Dan Orlovsky has been put on blast before.
It’s nothing new for the ex-journeyman quarterback turned NFL analyst. But how he conducts his analysis is a point of contention among former players turned media cohorts from a different generation. After Shannon Sharpe accused Orlovsky of being a shill for Aaron Rodgers, seemingly unwilling to criticize his failed experiment with the New York Jets, Cris Carter claimed he shouldn’t be on TV if that were the case.
Orlovsky is being criticized again, this time for perhaps being too critical of a quarterback.
He took to X (formerly Twitter) and posted a grainy video of the All-22 from one of what’s being universally looked at as one of the worst play calls of the season. But instead of taking aim at Chicago Bears head coach Matt Eberflus and offensive coordinator Shane Waldron’s decision-making, he made it a referendum on Caleb Williams’ handing-off skills.
Play call was fine
Handoff…. pic.twitter.com/v9lkV32wgG— Dan Orlovsky (@danorlovsky7) October 28, 2024
“Listen, not to get lost in the ending of a remarkable ending of a Bears-Commanders game,” Orlovsky began regarding Washington’s walk-off Hail Mary win over Chicago. “But, I go back to this and the handoff and freeze frame it here. And listen, Caleb, I thought was phenomenal in the game — poised, made big throws late. But look where that ball is on this hand off to the lineman.
“…That ball’s too high for me on that handoff. See, that ball is just too high — it’s up at his chest…That ball down 4-6 inches right in his belly; pocket is good by the big fella. Just, unfortunately, from Caleb, just a fraction too high.”
Instead of handing it off to its 6-foot, 225-pound back in Roschon Johnson, Chicago tried to take a page out of Mike Ditka’s playbook. Down 12-7, Williams handed it off to offensive lineman Doug Kramer Jr. on a pivotal goal-line play. Needless to say, the third-year backup depth piece fumbled the handoff.
But instead of blaming the play caller, Orlovsky said that the play call was “fine.”
Orlovsky received a litany of replies, including from Booger McFarland, who wrote that [Waldron] has to live with the “choices,” “decisions,” and “consequences” of the play call that his ESPN colleague just deemed “fine.”
Choices decisions consequences. Shane has to live with them all
— Booger (@ESPNBooger) October 28, 2024
No one in Orlovsky’s replies seemed to agree with the former Detroit Lions quarterback.
There’s just zero chance that Chicago’s best play call from third-and-goal at the 1-yard line is a fullback dive to a backup offensive lineman. While this isn’t new to Kramer, who was called upon to play fullback in a Week 4 24-18 victory over the Los Angeles Rams, less than a month ago, he took his first snap in an NFL game that did not end in a quarterback kneel.
Now, he’s taking the ball from the 1-yard line with the game in the balance in the fourth quarter?
Nothing about that seems “fine” to anyone not named Orlovsky, including Ryan Fitzpatrick. A journeyman quarterback turned analyst himself, the Prime Video pregame personality has let it rip since joining Amazon’s Thursday Night Football coverage. He’s shown his disdain for Tom Brady, started a podcast with Andrew Whitworth and now is ribbing Orlovsky over his support of an offensive coordinator.
It’s not that Orlovsky defended the play call with his life, but trying to place blame elsewhere without being critical of Waldron is seemingly what Sharpe and Carter took issue with re: Rodgers. These aren’t exactly two birds of the same feather, but Fitzpatrick had fun at Orlovsky’s expense.
He implored if Orlovsky and Waldron were friends.
Dan, I’m curious, are you friends with Shane Waldron?
— Ryan Fitzpatrick (@FitzMagic_14) October 28, 2024
Nothing more, nothing less.
But everyone knows what he’s getting at there.
Waldron is four years Orlovsky’s senior, and it doesn’t appear that their paths have ever crossed, but his unwillingness to place the blame on the offensive coordinator made it seem, at least to Fitzpatrick, that they were companions at best and had a “fine” relationship at worst.
Based on Orlovsky’s lack of a reply, we can reasonably infer there probably isn’t much of a relationship there. Instead, it’s just Fitzpatrick busting the chops of his quarterback counterpart for doing what he’s been accused of not doing while also leaving the offensive coordinator blameless.
Orlovsky can’t win when it comes to his own analysis. But we’ll give Fitzpatrick the ‘W’ here for his analysis of Orlovsky’s analysis.