Getty Images
ESPN declined to comment to PFT about the public comings and goings between colleagues Kirk Herbstreit and Dan Orlovsky, prompted by Orlovsky’s controversial comments about Ohio state quarterback Justin Fields. Orlovsky provided further comments on his comments, but not on Herbsteit’s reaction to them, Peter King’s Football morning in America.
Here is the main paragraph in King’s column: “Orlovsky told me on Saturday that people on some teams questioned Fields’ work ethic, but he regrets having no more ‘clarity and specificity’ in his comments. In other words, he should have said something like, It’s not what I know firsthand, but when talking to people I know in the league, two teams questioned Justin Fields’ work ethic, and that can be a concern. It is important that Orlovsky is free to pass on information that he considers reliable, but it is equally important to put that information into context. “
That is where I will continue to differ from Orlovsky. Just because he finds the comments “trustworthy” does not mean that they are. The problem is that, by repeating them on a public platform, it makes them reliable, even if they are not.
Orlovsky, as an afterthought in the video he posted to respond to what he called a “fire storm” created by his appearance with Pat McAfee, acknowledged that “this is also a season when teams are trying to say things to potentially make a guy fall with them. “
Again, this is the frontline reaction that Orlovsky, and anyone else in the sports media, must have when someone on a team is anonymously whispering criticism about any recruiting candidate, especially the most reputable. Even though the source with the team that is saying negative things about a guy like Fields looks credible, there is a chance that that person has been deliberately deceived internally by other senior people in the organization – others who are very adept at directing the most talkative team members and creating a chain of “useful idiots” who will hear things said by coach or GM or other high-level executive and, considering them reliable, will repeat them to someone in the media who, considering them reliable, will repeat them in public.
So, what should Orlovsky have done? First, he should have had the most important phrase in his video – “this is a season when teams are trying to say things to potentially make a guy fall for them” – in front of his mind when he heard what he heard. Second, if he really found the information about Fields credible enough to be repeated, he should have called others who know Fields before, not after, saying what Orlovsky said. Third, he should have returned the information to others within ESPN who had struggled to figure out how to deal with such potentially sensitive issues in the past, because this is not the first time that a draft analyst has been faced with a negative opinion about a black quarterback who dusted off some of the racial tropes that anyone in the business is or should be fully aware of.
Ultimately, that was the mistake Orlovsky made. He had a total lack of awareness. He was unaware of the way teams use media figures to feed possible draft slides that will make a player fall. He was unaware of how the negative opinions he shared on a public platform would be seen when addressed to a black defender.
He was also unaware of the two most important objective evidences that would go against whatever anyone might be trying to manipulate him to say: (1) Fields struggled to have a 2020 college football season; and (2) during the playoff game against Clemson, Fields took a devastating blow in the middle that caught significant and obvious discomfort, and he not only continued, but also had one of the best games of his life.
Moving forward, everyone associated with these types of pre-draft strategies should be fully aware of the fact that teams that like a particular player will actively spread bullshit over him in the hope that he will slip. And that should always be the first reaction when things like this are said in private.