Author

admin

Browsing

Brunswick Exploration Inc. (TSX-V: BRW, OTCQB: BRWXF; ‘ BRW ‘ or the ‘ Company ‘) is pleased to report the first results from the 2025 Mirage winter drilling campaign where it drilled an additional twenty-four holes targeting extensions of known mineralized zones. The Mirage Project is located in the Eeyou Istchee-James Bay region of Quebec, approximately 40 kilometers south of the Trans-Taiga Road. This release focuses on the Central Zone including the MR-6, MR-3 dykes and Stacked Dyke area where BRW has continued to intersect wide and well mineralized intervals along strike and at depth.

Highlights include:

  • Significant interval of 36 meters at 1.51% Li2O in hole MR-24-102 within the Stacked Dyke area extending mineralization to the south-east and where an additional 13 dykes measuring between 1.3 and 9.35 meters were intercepted in the same hole.
  • New interval at the MR-6 Dyke with 1.32% Li2O over 28 meters in hole MR-24-101 extending the dyke to the northwest.
  • The MR-3, MR-6 and staked dyke system can now be traced together into a major swarm of spodumene bearing pegmatites covering a surface area of over 1,000 meters by up to 450m.
  • A total of 24 drill holes prioritizing near surfaces mineralization in the extension of the staked dyke area were completed during the winter. Assays are pending for a further 16 holes.

Mr. Killian Charles, President and CEO of BRW, commented: ‘To date, every drill campaign has demonstrated the significant exploration upside at Mirage and these first results from our winter 2025 campaign are no different. We have successfully extended the MR-6 pegmatite and continue to rapidly add considerable intercepts in the neighboring Stacked Dyke area. Interestingly, this high potential target area has continued to return multiple significant mineralized intercepts over the entirety of each drill hole and the Stacked Dyke area remains open in multiple directions.

Brunswick Exploration remains one of the most active lithium exploration companies globally and looks forward to releasing more drill results from Mirage and the restart of prospecting in Greenland. With its unique portfolio, the Company expects to have a milestone rich year.’

Mirage Project Drilling Overview

The Mirage Project comprises 427 claims located roughly 40 kilometers south of the Trans-Taiga Highway in Quebec’s James Bay region and 34 kilometers northeast of Winsome Resources’ Adina Project.

The 2025 winter drilling campaign focused on extending the mineralized Stacked Dyke area to the northeast. Highlights discussed in this release are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. Collars are shown in Table 2.

Figure 1 : Central Zone of the Mirage Project

The holes MR-25-96 and MR-25-98 extended the MR-3 dyke 150m to the South with 0.79% Li2O over 12.2 meters from 55.8 meters to 68 meters and 1.26% Li2O over 7 meters from 176 meters to 183 meters. The hole MR-25-95 also confirmed the present of MR-3 and intersect a new dyke from 123.9 to 132 meters that returned 0.76% Li2O over 8.31 meters. This new shallow dipping mineralized pegmatite is located between MR-3 and MR-6 and is open in all directions. From 290 to 307 meters, the hole MR-25-95 holes also intersected three mineralized dykes that could be extensions to MR-6 at depth, dipping to the east.

The hole MR-25-102 extends the Staked Dyke area to the south with 14 mineralized dykes intercepted with the largest grading 1.51% Li2O over 35.65 meters from 166.6 meters to 202.25 meters. MR-23-32ext was drilled to connect the Stacked Dyke area to MR-6. Multiple dykes were intercepted in this hole and confirmed the presence of three new sub horizontal dykes under MR-6 with the largest returning 1.02% Li2O over 7.75 meters from 158.25 meters to 166 meters.

MR-25-101 confirmed the plunge to the north of MR-6 with an intercept of 28 meters at 1.32% Li2O from 173 meters to 201 meters and extends the MR-6 pegmatite by 100 meters. The hole MR-25-99 and MR-25-100 also intercepted the MR-6 dyke over 14.3 meters and 19.4 meters but showed signs of heavy alteration and no spodumene was identified.

Table 1 : 2025 Drilling Program Mentioned in this Release

Hole ID From (m) To (m) Length (m) Li2O (%)
MR-23-32-ext

143.55 145.55 2.00 2.26
147.55 150.00 2.45 1.41
158.25 166.00 7.75 1.02
MR-25-95

49.50 56.75 7.25 0.55
123.90 132.00 8.10 0.79
225.25 228.25 3.00 1.61
290.00 291.00 1.00 1.44
299.00 300.90 1.90 1.20
303.50 307.20 2.70 1.33
MR-25-96

55.80 68.00 12.20 0.79
147.60 150.90 3.30 0.90
160.55 163.20 2.65 0.27
MR-25-97 18.40 23.20 4.80 1.25
MR-25-98 176.00 183.00 7.00 1.26
MR-25-101 173.00 201.00 28.00 1.32
MR-25-102

17.25 21.00 3.75 1.33
65.70 69.00 3.30 2.66
96.15 105.50 9.35 0.75
117.50 119.50 2.00 1.34
132.75 134.65 1.90 1.81
138.90 140.30 1.40 0.88
157.60 159.85 2.25 1.10
166.60 202.25 35.65 1.51
212.20 214.85 2.65 1.24
239.70 243.60 3.90 1.33
247.95 250.75 2.80 1.74
254.70 256.50 1.80 1.68
292.15 296.10 3.95 1.52
299.00 305.10 6.10 1.19


Table 2
: 2025 Drilling Collars Mentioned in this Release

Hole ID Azimut Dip Length (m) UTM NAD83 z18 East UTM NAD83 z18 North
MR-23-32-ext 320 -73 162 683263 5941204
MR-25-95 30 -60 369 682821 5940489
MR-25-96 30 -90 207 682821 5940989
MR-25-97 320 -65 48 683503 5941233
MR-25-98 315 -60 301.45 682784 5940878
MR-25-99 320 -90 168 682912 5941336
MR-25-100 320 -90 201 682832 5941326
MR-25-101 320 -60 285 682912 5941336


QAQC

All drill core samples were collected under the supervision of BRW employees and contractors. The drill core was transported by helicopter and by truck from the drill platform to the core logging facility in Val-d’Or. Each core was then logged, photographed, tagged, and split by diamond saw before being sampled. All pegmatite intervals were sampled at approximately 1-meter intervals to ensure representativity. Samples were bagged; duplicated on reject, blanks and certified reference materials for lithium were inserted every 20 samples. Samples were bagged and groups of samples were placed in larger bags, sealed with numbered tags, in order to maintain a chain of custody. The sample bags were transported from the BRW contractor facility to the AGAT laboratory in Val-d’Or. All sample preparation and analytical work was performed by AGAT by sodium peroxide fusion with ICP-OES and ICP-MS finish. All results passed the QA/QC screening at the lab and all inserted standard and blanks returned results that were within acceptable limits. All reported drill intersections are calculated based on a lower cutoff grade of 0.3% Li2O, with maximum internal dilution of 5 meters. Host basalts adjacent to the dykes may grade up to 0.3% Li2O but were excluded from the reported intersections.

Qualified Person

The scientific and technical information contained in this press release has been reviewed and approved by Mr. Simon T. Hébert, VP Development. He is a Professional Geologist registered in Quebec and is a Qualified Person as defined by National Instrument 43-101.

About Brunswick Exploration

Brunswick Exploration is a Montreal-based mineral exploration company listed on the TSX-V under symbol BRW. The Company is focused on grassroots exploration for lithium in Canada, a critical metal necessary to global decarbonization and energy transition. The company is rapidly advancing the most extensive grassroots lithium property portfolio in Canada and Greenland.

Investor Relations/information

Mr. Killian Charles, President and CEO ( info@brwexplo.ca )

Cautionary Statement on Forward-Looking Information

This news release contains ‘forward-looking information’ within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation based on expectations, estimates and projections as at the date of this news release. Forward-looking information involves risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events, results, performance, prospects and opportunities to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking information include, but are not limited to, delays in obtaining or failures to obtain required governmental, environmental or other project approvals; uncertainties relating to the availability and costs of financing needed in the future; changes in equity markets; inflation; fluctuations in commodity prices; delays in the development of projects; the other risks involved in the mineral exploration and development industry; and those risks set out in the Corporation’s public documents filed on SEDAR at www.sedar.com. Although the Corporation believes that the assumptions and factors used in preparing the forward-looking information in this news release are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on such information, which only applies as of the date of this news release, and no assurance can be given that such events will occur in the disclosed time frames or at all. The Corporation disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, other than as required by law. Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release.

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/ea65ea8b-aa40-40d8-9be0-f901db569529

News Provided by GlobeNewswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Golden State Warriors forward Jimmy Butler exited Game 2 against the Houston Rockets after landing hard on his backside and was ruled out of the contest.

Amen Thompson undercut Butler on a rebound attempt with 2:28 left in the first quarter as the Warriors trailed the Rockets 22-15 on Wednesday night in Houston. Butler landed hard on his tailbone and remained down on the court at Toyota Center as he writhed in pain. Thompson was called for a loose ball foul, his third of the first quarter.

Butler was able to get up gingerly and limped his way to the free throw line, where he made one of two before exiting the game with 1:51 remaining in the quarter. He skipped the bench and headed straight to the locker room.

Butler had three points (1-of-2 FG, 1-of-2 FT) in eight minutes of play before leaving the court. He was later ruled out with a pelvis contusion. The team said he will undergo an MRI Thursday.

‘Hopefully, he’s OK,’ Warriors coach Steve Kerr said. ‘We’ll see. … Jimmy always says he’s going to be fine. But we have to wait and see with the MRI.”

Houston went on to win, 109-94.

The Warriors got Butler in a trade with the Miami Heat at the deadline in February. Golden State hoped he would provide scoring and playmaking support for Stephen Curry, plus defensive help, in what could be its last, best run at another NBA title with this group.

Physicality has been a major storyline coming out of the first-round series between the Warriors and Rockets. Kerr was seen complaining about officiating to the referees during Wednesday’s broadcast.

‘Houston is a great defense and a very physical team, so that’s a big part of the equation of this series,’ Kerr said during the second quarter. ‘You have to handle it.’

In response to Butler’s exit, Kerr said ‘we will put Jonathan (Kuminga) in. We know he can play well against these guys and he’ll be able to attack the rim a little bit.’

The series now shifts to San Francisco, tied 1-1.

The USA TODAY app gets you to the heart of the news — fastDownload for award-winning coverage, crosswords, audio storytelling, the eNewspaper and more.

(This story has been updated with new information).

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

A federal judge said Wednesday that she cannot approve the proposed settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and Power Five conferences in its current form because of roster limits that were set to go into effect as part of the agreement.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken wrote that she was inclined to approve the rest of the deal over a variety of other objections. That means she is otherwise prepared to accept an arrangement under which $2.8 billion in damages would be paid to current and former athletes — and their lawyers — over 10 years, and Division I schools would be able to start paying athletes directly for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL), subject to a per-school cap that would increase over time and be based on a percentage of certain athletics revenues.

However, during a final-approval hearing on April 7, she strongly suggested a system of phased-in implementation of the proposed sport-by-sport roster limits, which were to take effect on July 1 alongside an end to the NCAA’s existing system of sport-by-sport scholarship limits. A number of lawyers and scores of athletes and parents — some in emotional and personal written pleas — had asked Wilken to consider such a solution. And she gave the principals a week to consider that modification, as well as several other smaller ones.

The principals submitted a revised version of the deal that did not include changes to the roster limits, and now the NCAA and its schools and conferences are left with a potentially chaotic situation.

That concern was echoed by an athletic director who spoke to USA TODAY Sports and requested anonymity to protect because of the sensitivity of the situation. 

“It’s insanity,’ the person said. ‘She’s not supposed to be negotiating for the people who write letters.’

However, another athletic director also requesting anonymity due to the situation didn’t seem as concerned.

“It’s an easy fix,’ the person said. ‘Coaches wanted to grandfather all along. I’m just annoyed it means more days without this being settled and (having) rules to operationalize it set in place.’

Wilken wrote that within 14 days the parties “shall make their best efforts” to consult with a mediator “about potential modifications of the settlement agreement to address (her) concerns.” And she requested that three attorneys who represented clients objecting to the settlement because of the roster limits “consult remotely, together or separately” with the mediator and the lawyers for the principals.

In the meantime, she issued a case scheduling order that would begin to move the case toward a trial date that was left unspecified.

Steve Berman, the one of the lead attorneys for the athlete plaintiffs wrote in an email to USA TODAY Sports: “The good news is she overruled all the objections but one. As for the roster issue, armed with the leverage of this order, we are confident we can convince the NCAA and the conferences to fix the issue so that we satisfy Judge Wilken. If not, the Judge has re started the pre trial schedule in House and so be it if there is no fix.”

In a statement Wednesday night, the NCAA and the conferences said: “We are closely reviewing Judge Wilken’s order. Our focus continues to be on securing approval of this significant agreement, which aims to create more opportunities than ever before for student-athletes while fostering much-needed stability and fairness in college sports.”

Laura Reathaford, one of the three objectors’ lawyers referenced by Wilken, told USA TODAY Sports in a text message: “We are very happy with today’s order from Judge Wilken regarding the phasing-in of roster limits. The judge followed the law. We look forward to working with the parties on an amicable resolution to this problem.”

Under class-action antitrust law cited by Wilken, a settlement can be approved only if it “treats class members equitably relative to each other.”

She added that: “Because the settlement agreement is not fair and reasonable to the significant number of class members whose roster spots will be or have been taken away because of the immediate implementation of the settlement agreement, the Court cannot approve the settlement agreement in its current form.”

She wrote that one way of resolving this “could be to modify the settlement agreement to ensure that no (athletes) who have or had a roster spot will lose it as a result of the immediate implementation of the settlement agreement.”

Thousands of current walk-on athletes stand to lose their places on Division I teams had the settlement been approved under parameters, and schools have been making future roster plans for months. Some objectors have told Wilken in writing, as well as in-person at last week’s hearing, that they and other athletes already have been told by coaches that they will be losing their spots. Or, in the case of high school recruits, they have been told that spots they were going to receive will no longer exist.

However, in a filing April 14 that included a revised version of the settlement, the lawyers for the principals wrote they were not changing the proposed roster limits, in part because of concerns from the NCAA and the conferences about how to undo roster decisions that already had been put in motion.

‘The Parties appreciate the perspective and heartfelt stories that the student-athletes who objected shared, including those shared at the hearing. Defendants have evaluated — and discussed with numerous member institutions — the Court’s suggestion to ‘grandfather’ in the roster limits. Defendants, however, have informed (the plaintiffs’ lawyers) that those discussions revealed no practicable way to do so, because ‘grandfathering’ roster limits would cause significant disruption. The Parties are both independently aware that member institutions and student-athletes have been making decisions in anticipation of the roster limits being immediately effective if the Settlement is approved.’

Wilken showed no interest in this argument, saying that “is not a valid reason not a valid reason for approval of the agreement in its current form despite the harm” to athletes and recruits.

‘Any disruption that may occur is a problem of Defendants’ and NCAA members schools’ own making,” Wilken wrote. “The fact that the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement should not have been interpreted as an indication that it was certain that the Court would grant final approval.’

Citing a legal precedent from a case decided by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Wilken’s district, she added: “One of the factors that courts must consider when determining whether to grant final approval of a settlement agreement is ‘the reaction of the class members’ to the agreement. … One of the reasons for granting preliminary approval of a settlement agreement is to authorize the dissemination of notice to class members so that they have the opportunity to come forward with their reactions to the agreement.”

Wilken wrote that she is otherwise prepared to approve the settlement. She wrote that, with the exception of the “immediate implementation of the roster limits that will cause harm to certain” athletes, she “tentatively finds that (she) can grant final approval of the remainder of the settlement agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate … notwithstanding” other objections to the settlement, which she said she “inclined to overrule.”

(New information was added to this story).

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

This week marks the four-year anniversary of what’s turned out to be a remarkable 2021 NFL draft.

The haul from the league’s 86th ‘Player Selection Meeting’ includes quite a few players who appear to be on the Hall of Fame fast track: Micah Parsons, Ja’Marr Chase, Penei Sewell, Patrick Surtain II, Amon-Ra St. Brown. And the likes of DeVonta Smith, Creed Humphrey, Landon Dickerson and Nico Collins are hardly slouches.

Yet that draft is, well, ‘remarkable’ for another reason. You’ll notice no quarterbacks are listed above even though they were touted as the backbone of the group at the time − and five were taken among the first 15 picks, including each of the first three. But fast forward to 2025, and the only member of that quintet who remains with the team that drafted him is the Jaguars’ Trevor Lawrence … and he hasn’t exactly been the generational passer he was forecast to be (even if he’s made a boatload of money while qualifying for one Pro Bowl). Meanwhile, Zach Wilson, Trey Lance, Justin Fields and Mac Jones all joined their third NFL teams earlier this offseason.

It’s a collection of players who pretty well encapsulate what’s basically the inherent boom-or-bust nature of the draft – and four years on, it becomes fair enough to begin affixing the dreaded bust label, especially as it pertains to when and where a player was drafted. And maybe, a la Sam Darnold or Baker Mayfield, some of the 2021 QBs can still rehabilitate their careers – but that doesn’t mean the damage isn’t done in their wake, whether or not it was truly a function of some personal shortcoming or simply a suboptimal situation.

Admittedly, the indictment of the 2021 draft’s heretofore failures may smack of recency bias, however some of its members have truly earned a spot on this list of the 50 hugest busts of the past 50 years.

Some words about the methodology: This ranking and analysis are certainly interspersed with opinion. But I tried not to view these wayward picks in a vacuum – taking into account what teams sacrificed to take a player, either in terms of trade currency or whom they opted not to select, when evaluating each bust. Some deals themselves are included since many prevented teams from choosing superior options. Naturally, extra weight was given to quarterback gaffes.

Lastly, I tried to have some fun and creativity in select spots to keep you engaged, so try not to get too bent out of shape if that guard or safety your team took in the top 10 before he petered out didn’t warrant a mention.

Here we go – and you’ll note I managed to shoehorn more than *50* players into this list:

1. QB Ryan Leaf, 2nd overall 1998, Chargers

It seems patently obvious who was superior more than a quarter-century after the fact, but he was very much in the conversation to be this draft’s No. 1 pick. Of course, the Colts wisely chose eventual five-time league MVP Peyton Manning. Meanwhile, the Bolts set themselves back years by taking Leaf (4-14 in 18 starts for the club with a 48.8 passer rating), whose gross immaturity and inability to solve pro defenses trumped his vast physical talent. What cements his infamy is the price San Diego paid to simply swap its initial No. 3 pick to get Arizona’s spot at No. 2 (more on that later). But the freight the Cardinals commanded, aside from the switch, was a second-rounder, an additional first-rounder in 1999 and two veterans (WR Eric Metcalf and LB Patrick Sapp). Oof.

2. OT Tony Mandarich, 2nd overall 1989, Packers

The Sports Illustrated cover boy deemed ‘The Incredible Bulk’ prior to the draft – he had uncommon athleticism and size for the position at the time – was labeled ‘The NFL’s Incredible Bust’ by SI only three years later. Mandarich’s steroid-fueled body and poor work ethic didn’t hold up against professional competition, and he later descended into drug and alcohol abuse. Any value he later provided at guard might have helped the Colts but obviously didn’t do the Pack any good. But this context truly frames his failure: Mandarich was the only player selected in the top five that year who didn’t wind up in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Troy Aikman went No. 1, but Green Bay passed on Barry Sanders, Derrick Thomas and Deion Sanders.

3. QB JaMarcus Russell, 1st overall 2007, Raiders

It turned out to be a miserable year for passers, the likes of Brady Quinn, Kevin Kolb, John Beck and Drew Stanton also taken way too early. But Russell, who began his career with a lengthy holdout, never fulfilled the hype generated by his howitzer arm and legendary pro day. He lasted just three seasons, losing 18 of 25 starts and compiling an abysmal 65.2 passer rating, before laziness and weight gain washed him out of the league. Who could Oakland (at the time) have taken instead? Calvin Johnson, Joe Thomas, Adrian Peterson, Patrick Willis, Marshawn Lynch and Darrelle Revis all came off the board in the first half of Round 1.

4. QB Trey Lance, 3rd overall 2021, 49ers

San Francisco surrendered four picks, three of them first-rounders, to get into position for a guy who was basically a one-year starter at North Dakota State. In fairness to Lance, incumbent QB Jimmy Garoppolo, subsequent injuries and a shoddy development plan that HC Kyle Shanahan largely blamed himself for derailed Lance before he had a legitimate chance to prove himself in Silicon Valley. But the Niners saw enough to pull the plug after two years, opting to give the reins to 2022 seventh-rounder Brock Purdy and sending Lance to Dallas for a Round 4 pick. (He signed with the Chargers earlier this month.) But just imagine if the 49ers had taken Chase, Sewell, Surtain or Parsons instead of Lance … who maybe eventually blossoms elsewhere, little good as that will do San Fran.

4a. QB Zach Wilson, 2nd overall 2021, Jets

Now queue up the unfortunate 2021 QB corollaries – and brace yourself, Jets fans, as this is merely the first of many mentions. The NYJ effectively threw in the towel on Wilson in 2023 after trading for four-time league MVP Aaron Rodgers … then were quickly forced to turn back to the BYU product, who again miserably failed in his third attempt to produce at a level commensurate with his draft billing. Traded to the Denver Broncos during last year’s draft, Wilson is now with the Miami Dolphins – his NFL completion rate (57%) and passer rating (73.2) presently married to 23 TD passes and 34 turnovers. The mistake is magnified by the fact the Jets could have augmented the roster in 2021 around Darnold with Chase, Sewell, Surtain or Parsons, among others, all available.

4b. QB Mac Jones, 15th overall 2021, Patriots

With the help of former New England OC Josh McDaniels, he looked like a legitimate NFL starter … for a year, anyway. Then it all fell apart for Jones, also largely undermined by an organization that didn’t give him sufficient positional coaching or playmakers. It got so bad in 2023, the decision was made to send Jones home in a trade with Jacksonville, where he backed up Lawrence in 2024. Now, like Darnold, Jones is hoping to initiate something of a career reboot while apprenticing with Shanahan and the 49ers.

4c. QB Justin Fields, 11th overall 2021, Bears

Recently signed by the Jets after a perplexing year in Pittsburgh, maybe a guy with titillating dual-threat abilities resurrects his career in New York. But not before the Bears sent four draft selections (including two first-rounders) to the Giants to get Fields four years ago … then almost completely failed to put a legitimate supporting cast around him for two seasons. Many of Fields’ frequent failures must be laid at the doorstep of Halas Hall, a building that’s been so dysfunctional in recent years that the Bears were in position to replace him just three years later – 2024 No. 1 pick Caleb Williams now charged with trying to overcome his surroundings.

5. QB Jeff George, 1st overall 1990, Colts

He looked like Uncle Rico, threw like him, too … and basically played like the “Napoleon Dynamite” folk hero. Navigating into the top spot for George forced Indianapolis to surrender Pro Bowl OT Chris Hinton, future Pro Bowl WR Andre Rison and a first-round pick in 1991 to Atlanta – where George wound up himself in 1994 after wearing out his welcome with a bad attitude and 14-35 record for the Colts, who passed on three eventual Hall of Famers in the first round (more on them later). Never particularly popular in the locker room, George played for five different teams – and did post better numbers, if not many more wins, later in his career.

6. RB Lawrence Phillips, 6th overall 1996, Rams

Bad player. Bad dude. And St. Louis should have known better. The Rams parted with DT Sean Gilbert to acquire the Phillips pick – Eddie George was still available – and they exported Jerome Bettis to Pittsburgh in a separate deal to clear the way for Nebraska’s fallen star. Phillips averaged 3.4 yards per carry and didn’t make it through his second season with the Rams, cut amid excessive in-season drinking.

7. Jets’ decisions to trade down in 1997

After going 1-15 in 1996, Gang Green most definitely earned the No. 1 pick of the ’97 draft – which they surely would have used for Manning … had he opted not to return to the University of Tennessee for his senior year. (And you can argue that newly acquired coach Bill Parcells could have done more to entice Manning to go pro, but that’s neither here nor there.) However after Manning was off the table, Parcells dealt down from No. 1 to No. 6 in a bid to restock this roster, passing on the opportunity to snatch future Hall of Fame LT Orlando Pace. Then Parcells dropped from No. 6 to No. 8, passing on the opportunity to get future Hall of Fame LT Walter Jones. (Ugh and ugh.) LB James Farrior, who was much better in Pittsburgh later in his career than during his Gotham stint, ‘headlined’ New York’s forgettable haul, which could have also included Hall of Fame TE Tony Gonzalez, who went 13th.

8. Colts’ decision to draft John Elway No. 1 in 1983

His talent obviously justified the selection, but team brass should have taken Elway seriously when he threatened to play baseball rather than for Baltimore. In the end, he launched his Hall of Fame career in Denver while the Colts were left with Hinton, backup QB Mark Herrmann, a first-round pick in 1984 (spent on G Ron Solt) and, in a year’s time, a one-way, franchise-wide ticket to Indianapolis.

9. QB Robert Griffin III, 2nd overall 2012, Washington

The team shipped three first-round picks and one in Round 2 to the Rams for the chance to take RG3. Initially, it seemed a reasonable gambit as the 2011 Heisman Trophy winner won Offensive Rookie of the Year honors while leading a charge to the NFC East title. The rest is unfortunate history, both for Griffin personally and the organization at large. But Washington may finally be picking up the pieces now that Jayden Daniels has arrived as the latest presumed savior.

9a. Rams’ haul for Robert Griffin III

On the opposite end of the RG3 coin? St. Louis parlayed its bounty into Michael Brockers, Janoris Jenkins, Isaiah Pead, Rokevious Watkins, Alec Ogletree, Stedman Bailey, Zac Stacy and Greg Robinson. Some decent (and not-so-decent) players there, but obviously not a group that came anywhere close to salvaging the NFL in The Gateway City, much less providing the bedrock for a perennial powerhouse.

9b. DE Chase Young, 2nd overall 2020, Washington

Basically the defensive version of RG3 – a rookie of the year before suffering a serious knee injury and ultimately falling out of favor with the organization. A player who entered the league with astronomical expectations – reference the frequent (and unfair) Lawrence Taylor comparisons – Young had 7½ sacks in 2020 … and 6½ total over his next three seasons with Washington before being unceremoniously traded for a third-rounder in 2023. Justin Jefferson, Justin Herbert, CeeDee Lamb and Tristan Wirfs were among the players taken later in Round 1 of Young’s draft.

10. OLB Aundray Bruce, 1st overall 1988, Falcons

Atlanta also thought it was getting the next Taylor. Nope. Bruce was no better than a sub package guy, including spot duty at tight end. There were five Hall of Famers picked elsewhere in Bruce’s draft and a dominant pass rusher (Neil Smith) directly after him.

11. RB Bo Jackson, 1st overall 1986, Buccaneers

Don’t get it twisted – this isn’t a dig at a guy who might truly be a ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ athlete. Instead, interpret it as a dig at a long-feckless franchise that chose to squander its pick even though Jackson had vowed never to play in Tampa, believing the team deliberately cost him his baseball eligibility at Auburn while trying to strong-arm him into a football-only career. The Bucs took Jackson anyway, and he was soon stroking towering taters for the Kansas City Royals … before joining the Raiders in 1987.

12. OT Robert Gallery, 2nd overall 2004, Raiders

He never approached his pre-draft buildup and, like Mandarich years before, only became serviceable after moving to guard. Who could Oakland have had instead? Larry Fitzgerald, Philip Rivers, Sean Taylor and Ben Roethlisberger heard their names called shortly after Gallery’s selection.

13. RB Blair Thomas, 2nd overall 1990, Jets

To think future Hall of Famers Cortez Kennedy and Junior Seau were sitting there. Or, if New York really had to have a tailback, eventual all-time leading rusher Emmitt Smith was around until No. 17. He only wound up outrushing Thomas by 16,000 yards.

14. Bills’ decision to draft Tom Cousineau No. 1 in 1979

Buffalo owned the choice after dealing O.J. Simpson to the 49ers. But Cousineau took the Canadian Football League’s money and bolted, never playing a down for the Bills. Hall of Famers Dan Hampton and Kellen Winslow went later in that first round.

15. Seahawks’ decision to trade down in 1977

They were induced to deal out of No. 2 after Tony Dorsett threatened not to play in Seattle, so the Cowboys moved up for the future Hall of Fame back. The Seahawks were left with Steve August, Tom Lynch, Terry Beeson and Glenn Carano. Who? Exactly. Guess who won the Super Bowl the following season …

16. QB Art Schlichter, 4th overall 1982, Colts

On the field, he was horrendous (42.6 passer rating). Off the field, he was worse, his gambling problems leading to his suspension for the 1983 season and, later, prison. Schlichter’s issues also forced Baltimore into its ill-advised Elway pick the next year.

17. QB Jack Thompson, 3rd overall 1979, Bengals

The ‘Throwin’ Samoan’ never threw very effectively in six NFL seasons. Furthermore, Cincinnati was just fine behind center anyway with Ken Anderson, who would lead the Bengals to their first Super Bowl two years later. Also, Phil Simms was chosen four slots after Thompson – or, if Cincy needed, like, a developmental quarterback, they could have had, uh, Joe Montana in Round 3 …

18. DE Dion Jordan, 3rd overall 2013, Dolphins

The slender pass rusher was repeatedly suspended and only rewarded Miami with three sacks in two seasons. The Dolphins paid a first- and second-round pick to Oakland to get the Oregon prospect. Philadelphia took future All-Pro OT Lane Johnson with the next selection.

19. WR Johnny ‘Lam’ Jones, 2nd overall 1980, Jets

New York hoped his Olympic speed would translate into stardom. Not so much. Jones never looked natural as a receiver, often leaving his feet while trying to catch easy passes. The next player taken was Hall of Famer Anthony Munoz, arguably the best left tackle of all time. The next receiver selected was Hall of Famer Art Monk. Yeah.

20. DT Steve Niehaus, 2nd overall 1976, Seahawks

Seattle’s maiden draft selection didn’t turn out nearly as well as fellow expansion franchise Tampa Bay’s after the Bucs landed future Hall of Famer Lee Roy Selmon at No. 1. (The Seahawks recovered by acquiring HOFer Steve Largent, who was taken by the Oilers in Round 4 that year.)

21. Buccaneers’ decision to trade down in 1978

Confident in RB Ricky Bell, the No. 1 pick in 1977, Tampa Bay sent the top pick of ’78 to Houston for TE Jimmie Giles and four selections, including a first- and second-rounder. The Oilers? Hello, Earl Campbell.

22. QB Josh Rosen, 10th overall 2018, Cardinals

Arizona traded a first-, third- and fifth-round pick to move up five spots to snatch him 10th overall in 2018. He flopped as a rookie and was replaced by Kyler Murray atop the 2019 draft … when Rosen also burned the Dolphins, who gave up a Round 2 pick to rescue him from the desert before he failed in Miami. Like Darnold, Rosen was a victim of circumstances, but the Cards wouldn’t have reset had they picked Lamar Jackson in 2018 instead.

23. CB Jeff Okudah, 3rd overall 2020, Lions

No corner has ever been picked higher. But heading into his sixth season – when many first-rounders are already raking in money from lucrative second contracts – Okudah is resetting with his fourth team (Minnesota). He’s missed 40 games in his career to date. Worse, quarterbacks have a 103.8 passer rating when targeting the former Ohio State star. Oh, and just to repeat, Justin Jefferson, Justin Herbert, CeeDee Lamb and Tristan Wirfs were among the players taken later in Round 1 that year.

24. P Russell Erxleben, 11th overall 1979, Saints

Groan. Known for his record 67-yard field goal in college with Texas, he proved neither the kicker nor punter New Orleans envisioned. Erxleben is the highest-drafted special teamer of the common draft era (since 1967), going two spots ahead of Hall of Famer Winslow. Erxleben landed in prison later in life for securities fraud.

24a. K Steve Little, 15th overall 1978, Cardinals

Taking a kicker in Round 1, especially in an era when the position was far less reliable, could be forgiven. But not if your guy misses 14 of 27 field goal attempts in three seasons … and when you could’ve had Ozzie Newsome or Doug Williams.

25. QB Sam Darnold, 3rd overall 2018, Jets

In the former USC star’s robust defense, New York did next to nothing to help him flourish, Darnold’s development further hampered by foot and shoulder injuries, mono and checked-out HC Adam Gase. But given then-GM Mike Maccagnan surrendered the No. 6 overall pick (used by the Colts on future All-Pro G Quenton Nelson) and three high second-rounders to advance three slots in order to get into position for Darnold – and he seemed like a slam-dunk acquisition at the time – it’s hard to view this gamble as anything other than a failure given his inability to overcome his circumstances … especially as QBs drafted later (2019 and 2023 MVP Lamar Jackson, 2024 MVP Josh Allen) figured out how to thrive. Yet Darnold finally did, too, last year, when he blossomed into a Pro Bowler with the Minnesota Vikings … success he hopes to sustain in Seattle now.

26. OLB Vernon Gholston, 6th overall 2008, Jets

He played 45 games for New York. He registered nary a sack.

27. QB Kelly Stouffer, 6th overall 1987, Cardinals

He held out his rookie season and got traded to Seattle. Lucky for the Cards, given Stouffer (7 TD passes, 19 interceptions in five seasons) would make subsequent Seahawks franchise QB Rick Mirer – continue reading – look like an All-Pro.

28. WR Troy Williamson, 7th overall 2005, Vikings

Minnesota basically traded Randy Moss to Oakland in order to get this guy … who finished with 153 fewer TDs than Moss.

29. TE Kyle Brady, 9th overall 1995, Jets

New York could have had Warren Sapp. Or Ty Law. Or Derrick Brooks. But in typical J-E-T-S fashion, they screwed it up royally. (And the availability of Law and Brooks didn’t deter the Jets from taking DE Hugh Douglas 16th overall, either.)

30. QB Sam Bradford, 1st overall 2010, Rams

He certainly wasn’t a bad player, and many forget he was Offensive Rookie of the Year. But his injury history at Oklahoma was predictive. The six players selected after Bradford? Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Trent Williams, Eric Berry, Russell Okung and Joe Haden, with Earl Thomas off the board at No. 14. Bradford later cost Minnesota a first- and fourth-rounder in 2016 to replace Teddy Bridgewater but didn’t get the Vikings to the postseason and lost his job to Case Keenum the next year. Bradford never appeared in a playoff game.

31. Browns’ haul for Julio Jones

Cleveland dealt the sixth pick in 2011 to Atlanta – Falcons GM Thomas Dimitroff was widely panned for paying so much to get Jones – and ultimately wound up with NT Phil Taylor, WR Greg Little, FB Owen Marecic and QB Brandon Weeden. (Good job, Tom.)

32. Browns’ 2012 draft

As bad as Weeden (22nd overall) was, RB Trent Richardson, the No. 3 pick, was worse based on relative value. Cleveland sent Minnesota four picks to swap from fourth to third overall. Even when the Browns flipped Richardson to the Colts for a first-round pick in 2013, they eventually wound up with Johnny Manziel.

32a. Browns’ 2014 draft

Manziel (22nd overall) was dreadful. CB Justin Gilbert, the No. 8 pick, was a bigger blunder given his slot.

33. QB Brady Quinn, 22nd overall 2007, Browns

Not only did he add to Cleveland’s litany of quarterback washouts, he cost the Browns a first- and second-round pick in order to trade up for him. (In case you hadn’t noticed, it’s a QB death knell to get drafted by Cleveland at No. 22.)

34. QB Akili Smith, 3rd overall 1999, Bengals

Just abject in four seasons (3-14 record, 5 TD passes, 13 INTs). The next four players taken were Edgerrin James, Ricky Williams, Torry Holt and Champ Bailey. No. 12 selection Cade McNown, Chicago’s QB failure that year, looked all-world relative to Smith.

35. WR Charles Rogers, 2nd overall 2003, Lions

Sadly, he couldn’t evade drugs or injuries. Also, future Hall of Famer Andre Johnson went to the Texans with the next pick.

36. QB Heath Shuler, 3rd overall 1994, Washington

He was a better congressman than quarterback – and wasn’t even the best passer Washington picked in 1994, seventh-rounder Gus Frerotte proving far superior.

37. DE Andre Wadsworth, 3rd overall 1998, Cardinals

Often forgotten in the aftermath of the Manning-Leaf debate atop that year’s draft, but some scouts considered Wadsworth a better prospect than both quarterbacks. Knee injuries sapped his vast potential after just three seasons. Hall of Famer Charles Woodson was chosen next.

38. QB Rick Mirer, 2nd overall 1993, Seahawks

That year’s Drew Bledsoe consolation prize, Mirer was wretched in four years with Seattle (20-31 record, 65.2 passer rating). Oh, and Hall of Famers Willie Roaf and Bettis were available in the top 10.

38a. Bears’ 1997 trade for QB Rick Mirer

Forgot about this, didn’t you? Seattle stole Chicago’s first-round pick in exchange for Mirer, who was even worse in one season in the Windy City. Meanwhile, the Seahawks recovered to draft stud CB Shawn Springs.

39. QB Mitchell Trubisky, 2nd overall 2017, Bears

Another botched move by Chicago atop a draft in an ill-considered bid to fix the century-old organization’s ongoing quarterback conundrum. To simply swap the No. 2 and No. 3 overall selections, the Bears had to give the 49ers a third- and fourth-rounder plus a future third-rounder (used on eventual All-Pro LB Fred Warner in 2018). GM Ryan Pace then picked Trubisky, who was middling at best while starting for two Bears playoff teams – the 2018 edition was Super Bowl-caliber otherwise – when he could have had Patrick Mahomes or Deshaun Watson.

39a. DL Solomon Thomas, 3rd overall 2017, 49ers

For all the capital the Niners inhaled in the Trubisky deal, they flubbed much of it by taking the disappointing Stanford star before trading the 2017 third-round pick … which the Saints used on perennial Pro Bowl RB Alvin Kamara.

40. Raiders’ 2020 draft

As much trouble as former GM Mike Mayock ran into in early rounds, this was the class that ultimately might have gotten him fired. First-rounders Henry Ruggs and Damon Arnette (the latter obtained as part of the Khalil Mack trade years before) were both released in 2021 amid serious off-field incidents, an inebriated Ruggs involved in an auto accident that killed a woman and her dog. Third-rounder Lynn Bowden Jr. was traded to Miami before his rookie season and never amounted to much in the NFL. Fellow third-rounder Tanner Muse never played for the Raiders, either, while WR Bryan Edwards lasted just two seasons in Las Vegas. The best of the bunch is Round 4 G John Simpson, who blossomed with the Ravens and Jets.

40a. Raiders’ 2019 draft

With three first-rounders, this was supposed to be the year that Mayock set the Silver and Black up for years of success. But the immediate criticism of DE Clelin Ferrell, taken fourth overall, proved justified. S Johnathan Abram didn’t make it through his fourth season with the franchise. RB Josh Jacobs was a productive player, but not one the team deemed worthy of a multi-year contract extension. Round 2 CB Trayvon Mullen was also an ex-Raider after three seasons. (Qualifying note: Mayock found DE Maxx Crosby and WR Hunter Renfrow on Day 3, not that they were able to save his job in the final analysis.)

40b. OL Alex Leatherwood, 17th overall 2021, Raiders

Mayock did get one more crack at the draft … and took the Alabama lineman much earlier than most observers had him projected. Unable to handle right tackle in the NFL, Leatherwood moved to guard but was waived prior to the 2022 season – by the regime that succeeded Mayock.

41. Raiders’ 2011 trade for QB Carson Palmer

Can’t blame this on Mayock. Oakland gave up a first- and second-rounder to pry the former No. 1 pick out of Cincinnati and quasi-retirement. A three-time Pro Bowler, Palmer was 8-16 in 1½ seasons with the Silver and Black and was shipped to Arizona – where he reverted to star form – for the net gain of a Round 6 choice in 2013.

42. DE Mike Mamula, 7th overall 1995, Eagles

It’s bad enough that Philly got duped into taking the original scouting combine superstar. Adding to the ignominy, the Eagles traded the 12th pick to Tampa Bay (the Bucs used it on Warren Sapp) plus two second-rounders to elevate into this mistake.

43. Colts’ 1992 draft

Indianapolis owned the top two picks and selected DE Steve Emtman and LB Quentin Coryatt. Emtman was beset by injuries, and Coryatt was a pedestrian performer. This would rank higher, but the ’92 draft was short on talent and hasn’t produced one Hall of Famer – despite running 12 rounds – though Dallas’ Darren Woodson might eventually reach Canton.

44. RB Ki-Jana Carter, 1st overall 1995, Bengals

In fairness, he ripped up his knee in his first preseason game and was never the same. Of note, it could have been much worse for Cincinnati. Expansion Carolina only charged the Bengals the fifth and 36th overall picks to move up for Carter, sweetheart terms by today’s standards. Yet it worked out OK for the Panthers, who took QB Kerry Collins.

44a. DT Dan ‘Big Daddy’ Wilkinson, 1st overall 1994, Bengals

He was average at best for Cincinnati, which could have avoided the Carter gaffe in 1995 by taking Marshall Faulk No. 1 in 1994.

45. WR Treylon Burks, 18th overall 2022, Titans

Rather than pay WR A.J. Brown – now a perennial Pro Bowler, legitimate 1,500-yard receiver and Super Bowl champion – Tennessee traded him to Philadelphia for a pair of picks, including this first-rounder used on Burks. The Arkansas product has produced just 53 catches for 699 yards and one TD in three seasons – a period when the Titans felt the need to acquire WRs DeAndre Hopkins and Calvin Ridley, the latter getting a huge contract last year.

45a. WR Jalen Reagor, 21st overall 2020, Eagles

It must also be noted that Philadelphia was compelled to trade for Brown on the first night of the 2022 draft after the disastrous selection of Reagor, who was Burks-esque through two seasons with 64 receptions for 695 yards and three TDs before being shipped to Minnesota for a cheesesteak. However the real cardinal sin associated with Reagor was that the Vikings drafted Jefferson with the next selection.

46. Todd Blackledge, Tony Eason, Ken O’Brien

If you drafted a quarterback in the first round of the 1983 draft, you had a 50% shot at getting a Hall of Famer – Elway, Jim Kelly or Dan Marino. Otherwise, you got one of these guys, all taken with Marino (27th overall) still available.

46a. DT Gabe Rivera, 21st overall 1983, Steelers

For whatever reason, Pittsburgh also bypassed hometown hero Marino, who would have made a mighty fine acquisition with Terry Bradshaw heading into his final season. Driving drunk, Rivera was paralyzed in a car accident midway through his rookie season.

47. Bears’ post-Walter Payton first-round RBs

Brad Muster (23rd overall pick, 1994), Rashaan Salaam (21st in 1995), Curtis Enis (5th in 1998) and Cedric Benson (4th in 2005) all bombed in the years following Sweetness’ retirement after the 1987 campaign.

48. Cowboys’ 2000 trade for WR Joey Galloway

In one of owner Jerry Jones’ most notorious moves, Dallas sent two first-rounders to Seattle for the speedy receiver. Galloway averaged fewer than 50 yards per game in four years in Big D, while the Seahawks snagged future MVP Shaun Alexander.

49. QB J.P. Losman, 22nd overall 2004, Bills

He followed Eli Manning, Rivers and Roethlisberger as the fourth Round 1 passer in 2004. Oops. Oh yeah, Buffalo also gave up a first-, second- and fifth-rounder to get Losman when it could have simply waited to grab future Pro Bowler Matt Schaub in Round 3.

50. QB Blaine Gabbert, 10th overall 2011, Jaguars

Aside from quarterbacks not named Cam Newton, this was an epic draft. Jacksonville didn’t get a crack at Newton, Von Miller, A.J. Green, Patrick Peterson, Julio Jones or Tyron Smith but could’ve taken J.J. Watt, Robert Quinn, Mike Pouncey, Ryan Kerrigan, Cam Jordan or Mark Ingram (among others – even Andy Dalton) instead of Gabbert. The Jags also gave up a second-rounder to move up six spots for Gabbert. Oy.

50a. QB Jake Locker, 8th overall 2011, Titans

Aside from quarterbacks not named Cam Newton, this was an epic draft. Tennessee didn’t get a crack at Newton, Von Miller, A.J. Green, Patrick Peterson or Julio Jones but could’ve taken Tyron Smith, J.J. Watt, Robert Quinn, Mike Pouncey, Ryan Kerrigan, Cam Jordan or Mark Ingram (among others – even Andy Dalton) instead of Locker. Oy.

50b. QB Christian Ponder, 12th overall 2011, Vikings

Aside from quarterbacks not named Cam Newton, this was an epic draft. Minnesota didn’t get a crack at Newton, Von Miller, A.J. Green, Patrick Peterson, Julio Jones, Tyron Smith or J.J. Watt but could’ve taken Robert Quinn, Mike Pouncey, Ryan Kerrigan, Cam Jordan or Mark Ingram (among others – even Andy Dalton) instead of Ponder. Oy.

All NFL news on and off the field. Sign up for USA TODAY’s 4th and Monday newsletter.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

BOULDER, Colo. — Deion Sanders wasn’t so much Coach Prime as he reflected on the upcoming NFL draft and the immense attention flowing with one particular prospect.

He was Daddy Prime.

And boy, daddy certainly has a vast collection of fresh receipts.

Shedeur Sanders, Deion’s youngest son, is undoubtedly the most polarizing player in the draft. The Colorado quarterback was once considered as a possibility to be chosen No. 1 overall when the draft kicks off on Thursday night at Lambeau Field in Green Bay. Now, if so many of the draft pundits are to be believed, Shedeur’s standing in recent weeks has supposedly tumbled like Tesla stock.

At least that’s the narrative fueling draft hype. Shedeur’s talent, mechanics, arm strength and character have all been criticized during the ramp-up to the draft, often but not always by nameless, faceless sources.

Sure, Shedeur tended to hold onto the ball too long behind shaky protection. Yet his production, toughness and resilience can’t be knocked.

In some extreme cases, though, the shots have been brutal. Of course, even the connection to his college coach – and Hall of Fame father – has been cast in some cases as a detriment.

“It’s silly to us,” Deion told USA TODAY Sports during an expansive interview. “Most of it is laughable. What I told him, too, is, ‘Son, what I’ve learned in my life is when it don’t make sense, it’s God. Because some of this stuff is so stupid it don’t make sense. That means God is closing doors and opening doors to make sure you get to where you’re supposed to go.”

Sure, every draft comes with negativity and smear campaigns for some prospects. No, that doesn’t make it right. And Deion doesn’t buy it.

Some suggest the 23-year-old Shedeur – who passed for 4,134 yards with 37 TDs and led the nation with a 74% completion rate last season – won’t even be a first-round pick.

Now that’s laughable.

“This is venomous,” Deion contended. “It’s to the point where it ain’t even cute no more. It’s so predictable. I’m flipping the channel today, listening. ‘Jaxson Dart is special; Shedeur Sanders ain’t…’ Y’all c’mon. Stop.”

Daddy Prime is hardly the first father to fiercely defend his sons, which includes Shilo, the Colorado safety who is projected to go undrafted. He’s the rare father, though, with an overpowering presence built on his NFL excellence and an electric persona that remains decades since his heyday – a flair that, then and now, has drawn its share of detractors.

Deion thinks that’s a factor about now.

“It’s like just because they come from me, people take unsolicited shots at them. That’s not fair,” said Deion, who coached Shedeur and Heisman Trophy winner Travis Hunter at Jackson State for two seasons before they bolted to Colorado.

“Just say you don’t like me. Just say you’re tired of me winning, you’re tired of me being the light, tired of me being up, just consistently provoking change wherever I go. Just say that. But don’t attack my kids because of that.”

One case that ruffled Daddy Prime’s feathers come out of the NFL scouting combine in late February and early March: Veteran NFL reporter Josina Anderson reported that the quarterbacks coach from one team, with one of the top seven picks in the draft, maintained that Shedeur came off as “brash” and “arrogant” during his interview with the team.

“The brother who lied and said that, I know what team he’s from,” Sanders reflected. “So, I called the head coach. I said, ‘Dog, c’mon, man. This is what we’re doing?”

The coach told Deion that the characterization was off base.

“He said, ‘That never happened. I was in the meeting. I ran the interview. Shedeur never came off like that. That’s not true,” Deion said.

Deion said that in assuring the coach he wouldn’t blow the story up, he added, “But check your staff, man.”

It should also be noted that during his media session at the combine, Shedeur was quite the contrast to the brash and arrogant description. While he expressed confidence that he can be a difference-maker for a team on the NFL level, he was cordial, respectful, witty and classy, thoughtful as he responded to a barrage of questions for 15 minutes.

The scrutiny on Shedeur reminds his father of the debate – and knocks – surrounding another quarterback: Lamar Jackson.

“We see some bull junk every year, but Lamar was probably the most recent,” Deion said.

Jackson, ultimately chosen in 2018 as the final pick of the first round – and fifth quarterback selected – was cast by some as a player who needed to switch to receiver.

“That was ridiculous,” Deion recalled. “Just insulting. But God was in that to get him where he needed to go, the city of Baltimore. Ozzie (Newsome, Ravens then-GM) took a shot at him. And two MVPs later, damn near the highest-paid quarterback later, who won? He won. He got to a better team, to a better situation, by it being later on.”

Deion insists that although he’s met with team owners, GMs and coaches, he’s never tried to influence where Shedeur lands – even if trying to be on the right side of the 50-50 success-to-bust rate for first-round quarterbacks. No, this would not be an Eli Manning-type of power play.

To amplify that message, Deion appeared on ‘The Skip Bayless Show’ podcast earlier this month and declared that Shedeur would embrace being drafted by any NFL team.

Was it important to make that definitive statement?

“No. I didn’t care,” Deion said. “There are some teams that may be right. Some teams I didn’t believe in. Some of them have been drafting early on for the last decade. It don’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that they don’t know what they’re doing.

“So, you’ve got to meet with people and say, ‘This is my son.’ With a quarterback, it’s all about where he goes, with the offensive coordinator, quarterback coach, line, system, all of that. I think there are some really good quarterbacks that got lost in the shuffle because of where they went. I really do. So, I don’t want him to be another statistic, because I know how smart he is. You can’t just tell him anything. He’s going to ask questions about it and you’ve got to be able to answer because he’s been fathered by somebody that knows the game.”

Shedeur won’t be in Green Bay to bear hug NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell after the pick comes in. Daddy Prime, Shedeur’s ultimate hype man, is throwing an invitation-only bash at his home on the outskirts of Dallas with “a beautiful tent and stage,” he said.

“It’s going to be a tremendous moment,” he added of Shedeur’s selection.

When that exact moment hits, though, is one of the most intriguing storylines of the draft. The New York Giants, picking third overall, conducted a private workout with Shedeur on Colorado’s campus last week to add to the plot. The New Orleans Saints, picking ninth, might be a possibility. The Pittsburgh Steelers, who hosted Shedeur for a visit, have the 21st pick and a crying need for a long-term quarterback – even if they strike a deal with Aaron Rodgers. And who knows? Quarterbacks tend to spark the trade market.

All said, big mystery.

“This is the first time when we haven’t been in control,” Deion said. “Like ever since youth football – we chose the youth team, chose the high school, chose the college. We can’t choose this. So, now you’ve got to relinquish all your power and full autonomy. You’ve got to sit back and really trust God.

Then Deion pivoted to another point, mocking questions about arm strength.

“First, he couldn’t throw, but then Pro Day comes and I didn’t hear that no more,” Deion said. “It was like, ‘So, your arm started getting weaker when? You threw across your body 60 yards in the air for a touchdown to take us to overtime with a Hail Mary. So, when did your arm get weak?’

“That kind of stupid stuff. So, he gets it. He’s always been prepared for it because he’s always dealt with it. We even dealt with it in Jackson. He gets it…We get a tremendous amount of light and a tremendous amount of ignorance as well.”

What a different type of draft experience for Daddy Prime. It was 36 years ago when Deion, sporting a Jheri curl, was drafted fifth overall by the Atlanta Falcons. And yes, with a budding Major League Baseball career in the mix, he influenced that selection in a banner draft crop that also included Hall of Famers Troy Aikman, Barry Sanders and Derrick Thomas among the top five picks.

Now the suspense is wrapped with so much speculation.

“He’s not falling,” Deion declared. “We’ve already won. We came from an HBCU, man. Who else will be drafted from an HBCU this year? Or was drafted last year? Or the year before that? The year before that? Since Steve McNair (third overall, 1995)? We won, already. And when they talk about him, they’ve got to mention HBCU and Colorado.”

Over the years, Deion has occasionally playfully “ranked” his five children, which include his youngest daughter, Shelomi, a college basketball player who last year transferred from Colorado to Alabama A&M.

Often, his oldest son, Deion. Jr., 31, has “ranked” No. 1. Deion, Jr.’s “Well-Off Media” company has ignited much online traffic (and recruiting hooks) with his behind-the-scenes content for his father’s program.

Yet, as the draft approaches, there’s no disputing who’s No.1. Still.

“My oldest daughter is No. 1 because she gave me my first grandchild,” he said of Deiondra, who became a mother in 2024. “Then Junior.’

“The boys are last,” he added of Shedeur and Shilo. “I mean, all of this draft drama we’ve got to go through.”

Thus, a draft board from Granddaddy Prime that won’t change on Thursday night.

Follow Jarrett Bell on social media: @JarrettBell

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Steve McMichael, the Pro Football Hall of Famer and member of the Chicago Bears’ Super Bowl 20 team, has died. He was 67 years old.

‘The NFL is heartbroken to hear of the passing of Super Bowl champion and Hall of Famer Steve McMichael after a brave battle with ALS. Our thoughts and condolences are with his family and loved ones,’ the NFL said in a statement on X.

In 2021, McMichael was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and in August 2023 was confined to a bed, which is where he learned of his Hall of Fame selection, surrounded by friends and former teammates. He was officially inducted in August 2024. McMichael earned his spot in the Hall of Fame via the senior committee.

With that selection, McMichael became the sixth member of the famous 1985 Bears team to earn Pro Football Hall of Fame enshrinement, joining Jimbo Covert, Richard Dent, Dan Hampton, Walter Payton and Mike Singletary.

Payton’s son, Jarrett, announced McMichael’s death on X and said he was ‘grateful to have been with (McMichael) in his final moments.’

McMichael, a defensive tackle, was selected in the third round of the 1980 NFL draft by the New England Patriots out of the University of Texas. The Patriots released McMichael after just one season and he was picked up by the Bears, with whom McMichael excelled.

After two years as a reserve, he established himself as a star in 1983 in the Bears’ second season under coach Mike Ditka. McMichael controlled the interior of the line for the Bears’ famed ’46 defense’ that is considered to be one of the NFL’s best defensive units after leading Chicago to an 18-1 record and allowing only 10 points in three playoff wins, including a 46-10 demolition of the Patriots in Super Bowl 20.

In all, McMichael played 13 seasons in Chicago, earning two Pro Bowl selections and two first-team All-Pro nods. McMichael ranks second on the Bears’ all-time sack list behind Dent.

‘Steve McMichael told everyone he would fight ALS with the same tenacity he showed for 15 seasons in the National Football League. And he did just that,’ Pro Football Hall of Fame president and CEO Jim Porter said in a statement.

‘Everyone who played with or against Steve shares the same opinion: No one battled longer or harder from the snap until the whistle than Steve the player. That legendary will to fight allowed him to experience his enshrinement as a member of the Hall’s Class of 2024. And the love his teammates showed him throughout this difficult journey says everything about Steve the man.’

McMichael, nicknamed ‘Mongo,’ enjoyed a post-NFL career that included becoming a pro wrestling fixture.

This story has been updated with new information and video.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

On Monday, the Dow dropped over 1,000 points after President Trump’s new round of criticism directed at Fed Chair Jerome Powell. The selloff reflects continued volatility driven by geopolitical tensions and uncertainty stemming from the ongoing trade war.

Meanwhile, the price of gold continued climbing to record highs, the U.S. dollar slipped to a three-year low, Bitcoin is working to recover the final 20% from its peak, and the broader market continued its downward slide.

This comparative snapshot on PerfCharts illustrates the bigger picture.

FIGURE 1. PERFCHARTS OF GOLD, DOLLAR INDEX, BITCOIN, AND THE S&P 500.  Safe haven is the name of the game.

When capital rotated out of stocks and Bitcoin, did it retreat to cash or gold? It’s a reasonable question, as cash appears to be circling the drain amid gold’s ascent.

Fear Trade Tailwinds

So, what’s going on, particularly with gold prices? Here’s a general snapshot:

  • The U.S. dollar index drop signals a loss of global confidence in the currency.
  • The possibility of Trump removing Powell raises fears about the Federal Reserve’s independence, especially as inflation concerns mount due to rising tariffs.
  • Fed Chair Powell indicated that rate hikes, not cuts, may be needed to control inflation.
  • Global trade tensions are intensifying, with China slashing U.S. oil imports and pivoting to other countries.
  • As the price of gold has broken through major resistance levels, SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) just crossed $100 billion in assets under management for the first time.

One More Thing: The Mar-a-Lago Accord

The so-called “Mar-a-Lago Accord” is an idea tied to Trump’s economic team that would pressure U.S. allies to accept a weaker dollar and lower returns on U.S. debt in exchange for military protection.

If it happens, the dollar would devalue further, making U.S. exports more competitive. Imports would become more expensive, though. A weaker dollar may continue to boost gold and Bitcoin, both viewed as safe havens. As for the S&P 500, some companies, especially exporters, might benefit, but concerns about inflation or trade conflicts could drag the market down even further.

Gold at $4,000 by 2026

While several analysts, such as those at UBS, have set a $3,500 price target for gold, the Goldman Sachs Group forecasts gold at $4,000 by 2026.

Let’s take a look at where gold is now. Take a look at this daily chart.

FIGURE 2. DAILY CHART OF GOLD. With gold at all-time highs, the pullback could bounce at one of these support levels.

While gold’s Relative Strength Index (RSI) reading is registering as “overbought,” you’ll have to wait and see if the current dip develops into a pullback. If it does, the key market highs and lows highlighted by the Price Channels (extended by the magenta dotted lines) are likely to serve as support. I also overlaid the Ichimoku Cloud to provide a wider projected support range into the near future.

If you’re bullish on gold and expecting to reach the $3,500 to $4,000 range as forecasted by analysts, you can use these support levels as favorable entry points. The $2,956 level is especially important; it marks a key swing low, and a close below it could call gold’s uptrend into question.

As for “Digital Gold” (Bitcoin)…

The other safe haven asset, as some would call it (emphasis on “some”), is Bitcoin ($BTCUSD). Let’s take a look at its current price action by zooming in on this daily chart.

FIGURE 3. DAILY CHART OF BITCOIN ($BTCUSD). It’s at a juncture point, currently testing resistance at $88,505.

Looking at the price channels, you can see how Bitcoin has been making consecutive lower lows over the last three months. It has also been making lower highs until March, where the high of $88,505 was tested three times, and that is where the digital asset is currently trading.

The Ichimoku Cloud range and the blue-shaded area highlight this resistance level. If the market decides on Bitcoin as a reliable safe haven, you will see its price break above this resistance level and challenge the next resistance level at $100K before challenging its all-time high at around $109K. Currently, its RSI reading is lifting above 50 and rising, indicating that the crypto has room to run before approaching any range that may be considered overbought.

What About the Dollar?

The weekly chart of the US Dollar Index ($USD) below highlights the key support level the dollar has just broken below.

FIGURE 4. WEEKLY CHART OF THE U.S. DOLLAR. Near-term support is near, but will it hold?

The US Dollar Index is at a three-year low, with support at $97 and $95. The RSI also indicates that the dollar is entering oversold levels. But these technical levels might not mean much considering the alleged intentional devaluation of the dollar. This trend appears to be guided more by political strategy than market fundamentals.

Meanwhile, the fear trade into safe-haven assets is likely to intensify until monetary policy and the current geopolitical chess moves generate a clearer sense of direction and stability.

At the Close

As far as gold’s rise, sentiment is doing the heavy lifting right now, but it’s rooted in legitimate fundamental risks. If those risks persist or worsen, fundamentals may eventually validate even higher price levels. Hence, the Goldman projection of $4,000 an ounce. If you’re looking to enter gold or Bitcoin, I’ve laid out the key support levels for gold and potential headwinds for Bitcoin.

Watch those price levels closely, and stay tuned to the latest geopolitical developments.


Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional.

Radisson Mining Resources Inc. (TSXV: RDS) (OTCQB: RMRDF) (FSE: 2RX) (‘Radisson’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce that it intends to raise C$7 Million in a non-brokered private placement (the ‘Offering’), with the proceeds directed towards advancing the exploration and development of the Company’s O’Brien Gold Project located in the Abitibi region of Québec and for general corporate purposes.

The Offering will include the sale of the following securities (collectively, the ‘Securities‘):

  • Class A common shares of the Company (the ‘FT Shares‘) which shall each qualify as a ‘flow-through share’ as defined in subsection 66(15) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (‘ITA‘) and section 359.1 of the Taxation Act (Québec) (the ‘Québec Tax Act‘), at a price of C$0.34 per FT Share; and,
  • Class A common shares of the Company (‘Common Shares‘) at a price of C$0.30 per Common Share.

The gross proceeds received by the Corporation from the sale of the FT Shares will be used to incur Canadian Exploration Expenses (‘CEE‘) that are ‘flow-through mining expenditures’ (as such terms are defined in the Income Tax Act (Canada)) on the O’Brien Gold Project in the Province of Québec, which will be renounced to the subscribers with an effective date no later than December 31, 2025, in the aggregate amount of not less than the total amount of the gross proceeds raised from the issue of FT Shares.

The closing of the Offering is expected to occur on or about May 15, 2025, and is subject to receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals including the acceptance of the Offering by the TSX Venture Exchange. All securities issued pursuant to the Offering will be subject to a four month hold period from the date of issue. A finder’s fee may apply to a portion of the proceeds raised under the Offering in the amount of 6% cash.

This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy the securities described herein in the United States. The securities described herein have not been and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and may not be offered or sold in the United States or to the account or benefit of a U.S. person absent an exemption from the registration requirements of such Act.

It is anticipated that one or more directors will acquire Securities under the Offering. Any such participation will be considered a ‘related party transaction’ as defined under Multilateral Instrument 61-101 (‘MI 61-101‘). It is anticipated that the transaction will be exempt from the formal valuation and minority shareholder approval requirements of MI 61-101 based on a determination that the securities of the Company are listed on the TSXV and that the fair market value of the Offering, insofar as it involves interested parties, will not exceed 25% of the market capitalization of the Company.

Radisson Mining Resources Inc.

Radisson is a gold exploration company focused on its 100% owned O’Brien Gold Project, located in the Bousquet-Cadillac mining camp along the world-renowned Larder-Lake-Cadillac Break in Abitibi, Québec. The Bousquet-Cadillac mining camp has produced over 25 million ounces of gold over the last 100 years. The Project hosts the former O’Brien Mine, considered to have been Québec’s highest-grade gold producer during its production. Indicated Mineral Resources are estimated at 0.50 million ounces (1.52 million tonnes at 10.26 g/t Au), with additional Inferred Mineral Resources estimated at 0.45 million ounces (1.60 million tonnes at 8.66 g/t Au). Please see the NI 43-101 ‘Technical Report on the O’Brien Project, Northwestern Québec, Canada’ effective March 2, 2023 and other filings made with Canadian securities regulatory authorities available at www.sedar.com for further details and assumptions relating to the O’Brien Gold Project.

For more information on Radisson, visit our website at www.radissonmining.com or contact:

Matt Manson
President and CEO
416.618.5885
mmanson@radissonmining.com

Kristina Pillon
Manager, Investor Relations
604.908.1695
kpillon@radissonmining.com

Forward-Looking Statements

This news release contains ‘forward-looking information’ within the meaning of the applicable Canadian securities legislation that is based on expectations, estimates, projections, and interpretations as at the date of this news release. Forward-looking statements including, but are not limited to, statements with respect to planned and ongoing drilling, the significance of drill results, the ability to continue drilling, the impact of drilling on the definition of any resource, the ability to incorporate new drilling in an updated technical report and resource modelling, the Company’s ability to grow the O’Brien project and the ability to convert inferred mineral resources to indicated mineral resources. Any statement that involves discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, interpretations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions, future events or performance (often but not always using phrases such as ‘expects’, or ‘does not expect’, ‘is expected’, ‘interpreted’, ‘management’s view’, ‘anticipates’ or ‘does not anticipate’, ‘plans’, ‘budget’, ‘scheduled’, ‘forecasts’, ‘estimates’, ‘believes’ or ‘intends’ or variations of such words and phrases or stating that certain actions, events or results ‘may’ or ‘could’, ‘would’, ‘might’ or ‘will’ be taken to occur or be achieved) are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking information and are intended to identify forward-looking information. Except for statements of historical fact relating to the Company, certain information contained herein constitutes forward-looking statements Forward-looking information is based on estimates of management of the Company, at the time it was made, involves known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the companies to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking information. Such factors include, among others, risks relating to the drill results at O’Brien; the significance of drill results; the ability of drill results to accurately predict mineralization; the ability of any material to be mined in a matter that is economic. Although the forward-looking information contained in this news release is based upon what management believes, or believed at the time, to be reasonable assumptions, the parties cannot assure shareholders and prospective purchasers of securities that actual results will be consistent with such forward-looking information, as there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended, and neither the Company nor any other person assumes responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of any such forward-looking information. The Company believes that this forward-looking information is based on reasonable assumptions, but no assurance can be given that these expectations will prove to be correct and such forward-looking statements included in this press release should not be unduly relied upon. The Company does not undertake, and assumes no obligation, to update or revise any such forward-looking statements or forward-looking information contained herein to reflect new events or circumstances, except as may be required by law. These statements speak only as of the date of this news release.

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release. No stock exchange, securities commission or other regulatory authority has approved or disapproved the information contained herein.

Not for distribution to United States newswire services or for dissemination in the United States

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/249318

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Lahontan Gold Corp. (TSXV: LG) (OTCQB: LGCXF) (the ‘Company’ or ‘Lahontan’) is pleased to announce that, further to its press release of April 8, 2025, the Company has increased the size of its non-brokered private placement financing to up to 44,000,000 units (each, a ‘Unit’) at a price of $0.05 per Unit for aggregate gross proceeds of up to $2,200,000 (the ‘Offering’).

Each Unit is comprised of one common share of the Company (each, a ‘Common Share‘) and one-half of one whole Common Share purchase warrant (each whole warrant, a ‘Warrant‘) of the Company. Each Warrant entitling the holder thereof to purchase one Common Share at a price of $0.08 per Common Share for a period of two (2) years from the date of issuance, provided, however, that should the closing price at which the Common Shares trade on the TSX Venture Exchange (or any such other stock exchange in Canada as the Common Shares may trade at the applicable time) exceed CDN$0.12 for ten (10) consecutive trading days at any time following the date that is four months and one day after the date of issuance, the Company may accelerate the Warrant Term (the ‘Reduced Warrant Term‘) such that the Warrants shall expire on the date which is 30 business days following the date a press release is issued by the Company announcing the Reduced Warrant Term

Gross proceeds raised from the Offering will be used for general working capital purposes and for exploration at the Company’s Santa Fe Mine Project.

Closing of the Offering is subject to receipt of all necessary corporate and regulatory approvals, including the approval of TSX Venture Exchange. All securities issued in connection with the Offering will be subject to a hold period of four months plus a day from the date of issuance and the resale rules of applicable securities legislation.

This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy the securities in the United States. The securities have not been and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the ‘U.S. Securities Act’) or any state securities laws and may not be offered or sold within the United States or to U.S. Persons as defined under applicable United States securities laws unless registered under the U.S. Securities Act and applicable state securities laws or an exemption from such registration is available.

About Lahontan Gold Corp.

Lahontan Gold Corp. is a Canadian mine development and mineral exploration company that holds, through its US subsidiaries, four top-tier gold and silver exploration properties in the Walker Lane of mining friendly Nevada. Lahontan’s flagship property, the 26.4 km2 Santa Fe Mine project, had past production of 359,202 ounces of gold and 702,067ounces of silver between 1988 and 1995 from open pit mines utilizing heap-leach processing*. The Santa Fe Mine has a Canadian National Instrument 43-101 compliant Indicated Mineral Resource of 1,539,000 oz Au Eq (grading 0.99 g/t Au Eq) and an Inferred Mineral Resource of 411,000 oz Au Eq (grading 0.76 g/t Au Eq), all pit constrained (Au Eq is inclusive of recovery, please see Santa Fe Project Technical Report*). The Company plans to continue advancing the Santa Fe Mine project towards production, update the Santa Fe Preliminary Economic Assessment, and drill test its satellite West Santa Fe project during 2025. For more information, please visit our website: www.lahontangoldcorp.com.

* Please see the ‘Preliminary Economic Assessment, NI 43-101 Technical Report, Santa Fe Project’, Authors: Kenji Umeno, P. Eng., Thomas Dyer, PE, Kyle Murphy, PE, Trevor Rabb, P. Geo, Darcy Baker, PhD, P. Geo., and John M. Young, SME-RM; Effective Date: December 10, 2024, Report Date: January 24, 2025. The Technical Report is available on the Company’s website and SEDAR+.

On behalf of the Board of Directors

Kimberly Ann

Founder, CEO, President, and Director

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:

Lahontan Gold Corp.

Kimberly Ann
Founder, Chief Executive Officer, President, Director

Phone: 1-530-414-4400

Email:
Kimberly.ann@lahontangoldcorp.com

Website: www.lahontangoldcorp.com

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements:

Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. Except for statements of historical fact, this news release contains certain ‘forward-looking information’ within the meaning of applicable securities law. Forward-looking information is frequently characterized by words such as ‘plan’, ‘expect’, ‘project’, ‘intend’, ‘believe’, ‘anticipate’, ‘estimate’ and other similar words, or statements that certain events or conditions ‘may’ or ‘will’ occur. Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and estimates at the date the statements are made and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements including, but not limited to delays or uncertainties with regulatory approvals, including that of the TSXV. There are uncertainties inherent in forward-looking information, including factors beyond the Company’s control. The Company undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking information if circumstances or management’s estimates or opinions should change except as required by law. The reader is cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional information identifying risks and uncertainties that could affect financial results is contained in the Company’s filings with Canadian securities regulators, which filings are available at www.sedarplus.ca.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO UNITED STATES NEWS WIRE SERVICES OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/249396

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Over the past year, copper prices have reached record highs on two occasions, the most recent being on March 26, when they soared to US$5.26 per pound.

These high prices stem from an increasingly tight copper market, driven by rising demand from population growth and migration in the global south, as well as growing pressures from the energy transition.

This situation is compounded by a limited number of greenfield projects that would introduce new deposits, as opposed to brownfield projects that merely extend the life of existing mines.

The first quarter of the year also witnessed some panic buying, as traders moved inventories into the US to anticipate any tariff-related price increases. Interest in companies developing US copper mines has increased as well as new US President Donald Trump looks to expedite critical metals projects.

Against that backdrop, how have TSX-listed copper companies performed? Learn about the top five best-performing copper stocks in 2025 by year-to-date gains below. Data for this article was retrieved on April 7, 2025, using TradingView’s stock screener, and only companies with market capitalizations greater than C$50 million are included.

1. Northern Dynasty Minerals (TSX:NDM)

Year-to-date gain: 44.71 percent
Market cap: C$689.38 million
Share price: C$1.23

Northern Dynasty Minerals is an exploration and development company focused on the Pebble project, a copper-molybdenum-gold-silver project located 200 miles southwest of Anchorage in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska, US.

Northern Dynasty says the site is “one of the greatest stores of mineral wealth ever discovered.” It hosts a measured and indicated copper resource of 6.5 billion metric tons (MT) and an inferred copper resource of 4.5 billion MT. Measured and indicated resources for molybdenum, gold and silver total 1.26 million MT, 53.82 million ounces and 249.3 million ounces, respectively.

The project stalled in 2020 during the permitting phase following a US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) veto that suggested the proposed mine would damage the Bristol Bay watershed. However, shares of the company surged following Northern Dynasty’s July 2023 announcement that Alaska had appealed to the US Supreme Court to reverse the veto.

However, early in 2024, the US Supreme Court declined to hear the matter on procedural grounds, sending it back to the federal district court and federal circuit of appeals before the Supreme Court would hear it.

Northern Dynasty spent the remainder of 2024 advancing its case in the Alaskan state court. On March 15, it announced the filing of actions to vacate the EPA’s veto. The State of Alaska and two Alaskan Native village corporations followed by filing their own separate suits to vacate.

In August, the Federal District Court granted Northern Dynasty’s motion to modify the complaint by adding the US Army Corps of Engineers as defendants. The company contended that the EPA’s decision was based on the original USACE permit denial and asserted that the decisions were politically motivated.

The latest news from the case came on February 18, when Northern Dynasty announced it would not object to the EPA and USACE motion to halt proceedings for 90 days to allow the incoming Trump administration more time to review the case.

Shares in Northern Dynasty surged following Trump’s March 20 executive order calling for expedited approvals for domestic mineral production and identified copper as a critical mineral. In the order, Trump stated that dependence on mineral production from hostile powers jeopardized national and economic security, urging that the US take immediate steps to boost domestic production.

Shares of Northern Dynasty reached a year-to-date high of C$1.69 on March 25.

2. Arizona Sonoran Copper Company (TSX:ASCU)

Year-to-date gain: 33.79 percent
Market cap: C$268.43 million
Share price: C$1.94

Arizona Sonoran Copper is a development and exploration company dedicated to advancing the Cactus project in Arizona, United States, towards production.

The brownfield asset, situated near Phoenix, was operational from 1972 to 1984. Since then, Arizona has made substantial investments in the project, including a US$20 million reclamation program aimed at remediating the property.

The site features the past-producing Sacaton mine, one historic stockpile, as well as the Cactus East, Cactus West and Parks/Alyer deposits, which span a 5.5 kilometer trend.

According to a preliminary economic assessment from August 2024, at a copper price of US$3.90 per pound the project has an after-tax net present value of US$2.03 billion, an internal rate of return of 24 percent and a payback period of 4.9 years.

Once operational, in the first 20 years the mine is expected to yield an average of 232 million pounds of copper cathode per year. Over its full 31 year mine life, the company anticipates total copper cathode production of 5.34 billion pounds.

The most recent update from the project was on February 25, when the company released assay results from an exploration program at the Parks/Salyer deposit. The release included notable drill core results, with one 391 meter interval showing continuous mineralization at an average grade of 0.74 percent total copper. In that section, a 242 meter interval had an average grade of 0.98 percent total copper and 0.75 percent soluble copper.

Shares in Arizona Sonoran reached a year-to-date high of C$2.44 on March 26.

3. Imperial Metals (TSX:III)

Year-to-date gain: 29.35 percent
Market cap: C$385.25 million
Share price: C$2.38

Imperial Metals is a mine development and production company with operations in British Columbia, Canada.

Its operations include a 30 percent interest in the Red Chris mine in BC’s Golden Triangle, with the remainder owned by Newmont (TSX:NGT,NYSE:NEM,ASX:NEM). Imperial also fully owns the Mount Polley copper-gold mine, which reopened in June 2022, and the Huckleberry mine, which has been under care and maintenance since 2016.

On January 29, the company announced that the Mount Polley mine had met its 2024 guidance, producing 35.7 million pounds of copper and 39,108 ounces of gold.

It also provided an update on its Phase 2 exploration program at Mount Polley, which comprised 6,748 meters across 27 drill holes with both near-pit drilling and drilling of high-priority targets outside the active pit area. The company highlighted one assay result of 0.72 percent copper and 1.43 grams per metric ton (g/t) gold over 127 meters, which included an intersection of 21.5 meters with 1.34 percent copper and 2.65 g/t gold.

Imperial followed this report with updates on 2024 production from Red Chris on February 20. In that statement, it indicated that its share of production was 25.6 million pounds of copper and 17,943 ounces of gold, a significant increase over the 17.12 million pounds of copper and 13,814 ounces of gold produced in 2023. Newmont’s 100 percent 2025 guidance for Red Chris is 88 million pounds of copper and 86,000 ounces of gold.

The release also reported 2025 guidance for Mount Polley. While gold production is anticipated to be in line with 2024, Imperial expects lower copper production in the range of 25 million to 27 million pounds.

According to the release, ‘Phase 4 Springer Pit ore, which has a higher recoverable copper grade is targeted to be fully mined by the third quarter of 2025, with the lower copper grade from the Phase 5 pushback in the Springer pit delivering process ore in the fourth quarter of 2025.’

Shares in Imperial Metals reached a year-to-date high of C$2.80 on April 1.

4. Gunnison Copper (TSX:GCU)

Year-to-date gain: 21.43 percent
Market cap: C$74.12 million
Share price: C$0.255

Gunnison Copper is a copper development company working to advance its Gunnison and Johnson Camp projects in Arizona into production.

Gunnison was originally scheduled to begin operating in 2020 as an in-situ recovery (ISR) project, but startup was delayed due to low flow rates. Gunnison Copper has been evaluating different alternatives to overcome the challenges and obtained permits to begin well simulation using small-scale, shallow-level hydraulic fracking.

However, the company determined that an open-pit operation has ‘substantially improved viability’ compared to the ISR operation at this time, and is now advancing the permitting process for the open pit. Gunnison intends to maintain the option of its fully permitted ISR operation and well stimulation.

Once the open-pit mine is in operation, Gunnison estimates an average annual production of 167 million pounds of copper cathode. The probable mineral reserve for the in-situ operation as of 2016 is 4.5 billion pounds of copper from 782.2 million MT of ore with an average grade of 0.29 percent. The open pit’s 2024 mineral resource estimate showed a measured and indicated resource of 5.1 billion pounds of copper from 831.6 million MT of ore with an average copper grade of 0.31 percent.

The company is also working on restarting operations at the Johnson Camp mine in Cochise County, Arizona. Funding for the project will come from Rio Tinto (ASX:RIO,NYSE:RIO,LSE:RIO) subsidiary Nuton, which will also utilize its proprietary heap leach technology. Once mining operations commence, Nuton will have the option to form a 49/51 joint venture with Gunnison.

In a project update on March 21, the company stated that construction at the Johnson Camp mine was on track to begin its first cathode production in Q3 2025. It also noted that the mining of mineralized material began in January and is being stockpiled in anticipation of the completion of the leach pad.

Shares in Gunnison reached a year-to-date high of C$0.40 on March 24.

5. St. Augustine Gold and Copper (TSX:SAU)

Year-to-date gain: 12.5 percent
Market cap: C$91.03 million
Share price: C$0.09

St. Augustine is a mining development company focused on its King-King project in the Mindanao province of the Philippines.

The project consists of 184 mining claims. According to the most recent preliminary economic assessment from 2013, the company projected an after-tax net present value of US$1.78 billion, with an internal rate of return of 24 percent and a payback period of 2.4 years at a copper price of US$3 per pound and a gold price of US$1,250 per ounce.

The latest news from the company came on March 31 when it released its management discussion and analysis for the year ending December 31, 2024.

In the release, it outlined the current state of the project, which has faced prolonged legal delays. The most significant occurred in 2017 when the Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources ordered a moratorium on open-pit mining for copper, gold, silver and complex ores.

The company stated that to date, there has been no resolution regarding the overturning of the moratorium.

Shares in St. Augustine Gold and Copper reached a year-to-date high of C$0.10 on April 1.

FAQs for investing in copper

Is copper a good investment in 2024?

Many experts have a positive long-term outlook for the red metal based on supply concerns and its growing role in the energy transition. Copper’s price has climbed to new all time highs in 2024, bringing many stocks with it.

Investors who are interested in copper should make sure to perform their due diligence, as the volatility and unpredictability of markets and economies at the moment means that nothing is guaranteed.

What is copper used for?

Copper is used in many industries, from construction to electronics to medical equipment. In fact, in 2020, 32 percent of copper globally was used in equipment manufacturing and 28 percent in building construction.

Two other growing sectors for copper are the burgeoning electric vehicle and green energy industries. Electric vehicles require a significant amount of the red metal per vehicle.

How to invest in copper?

Investors can get exposure to copper in a variety of ways. Holding physical copper is possible, but plenty of storage would be required to hold any significant value of the metal.

For investors looking to invest in the metal without physically holding it, there are a few options. Copper stocks such as those on the TSX, TSXV and ASX are worth looking at. Additionally, there are copper exchange-traded funds and the copper options and futures markets on the London Metal Exchange.

How to invest in a copper ETF?

Copper exchange-traded funds (ETFs) can be a good way to diversify an investment portfolio, and they can be a more stable option compared to individual copper miners or explorers. There are multiple options available on the market, and they can usually be purchased in the same way one could purchase stocks through a broker or trading platform.

In May 2022, Horizons launched Canada’s first copper equities ETF, the Horizons Copper Producers Index ETF (TSX:COPP), which is focused solely on pure-play and diversified copper-mining companies.

There are two ETFs available on the US ARCA exchange as well. The Global X Copper Miners ETF (ARCA:COPX) tracks the Solactive Global Copper Miners Index, which includes copper miners, as well as copper explorers and developers. The other option is the United States Copper Index Fund (ARCA:CPER), which gives investors exposure to copper futures contracts by tracking the SummerHaven Copper Index Total Return (INDEXNYSEGIS:SCITR).

How is copper priced?

The copper price is tracked in two ways: COMEX copper and London Metal Exchange (LME) copper. The COMEX and LME are both options and futures metal exchanges, with the former being headquartered in New York and the latter in London. COMEX copper is priced by the pound, while LME copper is priced per metric ton.

How is copper processed?

Once copper is mined, the ore goes through multiple steps to reach a market-ready state. First, the ore is ground to roughly separate the rock from the copper, as copper typically only makes up 1 percent of the mined rock.

The resultant copper is then slurried with water and chemical reagents, after which air is used to float the copper to the top of the mixture. After the copper is removed from this, it is typically at 24 to 40 percent purity.

Where is copper mined?

Copper is mined throughout the world, with significant production found on every continent besides Antarctica. Chile was the top producer in 2022, putting out 5 million metric tons of the metal. Rounding out the top five are Peru with 2.6 million MT, the Democratic Republic of Congo with 2.5 million MT, China with 1.7 million MT and the United States with 1.1 million MT.

Article by Dean Belder; FAQs by Lauren Kelly.

Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, own shares of Northern Dynasty Minerals.

Securities Disclosure: I, Lauren Kelly, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

Keep reading…Show less
This post appeared first on investingnews.com