2024 NFL Draft Position/Tracker - Final Pick #2

[CapsSkins]

15 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

DC being his hometown is not a positive 

 

I think it depends. Wasn't a bad thing for Jon Allen that we know of. All hinges on what kind of crowd he runs/ran with and who may come out of the woodwork.

 

On the flip side, maybe being by family will keep him grounded and focused instead of feeling lonely and isolated in a different city with too much money and too much free time. 

[The Consigliere]

On 1/1/2024 at 5:42 PM, clskinsfan said:

We are gonna find out soon if they agree with you. Fields has been damn good the past 5 weeks. 

We'll see. I could be wrong, the sense I've gotten with Fields, has always been that the bears, and fans in general have seen special moments and great athleticism, but not enough of a throwing QB. I was a guy who totally lost my ---- when we didn't rade up for Fields. Like Tua in '2020, I had Fields as the 1B to the 1A of the '21 class, and his face planet for the bulk of '21 and '22 other than the rushing angle, and the occasional deep ball was a huge disappointment. I do think this season has been a bit of a revelation, he got a legit stud WR in DJ Moore, and Moore exploded this year once he was combined with Fields. 13 of 20 efficiency categories still say he sucks though. Now add that there's only a 1+1 left on his contract compared to Williams 4+1 and it seems like a no brainer to trade him. Probably the only reason I think it might not happen is the return will likely be ---. They aint getting a first for Fields, let alone a 1st plus, its probably a day 2 pick and a conditional day 3 pick, not bad, but probably not good enough for a top 10 pick they made 3 years ago who hasn't been a bust (exactly). 

 

Will be interesting though. I love Fields. Loved him more three years ago, but I still love the guy. Would I trade for him? Depends upon how cheap he was/is. With only 1 cheap year left on his deal plus the rookie option, he doesn't represent much value in terms of contract, and then you have to pay him big time quick with him still a question mark going into next season. Yikes. If we were picking outside the top 5, I'd consider trading a 3rd, and a 5th this year, for Fields and a 4th in '25, but that's probably all I'd pay. I still think they take Williams, but I think the odds of that went from 1000% in October, to probably 80-90% now. The fact that the fans want Fields makes it even more interesting, gives them more flexibility if he doesn't stink up the finale too because fan blowback is harder to fear if the fans themselves want him. 

[The Consigliere]

On 1/1/2024 at 6:01 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

QB as we know is the biggest game changing position on the field -- miles over a WR.    Going for Nix, a QB in that 2nd tier would feel so deja vu for this franchise.  Reaching for the QB who isn't ballyhooed so much but hoping to get lucky -- that's mostly been the rodeo we've been on.

 

Most draftniks --personnel types really dig the top 3 QBs in this draft judging by everything that's being leaked.    There are a handful of people on the board who think the personnel guys are wrong about it.  

 

But what if the new GM agrees with the overriding take about those QBs versus the outlier positon that some here have about them?  Would you be upset or would it be OK?

 

I got my own opinions on these QBs which I've shared.   But guessing which QBs translate from college to the pros is the hardest position to gauge in sports according to most scouts.  So I am not riding on my opinion as for what I want them to do.  I expect a QB, I'd be shocked if they don't go QB early.  And whichever they choose, I'll trust it.  And if they shock me and don't go QB, and if that QB they skip ends up great -- that GM wrote their own pink slip as far as I am concerned.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2024/insider/story/_/id/39136559/2024-nfl-draft-quarterback-class-williams-maye-daniels-mccarthy

We spoke to more than a dozen NFL scouts and execs over the past month to size this group up. It starts at the top: Is USC's Caleb Williams a lock to go No. 1 overall? And how far behind are North Carolina's Drake Maye, LSU's Jayden Daniels, Michigan's J.J. McCarthy and the rest of the bunch? Some teams will be more focused on the next tier. How many signal-callers overall will get picked in the draft, and which midround sleeper is a favorite among evaluators?

With the help of those pro scouts and GMs, we put this QB class in perspective and took stock of the best passers. 

 

"This is a good quarterback class...said an AFC East scout with over 15 years of experience.

 

An AFC general manager went further, saying, "It's good at the top, but it's a bad year to need a guy after the first round. We could see four or five in the first round, one or two in the second and then none until Day 3."

 

The lack of depth certainly sticks out. We watched 14 quarterbacks get drafted in 2023 -- up from nine the year before -- and a record 12 of them were taken before the end of Round 5. You won't see that in 2024, thanks to injuries, unrealized expectations and a changing reality in college football as players maximize eligibility under name image likeness (NIL) and transfer rules.

 

I personally have four quarterbacks ranked in the top 20 overall: Williams, Maye, Daniels and McCarthy. Then I have second-round grades on Oregon's Bo Nix and Washington's Michael Penix Jr. before a drop-off to Tulane's Michael Pratt (fourth-round grade). Eleven signal-callers make my top 300 right now, which is lighter than the 15 I had in my final top 300 rankings in each of the previous two drafts. And one NFL general manager actually told me that his team's list is even shorter than mine.

 

"We have seven guys [ranked] right now, assuming none of the underclassmen surprise us. And that's why there will be a rush up the board to get the good ones."

Another NFL exec who has been in the industry for over 20 years tried to put it in historical perspective: "This is a better class than the last few years...[Joe] Burrow compares well to Williams. [Justin] Herbert to Maye. You could say McCarthy is this year's Tua [Tagovailoa]. Jayden Daniels is the Jalen Hurts. But 2020 had Jordan Love, too. I don't see that fifth guy this year."

Odd takes to me. To my mind, anyway, having 5 or 6 guys worth a top 60 pick is great depth. I'm not stupid. I know the hit rate after round 2 is miniscule (and honestly, after the top 35 basically). You have hits, no doubt, our Howell is a hit, Dak was a hit, Hurts was a hit, Minchew, kind of a hit even though he hasn't really been treated like it, Carr was a hit, Purdy is a hit, Cousins was a hit, but of all those guys, 2 or 3 of them are guys you'd hand a playoff too, and they stretch across a decade and more of NFL history, there have been countless QB's not named taken in rounds 3-7, who've missed, covering a huge chunk of the space of those "depth" QB's being mentioned, and those are the guys apparently missing in this class. Who cares? You get about 1 of those guys hitting every 4-5 years (and if you're counting 5th round or later, the hit rate is even lower). It's a weird take to me, I view a QB class as very deep if it offers five or six QB's worth taking a swing at in the first 60 picks, that's more than normal, not less, but I guess part of that is that I view day 3 picks, as basically playing blindfolded darts, pointless and largely hopeless. It's not hitting the lottery level rare, but it its basically what, a 1 in 30 to 1 in 40 shot? Doesn't make sense to even try unless it's a guy like Howell or Purdy who had a great CV, and slipped, rather than just a depth guy that was projected there all along and is available late as expected. 

[The Consigliere]

On 1/1/2024 at 6:23 PM, @DCGoldPants said:

Kiper scrubs the interwebs of his previous years. He doesn't want anyone to know how much he loved Jimmy Clausen. 

Ahhh man, I think that's kind of silly. Its all on video, youtube etc. You can't scrub it. I've got no issue with it any of it.

 

I will freely own what I got right and wrong, from loves lost (Culpepper, Leinart, Locker, RGIII, Winston, Rosen, Tua and Fields) to hits on hate or love (Cade McCown, Russell, Weeden, Bradford, Danny Nickels, Z. Wilson, and Pickett for haterade, my loves the past decade or so that hit included Luck, Mahomes and Watson, sorta (got thrown off on Watson with the velocity test which I abandoned forevermore afterwards), Kyler, Tua kinda, Richardson, Burrow like everyone etc, and like almost everyone here, I loved the Howell pick and we were kinda right, at bare minimum (he can play in this league and he was the best QB in that class, WAY better than Pickett). 

 

Gotta own it.  I own that I struggle badly w/QB's, I'm much better w/WR's, RB's, and TE's. 

[The Consigliere]

On 1/1/2024 at 7:01 PM, AlwaysBeRedskins2Me said:

Wait, does RG3 not count? Lol. He was a beast before blowing out his knee. Technically we went 10 - 6 in his rookie season. Does that count as a winning QB? 😂

I think when people think about the QB position they are thinking about developed franchise QBs, guys like Joe Montana and John Elway, and also like Steve Bartkowski and Justin Herbert and Josh Allen and Ben Roth etc. Guys that are drafted, developed in house and become franchise guys. Kirk was always borderline, a kind of Neil Lomax type, produced franchise #'s but also always seemed to have a heavy hand in why franchise style results did not happen. Cousin's sits in that weird middle ground, he's got the #'s, but no notable performances at all, and so is he really one? If he isn't, then we haven't had a franchise QB developed in house since Baugh. RGIII might or might not have become one if not for the injury, probably "not" but one never will know since the injury with absolute certainty. So we're basically looking for our first since Baugh. No team in the NFL has even close to a track record this bad. Of course, part of the reason was the unusual approach the franchise took from around 1970-1993, that was 23 years of possibilities replaced by traded draft picks and the team essentially filling the role with trade acquisitions and the occasional late round pick up and then the putrid record of drafting for the following 30 years after that which usually involved QB shortcuts rather than serious attempts to address the issue like 1994, and 2012. But even w/that knowledge in tow, its pretty insane that its been around 85 years since we've drafted and developed a franchise QB. Our own divisional foes (since they shrunk the east to four teams) have drafted and developed 5 franchise QB's since 1999 alone (Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Dak Prescott and Jalen Hurts) and yet we haven't done it since the Great Depression? Pretty insane. Even the Cardinals who have since departed the division decades ago developed one in Kyler Murray and in the 70's and 80's produced Jim Hart and Neil Lomax. Maybe both of them were more Kirk Cousins than say Prime era Kurt Warner, but that's still 3 guys (and hell, I didnt even mention Jake Plummer who was pretty solid) since I was born, while we're still either Cousins, or zero. Rather nuts. 

[The Consigliere]

On 1/1/2024 at 7:52 PM, CapsSkins said:

2012: RG3 at 2 overall and Kirk Cousins at 102 overall

 

2023: Caleb/Drake/Jayden at 2 overall and Nix/Penix at 102 overall 

Those guys aren't lasting that long. Not even close to that long.

[BurgundyBooger]

9 hours ago, CapsSkins said:

 

I think it depends. Wasn't a bad thing for Jon Allen that we know of. All hinges on what kind of crowd he runs/ran with and who may come out of the woodwork.

 

On the flip side, maybe being by family will keep him grounded and focused instead of feeling lonely and isolated in a different city with too much money and too much free time. 

I feel the people who actually matter (immediate relatives) could always move to where he plays. It’s not like he wouldn’t be able to afford bringing them there. But there are way more distractions and destructive elements potentially lurking for him here, IMO, and he needs every bit of focus to successfully develop and transition to the pros.

[LetThePointsSoar]

19 hours ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Here it is for Wash v NE

 

 

Plus an additional insult from me.

 

 

We need a loss and 3 stars, correct? 

[FootballZombie]

16 minutes ago, LetThePointsSoar said:

We need a loss and 3 stars, correct? 

 

Yup

[Conn]

17 minutes ago, LetThePointsSoar said:

 

We need a loss and 3 stars, correct? 

If New England loses also, yes. If they win, no. 

[SoCalSkins]

15 hours ago, CapsSkins said:

I am torn between two approaches to picking a QB at 2 overall:

 

1) Who is most likely to be a top-5/top-10 elite QB?

 

2) Who is most likely to be worth a big $ extension after their rookie deal?

 

One approach is more aggressive while the other is more risk-averse. I see both sides. It's something I'd ask the new FO if I had the opportunity, which I won't, but maybe we'll get a glimpse of their thought-process in their media availabilities.

Regardless of who the pick is they probably have a 10% or less chance of not being a bust. Let’s not pretend there is any realistic risk aversion selecting a QB. We gotta roll the dice and hope it’s our turn. Probably won’t be but we didn’t think Dan would be gone either so who knows. 

[The Consigliere]

On 1/2/2024 at 4:17 PM, profusion said:

 

Ron is the king of the meaningless win, so I'm not assuming we lose.

 

Picking at three would be tough. I think there's a good chance that Daniels falls pretty far. Fear of failure will make GMs wary of picking the consolation prize that high. I'd be tempted to take Harrison and the best QB still available in the 2nd round--or to trade down and get that OT they also need.

I don't think there's much of a chance he falls super far. He's a ridiculous athlete, he's been enormously productive since his transfer, if he does the combine, he will probably explode it. This isn't a Malik Willis scenario where the hype isn't shared by scouts and GM's, those guys love him too. The question is how much his stock could go up if they are really, really impressed by his throwing, and by his body (too slim now?) and of course his testing, which is liable to be insane. I don't think he slips farther than 4, and probably goes 3. I could see the Patriots trading down. They were too stupid in '18 and passed on Lamar then, and Bill loves, loves, loves trading down (if he's still around), and that team needs a full scale rebuild like ours does, it's not like the Bears where they have parts, just lack a QB and have a dolt for a coach. Of course Bill sounds like hes either gone or divested of GM duties so that doesn't matter. But so long as the GM's and Scouts continue to talk him up, I don't think there's a chance he falls, at all, because we already know he's gonna be absurdly impressive at the combine. 

 

The latter thoughts I'm simply too tired of reading. I get the angle of it: get that OL, you can't train or evaluate a QB if you can't protect them, but you also can't build anything of note without one in the first place. 

 

If we draft a QB and miss badly, it is not the end of the world as so many of you seem to think, it's often a win, win scenario, and actually pays  off better long term either way, then trying to build everything else first: The Cardinals have gotten two more bites at the apple after missing with Rosen, the Jets would have gotten another after taking Darnold and later Wilson, if they hadn't already built such a ridiculous defense, the Giants are close to being well positioned for Daniels after missing on Danny Nickels, the Bears have been well positioned since missing on Trubisky and sort of missing with Fields, the Patriots after missing on Mac Jones, the Redskins were after blowing it on Haskins, the Panthers after missing on Bryce Young.

 

It's a gift that keeps giving. If you hit, like the Chiefs in '17, like the Bills and Ravens in '18, like the Bengals, Dolphins, and Chargers in '20, like the Texans in '23, like we think maybe the Jags did in '21, or at least kinda hope they did if you own Lawrence in Dynasty Fantasy. Then you're set.

 

If you miss, it tends to screw you over so thoroughly, you get to bite again and again at the apple until you don't miss. Since its virtually impossible to win without them, I'd 1000% prefer trying and missing, and trying again, to trying to win without a QB like we've been doing since Sammy Baugh, and have failed utterly at it from 1952-2023, other than that one little generation split in half from the early seventies to the early nineties, when a fundamentally different version of the league provided an opportunity for us to find a path through, that is no longer possible. 

Edited January 5 by The Consigliere

[profusion]

10 hours ago, The Consigliere said:

I think when people think about the QB position they are thinking about developed franchise QBs, guys like Joe Montana and John Elway, and also like Steve Bartkowski and Justin Herbert and Josh Allen and Ben Roth etc. Guys that are drafted, developed in house and become franchise guys. Kirk was always borderline, a kind of Neil Lomax type, produced franchise #'s but also always seemed to have a heavy hand in why franchise style results did not happen. Cousin's sits in that weird middle ground, he's got the #'s, but no notable performances at all, and so is he really one? If he isn't, then we haven't had a franchise QB developed in house since Baugh. RGIII might or might not have become one if not for the injury, probably "not" but one never will know since the injury with absolute certainty. So we're basically looking for our first since Baugh. No team in the NFL has even close to a track record this bad. Of course, part of the reason was the unusual approach the franchise took from around 1970-1993, that was 23 years of possibilities replaced by traded draft picks and the team essentially filling the role with trade acquisitions and the occasional late round pick up and then the putrid record of drafting for the following 30 years after that which usually involved QB shortcuts rather than serious attempts to address the issue like 1994, and 2012. But even w/that knowledge in tow, its pretty insane that its been around 85 years since we've drafted and developed a franchise QB. Our own divisional foes (since they shrunk the east to four teams) have drafted and developed 5 franchise QB's since 1999 alone (Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Dak Prescott and Jalen Hurts) and yet we haven't done it since the Great Depression? Pretty insane. Even the Cardinals who have since departed the division decades ago developed one in Kyler Murray and in the 70's and 80's produced Jim Hart and Neil Lomax. Maybe both of them were more Kirk Cousins than say Prime era Kurt Warner, but that's still 3 guys (and hell, I didnt even mention Jake Plummer who was pretty solid) since I was born, while we're still either Cousins, or zero. Rather nuts. 

 

RG III is the ultimate "what if", but his body was simply never going to withstand the rigors of NFL life.

 

As you say, the Redskins haven't drafted a true elite "franchise" QB since Baugh. Cousins and Rypien are probably the closest they've come to that, but I wouldn't consider either elite.

 

I do think there needs to be an asterisk beside this stat, though. I'd consider Theismann to have been "developed" by the Redskins, since his only experience prior to joining them was a few years in the CFL. He sat for four years behind Kilmer before he got the starting nod. It's such an odd thing, since the Redskins focused more on trades than the draft during the Allen, Pardee, and Gibbs eras.

4 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

I don't think there's much of a chance he falls super far. He's a ridiculous athlete...

 

You're probably right, but it seems like there's always that one guy who falls a long way, and he'd be my guess. Like you say, what happens at the combine may change the entire draft analysis.

[mistertim]

12 minutes ago, profusion said:

You're probably right, but it seems like there's always that one guy who falls a long way, and he'd be my guess. Like you say, what happens at the combine may change the entire draft analysis.

 

If a team was willing to gamble on a super athlete running type QB at 4th overall last year in Anthony Richardson, they'll absolutely be willing to take Jayden Daniels, who is about 10x the passer Richardson was in college and was an even more prolific runner, that high.

[ThatNFLChick]

So I've moved to watching Jayden Daniels after watching a bunch of Maye. 

 

Daniels was REALLY good as a freshman at Arizona State, runner up for Offensive Player of the Year, beat several ranked teams like Oregon with a far less talented squad (besides Aiyuk). He also seemed to run a slightly different offense than the one at LSU as his head coach was former NFL coach Herm Edwards. It's wild people act like he was only good at LSU. His freshman year, he and Aiyuk had Arizona State performing way above the talent level of the team. 

 

 

 

Also a freshman Jayden Daniels vs Justin Herbert and #6 ranked Oregon is a fun one to watch:

 

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

18 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:

Whenever we play Caleb Williams, I will post this in the Look-a-Like thread:

Crabman from My Name is Earl

 

I loved that show.

[redskinss]

1 hour ago, SoCalSkins said:

Regardless of who the pick is they probably have a 10% or less chance of not being a bust. Let’s not pretend there is any realistic risk aversion selecting a QB. We gotta roll the dice and hope it’s our turn. Probably won’t be but we didn’t think Dan would be gone either so who knows. 

I don't know the numbers but I'd think it'd be higher than ten percent wouldn't it?

 

The history of quarterbacks succeeding with the number two overall selection is iffy at best but I'd guess closer to 30 or 40 percent but I certainly could be wrong.

 

Edit, nevermind I Googled it, first overall is pretty good, second is ugly.

Edited January 5 by redskinss

[Warhead36]

You cant make decisions based on fear of failure. Thats how bad organizations operate.

[SoCalSkins]

1 hour ago, redskinss said:

I don't know the numbers but I'd think it'd be higher than ten percent wouldn't it?

 

The history of quarterbacks succeeding with the number two overall selection is iffy at best but I'd guess closer to 30 or 40 percent but I certainly could be wrong.

 

Edit, nevermind I Googled it, first overall is pretty good, second is ugly.

We have had arguably 1 successful first round draft pick at QB since the founding of the franchise in 1932 and that was Sammy Baugh. Rest are bust or mediocre or 1 year wonders. 

[CobraCommander]

20 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

We have had arguably 1 successful first round draft pick at QB since the founding of the franchise in 1932 and that was Sammy Baugh. Rest are bust or mediocre or 1 year wonders. 

The probability of that seems like it should be 0 but damn. That’s a sobering thought.

[Skinsinparadise]

We are in trouble now 

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

On 1/2/2024 at 11:05 AM, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Granted, evaluation and analysis of future NFL quarterbacks is not exactly my wheelhouse, and I’ve only seen highlights, but I didn’t get super excited when I watched Drake May. Outside of his body, there wasn’t anything that stood out to me as special.

I’ve grown a lot since I first posted this and I now recognize Drake Maye as the best prospect I have seen in the last 35 years.

[The Consigliere]

On 1/3/2024 at 4:22 AM, Panninho said:

 

I think it is very unlikely that the Bears move forward with Fields and I think it would be a mistake for them. While the Bears have played some decent football recently, that was mostly due to their defense that has played really well these last couple of games (they rank 1st in EPA allowed since week 10). Fields was not bad by any means but the narrative that he has played great is also a bit weird. They are 4-1 over their last 5 games and Fields has accounted for 5 TDs (rushing and passing) and 5 TOs (3 more fumbles that the Bears recovered). During that time that have played the Vikings (without Cousins), the Falcons, the Cardinals, the Browns and the Lions. Against the two good teams they went 1-1 and against the stout Browns defense, Fields did not break 200y and threw 1 TD and 2 interceptions. The most yards he has thrown for in those games is against the Falcons with 268.

 

Now there were also some drops and he made some really impressive throws in some of the games. But he is still playing like a below average QB this season (also over the last couple of weeks)

 

 

PFF basically grades him as an average QB over these couple of wins:

 

 

 

 

There's one thing I can say about this, and it's what I said 2 months ago after the trade with the Bears. To paraphase, "yes, yes, they keep saying the 35th overall pick, but if you look at the Bears second half schedule, there's a very real chance that pick will drop to the 40-45 zone". I posted about that a gazillion times, it was one of the reasons I was torn about every game the Bears played, because the worse they played the harder it would be to pass them, but with our schedules reversing down the stretch (ours getting much tougher, there's getting much easier) the Bears could easily pile up wins, while we might enter a tailspin if the team quit and or the tough defenses Howell face killed him (seems to have been both). 

 

For us, the second half schedule for the Bears has been both a gift and a curse. It's allowed us to pass them quite easily in draft slotting, and it's also filled their heads with the possibility of maxing draft capital and possibly doing something stupid with the no brainer 1.01 decision, but it's also seriously hurt the value of that second rounder, plunging it from 35th overall in early October to around 41st or 42nd now. 

 

But this was all forseeable, and while I can believe Fields is playing a bit better, as a guy I was and am a fan of, its impossible to just shrug off the fact that that second half schedule of:

Vs Panthers

@ Lions

@ Vikings

vs Lions

@ Browns

vs Cardinals

vs Falcons

 

a nice 5-2 run against teams nobody is afraid of (except maybe the Lions when they're "On" and the Browns Defense, and now wrapping up with a roadie against Green Bay. 

 

We'll see what happens, but good or bad fields, when I looked at that schedule, I argued they would win 3-5 games, easy, putting them at 5-12 if they stunk it up, but as good as 7-10 if they did run the wins off as I theorized they probably could. Unfortunately they've been a bit better than I thought. I put them at a 7 win ceiling, but they could hit 8. Wow. But just remember, that's a post trade deadline schedule w/nothing that would bother any team with genuine ambitions to win (other than that Lions offense and Browns defense). 

 

I suspect the packers will win this weekend, but I'm not entirely convinced. The Packers are a team that shows up only some of the time, but if Reed is healthy, their offense seems to function a lot better. Nice receiver, that, playerprofiler was all over him last spring and they nailed that guy. 

 

On 1/3/2024 at 10:22 AM, Jumbo said:

Poor ****ing terry. I know it's common here not to see him as a true, obvious, number one or elite, and this season has been particularly rough for several obvious reasons which should be laid on the hc, but I saw his talent as such that were he playing for Minnesota or Cincinnati he'd be right under Jefferson and Chase. As in he'd look quite close to their level. Just my take, obviously.

It's just too bad he wasted his prime with us. By the time we have QB figured out, if we ever do, he'll be well past it :(. He's already crossed the apex for WR's. 

[RWJ]

52 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

We are in trouble now 

 

 

Ron, your late to the party, my friend.  This has been seen a couple times especially with the playoffs on the line last year.  No problems.  You need a break.  It's coming and I hope the best for you.  Dallas will not only have you for lunch but for breakfast, lunch and dinner at the end of the game, Sunday. 

[DiscoBob]

17 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

DC being his hometown is not a positive 

 

....but he knows all the best places to get drugs and hookers....