really consistent TEs this season- we thought Kelce and Eifert might have been but both of them severely disappointed owners in the semi-finals last week, I included. With that said, the bar for TE1 is so low that Sims could have the ceiling of a low-end TE1/high end TE2 if he is still used as a red zone target and the other options in Landry and Parker are seeing more of the defense's attention. His floor might not be all that high, but as I said, did we think Eifert's floor was two points against the Steelers?

Chris Feery: Three touchdowns in two weeks will certainly get your attention at the tight end position, especially in a season in which the position has been inherently unpredictable. However, there are too many other targets in the Dolphins offense to get yourself too excited about his prospects in Week 16. I would certainly ride the hot streak while it lasts, but I also wouldn’t be benching any sure things just to fit him in.

Daniel Simpkins: I’m lumping Sims and Charles Clay together because I see them as similar plays. They are just as likely to get you 50 yards and a score as they are to give you two catches for 17 yards. However, in a year where tight end production is hard to come by, it may be the risk you have to take in your fantasy playoffs. Of the two, I favor Clay just a little more than Sims because Miami is notoriously bad against tight ends. If they hit their ceiling, they’ll be mid-to-low TE1 options. If they falter, they’ll still be in the low-end TE2 range.

Charles clay vs Miami (continued from daniel's response above)

Jason Wood: Clay has played between 45 and 60 snaps in 9 games this year, including last week's game when he caught a season-high 7 receptions for 72 yards and a touchdown. I see no reason why last week is more indicative of his value than the prior games. In other words, last week gives us his upside -- which is to say fringe top 5 production, but it's a very small percent of the possible outcomes. His downside is 2 or 3 points in a PPR. 

Chris Kuczynski: As mentioned before, there are not a lot of sure fire TE1s lately and Clay has been getting a decent amount of targets the past couple games. With so few options in the passing game especially since Watkins is not getting many catches, I like Clay even more than Sims and I'd also put him on the TE1/TE2 borderline but with a higher floor.

Chris Feery: Clay has come alive over the past two weeks, and I expect his strong play to continue against his former club. He actually has a solid rapport with Tyrod Taylor, and it’s pretty stunning that the Bills have not used him more effectively this season. The upside is there for TE1 production, but a more realistic expectation places him in the neighborhood of TE2.

[return to top]

The business of football

Share your thoughts about the current relationship between the NFL and college football. Consider these questions as you formulate your answer. 

• What are your thoughts about pro prospects skipping bowl games to prepare for the NFL Draft? 
• Is the NFL directly or indirectly complicit in the current state of college football? If so, how?
• The Ringer's Kevin Clark reported that NFL coaches believe the NFL has an age problem. Teams are fielding players too early and the result is a decline in experienced play and injuries are a common symptom because they lack the technique and awareness to move around the field and protect themselves. Do you agree with NFL coaches that early entry is hurting the game and its players?
• Which league needs to change its policies more to protect its players, FBS or NFL?

Skipping bowl games

Jason Wood: This has been a big topic of conversation among the FBG staff and it's fair to say the issues are complex, nuanced and lacking in definitive conclusions. My initial reaction was a visceral disappointment in the players, feeling as though they were 'quitting' on their teammates. Yet, as I've discussed this with others, my view has softened considering the strange nature of an elite college players end-of-career.

Are they still student athletes if they've already committed to playing in the NFL next year? Will college teams take out insurance policies on these players if they get hurt in a bowl? Ultimately I think this speaks to a growing awareness of the absurdity of the current bowl system. Does anyone other than a college's alumnus ever remember how someone played in the Sun Bowl? When we look back on Christian McCaffrey's career, will anyone ever say a thing about how he did (or in this case, did not) perform in that bowl?

As someone with sons deeply involved in youth football, they're taught the importance of honoring your commitments and the sacrifice of "TEAM." The very notion of someone walking out on their team is anathema to how our local, championship program was built. But, that's not a fair comparison for the reasons we've already expressed.

Daniel Simpkins: The rightness or wrongness of pro prospects skipping bowl games really should be considered on a case-by-case basis. I’m a big believer in honoring your commitments and following through with what you agree to do up front. The key question to ask, therefore, is what did that individual commit to coming into the program?

Did they come in with the understanding that they would play the minimum amount of time to be draft eligible and not participate in bowl games in their eligible year? Or did they come into the program saying they were all in, but then when their draft stock began to heat up, they bolted? As a casual fan, we won’t always know the conversation that took place between coaching staff and recruit, so it may not be ours to judge.

Yet those players and coaches know what the agreement was. Both parties need to honor their word, even if changing circumstances make it inconvenient to do so.

Matt Waldman: It's an interesting point, but I also think you're operating on the assumption that the business of college football is honorable. As we have learned through various investigative reports over the last 3-5 decades—and increasingly more during the last 2—the business of college football is not honorable. 

One disclaimer I must make: none of what I'm about to share in this segment is from my work at the University of Georgia unless I specifically state otherwise.

Players are promised a lot under the table to play for big-time institutions. Over the years, we've seen reports that show these illegal arrangements. Homework and tests have been taken for them. Cars are loaned to them, if not purchased for them. Spending money is provided to certain stars. So is money for their families, including signing bonuses. 

Tommy Bowden arrived at Auburn only to discover these past arrangements made with players and it was the beginning of the end for him at big-time college football because he didn't want to go along. I cannot name names with this next example, but there was a top SEC running back prospect in recent years who once told off a member of the coaching staff by saying, "They pay me more than you!"

This is the treatment that many stars receive. There are other players who can barely afford to necessities while on scholarship. There are also many players who are intelligent, academically inclined guys that happen to be top talents on the field that have been steered away from career paths that could earn them more money long-term than the ones that the athletic programs encourage. 

There are many students that don't let this "steering" happen, but there are also enough that do and they lack the support system to resist. If and when they get hurt and they don't have a degree, that $1-3 million insurance policy won't last long without a solid education.  

I've spoken with professors who have seen this steering happen at a variety of schools. Professors who don't protest any academic appeals of their grades to the head of their departments or the dean because they rationalize the decision as "I did my job" and they fear that standing up for a principle will cost them and other students more than making things right. They let the department heads and deans make the calls on behalf of the football programs.

Michael Oher got into Ole Miss by taking multiple summer courses online that lasted days—DAYS—from a program offered by BYU! Does anyone really learn anything by cramming a semester-long high school course into days? Can we even give this a shred of credibility? Is it truly helping the student long-term?

Not as much as it's helping the school make money off him.

Considering how dishonorable the entire landscape of college sports is, we really don't know the true commitment that many of these players have and neither do many of the coaches who practice the concept of plausible deniability in regard to the activities boosters, recruiters, and assistants.  

The way it's supposed to work, I agree that players should honor their commitments. What we actually see is so different from the rules that I don't want to criticize these players because the game is a lot different than the one that's projected on the outside.

Jason Wood: To Daniel's and Matt's points, we don't know some of the nuances here. It's become quite normal for college coaches to get new jobs before their bowl games, and those coaches routinely opt out of coaching the bowl. If that's "okay" because coaches are professionals looking out for their families, is it hypocritical of us to condemn these young men who are making the EXACT same financial/career decisions? 

Danny Tuccitto: First of all, and I'll continue to sing this to the heavens until my dying breath, it's a joke that the biggest sport in all the land doesn't have a developmental league. I accept the validity of "why spend all that money when we get a developmental league (i.e., CFB) for free?" but it's still a joke because all that money that the NFL saves from relying on college football is routinely thrown into the garbage via having to divine a way to translate college performance to the pros.

As an analytics matter, multiple studies have shown that drafting is basically a roll of the dice. Perhaps that's because what succeeds in college football—talent-wise, strategically, and tactically— isn't what succeeds in the NFL? But I digress.

Then there's the "free labor" part of it. Do I think it's OK for pro prospects to skip bowl games? Damn right, and I struggle to understand why anyone besides university officials would hold a different view.

If my chosen career was plumbing, my ultimate goal would be to move out of an apprenticeship and make the most money I could as a professional plumber. If my chosen career was coal-mining, my ultimate goal would be to rise out of the mines and into a penthouse office as an executive position in the company.

If my chosen career was daily fantasy sports, my goal would be to move out of the freerolls and make the most money I could at DFS. Prospects choosing to skip bowl games is no different: Their chosen career is football, and their goal is to move out of plying that trade for free so as to make the most money they can.

Chris Kuczynski: I'll preface my response by admitting that I do not follow college football so I am not an authority on the subject. I blame this on going to a college that didn't have a Division 1 team. With that said, I start really digging into the prospects after the season is over and I'm anticipating the draft.

As far as players skipping bowl games, I am actually surprised this has not been a common practice already. With the cautionary tale of Jaylon Smith in a bowl game last year (or even Tyler Eifert in the Pro Bowl), I don't blame other players for wanting to avoid injury before one of the most important days of their career- the draft. It's not quite on the level of avoiding a meaningless game of beach flag football, but their draft stock is still in flux and they have the combine and pro days that will make or break them, so why not be fully prepared for those?

Not having your best team for a Bowl game is a bummer for the fans and the school, but from the viewpoint of the college player they are basically unpaid interns, and the colleges feel as though they don't owe the players anything. There is no pay or contract, so any controversy, or hiring an agent too early or accepting gifts gets you ineligible or kicked off the team. If you get hurt enough to jeopardize your career, you are on your own. 

A Bowl game is really just an additional game that plenty of draft eligible players are not going to play in simply because their team didn't qualify for one. I'd say sitting out one game that is tacked on to the season is much different than an example of "taking it easy" their last season like Clowney was rumored to do in order to preserve his draft stock. In those cases, they are not fulfilling their commitment and I wouldn't want someone like that on my team. They would be benched.

Chris Feery: There has certainly been an interesting debate about this topic, and I can see both perspectives pretty clearly. My first instinct is to not be a big fan of the decision and to consider it a red flag. There’s plenty to be said for fulfilling your obligations, commitment to your team etc. and I’m an incredibly big proponent of seeking out high-character prospects.

However, Leonard Fournette makes a pretty compelling case for the argument from the other perspective, as the photo of him and his daughter makes the point that any parent can understand. The needs of your family and children outweigh pretty much everything when it comes to decision-making.

In short, it’s tough to argue against a player making the decision that works best for him and his financial future, but someone that made that decision in the face of playing a college football playoff game would likely find themselves with a label they will be unable to shake for some time.. 

Is the NFL directly or indirectly complicit in the current state of college football? If so, how?

Daniel Simpkins: I believe that the NFL has some blood on their hands with regard to the dynamics of college football. It’s clear to me that players in the NCAA are being exploited and are not given a fair share of the money they are earning for that organization. It’s not too much of a stretch to say that some of the pockets that are lined with greed in the NCAA have close relationships with those who pull the strings at the pro level. Neither will rock the boat because of the symbiosis that currently exists. It will take the voices and refusal of the players and fans to continue to go along with things as they are before true change will take place.

Jason Wood: The NFL is far from a perfect organization, but I think blaming them for college football is borderline ridiculous. College football has capitalized on the manic popularity of the sport and has evolved it's leverage (financial) to the popularity. One could argue college football has been 'smart' to do this, since the money pouring into schools (even tertiary programs) from boosters has skyrocketed at a time when overall endowment growth has stymied.

To my mind what's happened in college football is a confluence of the decidedly American push for capitalism at all costs combined with a collaboration of small fiefdoms (in the form of individual conferences) that have their own motivations. The NFL hasn't changed its stance. It hasn't encouraged more bowl games. It hasn't argued for agents to become more aggressive. Can the NFL do things to help collegiate athletics? Sure, but that's far different than blaming them for what's happening in the NCAA. 

Chris Kuczynski: College football and the NFL both have their own issues, mostly dealing with allocation of money and not necessarily prioritizing player safety even though that is one of the main things the NFL tries to claim. It's hard to say what came first the chicken or the egg, but you'd have to give a little bit more of the blame to the NFL just because these players would not be rushing to leave college if not for the opportunity to play in a professional league. A lacrosse player is not leaving school early, they are getting a degree.

Chris Feery: Directly complicit. The NFL directly benefits from having college football serve as its de facto minor league, and they stand to gain nothing from rocking the boat on their feeder system. While two separate entities, it's pretty clear that college football serves at the pleasure of the NFL and not vice versa. 

Matt Waldman: I agree with Wood. The NFL is benefitting from a free (even if it's not a good one) farm system and it's not going to discourage that windfall from continuing, but I don't believe it is responsible for the motivations of college football and academic institutions. These institutions make money from big-time college sports. 

One may argue that most of the money goes back into the athletic department and the academic side sees little of it. In many cases, this is true. But, I worked at the University of Georgia for a decade writing for an alumni magazine for the business school. One of the top means of fundraising is hosting alumni and guests at athletic events. 

The money may go back to the athletic department, but that department because an opulent stage for hosting those who could potentially give a lot more to a variety of other programs at the school. I remind others of this because this dynamic isn't NFL-driven at all. 

While the lure of a professional career is a big motivator with many programs and the NFL won't get in the way of college football, is it really its business to do so? I don't think so. When I was at the University of Miami during the late 80s and 90s, the only thing that compared to the quality of the football program might have been the Jazz Studies program. 

The roommate I had to wake up for his lessons for two and a half years became the youngest CEO of Virgin American Records in the early 2000s and he's just one of many prominent examples. The list of matriculates and alumni that went on to careers as Grammy-winners, music executives, top-flight studio and touring musicians is extensive: Pat Metheny, Jaco Pastorius, Rick Margitza, Troy Roberts, Raul Midon, Danny Gottlieb, Gil Goldstein, and Jon Secada are a few names that most of you probably don't know, but have likely heard and didn't realize it. 

I make this point because the teachers I had who played with the likes of Joni Mitchell, Frank Sinatra, and a variety of huge names, made the point to give students the reality of the world waiting on them and it wasn't. And there were musicians, just like football players, who refused to listen. Coaches often explain the odds, but students want to believe they are the exception and many parents enable the behavior. 

College football serves at the pleasure of college football. The lure of the NFL helps them attract talent, but doesn't that happen with every industry? A Harvard Law degree or MBA also attracts talent, too. Do you put that on the institutions that hire the talent or the universities that create relationships with the firms so they can develop and market a reputation as a job pipeline?

The Ringer's Kevin Clark reported that NFL coaches believe the NFL has an age problem.

Teams are fielding players too early and the result is a decline in experienced play and injuries are a common symptom because they lack the technique and awareness to move around the field and protect themselves. Do you agree with NFL coaches that early entry is hurting the game and its players?

Danny Tuccitto: Just about the only argument I view as reasonable with respect to advocating that a legitimate pro prospect stays in school is that, at 20 or 21 years old, both the football body and the football mind aren't fully developed. I can't speak to the bodily injury aspect of this, but I can say that one of the strongest findings in NFL draft analytics—as well as in other sports—is that the younger a player enters the pros, the more likely his career is likely to be successful. Presumably, that's because, just like an 8-year old chess prodigy, a 10-year old music prodigy, or a 12-year old golf prodigy, if you're ahead of the talent/skill curve at a given age, then you're likelier than not to be ahead of the performance curve at a later age.

Chris Kuczynski: I would not say there is an age problem. Players like Randall Cobb and Amari Cooper were 21 when entering the league and they have had early success. On the flip side, it's encouraged for Quarterbacks to stay in school as long as possible to prove their ability and how prepared they are. If those players are too young they are risking dropping in the draft. Additionally, there are players that just aren't quite ready whether it is technique, knowledge of a playbook or physically as far as conditioning or weight. These players are not always just thrown into the fire, many are on the bench or only used situationally because they are not ready. Players later in the draft or undrafted might even be on the practice squad for years until they are ready. So I think this is a non-issue because team's work this out themselves.

Daniel Simpkins: I do agree with Clark’s assertion to an extent, but I’m not sure how to go about fixing the problem. Not only are some of the younger players hurting themselves, but in their eagerness to prove their worth, they are becoming reckless with their play and hurting the older players they match up against. I can’t begin to count the number of receivers and running backs I’ve seen injured this season by linebackers and defensive backs diving headlong to make a stop.

The contributing dynamics of salary cap structure and a flood of young prospects that Clark cites in his article are spot-on. Establishing a minimum age of play is a nice thought, but what about those young players who do display an understanding of how to play the game at an early age? Do we make them sit just because their peers don’t have that ability? If there is a solution here, it probably involves restructuring the CBA so that the strategy of building a team around filling the roster with cheap young players is no longer viable.

Chris Feery: In most cases, the answer is yes, but there are exceptions to the rule. Elite level talents can walk in and be competitive from day one, but unfortunately, there’s a ton of players that overestimate their standing in this regard. In a perfect world, players will stay in school and get the seasoning they need, but the other side of the argument flips that thinking on its head. It’s pretty tough to play judge and jury when it comes to another person’s financial future, and players must ultimately decide what works best for them.

Players that simply need more time to develop will hopefully find themselves drafted by a patient organization, but that patience is quickly tested when the fan base gets restless over a lackluster product on the field. The bigger issue is the jump from college style systems and game plans to those at the pro level, as there are dozens of phenomenal talents at the college level that simply can't translate those skills to the NFL field. Closing the gap between the two worlds could make a world of difference in that regard, but with so many teams at the top level of college football, it becomes impossible for all of them to run pro-style offenses that don't rely on gadgetry.  

Jason Wood: This is ridiculous. Truly. Players don't lack technique coming into the NFL, particularly as it relates to tackling and blocking. The techniques are taught in the early days of a player's life.

Look at the concussion data. I'll go back to speaking about my kids' youth program. My 8th-grade son and his classmates just won their championship after an undefeated season. It was the 6th consecutive year this group of boys went to the championship game (winning three). Two years ago there were more than a dozen concussions diagnosed in our program (over six grades); which prompted a renewed focus on proper tackling techniques (as well as an on-field diagnosis). This year, we had one concussion that I know of.

This kind of thing is happening all over the country. Fundamentals have gone by the wayside at the youth level and need to be re-instituted. If an All-American collegiate linebacker can't tackle properly by the time they're a junior, will staying for their senior year REALLY change the NFL trajectory? Get out of here with that mess.

I also think Mr. Clark fails to acknowledge the other side of injury diagnosis—injuries and concussions have always been there, we've just gotten a lot better about diagnosing and acknowledging them. Between the NFL's lawsuit deluge, public awareness, and better medical diagnostics, it's far more likely a player is going to be "injured" and treated early in the process. That's a GOOD THING! Maybe it's frustrating for NFL coaches, but from a societal angle and for a player's long-term future, it's unquestionably positive. 

Matt Waldman: Wood, you've isolated your argument to the physical execution of the game and ignored the diagnostic aspect. You failed to address how players move based on awareness and anticipation of what's about to happen on the field. These things happen at a far faster rate than your sons' grade school team. 

Mr. Clark interviews coaches that explain how inexperienced players often get caught in bad positions because they are late to react to things that experienced vets see. Your statement that nothing will really change if a linebacker stays an extra year if he doesn't know how to tackle is something I agree with, but you're missing the point that the coaches--NOT MR. CLARK--explain in the piece: The NFL used to sit many top picks longer and give them time to acclimate to the new speed and complexity of the game. The coaches and vets taught the finer points and it helped younger plays avoid situations where they are caught so egregiously out of position that they hurt themselves doing so.    

Comparing your kids' grade school program (congratulations on their seasons) to college and pro football dramatically misses the point. The game your kids play is far slower, less complex, and not nearly as physical. Even the jump from major college football to the NFL game is a significant jump in these areas and requires technique and awareness that is a lot more refined.

You might as well be arguing that if you get an undergrad in business that you should be ready to direct a hedge fund and work with the fund's biggest clients and not do major harm to your livelihood. Or, getting a degree in cognitive psychology and without any supervision from a veteran, you're ready to conduct therapy.

As Jene Bramel, who recommended this piece to me in September says about situations like I stated above: Good luck, everybody...

Techniques like routes, releases, climbing the pocket, limiting read steps as a tackler, pass rush moves, quarterback and linebacker drops, back pedals, and a host of other items are often taught AND refined at this level. Most college programs don't spend a lot of time on technique. They spend most of it on game planning and conditioning.

Many backs drafted early don't understand the techniques to use for zone vs. gap plays. They usually know one, but not the other. Trent Richardson, Darren McFadden, and C.J. Prosise are three players that come to mind right away. Mike Wallace discussed that his first time learning about the ins and outs of wide receiver play happened at the Senior Bowl and Ole Miss has always been a big-time school.

Ryan Riddle, Cal's single-season sack record holder and a former NFL player, explains that many position coaches never even played the position or have a lot of experience with the position. They are often heavy on scheme, light on technique. Add the time limits that teams can practice and scheme and game plan become the greatest priority of time.

While the concussion issue is taking a positive turn, Mr. Clark's piece is looking at a broader spectrum of injuries. While I'm not in agreement that football is worse than ever, I do think Clark's reporting of what coaches are saying about the state of the game is valid. 

[return to top]