Debates during NFL Draft season can get out of control. Too often, prospects are pitted against each other. For example, if you like one player as the best at their position, many mistakenly take that to mean you dislike another prospect. Naturally, that happens often at the game’s most important position—quarterback.
The Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson debate from 2018—with Wolf Sports delivering the only analysis that loved them both—remains crazy to look back on. If you thought highly of one of them, people automatically assumed you were low on the other. The “analysis” out there was less about taking each of them as individual prospects and more about comparing them or bringing one down if you liked the other better.
We’re seeing similar things with this year’s draft. ESPN analyst Dan Orlvosky has been going viral—and maybe that’s the point, but his analysis sounds sincere from what I’ve seen—for going against convention and naming Alabama quarterback Ty Simpson as his top quarterback prospect over Indiana’s Fernando Mendoza.
I should mention that both Orlovsky and Simpson are repped by the superagency CAA. There are millions of dollars at stake on a few different levels, so it’s understandable that people are going to question motives.
Again, I’ll assume Orlovsky is sincere. It’s not like he was proclaiming Bo Nix (also repped by CAA) as the best quarterback prospect—which he easily could’ve done despite what the haters said, as Nix has proven—a couple of years ago.
Still, it’s crazy how much the consensus will shout you down if you dare go against convention. Being a one-year starter is far from ideal, but Simpson has a lot to like about him.
To be fair he was being hammered by Pat McAfee and company, but Orlovsky didn’t do himself any favors by wondering what big games they were talking about Mendoza—who helped a juggernaut Indiana squad win the national championship—played well in instead of focusing on why he likes Simpson. It’s understandable that they were apoplectic with Orlovsky. He was more reasonable in this clip.
To be clear, I don’t think the 2026 quarterback debate is the same as 2018. Allen and Jackson were rare dual threat prospects with plenty of experience who have proven to have the ability to carry teams, like we envisioned. I’m not sure Mendoza and Simpson will be team-carriers at the next level (and that’s not to say they can’t be excellent pros; this is a team sport not an individual one).
But we are seeing similar things play out, as we’ve seen every year.
It happened for us with Allen and Jackson in 2018, when compared to the other quarterback prospects as well. “You like Josh Allen better than Josh Rosen? No one will take you seriously for thinking that.”
If you don’t believe me, just go and look back at how the geniuses laughed at and ridiculed the Bills for taking Allen over Rosen. Casual fans heard this and assumed what they were hearing was “right.”
More recently, it happened a couple of years ago with Bo Nix. “You think Bo Nix is a top-two prospect with Caleb Williams? Better than Drake Maye and J.J. McCarthy? You’re an idiot!”
This also extends to when these guys hit the league. “Sean Payton would drop Bo Nix off at the airport if it meant he could have Drake Maye as his quarterback.” (One of the “experts” actually said that before last season.)
The craziest part is that the harshest critics of anyone who strays from the acceptable rankings of prospects haven’t shown they can scout themselves. At all. Plus, when they’re wrong, there is no reckoning.
This isn’t meant to defend or agree with Orlovsky’s take. I’m taking the situation on more of a macro level.
Disagreeing with the consensus—not for the sake of doing so, but by thinking for yourself—is what leads to major “hits.” Like Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, and Bo Nix.
And let’s not act like the consensus has some great track record.