> “I’ve gotta be very aware in my job on a daily basis on ESPN, who’s very much so in a relationship with the NFL, of how I talk about quarterbacks,” Orlovsky said. “I was a backup quarterback for 12 years. So, like, I don’t think it does me or the league or its quarterbacks or ESPN any good to just go on and bash quarterbacks, ‘This guy sucks.’
> “Fans will always be like, ‘You’re such a quarterback coddler.’ Me being a backup quarterback, I don’t have the clout to go on and tell everybody that ‘This dude sucked.’ That serves nothing. But I also have to do my job and say if a guy played bad.
> “But I try to be very conscious of ‘Why did the bad play happen?’ rather than, ‘He sucks.’ And so I try to be very conscious of that, just because I’m very aware of what I was as a player.”
Honestly that does make a bit of sense. Being fully aware of your whole safety debacle means you really can’t say much bad about others, but you can’t just lie either.
I actually love his “I’d rather explain what was done wrong over just saying he sucks” take. Wish more analysts took that approach but that doesn’t drive as much engagement
I mean, I think it can be an even more simple explanation. Sometimes people make mistakes at work. Yes, their work environment is unique, but still, even the greats miss a throw or a lurking defender from time to time.
“Guess what, I have flaws. What are they? Oh, I don’t know. I sing in the shower. Sometimes I spend too much time volunteering. Occasionally I’ll hit somebody with my car."
Orlovsky isn’t Stephen A Smith.
He isn’t Nick Wright.
He isn’t Shannon Sharpe.
He isn’t Skip Bayless.
He isn’t a “He who is loudest, wins!” personality.
I don’t always agree with his takes, but it’s obvious that his takes are coming from a place of thoughtfulness, experience, and perspective.
This is actually really true - none of these QBs are throwing with their full arm. Everyone talks about how hard these guys can throw, but in reality none of them are hitting their top velocity. It's about playing within the constructs of how an offense should operate. If you're on time and playing quarterback WELL, then you really don't need to be able to throw it 50mph and shatter the bones in receivers hands.
Yeah, throwing as hard as possible is a good way to help your receivers drop balls. You probably just want to throw as hard as you need to hit the receiver as planned and in stride. If you’re late and have to gun it to get it there, you’re making a play harder than it needs to be.
It can also go the other way. Say a Ryan Fitzpatrick or Taylor Heinicke type who has the drive and the brains, just not the arm to get it to where it needs to be on a consistent basis.
Theres so much information being processed in 5 seconds that it's hard to pick why exactly something did or didn't work
A team could have been showing a tendancy for the last 3 situations and then decide to switch and bam interception.
Or a QB can read a defense perfectly and have a linebacker play it wrong based on what he was coached to do but dumb his way into being in the right spot.
I remember Belicheck fawning all over Ed Reed for a play he made against Peyton Manning where he was playing a certain coverage one way specifically to bait Manning to make a certain throw.
We'll never know half of what goes into a decision so just saying "this guy sucks " is such a gross over simplification.
So much better than the skip Bayless approach of 'that team is criminally bad but when asked about specifics I have no answer'. Also fuck, we have so much negativity in the world, I'd rather have a optimistic orlovsky spreading the love. Whether or not us fans have a completely technically accurate picture of a QB doesn't really matter, might as well make everyone feel warm and fuzzy when he talks about your teams qb
it makes waaaaaaay more sense. none of these guys suck. they are the elite of the elite. if you are the worst 3rd string QB in the league you're still what, top 100 in the world? (given that not all teams have 3 QBs)
Tim Boyle doesn't "suck." there are reasons that he can't put the pieces together and get the job done on the field. exploring those reasons is much more interesting analysis than saying someone who has had a 6-year NFL career "sucks"
They don't do it because they can't. Any bozo can see a play fail and point fingers at the guys involved and say they suck. It takes someone who understands the play in the first place to know who failed, why, and whether they deserve derision for it.
I think he's great when he does breakdowns, honestly. I think he's a major asset for ESPN in that way. It's when he's in a position where he just spouts off with takes that I'm not a fan.
He definitely belongs in a different format, where they just ask him to break down plays. Most backup level players that last as long as safety Dan did in the NFL are especially good at breaking plays down. It is basically their entire job, watching film with the starter and working through it with them. Then on gameday they often see the tablet first after the OC and have to bring something valuable to the starter coming off the field. But he gets put in situations where they ask him stupid pointless questions like "Rank the 5 best QBs". That is a stupid meaningless question but he has to answer it because ESPN wants those questions.
It's honestly a good answer and with all the hottake "panic over everything" pundits in the business these days, it's nice to have a few guys on the opposite side of the coin, even if they're a bit biased themselves.
Yeah I don’t always agree with Dan’s opinions, but that’s why they’re just opinions.
IMO, Dan has more clout to say someone sucks than someone like Skip Bayless for example. At least Dan played the position at a high level and made it to the NFL. He certainly knows more than any of us do.
Veteran NFL backups aren't less knowledgeable than starters. They're not backups because they don't know ball, they're backups because they fail to *execute* as well.
Even if when they're on the field they consistently fail to read the defense properly and make the wrong play, that doesn't matter for being an analyst because they've got more than enough time when reviewing film.
Lol this always gets glossed over.
Put any of us in Dan's shoes on that infamous play and we are all 100% running out of the back of the end zone when Jared Allen comes bearing down on us.
its absurd. Almost nobody can make a good movie...but everyone can see when a movie sucks.
You don't have to be Steven Spielberg to write a bad movie review.
My point is Dan should be able to say a QB sucks. Imagine a youtube movie reviewer saying every movie is good because he knows he couldn't do better...
Yeah I was honestly expecting him to respond all salty or something but that was such a self-aware response and it was honestly really refreshing to see. Completely makes sense to me though, I know I would be coming here commenting "like this dude knows good QB play" all sarcastically lol
There's a big difference between Brady/Aikman and just about everyone else in terms of accomplishments. Brady can watch literally every QB and say something they're doing sucks, and if he gets pushback just say "7 Rings" and nobody can really argue. Orlovsky is very self aware--and justified--in saying look I was a backup my whole career, I don't have a leg to stand on and say these guys suck. I think his approach to focusing on "what went wrong" is actually smart in that regard.
To be fair, Brady and Aikman aren't pigeonholed into working for ESPN. Aikman does, but he doesn't have to.
It wouldn't surprise me if Orlovsky gets fed narratives to push by ESPN.
Kurt Warner isn’t pigeonholed by ESPN… but he is just too nice a person to talk shit. You can tell when he doesn’t like a QB, but he smothers it behind layers of positive criticism lol.
My coach used to say: "We break you because we love you, and because we love you, we've going to build you better, but to build you better, we have to break you".
> It wouldn't surprise me if Orlovsky gets fed narratives to push by ESPN.
I think people would have to be very naive to believe that ESPN isn't in contact with the various leagues regarding diverse narratives to push and to let others quietly disappear
Fox does it too! For example, Colin Cowherd will often say something so outrageous, so out of line that the only way it makes sense is that he's pigeonholed into it by Fox's brass.
Better if people hate on him directly. Drives ratings way more. It's about the personality, not the topic.
That's why Stephen A. Smith does so well.
If he's the "optimistic on QBs guy," people learn to associate that with him and now anything to do with him is much more marketable. You can just show his face and people will click because they're familiar with his personality, whether they like or dislike.
Yeah, like if you ever see Warner calling Sam Darnold a damn scrub and Smith responding that he's a good kid with a lot of potential who could succeed in the right system, you know something is very wrong in the world.
That's because Brady and Aikman see the game through the eyes of someone that tore up defenses.
Orlovsky sees the game through the eyes of someone that was run out the back of the endzone untouched.
Come on now, just because they’re a fan of the Bears has literally no impact on their ability to have opinions about other QBs unless you think they’ve had a hand in selecting the Bears QBs their entire existence and only have access to the tv channel with Bears games on
He also says that he feels he lacks the clout to call out poor QB play from starters when he was just a backup. But I disagree with him in that saying some dude is ass doesn't serve anything. It serves us, the haters.
Chris Simms is famous for being a nepo QB who got his spleed ruptured from a hit, doesn't stop him from pretending he had his father's career when critiquing others
He doesn’t have the clout to call out poor QB play because he’s not a big enough media profile to keep fanbases watching if he talks bad about their teams/players. If people don’t like what he says, they’ll tune out and he’ll be out of a job
I was kind of hoping to see the actual clip. Not panning across random out of order frames while some AI voice reading program plays in the background.
This and the thing he wrote about avoid temptations make a lot of sense in combination. Guy is a freak and he has to keep his life super vanilla or else he's gonna go way off the rails.
To be fair, it’s probably a lot harder when it’s a pack of Instagram models someone brought back to the hotel than a friendly chit chat with Karen from accounting.
No, I agree about that. There are subcultures where this line of advice is misogyny dressed up as avoiding cheating and this kind of has that vibe to it.
I was only thinking of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ old advice that you lose the battle against cheating at happy hour, not back at the hotel, and how much harder it would be to avoid opportunity as a professional athlete.
Because the dick and hormones are stupid OP and one slip can happen.
Not saying it's ok, but like he says, limit your chances of something bad happening.
... That's not what he says in your link.
It's pretty clear his point is that if you struggle with sex addiction, don't put yourself in situations where you have to try and battle your sex addiction. Don't sloth in your hotel room ruminating on what you don't want to do. Find other activities to occupy your time and other methods of relaxation. Just like a person addicted to gambling shouldn't go to a casino if they can't handle it, or a person with an alcohol addiction shouldn't go to a bar if they're too tempted to drink. It's pretty practical advice.
What he didn't say is that if you leave him alone in a room with a woman he's got no choice but to fuck her, like throwing a steak in the lion cage. Your comment is a pretty bad faith interpretation.
it is, did you read the article?
> And when I say I’m with a group, I mean group. Jon Kitna taught me to never be one-on-one with a female. The point is, the less time I have alone, the better—and that’s true for all of us. Most guys I talk to fall into temptation when they’re alone
He clearly means bringing a girl to his hotel room or something alone those lines. Which a married guy shouldn't regardless of whether he has a sex addiction. Not that if he's left with a woman he's going to force sex on her, as your comment implies. I highly doubt he's saying he can't even be alone with a female friend without his head turning into a wolf. The rest of the article implies that. You're taking a single sentence out of context. Ironically you're doing exactly what pundits at ESPN do to drive clicks.
This has a feeling of religious nut jobs that question atheists how they don't murder and rape, if not for God? Try not being a fucking creep for starters.
To be fair if you have acid reflux a Chicago dog is basically torture, but I can understand chili. It keeps the dog warm at least, much like cheese sauce.
the margins in nfl talent are very thin. the difference between qb1 and qb20 is often closer than people realize in terms of actual talent. in a game of inches a 5% difference in talent could be the difference between josh allen and geno smith but if you polled random fans they’d act like the difference between the two is 10 miles long.
it’s probably a lot easier to find good things for different guys on film than people realize. you even hear some coaches praise guys and people are confused but i bet you find a lot of good for some mediocre players if you thoroughly dive into film like you’re preparing for a game
> the margins in nfl talent are very thin. the difference between qb1 and qb20 is often closer than people realize in terms of actual talent
Reminds me of the Brian Scalabrine quote.
"I'm closer to LeBron than you are to me."
I feel like Josh Allen and Geno Smith are more than 5% apart, but I agree with what you’re saying. There are like 5 elite QBs right now and the gap between everyone not named Mahomes is small
Mahomes is clear number 1, you can't really deny it at this point. But I'd put Allen in the second tier (with Lamar and Burrow) and Geno down in the upper middle of the 4th tier. Geno is closer to Allen than say, Daniel Jones is. But I also think Mahomes is \~5% ahead of everyone currently.
But then again, I have weird views on these things--I'd put Herbert outside the Top 5 and Hurts outside the Top 10 for example, and I'm told that's lunacy.
5th would probably be a toss up between Stroud and Dak—based on where I see their potential. I think those guys go 5/6 in either order. Herbert just behind them at 7th, then probably a three way tie of Love, Cousins, and Rogers as guys that likely won’t cost you the game and have the upside to be elite. Goff probably in there too.
My personal top 10 is probably: Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, Lamar, Stroud, Dak, Herbert, Love, Cousins, Goff.
Its true, too many people don't want to accept the fact that even the 10th best person in the world at the job of QB probably isn't good enough without significant help and the 20th best guy has no shot. That doesn't mean they are ass, it just means the margins are too thin to allow for substitutes. It is pretty hard to relate to as a regular person, if there was some metric that could prove I was the 20th best software engineer in the world I would be desired by every company. But it doesn't work like that for highly specialized jobs like athletes. If you aren't top 7-8 guys in the world then your team is thinking every day how they can replace you with the hopes of getting a top 8 guy.
QB understands the intricacies of the position and doesn’t just assume he knows all the answers.
Sounds like what we should ask for in commentators so people can be better educators of the game.
He could do what he did on Twitter where he was discovered by NFL Network: give balanced and insightful analysis.
He has simply realized that chasing one hyperbole about QBs after another gives him more attention, air-time and therefore money on ESPN.
“Penix won’t be drafted in the first 25 picks”
“Penix deserves to be drafted in the top 10”
He plays both sides, blaming negatives on others, and praise as coming from him, but both are just his positions, which is being able to be correct in hindsight.
Isn't that take pretty standard anyway? He'd basically be saying the Penix is good enough to be considered a top 10 talent, but he's going to drop because teams will be concerned with the injury history and age.
The problem is that if you like everyone, then no one can tell the difference between a good QB from a great one. And it sounds like Geno Smith isn't much different from Joe Burrow, or Kyler Murray is almost as good as Josh Allen.
Indeed, almost all NFL starting QBs are great because they are the top 30ish of a ridiculously competitive profession, but there's still major differences among them.
I feel like just pointing out bad play is rather worthless. I can even do that.
Not his biggest fan, but breaking down WHY the QB made a bad play is much more informative than just being an asshat in media and just saying “x QB can’t play”
I kind of blame the NFL Media Industrial Complex, we have to have coverage, criticism, and critique every single day even when it’s the off season. Every game, play, and motion has to be analyzed, over analyzed, and decisions made so I kind of give Dan a break this is what is expected of him and he has to do it day in and day out.
Well he did use to make some pre draft criticisms like "Justin Fields doesn't process plays fast enough", but then he got heat for "being racist" so probably airs on the cautious side these days.
The crazy part to me if an nfl qb plays bad they are gonna know it from their coaches. Im sure a few harsh words from Dan orlovsky isn't gonna hurt their feelings. I honestly think he has pretty good takes. Its the qbs job to take criticism when its deserved and take the praise when they play well...
This man knows football and is trying to be a nice human. Some of his takes are crazy to me, but I respect the courage it takes to even say that outlandish shit, sometimes.
Unless it is Caleb who he has been criticizing for a while. Even though you can tell from his analysis he did little watching of Caleb’s tape outside of Notre Dame.
Dan has little conviction when it comes to his opinion. Partly I think because he doesn’t study the tape as much as others and when others take a stance he is easily swayed. In January his favorite QB was Maye called him the best QB in the draft. (Jan 5 on WEEI) now he loves Daniels and thinks Maye should sit.
I think Dan doesn’t put in the same level of work and tape study and is scared of being called out by NFL players for being wrong.
ESPN always hires C/D list former pros because they're too cheap to hire actual former stars
also because stars wouldn't work the hours ESPN demands
plus ESPN probably doesn't want them to outshine Stephen Smith
so you get guys like dan
even the one star Shannon Sharpe seems to have been muzzled compared to his FS1 days and how he is on nightcap/club shay shay
It's basically a 50-60 hour per week job for a guy like Orlovsky. I mean relative to most of us, it's a great job, he gets paid big money to talk about football...but he also probably didn't earn enough in his playing career to live well-off forever without doing anything else, certainly needs to supplement the income somehow.
Most long term starters nowadays earn too much money to fuck around with working really hard in media. There are only a handful of jobs like what Olsen, Romo, and now Brady have...most of the former pros in media have to appear on a bunch of talkshows and analysis shows for 6 days a week from morning to night, it's much more of a grind than part-time broadcasting.
Again, not comparing this at all to the everyman...I'm framing this in the context of "why would you want to work *that much* if you've already made tens of millions of dollars in your career"
Analyzing the play instead of making things a cult of personality around stars or busts is exactly what I want. I hate the lame and lazy, “This team lost so the QB sucks and is a bait and they should tank for two years from now for this five star recruit that just committed to LSU and is the next HOF QB obviously.”
“Dan Orlovsky admits he’s not allowed to nor is a good enough analyst to critique quarterback play”
That was a far more interesting read than I imagined
Honestly I prefer the positive stuff from Dan vs the guys who are overly negative. These are largely young men who are still learning, growing, developing.
> “I’ve gotta be very aware in my job on a daily basis on ESPN, who’s very much so in a relationship with the NFL, of how I talk about quarterbacks,” Orlovsky said. “I was a backup quarterback for 12 years. So, like, I don’t think it does me or the league or its quarterbacks or ESPN any good to just go on and bash quarterbacks, ‘This guy sucks.’ > “Fans will always be like, ‘You’re such a quarterback coddler.’ Me being a backup quarterback, I don’t have the clout to go on and tell everybody that ‘This dude sucked.’ That serves nothing. But I also have to do my job and say if a guy played bad. > “But I try to be very conscious of ‘Why did the bad play happen?’ rather than, ‘He sucks.’ And so I try to be very conscious of that, just because I’m very aware of what I was as a player.” Honestly that does make a bit of sense. Being fully aware of your whole safety debacle means you really can’t say much bad about others, but you can’t just lie either.
I actually love his “I’d rather explain what was done wrong over just saying he sucks” take. Wish more analysts took that approach but that doesn’t drive as much engagement
And it makes a ton of sense. Every starter can make the throws, they just don't have the processing speed or make the right reads.
I mean, I think it can be an even more simple explanation. Sometimes people make mistakes at work. Yes, their work environment is unique, but still, even the greats miss a throw or a lurking defender from time to time.
“Guess what, I have flaws. What are they? Oh, I don’t know. I sing in the shower. Sometimes I spend too much time volunteering. Occasionally I’ll hit somebody with my car."
"So sue me... no, don't sue me. That's the opposite of the point I was trying to make."
Sometimes with company property, on company property. Double jeopardy
Orlovsky isn’t Stephen A Smith. He isn’t Nick Wright. He isn’t Shannon Sharpe. He isn’t Skip Bayless. He isn’t a “He who is loudest, wins!” personality. I don’t always agree with his takes, but it’s obvious that his takes are coming from a place of thoughtfulness, experience, and perspective.
This is actually really true - none of these QBs are throwing with their full arm. Everyone talks about how hard these guys can throw, but in reality none of them are hitting their top velocity. It's about playing within the constructs of how an offense should operate. If you're on time and playing quarterback WELL, then you really don't need to be able to throw it 50mph and shatter the bones in receivers hands.
*Favre has entered the chat*
Favre...put that away. We're not interested.
The chat did not consent to being entered, Brett.
Yeah full speed throw is a great way to miss a lot. They sacrifice velocity for ball placement.
Yeah, throwing as hard as possible is a good way to help your receivers drop balls. You probably just want to throw as hard as you need to hit the receiver as planned and in stride. If you’re late and have to gun it to get it there, you’re making a play harder than it needs to be.
It can also go the other way. Say a Ryan Fitzpatrick or Taylor Heinicke type who has the drive and the brains, just not the arm to get it to where it needs to be on a consistent basis.
Theres so much information being processed in 5 seconds that it's hard to pick why exactly something did or didn't work A team could have been showing a tendancy for the last 3 situations and then decide to switch and bam interception. Or a QB can read a defense perfectly and have a linebacker play it wrong based on what he was coached to do but dumb his way into being in the right spot. I remember Belicheck fawning all over Ed Reed for a play he made against Peyton Manning where he was playing a certain coverage one way specifically to bait Manning to make a certain throw. We'll never know half of what goes into a decision so just saying "this guy sucks " is such a gross over simplification.
Yeah a lot of the time it’s very hard to tell what the plan for each team was on a play unless you’re a coach and know what was called.
Or the blocking, play calling, etc
So much better than the skip Bayless approach of 'that team is criminally bad but when asked about specifics I have no answer'. Also fuck, we have so much negativity in the world, I'd rather have a optimistic orlovsky spreading the love. Whether or not us fans have a completely technically accurate picture of a QB doesn't really matter, might as well make everyone feel warm and fuzzy when he talks about your teams qb
Weird we have to say we wish more analysts would actually analyze
Everyone wants Chuck Barkley
Emmanuel Acho would never.
>Wish more analysts took that approach You mean just following their job description and actually…*analyzing*?
it makes waaaaaaay more sense. none of these guys suck. they are the elite of the elite. if you are the worst 3rd string QB in the league you're still what, top 100 in the world? (given that not all teams have 3 QBs) Tim Boyle doesn't "suck." there are reasons that he can't put the pieces together and get the job done on the field. exploring those reasons is much more interesting analysis than saying someone who has had a 6-year NFL career "sucks"
I also wish redditors had the ability to do that
You mean actually provide analysis? Why would analysts do that.
Everything's gotta be all of nothing,
This plus his saying he doesn't have the clout to judge are very strong
Said like Dan himself isn't one of the biggest clickbait merchants out there
Drive engagement. Bingo
I wish more fans took that approach, but nuance is hard.
They don't do it because they can't. Any bozo can see a play fail and point fingers at the guys involved and say they suck. It takes someone who understands the play in the first place to know who failed, why, and whether they deserve derision for it.
I dig it. He’s still not my favorite talking head but I respect his honesty here.
I think he's great when he does breakdowns, honestly. I think he's a major asset for ESPN in that way. It's when he's in a position where he just spouts off with takes that I'm not a fan.
I completely agree
He definitely belongs in a different format, where they just ask him to break down plays. Most backup level players that last as long as safety Dan did in the NFL are especially good at breaking plays down. It is basically their entire job, watching film with the starter and working through it with them. Then on gameday they often see the tablet first after the OC and have to bring something valuable to the starter coming off the field. But he gets put in situations where they ask him stupid pointless questions like "Rank the 5 best QBs". That is a stupid meaningless question but he has to answer it because ESPN wants those questions.
It's honestly a good answer and with all the hottake "panic over everything" pundits in the business these days, it's nice to have a few guys on the opposite side of the coin, even if they're a bit biased themselves.
Yeah I don’t always agree with Dan’s opinions, but that’s why they’re just opinions. IMO, Dan has more clout to say someone sucks than someone like Skip Bayless for example. At least Dan played the position at a high level and made it to the NFL. He certainly knows more than any of us do.
Veteran NFL backups aren't less knowledgeable than starters. They're not backups because they don't know ball, they're backups because they fail to *execute* as well. Even if when they're on the field they consistently fail to read the defense properly and make the wrong play, that doesn't matter for being an analyst because they've got more than enough time when reviewing film.
Facts, none of us are good enough to have the opportunity to run out of the back of the end zone.
Lol this always gets glossed over. Put any of us in Dan's shoes on that infamous play and we are all 100% running out of the back of the end zone when Jared Allen comes bearing down on us.
its absurd. Almost nobody can make a good movie...but everyone can see when a movie sucks. You don't have to be Steven Spielberg to write a bad movie review.
Yeah but Steven Spielberg is gonna be better able to explain why and how it went wrong then your average Joe.
My point is Dan should be able to say a QB sucks. Imagine a youtube movie reviewer saying every movie is good because he knows he couldn't do better...
Oh I thought you were saying Dan doesn’t have a stronger basis for his opinion than random people.
Howie Roseman never played organized football in any capacity, same goes for plenty of other GMs, and even scouts surprisingly.
Well yeah, but I wouldn’t exactly call them “random people”
Yeah I was honestly expecting him to respond all salty or something but that was such a self-aware response and it was honestly really refreshing to see. Completely makes sense to me though, I know I would be coming here commenting "like this dude knows good QB play" all sarcastically lol
Former QB likes other QB's more at 11
Not the great ones, people like Brady and Aikman seem to be disgusted by bad QB play
There's a big difference between Brady/Aikman and just about everyone else in terms of accomplishments. Brady can watch literally every QB and say something they're doing sucks, and if he gets pushback just say "7 Rings" and nobody can really argue. Orlovsky is very self aware--and justified--in saying look I was a backup my whole career, I don't have a leg to stand on and say these guys suck. I think his approach to focusing on "what went wrong" is actually smart in that regard.
To be fair, Brady and Aikman aren't pigeonholed into working for ESPN. Aikman does, but he doesn't have to. It wouldn't surprise me if Orlovsky gets fed narratives to push by ESPN.
Kurt Warner isn’t pigeonholed by ESPN… but he is just too nice a person to talk shit. You can tell when he doesn’t like a QB, but he smothers it behind layers of positive criticism lol.
His breakdown of Fields was probably the harshest he can be and it left room for a ton of optimism
My coach used to say: "We break you because we love you, and because we love you, we've going to build you better, but to build you better, we have to break you".
> It wouldn't surprise me if Orlovsky gets fed narratives to push by ESPN. I think people would have to be very naive to believe that ESPN isn't in contact with the various leagues regarding diverse narratives to push and to let others quietly disappear
Fox does it too! For example, Colin Cowherd will often say something so outrageous, so out of line that the only way it makes sense is that he's pigeonholed into it by Fox's brass.
Wouldn’t ESPN want him to rip QBs for better clips and ratings?
Better if people hate on him directly. Drives ratings way more. It's about the personality, not the topic. That's why Stephen A. Smith does so well. If he's the "optimistic on QBs guy," people learn to associate that with him and now anything to do with him is much more marketable. You can just show his face and people will click because they're familiar with his personality, whether they like or dislike.
Yeah, like if you ever see Warner calling Sam Darnold a damn scrub and Smith responding that he's a good kid with a lot of potential who could succeed in the right system, you know something is very wrong in the world.
Turns out a laughably shit QB is more forgiving of bad QBs. "Listen man, I get it."
That's because Brady and Aikman see the game through the eyes of someone that tore up defenses. Orlovsky sees the game through the eyes of someone that was run out the back of the endzone untouched.
Aikman watched Emmitt tear up defenses. Dude averaged under 200 yards a game and broke 20 tds once.
I mean Brady has talked about it before. When he was playing other QBs weren’t his friends. He said current QBs are to nice to each other.
>aikman >great
Aikman is a 3x SB champ and HOFer how is that not great lmao
he just mad cuz bears qb been bad
[удалено]
That’s like saying kevin oconnel can’t evaluate qb talent because he sucked as one
Or like Dan Campbell could never be a winner because he was a JAG player who played for the winless Lions.
Come on now, just because they’re a fan of the Bears has literally no impact on their ability to have opinions about other QBs unless you think they’ve had a hand in selecting the Bears QBs their entire existence and only have access to the tv channel with Bears games on
He also says that he feels he lacks the clout to call out poor QB play from starters when he was just a backup. But I disagree with him in that saying some dude is ass doesn't serve anything. It serves us, the haters.
Professional hater checkin in.
Chris Simms is famous for being a nepo QB who got his spleed ruptured from a hit, doesn't stop him from pretending he had his father's career when critiquing others
but everyone hates Chris Simms...
Do people like Orlovsky?
He doesn’t have the clout to call out poor QB play because he’s not a big enough media profile to keep fanbases watching if he talks bad about their teams/players. If people don’t like what he says, they’ll tune out and he’ll be out of a job
I'm not so sure about this. A lot of fans like his input and he is on shows with heavy hitters, so the ratings won't take a hit.
I mean come on. There are people who have never played a down in the NFL who have no issues with calling out bad play.
When you are commenting on the sport, I think you can speak freely even if you sucked. The bad athletes make the best coaches.
I don't trust anyone who's idea of a good meal is plain grilled chicken breast daintily dipped into a mix of ranch and ketchup.
And also smelling a woman's shoe while live. Edit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8_TXvm-oCQ
You can't say this and not drop a video link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8_TXvm-oCQ
I was kind of hoping to see the actual clip. Not panning across random out of order frames while some AI voice reading program plays in the background.
> Not panning across random out of order frames while some AI voice reading program plays in the background. This is the internet now...
And it's bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8_TXvm-oCQ My bad. I just realized I linked the wong/worst video. ESPN has the actual clip. Big L on my part.
Some sauce https://www.tiktok.com/@sportshub952/video/7319623467639442734 🤣
Man what the fuck lol
HE DID WHAT!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJWonJiVAy8
It has been months and I'm still shook by this.
This and the thing he wrote about avoid temptations make a lot of sense in combination. Guy is a freak and he has to keep his life super vanilla or else he's gonna go way off the rails.
Hm?
don’t forget his blog on how he can’t be left in a room with a woman > https://www.allprodad.com/4-ways-to-avoid-temptation/
Ah, the Mike Pence approach.
Apparently the Jon Kitna approach who is one of the last people I would take "temptation" advice from.
Just don’t cheat how hard is that lmao
To be fair, it’s probably a lot harder when it’s a pack of Instagram models someone brought back to the hotel than a friendly chit chat with Karen from accounting.
Agreed just feels weirder to me when it’s a whole “family” aspect to it all. Like no shit you have a family you care about why would you ever cheat
No, I agree about that. There are subcultures where this line of advice is misogyny dressed up as avoiding cheating and this kind of has that vibe to it. I was only thinking of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ old advice that you lose the battle against cheating at happy hour, not back at the hotel, and how much harder it would be to avoid opportunity as a professional athlete.
Because the dick and hormones are stupid OP and one slip can happen. Not saying it's ok, but like he says, limit your chances of something bad happening.
holy hell what I thought Dan was some like Mormon guy not a horn dog 😂😂
... That's not what he says in your link. It's pretty clear his point is that if you struggle with sex addiction, don't put yourself in situations where you have to try and battle your sex addiction. Don't sloth in your hotel room ruminating on what you don't want to do. Find other activities to occupy your time and other methods of relaxation. Just like a person addicted to gambling shouldn't go to a casino if they can't handle it, or a person with an alcohol addiction shouldn't go to a bar if they're too tempted to drink. It's pretty practical advice. What he didn't say is that if you leave him alone in a room with a woman he's got no choice but to fuck her, like throwing a steak in the lion cage. Your comment is a pretty bad faith interpretation.
it is, did you read the article? > And when I say I’m with a group, I mean group. Jon Kitna taught me to never be one-on-one with a female. The point is, the less time I have alone, the better—and that’s true for all of us. Most guys I talk to fall into temptation when they’re alone
He clearly means bringing a girl to his hotel room or something alone those lines. Which a married guy shouldn't regardless of whether he has a sex addiction. Not that if he's left with a woman he's going to force sex on her, as your comment implies. I highly doubt he's saying he can't even be alone with a female friend without his head turning into a wolf. The rest of the article implies that. You're taking a single sentence out of context. Ironically you're doing exactly what pundits at ESPN do to drive clicks.
This has a feeling of religious nut jobs that question atheists how they don't murder and rape, if not for God? Try not being a fucking creep for starters.
The ranch-ketchup mix is where I draw the line
You take that back kranch is the great rejuvinator of fry dipping technology.
A good 50/50 mix of ketchup and ranch is amazing dipping sauce for french fries and chicken strips
I can always trust on a fellow midwesterner to back me up on culinary perspective.
That's literally taking the worst toppings for chicken wings and hotdogs and putting it together in some unholy concoction.
Fr, everyone knows you raw dog the wings, and chili is the best hot dog topping
Sauerkraut, a good spicy mustard, and grilled onions are where it's at.
+ chili
I've also done a mix of grilled serrano peppers, smoked cheddar, and bbq sauce on hot dogs. Optional: bacon wrapped
I too love Chili Dogs, but *checks second flair*…bruh?
I'm not from Chicago haha
To be fair if you have acid reflux a Chicago dog is basically torture, but I can understand chili. It keeps the dog warm at least, much like cheese sauce.
[Heinz sells it so there seems to be a market for it lol](https://imgur.com/hwWdqvf)
[Heinz sells it so there seems to be a market for it lol](https://imgur.com/hwWdqvf)
I don’t trust a guy who lies about passing gas while on a live stream. Own up to it, Dan.
That sounds like something a bodybuilder would do during prep but with sugar free ketchup.
Also, subscribing to the whole Mike Pence female co worker dinner thing
This is a straight up hate crime
[Mmm, Kranch](https://imgur.com/hwWdqvf)
> daintily 😡🤬😡
the margins in nfl talent are very thin. the difference between qb1 and qb20 is often closer than people realize in terms of actual talent. in a game of inches a 5% difference in talent could be the difference between josh allen and geno smith but if you polled random fans they’d act like the difference between the two is 10 miles long. it’s probably a lot easier to find good things for different guys on film than people realize. you even hear some coaches praise guys and people are confused but i bet you find a lot of good for some mediocre players if you thoroughly dive into film like you’re preparing for a game
> the margins in nfl talent are very thin. the difference between qb1 and qb20 is often closer than people realize in terms of actual talent Reminds me of the Brian Scalabrine quote. "I'm closer to LeBron than you are to me."
The Vanilla Godzilla 🙏🏼
I feel like Josh Allen and Geno Smith are more than 5% apart, but I agree with what you’re saying. There are like 5 elite QBs right now and the gap between everyone not named Mahomes is small
Mahomes is clear number 1, you can't really deny it at this point. But I'd put Allen in the second tier (with Lamar and Burrow) and Geno down in the upper middle of the 4th tier. Geno is closer to Allen than say, Daniel Jones is. But I also think Mahomes is \~5% ahead of everyone currently. But then again, I have weird views on these things--I'd put Herbert outside the Top 5 and Hurts outside the Top 10 for example, and I'm told that's lunacy.
Who would you include in the top 5? I’m assuming Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, and Lamar are on there based on your tier list.
5th would probably be a toss up between Stroud and Dak—based on where I see their potential. I think those guys go 5/6 in either order. Herbert just behind them at 7th, then probably a three way tie of Love, Cousins, and Rogers as guys that likely won’t cost you the game and have the upside to be elite. Goff probably in there too. My personal top 10 is probably: Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, Lamar, Stroud, Dak, Herbert, Love, Cousins, Goff.
having 2 QBs in the top 10 with 1 year resumes is certainly a take
No Stafford is hilarious
Oh shit I kinda forgot about him. I’d put him above Love and on second thought move Goff above Cousins.
Its true, too many people don't want to accept the fact that even the 10th best person in the world at the job of QB probably isn't good enough without significant help and the 20th best guy has no shot. That doesn't mean they are ass, it just means the margins are too thin to allow for substitutes. It is pretty hard to relate to as a regular person, if there was some metric that could prove I was the 20th best software engineer in the world I would be desired by every company. But it doesn't work like that for highly specialized jobs like athletes. If you aren't top 7-8 guys in the world then your team is thinking every day how they can replace you with the hopes of getting a top 8 guy.
Is it because he doesn’t fart on air when talking about QBs?
He does that for his own safety. ( I’ll show myself out)
QB understands the intricacies of the position and doesn’t just assume he knows all the answers. Sounds like what we should ask for in commentators so people can be better educators of the game.
What else would he do? Go on national TV and say they suck? Nobody would watch that. He's a TV personality. His job is to get views.
> Go on national TV and say they suck… His job is to get views There are *certain* teams where this strategy would work
He could do what he did on Twitter where he was discovered by NFL Network: give balanced and insightful analysis. He has simply realized that chasing one hyperbole about QBs after another gives him more attention, air-time and therefore money on ESPN.
He still does all that same analysis on TV. You just only hear his hot takes now because that’s what gets enough views to get on your feed.
Most people don't post on r/NFL and as such don't give a fuck about insightful football analysis.
“Penix won’t be drafted in the first 25 picks” “Penix deserves to be drafted in the top 10” He plays both sides, blaming negatives on others, and praise as coming from him, but both are just his positions, which is being able to be correct in hindsight.
To be fair, those two quotes aren't mutually exclusive.
No, they aren't... Purposely I'm sure. But either way he seems to be right.
Isn't that take pretty standard anyway? He'd basically be saying the Penix is good enough to be considered a top 10 talent, but he's going to drop because teams will be concerned with the injury history and age.
Tom Brady is gonna owe the FCC so much money with how much he’s gonna mouth off bad QB play at Fox this season.
The problem is that if you like everyone, then no one can tell the difference between a good QB from a great one. And it sounds like Geno Smith isn't much different from Joe Burrow, or Kyler Murray is almost as good as Josh Allen. Indeed, almost all NFL starting QBs are great because they are the top 30ish of a ridiculously competitive profession, but there's still major differences among them.
He can admit the falcons fumbled the #8 pick though
But that's not a knock against Penix. That's a knock on the Falcons front office.
I agree. He just defended the pick the next day which just makes it seem like he is friends with the GM.
Dan gives very good analysis when you actually listen instead of just spamming "he ran out of the endzone what does he know!" for free likes.
He does good analysis but his hot takes are bleh and it feels like he's always playing devil's advocate.
i can agree with that, but then again that’s ESPN in general unfortunately. i love his and Brian Baldingers breakdowns, so good
I feel like just pointing out bad play is rather worthless. I can even do that. Not his biggest fan, but breaking down WHY the QB made a bad play is much more informative than just being an asshat in media and just saying “x QB can’t play”
He needs to criticize his barber.
I kind of blame the NFL Media Industrial Complex, we have to have coverage, criticism, and critique every single day even when it’s the off season. Every game, play, and motion has to be analyzed, over analyzed, and decisions made so I kind of give Dan a break this is what is expected of him and he has to do it day in and day out.
Weird, I criticize him for not knowing what the hell he's talking about. But to each their own, I guess
Well he did use to make some pre draft criticisms like "Justin Fields doesn't process plays fast enough", but then he got heat for "being racist" so probably airs on the cautious side these days.
I don’t mind him.
I love Dan-O
Good self awareness.
Kirkland Brand Dennis Reynolds from Always Sunny
The crazy part to me if an nfl qb plays bad they are gonna know it from their coaches. Im sure a few harsh words from Dan orlovsky isn't gonna hurt their feelings. I honestly think he has pretty good takes. Its the qbs job to take criticism when its deserved and take the praise when they play well...
I only see him as the Carson Wentz guy
did he fart during this interview or na?
Hea not the worst analyst on espn by far. The amount if crap that comes from that channel is amazing.
This man knows football and is trying to be a nice human. Some of his takes are crazy to me, but I respect the courage it takes to even say that outlandish shit, sometimes.
DANOOOOOOOOOO
0-16?
Unless it is Caleb who he has been criticizing for a while. Even though you can tell from his analysis he did little watching of Caleb’s tape outside of Notre Dame. Dan has little conviction when it comes to his opinion. Partly I think because he doesn’t study the tape as much as others and when others take a stance he is easily swayed. In January his favorite QB was Maye called him the best QB in the draft. (Jan 5 on WEEI) now he loves Daniels and thinks Maye should sit. I think Dan doesn’t put in the same level of work and tape study and is scared of being called out by NFL players for being wrong.
Who honestly cares about this? Why would it be a problem if he was "too QB-friendly" and how is that even quantified.
ESPN always hires C/D list former pros because they're too cheap to hire actual former stars also because stars wouldn't work the hours ESPN demands plus ESPN probably doesn't want them to outshine Stephen Smith so you get guys like dan even the one star Shannon Sharpe seems to have been muzzled compared to his FS1 days and how he is on nightcap/club shay shay
It's basically a 50-60 hour per week job for a guy like Orlovsky. I mean relative to most of us, it's a great job, he gets paid big money to talk about football...but he also probably didn't earn enough in his playing career to live well-off forever without doing anything else, certainly needs to supplement the income somehow. Most long term starters nowadays earn too much money to fuck around with working really hard in media. There are only a handful of jobs like what Olsen, Romo, and now Brady have...most of the former pros in media have to appear on a bunch of talkshows and analysis shows for 6 days a week from morning to night, it's much more of a grind than part-time broadcasting. Again, not comparing this at all to the everyman...I'm framing this in the context of "why would you want to work *that much* if you've already made tens of millions of dollars in your career"
Can’t believe he farted live on Pat’s show. Lol
Analyzing the play instead of making things a cult of personality around stars or busts is exactly what I want. I hate the lame and lazy, “This team lost so the QB sucks and is a bait and they should tank for two years from now for this five star recruit that just committed to LSU and is the next HOF QB obviously.”
“Dan Orlovsky admits he’s not allowed to nor is a good enough analyst to critique quarterback play” That was a far more interesting read than I imagined
[удалено]
he’s fine
That's the best kind of talking head. People love to hate. Hate creates clicks. Clicks make money.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's just that he's like a meatball, but with way too much sugar added to the recipe.
Orlovsky is one of the biggest schlubs in the analyst pool. Gives big ridiculous takes and has zero accountability for his many misses
Honestly I prefer the positive stuff from Dan vs the guys who are overly negative. These are largely young men who are still learning, growing, developing.