Sweet baby jesus this is a bad take:
1. Tackle is one of the most valuable positions in the NFL. The good ones get paid A LOT. If you are allocating resources, you probably want to make sure offensive tackle is near the top of the list.
2. There is no salary cap, so whether we pay the guy 2 million or 3 million, I am not sure that changes anything in regards to the rest of the roster.
3. You shouldn't pay him because he is more likely to get hurt than a QB? Just grasping at straws with this argument.
4. His development argument makes such little sense that he corrects himself mid-take. First he tries to say "well the transfer portal lets you get players in immediately" as if first-round tackles are widely available in the portal. Then he starts to say Miami's offensive line hasn't been good before correcting himself mid sentence and saying last year they were actually pretty good. Then he spends a bunch of hot air talking about wanting to make sure he goes somewhere where he can be a Top 10 pick without even bothering to mention that Miami has the best offensive tackle in the country going in the Top 10 next season.
I am not big on the "this guy is biased" argument, but coming from someone who actually lightly defended Stacy Searels in the great "who is better at developing offensive linemen" debate of 2025, Pollack sounds like a Georgia fan throwing a hissy fit here.