It’s a given that Boise State running back Ashton Jeanty will be the first running back taken on Thursday night. How many other running backs will be taken?
There are two names to watch for round one: North Carolina running back Omarion Hampton and Ohio State running back TreVeyon Henderson.
Hampton is regarded by some as the second best running back in the class. However, he could go after Henderson.
One source who keeps his finger squarely on the pulse of the league suggests that the Broncos (currently at No. 20) will get Henderson, possibly by trading up a few spots, and that Hampton will fall to the Steelers at No. 21.
Both teams need running backs. Given the impact of veteran free-agent running backs like Saquon Barkley, Derrick Henry, and Josh Jacobs in 2024, some teams may decide to ignore the reality that plenty of good running backs are available in the draft and pin their hopes to running backs who could be great.
We’ll all find out what happens, once the picks start getting made starting at or around 8:00 p.m. ET.
Hall of Fame tight end and media personality Shannon Sharpe has issued a new statement in the aftermath of the lawsuit filed against him on Sunday.
The following email arrived within the past hour:
“My personal statement is found HERE and this is the truth The relationship in question was 100% consensual.
“At this juncture I am electing to step aside temporarily from my ESPN duties.
“I will be devoting this time to my family, and responding and dealing with these false and disruptive allegations set against me. I plan to return to ESPN at the start of the NFL preseason.
“I sincerely appreciate the overwhelming and ongoing support I have received from my family, fans, friends and colleagues.”
Sharpe also tweeted the text of the statement, from what appears to be the screenshot of a text message he received.
Whether Sharpe is given the ability to return to ESPN at the start of the NFL preseason is a different issue. The Tuesday admission by Sharpe’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, that Sharpe offered $10 million to settle the claims before they were filed could prompt ESPN to do a full investigation into the situation.
It’s one of the natural potential consequences of admitting to the offer publicly. A number that large generates attention and invites speculation as to whether he was simply trying to neutralize a blackmail threat or whether the amount that was offered conflicts with his insistence that the relationship was consensual.
The number seems to be much more than an objective estimation of the potential settlement value of the case. The legal fees, which he’ll pay whether he wins or loses, shouldn’t be staggering, It’s a simple case, with few witnesses to be deposed. The trial should be fairly short. The total legal fees shouldn’t be more than $500,000, if that.
Beyond that, the $50 million demand made in the lawsuit is meaningless. In some cases, there will be undeniable financial losses resulting from alleged misconduct. In this case, the numbers have no objective anchor: $10 million for general damages, $10 million for special damages (she’ll have to prove $10 million in out-of-pocket financial losses resulting from Sharpe’s alleged behavior), $10 million for statutory penalties (whatever that means), and $20 million in punitive damages.
Simply put, reasonable minds can conclude that offering $10 million implies awareness of responsibility. Davis has expressed strong disagreement with that characterization. In the court of public opinion, however, the opinions expressed by one side’s lawyer aren’t binding.
And ESPN’s interpretation of the overall verdict rendered by the court of public opinion will be critical to whether it ever allows ESPN to appear again on its platform.
The Broncos are set to pick one spot before the Steelers in the first round of the draft on Thursday night and that arrangement is reportedly generating trade interest from other teams.
Adam Schefter of ESPN reports that the Broncos have been fielding calls about the 20th overall pick ahead of the start of the first round.
Given the Steelers’ uncertain quarterback situation, the implication to that report is that teams are trying to jump ahead of Pittsburgh in order to land a player at that position. That could mean a team moving up in the first round or it could mean a team moving back into the first round after making a pick earlier in the evening.
The Steelers have Mason Rudolph and Skylar Thompson on their roster and they’ve met with free agent Aaron Rodgers, but Rodgers has not appeared to be in any hurry to decide about playing in Pittsburgh or anywhere else. They are the betting favorites to end up with former Colorado quarterback Shedeur Sanders, although former Ole Miss signal caller Jaxson Dart’s name has also come up as a first-round possibility.
The Broncos landed their quarterback when they took Bo Nix in the first round last year and they currently have seven picks in their pocket for this year’s draft.
A consensus is building that the Broncos will draft North Carolina running back Omarion Hampton with the 20th overall pick in the 2025 NFL draft.
Hampton is the Broncos’ pick in PFT’s mock draft and is the favorite to go to the Broncos at sports books.
The Broncos are -110 favorites to draft Hampton at FanDuel, while various bets at other sports books have running back as the most likely position for the Broncos to take in the first round, and Hampton likely the second running back off the board, following Boise State’s Ashton Jeanty, who is widely expected to go in the Top 10.
Hampton was a two-time All-American who had remarkably consistent production over the last two seasons. In 2023 he had 253 carries for 1,504 yards, a 5.9-yard average per carry and 15 touchdowns. In 2024 he had 281 carries for 1,660 yards, a 5.9-yard average per carry and 15 touchdowns.
At a time when NFL teams are starting to see more value in the running back position, Hampton will almost certainly hear his name called tonight. It’s hard to see him getting past No. 20.
On Tuesday, attorney Lanny Davis disclosed during a media conference call that Hall of Fame tight end and media personality Shannon Sharpe offered “at least $10 million” to settle the claims made by the woman who sued Sharpe for sexual assault and other claims on Sunday.
In writing on the matter, I expressed my own opinion that, in the court of public opinion, it will be difficult to balance Sharpe’s strong assertion of innocence against his willingness to make an eight-figure settlement payment, and to share that information openly.
Davis objected to my characterization. He asked for an opportunity to respond. I told him to send a statement, and that I would consider posting it. He did. I did. And here’s what he sent:
“I strongly disagree with Mr. Florio’s opinion that Mr. Sharpe’s decision to pay [the plaintiff] who engaged in blackmail — a threat to publish private sexual activity unless she was paid substantial money — in any way infers that Mr. Sharpe was responsible for any wrongdoing and certainly does not change his belief (and mine as his attorney) that [the plaintiff] lied in her allegations in the complaint she filed and was responsible for an edited tape leaving a false impression of non-consensual sexual activity and she has refused to allow that tape to be examined by an independent expert to determine whether she made any editing or deletions in the original tape that she secretly made during sexual activity with Mr. Sharpe.
“In fact, Mr. Sharpe decided to pay the substantial blackmail money demanded by the [plaintiff] for the same reason why many many other innocent people subject to a blackmail threat decide, usually painfully, to pay the blackmailer for the same reasons [as] Mr. Sharpe, having absolutely nothing to do with any admission of wrongdoing: In Mr. Sharpe’s case as in the case of virtually all other similar subjects of blackmail, the reason [was] primarily to avoid public embarrassment for himself and his family and other adverse consequences to his life and reputation.
“I respectfully suggest that if Mr. Florio take the time to do fact reporting and interview many others who made the same decision as Mr. Sharpe to pay the blackmailer — and be able, based on fact reporting and not opinion writing, to demonstrate that most people who decide to pay blackmailers do so without the slightest implication of admitting to wrongdoing or any worry about personal wrongdoing. He may also decide, in his own reconsideration of this subject, that there was nothing inconsistent in my statement that Mr. Sharpe denied the lie that he did anything other than engage in consensual sex and that the tape secretly recorded by [the plaintiff] was incomplete, contained deletions or edits, to mislead the viewer into a conclusion that the sexual encounter was non-consensual. I am disappointed Mr. Florio omitted in his opinion piece my challenge to [the plaintiff] and her attorney that if they claim there was no such deletions or editing of her secretly recorded tape, then she should give her attorney permission to turn it over to a neutral, professional investigator to determine whether or not it was altered in any way.
“Thank you, Mr. Florio, for publishing my respectful strong disagreement with your opinions.”
Here’s my response.
1. You’re welcome.
2. As to the issue of the edited tape, Davis has an absolute right to obtain the video within the confines of the litigation. Rule 34 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure provides the power to do so. The public pressure to release the tape immediately seems to be, in my opinion, part of the effort to score a victory in the court of public opinion.
3. I practiced law for 18 years. I was involved in many negotiations regarding civil claims. Settlement discussions, in my experience, were always treated as confidential. I never had a client who wanted a settlement offer, whether made before or after suit was filed, to be disclosed publicly. I never represented a plaintiff in a case where the defendant disclosed a settlement offer publicly. Typically, those who would make a significant payment to settle a legal claim insist on confidentiality, in part because of the concern that this information could prompt others to try to score a quick and easy payday of their own.
4. My interpretation of the information from Davis was and is pretty simple. It will be hard for the average person to reconcile a loud insistence that the claim is false with an offer to pay at least $10 million to settle the case. And if Sharpe is indeed being blackmailed, there are ways to respond that would better mesh with the reasonably expected reaction to such a threat, in my view. He could have turned the matter over to the authorities. He could have filed a pre-emptive lawsuit. Offering at least $10 million — and then telling the world that at least $10 million was offered — makes it harder to thread the needle, in my opinion.
5. As to the invitation to “interview many others who made the same decision as Mr. Sharpe to pay the blackmailer,” it would be impossible to even begin to make a list. The goal is to pay the money so that the situation never comes to light. No one pays a blackmailer and then buys a billboard to announce that a blackmailer has been paid.
Regardless, the litigation will proceed. Davis confirmed on Tuesday that Sharpe will file a counterclaim. And people will draw whatever conclusions they choose, based on the aggressive claim of blackmail, the nonchalant admission of an eight-figure settlement offer, and any other allegations or facts that come to light until the matter concludes.
If/when the case goes to trial, the settlement offer will not be admissible evidence. Jury selection, however, will be even more delicate than usual, since it will be imperative that none of the prospective jurors blurt out in the presence of the others, “Yeah, I heard about the case. I heard he offered her $10 million.”
The Broncos signed veteran long snapper Zach Triner on Monday, a surprise given they re-signed Mitchell Fraboni to a three-year contract last month, including a fully guaranteed $1.7 million for 2025.
But Mike Klis of 9News reports that Fraboni recently underwent a scheduled minor back procedure that will sideline him through the team’s offseason program.
The procedure, which the Broncos knew about before they signed him, is described as a cleanup.
He is expected to return for training camp, per Klis, but the Broncos needed a long snapper for the offseason program.
Triner, 34, snapped for the Buccaneers the past six seasons, including six games in 2024. He also played for the Dolphins for three games last season.
In a video message posted on Tuesday afternoon, Hall of Fame tight end and media personality Shannon Sharpe suggested that he’ll be responding to the sexual assault lawsuit that has been filed against him with claims against both the plaintiff and her lawyer, Tony Buzbee.
Sharpe’s lawyer was asked about the vow to sue both the plaintiff and Buzbee during a subsequent media conference call. Lanny Davis said there will be a legal action filed against the plaintiff. He did not close the door on suing Buzbee, eventually.
“There will be a counterclaim,” Davis said. “She will be held accountable for a willful and vicious accusation. She’s not protected because it’s in a filing in a lawsuit. She will get a judgment against her in a court of law. And that will come from our counterclaim.”
Buzbee won’t have a lawsuit against him for now, because there’s no proof he knowingly pursued a false claim.
“We don’t know whether Buzbee is aware the allegations made by the plaintiffs are willfully false,” Davis said. “No lawyer can present a complaint that contains knowingly false allegations. I’ll give Mr. Buzbee the benefit of the doubt that he believes his plaintiff. But we are saying that this plaintiff is lying, she knows she’s lying, she knows this was a consensual relationship.”
The rules will allow Sharpe to pursue his counterclaim as a direct response to the lawsuit filed against him, without the filing of a separate lawsuit.
On one hand, attorney Lanny Davis has launched an aggressive defense of Hall of Fame tight end and media personality Shannon Sharpe. On the other hand, Davis has confirmed that Sharpe has made a very significant financial offer to the plaintiff.
During a Tuesday conference call, Davis repeatedly said that Sharpe offered “tens of millions of dollars” to settle the case before the lawsuit was filed. After several requests for clarification, Davis (after repeating that it was tens of millions) revised his position to say it was “at least $10 million.”
Whether $10 million or some multiple of $10 million, that’s a stunning revelation. Davis was asked to clarify whether Sharpe offered $10 million or in the “tens of millions.” The offer was made in a formal mediation session, before Davis was involved in the case.
It’s hard to reconcile the aggressive claim that the allegations are fabricated with the admission that Sharpe offered at least $10 million to settle the case. While settlement offers are almost always inadmissible in court, Davis and Sharpe have launched a robust defense in the court of public opinion. And the jury in the court of public opinion (i.e., anyone paying attention to the case) will have a hard time squaring an insistence of falsification and blackmail with a willingness to pay at least $10 million.
It also could be a red flag for ESPN and anyone else doing business with Sharpe. At a minimum, they’ll want to know why he was willing to pay that much money if, as he and Davis insist, he’s completely blameless.
Hall of Fame tight end Shannon Sharpe was sued on Sunday, for sexual assault and other claims. He has posted a video addressing the situation.
During his statement, Sharpe vows to sue the plaintiff and her attorney for defamation.
“To my family, friends, friends, supporters, and colleagues, I want to speak to you directly and from the heart,” Sharpe said. “This is a shakedown. I’m gonna be open. transparent, and defend myself, because this isn’t right.
“This is all being orchestrated by Tony Buzbee, who has targeted Jay Z. Tony Buzbee targets black men, and I believe he’s going to release a thirty-second clip of a sex tape that tries to make me look guilty and play into every stereotype you could possibly imagine. That video should actually be ten minutes or so. Hey, Tony, instead of releasing your edit, put the whole video out. I don’t have it, or I would myself. You know what happened and you’re trying to manipulate the media.
“The encounter in question took place during the day at her invitation, and now that appears to be a deliberate setup, coordinated by Gabbi, also known as Karli on OnlyFans. Gabbi and Tony Buzbee want fifty million dollars, what they’re getting is sued for defamation and trying to take me down. My career is all about real talk and honesty. I know my family and fans know exactly what this is about, and I’m going to be out there telling you whatever I need to say, just like I always do. I love all you guys. Thanks.”
Sharpe won’t need to separately sue the plaintiff; he can proceed with a counterclaim in response to her lawsuit. Any action against Buzbee would most likely need to be filed separately.
Sharpe’s comments further frame the case as boiling down to the contents of an edited video and the contents of the unedited video.
Hall of Fame tight end Shannon Sharpe will be defending himself against a civl lawsuit alleging sexual assault and other claims by, in part, attacking the plaintiff in the court of public opinion.
Attorney Lanny Davis will hold a press conference on Tuesday at 2:00 p.m. ET to discuss the case. The notice makes the objective clear — to further paint her as an opportunist who is attempting to extort Sharpe.
The email announcing the press conference says that Davis will “answer questions about blackmail against Shannon Sharpe from Nevada OnlyFans woman.”
The subtitle to the announcement says this: “Davis To Challenge Gabbi Zuniga and Texas Attorney Tony Buzbee To Make Full Tape Available To Determine Whether It Was Edited — ‘What Is She Hiding?’”
This refers to the claim from Davis’s Monday statement that the plaintiff “secretly recorded” the “video of a consensual sexual encounter” with Sharpe in order to “falsely portray a consensual sexual act as non-consensual,” that the video was “heavily edited and taken entirely out of context,” and that the plaintiff has “refused to provide a copy of the full, unedited version” to Sharpe’s lawyers.
Here’s one of the most basic realities of any civil action. Sharpe and his lawyers have a quick and easy device available to secure the unedited video within the confines of the lawsuit. The authority to do so comes from Rule 34 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. She’ll have no choice but to produce it, after Davis requests it. If she flat-out refuses, the case eventually will be dismissed. If she has destroyed it, that would open a separate can of worms under the theory known as spoliation of evidence.
Frankly, Davis seems to be grandstanding. Which is fine. He has the right to do it. To those who understand how the legal system works, it’s obvious that the goal is to cast aspersions against the plaintiff and her lawyer — not for reasons relevant to the merits of her claim but in the eyes of the general public.
Indeed, what’s the goal of dismissing the plaintiff as a “Nevada OnlyFans woman”? Sharpe won’t deny that he knew her, or that he had consensual sexual encounters with her. He’ll be claiming that all encounters were consensual. She has claimed in her complaint that at least one was not.
Which brings us back to the unedited video. The case could very well turn on whether and to what extent the edited version meshes with the unedited version. If it does, that could be bad for Sharpe. If it doesn’t, that would be good for Sharpe.
