The conversation around Alabama quarterback Ty Simpson is beginning to shift, and not quietly. What once felt like a limited-sample evaluation has now turned into a broader debate about projection, upside, and how much context truly matters when assessing NFL potential.
Dan Orlovsky Elevates Ty Simpson Draft Outlook With Brock Purdy Comparison
During a recent appearance on ESPN’s “Get Up,” Dan Orlovsky made it clear he views Simpson far more favorably than much of the current draft discourse suggests. When asked whether the perceived gap between Simpson and other quarterbacks remains small, Orlovsky doubled down.
“I still believe it’s not that wide,” Orlovsky said. “I truly believe that if Ty Simpson was six foot four, he would be going number two to the New York Jets.”
“[Ty Simpson’s] very much so Brock Purdy. … I’m much higher on him than other people.”
—@danorlovsky7 on Ty Simpson’s style of play 🏈 pic.twitter.com/BYtb7XkOoZ
— Get Up (@GetUpESPN) March 17, 2026
He went further, suggesting that Simpson’s evaluation is being shaped heavily by factors beyond pure on-field performance.
According to Orlovsky, physical measurements and limited starting experience are playing an outsized role in suppressing Simpson’s stock. He implied that with a larger body of work or prototypical size, Simpson could be in contention for the very top of the draft.
Orlovsky also highlighted specific stretches of film, pointing to late-season performances as evidence of high-end capability. “You’re watching a guy that’s lethal down the field… He’s very much so Brock Purdy. He’s not gonna wow you with the physical traits, but surgical when it comes to throwing the football.”
That comparison to Brock Purdy is particularly telling. It frames Simpson not as a raw traits-based prospect, but as a rhythm passer who thrives on timing, anticipation, and execution within structure.
Orlovsky emphasized that Simpson is making “real NFL throws on real NFL concepts,” reinforcing the idea that his game may translate more smoothly than critics expect.
However, PFSN’s draft profile presents a more measured evaluation. While acknowledging Simpson’s rapid rise in 2025 and flashes of first-round ability, the report points to inconsistency as a central concern. Losses to Oklahoma and Indiana exposed areas where his processing and precision faltered, even as his mechanical foundation remained strong.
The data from PFSN further contextualizes his standing. Simpson received a PFSN grade of 84.22, ranking No. 43 overall and No. 2 among quarterbacks, indicating strong positional value despite a lower overall placement.
His draft projection shows an average draft position of 19.7, with a wide range of picks from 1 to 76, while still being projected as a first-round selection. He has been included in 166 mock drafts, reflecting steady interest across evaluators.
BE AN NFL GM: PFSN’s Ultimate GM Simulator
Additional simulation data shows a user average draft position of 26.4 and a user rank of No. 25, with Simpson being selected 25,883 times and trending upward with a +1.9 weekly change.
Across major industry boards, he ranks No. 36 by PFF, No. 35 by ESPN, No. 34 by The Athletic, and No. 33 by CBS Sports, suggesting a consistent mid-to-late first-round evaluation range.
Statistically, Simpson’s career arc also reflects both development and limited exposure. After minimal production from 2022 through 2024, he broke out in 2025 with 3,567 passing yards, 28 touchdowns, and five interceptions, finishing with a 150.4 passer rating. His career totals stand at 3,948 yards, 28 touchdowns, five interceptions, and a 63.9% completion rate.
The profile praises his mechanics and pre-snap processing but notes inconsistency in post-snap decisions and non-elite arm strength. This creates a gap between his peak performances and overall reliability.
What emerges is a classic draft dilemma. Orlovsky sees a quarterback already executing at an NFL level, while PFSN highlights a prospect still ironing out inconsistencies. The Brock Purdy comparison captures that tension, pointing to a player whose success may ultimately depend on how much teams value precision and processing over physical traits.
