Brian Thomas Jr. Earns Surprising Mention Alongside NFL Superstars

Brian Thomas Jr. Earns Surprising Mention Alongside NFL Superstars originally appeared on Athlon Sports.
Following a strong rookie campaign, Brian Thomas Jr. appears ready for a breakout sophomore season. The Jacksonville Jaguars will rely on their young star as part of a solid group of receivers as they attempt to regain playoff success behind Trevor Lawrence.
Advertisement
He'll be on the field with other talented receivers, including Dyami Brown, Parker Washington, and promising rookie Travis Hunter. However, some believe Thomas Jr. will be the one getting all the praise.
In his debut NFL season, fans marveled as he racked up 1,282 yards and 10 touchdowns on 87 receptions. The former LSU star also helped with six rushing player for 48 yards and achieved Pro Bowl status as a newcomer.
One analyst believes Thomas Jr. is poised for a stellar 2025 NFL season that could have him discussed with several elite players.
Jacksonville Jaguars wide receiver Brian Thomas Jr. (7).Eric Hartline-Imagn Images
Thomas Jr. is ranked at No. 44 on CBS Sports analyst Pete Prisco's Top 100 NFL Players list. Prisco mentions that the rookie Hunter is getting all the talk before the new season, but that many people forget how impressive Thomas Jr. was on a bad offense last season.
Advertisement
That's not all, Prisco also mentioned several other elite receivers that he expects Thomas Jr. to be contending with for top-tier status.
"By this time next year, we're going to be talking about Brian Thomas Jr. in the same class as Ja'marr Chase and Justin Jefferson," he said during CBS Sports HQ.
For Prisco's 2025 list, Thomas Jr. is the sixth overall receiver to appear in the top 100. The only players ahead of him are Justin Jefferson, Ja'marr Chase, CeeDee Lamb, Tyreek Hill, and A.J. Brown.
Earlier this month, the sophomore receiver had an injury scare at minicamp, colliding with teammate Tyson Campbell. Despite fear of a shoulder injury, NFL.com reported head coach Liam Coen said Thomas Jr. was 'fine,' and it was just a bruise.
Advertisement
Thomas Jr. isn't the only Jacksonville Jaguars player to appear on Prisco's list. Defensive end Josh Hines-Allen is No. 76 with Prisco mentioning he's dropped weight which will help him be more explosive this coming season.
Related: Brian Thomas Jr. Had a Lot to Say About Travis Hunter
Related: Jaguars Rookie Travis Hunter Reacts to Madden NFL 26 Rating
This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 20, 2025, where it first appeared.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Associated Press

7 minutes ago

• Associated Press

Ogwumike has 25 points and 12 rebounds, Diggins scores 24 to help Storm beat Aces 90-83

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Nneka Ogwumike had 25 points and 12 rebounds, Skylar Diggins added 24 points and six assists and the Seattle Storm beat the Las Vegas Aces 90-83 on Friday night. Gabby Williams had 18 points and 12 rebounds for her first career double-double, and Erica Wheeler scored 10 of her 17 points in the fourth quarter for Seattle (8-5). Jackie Young led the Aces (5-7) with 22 points and A'ja Wilson, who returned from a three-game absence (concussion protocol). added 22 points and 14 rebounds. Rookie Aaliyah Nye scored a season-high 13. The Aces have lost three straight for the first time this season and just the second since the Storm swept Las Vegas in the best-of-five 2020 WNBA Finals. Wheeler made a 3-pointer and a layup, Diggins hit a pull-up jumper and Ogwumike made a layup to cap a 9-2 spurt that gave the Storm an 88-81 lead with 2:55 to play. The Aces went 0 for 3 from the field, 3 for 6 from the free-throw line and committed two turnovers over the final 5 1/2 minutes. Ogwumike had two steals and moved past Sancho Lyttle (634) and Jia Perkins (635) into sixth in WNBA history with 636 career steals. Jewell Loyd had 15 points for Las Vegas against her former team. Loyd, the No. 1 overall pick by Seattle in the 2015 WNBA draft, helped the Storm win two titles and was a six-time WNBA All-Star during her 10 seasons with the team before she requested a trade last offseason. The Storm beat Las Vegas 102-82 on May 25 and the Aces beat Seattle 75-70 on June 1. Up next The Aces play Caitlin Clark and the Indiana Fever on Sunday at T-Mobile Arena. The Storm, who have won five of six, host New York on Sunday. ___ AP WNBA:

Forbes

9 minutes ago

• Forbes

New Jersey Anti-SLAPP Law Applies In Part In Federal Court In Paucek

The U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are split on the application of Anti-SLAPP laws in the federal ... More courts. Chip Paucek had been the CEO of a company (U2, Inc.) which had failed under some negative circumstances. Paucek is now the CEO of a new company (Pro-Athlete Community, Inc. a/k/a "PAC") which provides educational and other support to professional athletes who have ceased playing. Paucek came to the attention of Dahn Shaulis, who is a blogger covering the education industry through his publication Higher Education Inquirer ("HEI"). After following Paucek's failure with U2, Shaulis then began to investigate and cover Paucek's new venture, PAC. Long story short, Shaulis made some unflattering comments about Paucek on social media. Paucek had his attorney send Shaulis a cease-and-desist letter which also called for Shaulis to retract the offending comments. Shaulis agreed to do so, but only on terms that were unacceptable to Paucek. The day after receiving Paucek's cease-and-desist letter, Shaulis then posted on social media that he had received the letter but that he stood by the statements therein based on a variety of information. Paucek then sued Shaulis in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Paucek alleged that Shaulis' social media posts were defamatory and that Shaulis had intentionally interfered with Paucek's prospective business relations. Shaulis responded by filing a motion to first determine if the New Jersey Uniform Public Expression Protection Act ("UPEPA") applied in federal court and which of several states' Anti-SLAPP laws should be applied to this controversy. The idea here was that the court would decide these threshold issues before Shaulis filed his UPEPA motion to dismiss (which had not yet been filed as of the time of this opinion). Shaulis also answered Paucek's complaint with a counterclaim under the UPEPA. All of this led to the opinion in Paucek v. Shaulis, 2025 WL 1298457 (D.N.J., May 6, 2025), that you can and should read for yourself here, and which we will next review. The first question addressed by the court was whether the New Jersey UPEPA would be recognized in federal court. The issue here is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) already provide a means for the early dismissal of a case, which is by way of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. If a defendant attaches evidence to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, then that motion is converted to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. As I have often written, a special motion to dismiss or strike under the UPEPA is essentially an early summary judgment motion and akin to a "motion to dismiss on steroids". In fact, the UPEPA deliberately uses the summary judgment standard to test whether the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because that standard is well-understood by the courts and has already withstood constitutional challenges based on the plaintiff's right to a jury trial. So, the question becomes: if the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is already employed by the federal courts, then why substitute it with the UPEPA? The answer is twofold. First, in diversity of citizenship cases (as here), the federal courts will apply their own procedural rules but they are also required to apply the substantive rules of the state from where the action arises. This is known as the Erie doctrine, after a 1938 U.S. Supreme Court opinion of that name. But there is an important limitation, being that if the state substantive law "is in direct collision" with the federal procedure on some issue, then the federal procedure will govern that issue. Second, there are some differences between a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and a UPEPA special motion, mostly being the UPEPA special motion triggers a stay of discovery and the UPEPA automatically awards attorney fees to a defendant who successfully asserts a UPEPA special motion. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion does neither of these things. This is not the first time that a federal court has addressed whether the state law UPEPA should apply in the federal courts. In fact, throughout the nation, the state law UPEPA has been asserted in many federal court cases. The problem is that the federal courts have not all agree on the outcome, but rather there has been a split of opinion by the various federal circuits. The Fifth, Tenth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that Anti-SLAPP laws do not apply in federal court, while the 1st and 9th Circuits have held that they do. For its part, the Second Circuit has opinions going both ways, but with the latest opinions stating that Anti-SLAPP law do not apply in federal court. Obviously, the U.S. Supreme Court is eventually going to have to step in and resolve this split of decisions among the Circuits, but we're not there yet. The District of New Jersey, where this case was heard, sits in the 3rd Circuit which hasn't ruled yet on the issue. The court here declined to look at the issue as merely being one of whether an Anti-SLAPP law should apply in federal court or not. Rather, the court thought that the correct analysis was whether a particular Anti-SLAPP law (here, New Jersey's UPEPA) through its text and structure was in conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This would be the analysis to be followed by the court. To this end, it was obvious to the court that some provisions of the UPEPA do indeed conflict with the FRPC. One example is that of the UPEPA mandating that a defendant who successfully brings a UPEPA special motion will be awarded attorney's fees. By contrast, the FRPC instead requires that before such attorney fees can be awarded, a successful party would have to prevail on either summary judgment or at trial. This means the defendant must prove that the plaintiff has no case, which is different than the UPEPA which requires the plaintiff to establish that he can make at least a prima facie case to avoid dismissal. Other conflicts of the UPEPA with the FRPC include an immediate appeal of right to the defendant if the UPEPA special motion is unsuccessful, and also the automatic stay of discovery upon the filing of a UPEPA special motion. So, there were conflicts between the UPEPA and the FRPC where their provisions collided. But that did not mean to the court that the entire UPEPA would be disallowed in federal court, but rather only that the conflicting provisions of the UPEPA would be surgically excised and in those places the federal rules would be substituted in their stead. This is known as "severability" and it is essentially the same process as where the illegal provisions of a contract are cut out but the surviving operating provisions will be enforced. This is the approach that has been followed by the Second and Ninth Circuits, which allows a court to enforce the state Anti-SLAPP procedures where they do not conflict with the federal rules, but replace those procedures with the corresponding federal rule where they do conflict. Now the court returned to the Erie doctrine which, it will be recalled, requires a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction to apply state substantive law but federal procedural law. Thus, it would only be the procedural parts of a state's Anti-SLAPP laws, including the UPEPA, that would be replaced by the federal rules. The substantive parts of the state's Anti-SLAPP laws would survive and be utilized under the Erie doctrine. This brought the court to one of the questions before it: Was the UPEPA's mandatory award of fees to a defendant who successfully asserted a UPEPA special motion to be considered substantive or procedural in nature? Under the Erie doctrine, a fee-shifting provision is typically considered to be substantive in nature because it is tied to the outcome of the litigation (a procedural rule is not). But there are times when a fee-shifting provision would be procedural, such as when such fees are awarded because of a party's bad faith conduct ― but that is not tied to the outcome of the litigation. Because the UPEPA's mandatory fee award is tied to the outcome, since it can only be awarded if the defendant prevails on the UPEPA special motion, the court held that the UPEPA fee-shifting provision is substantive and not procedural. But the UPEPA in fact has two fee-shifting provisions. As mentioned, the first provision awards attorney fees to a defendant who wins on the UPEPA special motion. This is different than the second provision, by which a court has the discretion to award attorney fees to the plaintiff and against the defendant if the defendant filed the UPEPA special motion in bad faith or for purposes of delay. This latter provision is not tied to the outcome of the case, since the case continues if the defendant loses the UPEPA special motion, and thus is procedural in nature. The upshot to this is that if the defendant wins the UPEPA special motion, then the mandatory fee award in favor of the defendant is substantive and determined by state law. However, if the defendant loses the special motion then the issue of whether fees can be awarded against the defendant would be procedural in nature and determined if at all by the FRCP. The court also noted another factor in determining the UPEPA's mandatory fee award to be substantive: One of the purposes of that mandatory fee award is to deter the filing of abusive litigation. Disposing of a minor issue, the court also held that UPEPA relief is only obtainable through the filing of a UPEPA special motion and not by way of a counterclaim. The balance of the opinion deals with a conflict of law issue; namely, which state's Anti-SLAPP law would apply. The court ultimately concludes that the New Jersey UPEPA applies, and although the court's discussion of the issue is quite interesting, it is beyond the scope of this article. ANALYSIS Anti-SLAPP laws such as the UPEPA are indeed a mix of substantive and procedural law ― they are not purely one or the other. It therefore makes sense for the federal courts in applying the Erie doctrine to apply the substantive portions but reject the procedural ones. This may be the best that we get until the U.S. Supreme Court resolves the split between circuits (and that could go either way) or Congress adopts a federal Anti-SLAPP law (which is regularly introduced, but never seems to go anywhere). But in the words of the Rolling Stones: "You can't always get what you want. You get what you need."

New York Times

16 minutes ago

• New York Times

Nicolas Jackson's red card: The most concerning part is he doesn't fully understand how it happened

It is very difficult to defend Nicolas Jackson, but that did not stop Enzo Maresca trying. Deep in the bowels of Lincoln Financial Field, in the repurposed locker room of the Philadelphia Eagles, Maresca picked the most surprising answer possible when invited to talk about Jackson's latest moment of self-destructive madness: a studs-up tackle to the ankle of Flamengo defender Ayrton Lucas near the touchline that drew an immediate red card from referee Ivan Arcides Barton Cisneros, prompted no visible protests from any of the Chelsea players or staff close enough to have a perfect view, and condemned his team to a 3-1 defeat in their second FIFA Club World Cup match. Nicolas Jackson, who was sent off in Chelsea's 2-0 defeat away at Newcastle United in May, has seen red again. The Senegalese forward is dismissed just four minutes after coming off the bench after a hideous challenge.#FIFACWC 🎥 @ — The Athletic | Football (@TheAthleticFC) June 20, 2025 'I'm not sure that it's 100 per cent a red card but the referee decided for that,' Maresca said. His stony reaction to the red card in the moment did not betray any sense of injustice. Nor did the response of Jackson, who immediately hung his head and put his hands on his knees. The Senegal international had been on the pitch for all of four minutes, having been benched on his 24th birthday for Liam Delap, the £30million signing acquired to compete for his spot. Could it have been a release of pent-up frustration? Advertisement Speaking to reporters in the mixed zone, teammate Marc Cucurella revealed that Jackson had given a different explanation when apologising to his teammates in the dressing room after the match. 'He's very sad,' he said of Jackson. 'He tried to win the ball, had the bad luck that he kicked his leg and that's it. 'He's a young player with a lot of quality but maybe needs to improve a little bit in these things. He has to learn. After the manager spoke he said sorry, he didn't do it on purpose. He's a very important player for us, we will miss him in the next game but this is football.' Jackson then further undercut the notion that his red card might not have been merited by issuing a lengthy, emotional apology statement on Instagram. 'I want to say sorry. To the club, the staff, my teammates, and all the fans watching, I let you down. Another red card… and honestly, I'm so angry at myself. 'I work hard every day to help the team, not to put us in this kind of situation. I still don't fully understand how it happened. But one thing is clear: it wasn't intentional. Just a football moment that went the wrong way. No excuses. I take full responsibility. 'I'll reflect, I'll grow, and I'll come back stronger for the badge and for everyone who believes in me. Sorry. Sorry.' The sincerity of Jackson's sorrow is easy to believe in. It was written all over his face as he left the field, and his statement does not read like a generic, cynical PR communique. But none of that lessens the damage his error has caused — to Chelsea's hopes of fighting back against Flamengo, to their broader aspirations in this tournament, and most significant of all, to his future prospects at the club. Context matters. Jackson's three-match ban for elbowing Newcastle defender Sven Botman in the head in the first half of a vital Premier League match on May 11 is not even complete; he will miss the opening game of next season against Crystal Palace. His personal Club World Cup may also be over if FIFA review his red card tackle against Flamengo and decide it merits more than the standard one-game ban. Advertisement Jackson is keenly aware of the criticism he has received during his two-year stint as Chelsea's first-choice striker. He has publicly acknowledged some of it, telling Mikel Jon Obi to 'shut your mouth' and 'don't talk s***' last August in response to the retired midfielder's repeated assertions that Maresca's team needed a better No 9. Mikel will not be shutting up anytime soon. To compound Jackson's misery, the Chelsea legend was commentating on the match for DAZN and reacted to the tackle with a rant that compelled presenter Kelly Somers to apologise for his language. 'Unbelievable. Stupid, stupid, stupid mistake,' he said. 'I don't know what was going through his head. Your team needs you and he does that! He did that at Newcastle in an important game. He got a red card. And now he's done this again. You can't keep making mistakes like this. 'I don't care what his frustration is. This is a massive football club and it's about competition (in the squad). If you're angry or p****d off, then you have to embrace it. We need competition.' That competition has been hurt by events against Flamengo, unless Marc Guiu is ready to take a developmental leap. Jackson has effectively handed Delap a golden opportunity to establish himself as the new fixture at the point of Chelsea's attack with a sustained run of minutes, both in what remains of this Club World Cup and the start of the Premier League season. Chelsea's interest in signing a right-footed left winger and an all-round attacker this summer is documented in The Athletic's most recent edition of the Transfer DealSheet. By the time Jackson is available again his path to playing time may be more perilous; it was notable that Maresca sounded unconvinced by the notion of Jackson and Delap existing in the same team, despite the Senegal international's past as a left winger at Villarreal. Advertisement Jackson has plenty of backers in football. Mauricio Pochettino frequently gushed about his potential in his brief stint at Chelsea, and Flamengo manager Filipe Luis was similarly effusive in his press conference. 'He's so good, he's young, he has all the potential, all the quality that the club needs,' he said. 'For sure he will surpass this little mistake. 'It was clear. I saw it in front of me, and for me it was a red. But it's just a small detail for a big player who can be one of the biggest strikers in the world.' To realise that outcome, Jackson must first find a way to master whatever impulse leads him to these moments. The most concerning part of his apology statement was the admission that he still does not fully understand how the Flamengo red card happened. Even taking his insistence that he had no bad intent at face value (despite the damning nature of the footage), a problem cannot be addressed if it is not understood. Jackson's career at Chelsea could depend on the success of the self-reflection that lies ahead. He will have plenty of time to do it.