According to this article, last year the cost of buying a player ranked as follows
1. Edge
2. QB
3. Corners
4. Linebackers
5. Receivers
6. OL
7. Safeties
8. DT's
9. RB's
19 TE's
With the prices skyrocketing, and our roster depleted everywherre. I'd still argue against going out and spending a lot of money on a QB.
Before Schwes declared, it was reported we were losing 9 starters of this year's D to expired eligibility. Schwes makes 10 starters lost, if that's true. And we've had at least two back up DT's enter the portal.
We had a terrible OL last year, but maybe the OL we've landed will help a lot. Maybe go out and over pay for a sure fire O lineman. Get a running back. Get some DT's (they're relatively inexpensive. And shore up the LB's and secondary to the extent we can.
The edge's being so expensive is kind of weird to me. Super important position, I get it. But, Femi was a linebacker when the season started. I looked up what the Murphy's did at North Texas State, apparently they played some linebacker, some DE. Seems like of all the positions on a team, you might be able most able to manufacture a good edge rusher off of someone on your roster. This is so speculative that it's silly, but what about Isaiah Patterson? https://uclabruins.com/sports/football/roster/isaiah-patterson/14427Three-star recruit according to 247Sports, ESPN, and Rivals No. 31 linebacker in the country by 247Sports No. 10 prospect in the state of Washington by 247 Sports No. 13 prospect in the state of Washington by ESPN No. 43 linebacker in the country by Rivals No. 6 prospect in the state of Washington by Rivals named First Team All-Area by The News Tribune as a senior helped Yelm to league championships in each of his four seasons on campus, and won the 3A WIAA State Championship in 2022 during his senior season, recorded 113 tackles, 18 tackles for loss (TFL), and three sacks over 14 games had 72 tackles and 11 TFL as a junior in 2022.
He's 6'4" 235. Seems like the right size
Here's what Brandon Huffman said about him: "Patterson was a defensive lineman earlier in his career so getting to the quarterback has always been his strength but he's played a lot of 7v7 to show his ability to cover and has some plays in coverage in short yardage passes where he easily blows up plays. He looks quicker and in tremendous shape and shows he can be an inside backer in college but we also wouldn't be surprised if he ended up on the edge when he gets in to the Big Ten."
Anyway, we've got a QB on our roster that was a solid 4 star. Another that was a 4 in one service, 3 in another. We've got Hasselback.
I don't see the importance of going out and spending a boatload of money on a QB, when we one returning starter on D, (probably Busic - who couldn't have averaged a tackle per game), a poor OL, and we're losing our starting RB.
Last thing, if anyone is still reading: so these NIL deals are basically options exercisable by the athlete. One kid mentioned in the articles Seahorn linked has a 4 year, 8 mil deal. That's the Duke guy, right? But, he could opt out of playing in a bowl game, hit the portal, and get more money next year? It sure looks like a lot is going to shake out of this whole NIL thing. One of the things that I really hope shakes out is that 1) both teams have the option. If the kid doesn't perform to expectations, the deal for the next season goes away (if both parties have options, I guess that's just an agreement in principle, not enforceable for future years. And, I guess the school could use the approached used on Henry Steele in the movie One on One and just bury him on the depth chart. You're still paying him, but how long does he stick around if you let him know he will never play?) 2) that the agreements are back loaded during the season so that the player loses money if he opts out of the bowl game.
I know those are both wishful thinking, but this is a rapidly shifting environment.