Dan Orlovsky is a lot of things: former NFL quarterback, current ESPN analyst, and a man who seemingly enjoys poking the beehive. He did it again this week on the Pat McAfee Show, doubling down on his assessment that Ty Simpson, the Alabama quarterback, has "more impressive tape" than USC's Caleb Williams. That's a take that got a lot of people talking, and not always in a good way.
Look, Orlovsky isn't the first analyst to have a strong opinion. But to suggest a redshirt freshman with exactly zero college starts under his belt has better tape than the reigning Heisman Trophy winner? That's a swing for the fences with a broken bat. Williams, in 2022, threw for 4,537 yards, 42 touchdowns, and just five interceptions. He completed 66.6% of his passes and led USC to an 11-3 record and a Pac-12 Championship Game appearance. Those aren't just good numbers; they're elite. He diced up defenses like Utah, throwing for 360 yards and three scores in the regular season matchup, and then following it up with 363 yards and three more touchdowns in the conference title game.
Now, let's talk about Ty Simpson. He was a highly-touted recruit, a five-star prospect from Martin, Tennessee. He played in four games last season, completing 4-of-5 passes for 35 yards. That's his entire collegiate resume to date. He redshirted. He’s competing for the starting job at Alabama against Jalen Milroe, who saw more action last year after Bryce Young’s injury, including a 77-yard run against Arkansas. Simpson's high school tape was certainly impressive, showcasing a strong arm and good mobility. He threw for over 2,800 yards and 39 touchdowns his senior year at Westview High. But high school highlight reels are a different animal than dissecting an entire college season against Power 5 competition. Comparing those two things is like comparing a finely crafted short story to a sprawling epic novel.
Here's the thing: Orlovsky's argument, if you can call it that, hinges on the idea that "tape" is a purely objective measure, devoid of context or the level of competition. It’s not. Williams faced Pac-12 defenses week in and week out, defenses that were actively trying to stop him. Simpson was throwing against high schoolers. That’s not a knock on Simpson; it’s just the reality of the situation. To suggest that a handful of high school plays, no matter how spectacular, outweigh a full season of Heisman-caliber performances against top-tier college talent is, frankly, irresponsible analysis. It undermines the very concept of evaluating players based on their actual production against comparable opponents.
So why would Orlovsky double down on such a seemingly outlandish claim? Part of it is the nature of sports media today. Controversy drives engagement. Saying "Caleb Williams is really good" doesn't generate headlines. Saying "Ty Simpson's tape is better than Caleb Williams'" certainly does. It’s a classic contrarian take designed to spark debate and get people talking about *him*. And it worked. The Pat McAfee Show thrives on these kinds of discussions. It's also possible Orlovsky genuinely sees something in Simpson's high school film that he believes translates to elite NFL potential, even if that belief is currently unsupported by collegiate evidence. Every analyst wants to be the one who "discovered" the next big thing.
But let's be real. This isn't some nuanced take about a slight difference in technique. This is a claim that a player with essentially no college experience has superior game film to a player who just put up one of the best quarterback seasons in recent college football history. My hot take? This isn't about Simpson's talent; it's about Orlovsky's need for attention. And frankly, it diminishes his credibility when he makes such an unsupported statement. Ty Simpson might be a fantastic quarterback down the line, but he’s got a long way to go to prove he's in Caleb Williams' league. When the 2023 season kicks off, we'll see if Simpson even wins the starting job at Alabama. If he does, and he puts up even a fraction of Williams' 2022 numbers, then maybe, *maybe*, Orlovsky can revisit this discussion. Until then, it just sounds like noise.