Dan Orlovsky has firmly rejected accusations of favoritism in his evaluation of Ty Simpson, calling the narrative “nonsense” amid ongoing debate around Fernando Mendoza.
The discussion gained traction after Orlovsky’s assessment of Simpson sparked backlash across social media.
Advertisement
What followed was a shift away from football analysis and toward questions about bias, something the ESPN analyst has now addressed directly.
Speaking in a recent interview shared via the Ross Tucker Football podcast, Orlovsky dismissed suggestions that his evaluation of Simpson was influenced by external relationships.
“Well, it started last year with the MVP race, and everyone was like, ‘Oh, Matthew Stafford’s represented by CAA.’ So was Drake May. Had no clue until people were pointing out to me that CAA also represented Drake May,” Orlovsky said.
He added, “So yeah, it’s a bunch of nonsense. I’ve said this, CAA; you know this; you don’t work for them. They work for you. That’s not meant to be in a disparaging way.
Advertisement
“The agent works for the talent… They are an employee of yours. CAA has never asked me to say anything. So yeah, I mean, I don’t get it, but people make up narratives.”
The comments directly address claims that his connection to Simpson’s agency played a role in his evaluation.
Instead, Orlovsky made it clear he views those accusations as detached from how player analysis actually works.
The broader debate initially stemmed from Orlovsky’s rating of Simpson highly, even as Fernando Mendoza’s profile continued to rise.
“I would tell everybody that if we were going over all the guys that are the best in the league over an extended period of time, there are different levels.
Advertisement
“I don’t believe I’ve stated that I’m putting Ty Simpson into that very rare group of the Lamars, Joshs, Patricks, and Joes and whatnot, but I believe that he’s a starting quarterback in the NFL,” he concluded.
That distinction is central to his stance. Orlovsky is not placing Simpson among elite quarterbacks, but he does see him as capable of reaching starter level.
The clarification reframes the original take, shifting it from a comparison with top-tier names to a projection based on long-term development.
As the debate settles, Orlovsky’s response reinforces his position that evaluations should stand on football reasoning rather than external narratives.
Advertisement
Read more:
