Mina Kimes Roasted Dan Orlovsky In a Scene That Felt Like Something Straight Out Of “8 Mile” [VIDEO]
This article was originally published on Total Pro Sports.
Dan Orlovsky expected a normal Thursday morning. He joined First Take ready for a regular debate. Instead, he faced a tough discussion. Mina Kimes came fully prepared.
The ESPN analyst used facts and statistics to support her argument. She also spoke with strong confidence. The debate focused on the NFL MVP race.
Kimes supported New England Patriots quarterback Drake Maye. Orlovsky supported Los Angeles Rams quarterback Matthew Stafford. The debate quickly became intense, and many viewers felt one side took control early.
Numbers Against Volume
Kimes started the debate with confidence. She explained her reasons for voting and focused on performance and overall value. Important statistics like QBR, EPA, and completion percentage supported her argument. Maye’s rushing ability also earned praise during her explanation.
Orlovsky disagreed and supported Stafford. He questioned the strength of Maye’s opponents and argued that Stafford faced tougher teams. Kimes stayed calm and responded to each point. She used examples of common opponents and stayed in control of the discussion.
“I’m a voter, and I voted for Drake Maye. And I’m right. And I’m going to explain to Dan Orlovsky why he’s wrong,” Kimes said.
“I’m a voter, and I voted for Drake Maye. And, I’m right, I’m going to explain to Dan Orlovsky why he’s wrong.”
This felt like the last scene in “8 Mile”. Mina knew the schedule would be brought up and brought FACTS.
🎥: @FirstTake | @minakimespic.twitter.com/GvIEHkIze2
— Michael Rodnick (@MJRodnick) February 5, 2026
Kimes continued building her argument. Defensive strength, running support, and receiving talent all became part of her comparison. Her main point suggested that Maye achieved more with fewer weapons. The decision, in her view, looked obvious.
Orlovsky tried to respond and returned to the schedule argument. The Bills’ defense came up as an example of strong competition. A quick reply from Kimes shut down the point and kept the discussion in her favor.
“Statistically, I am telling you New England’s, the slate of defenses they faced, if you look at EPA per play, not much easier than the Patriots,” Kimes said.
Orlovsky searched for answers but sounded unsure. Questions about common opponents came up, and Kimes explained her argument again.
The debate stayed intense and looked one-sided at times. Strong points from Kimes put pressure on Orlovsky, who struggled to respond. Many fans noticed the difference, one even said, “This felt like the last scene in “8 Mile”. Mina knew the schedule would be brought up and brought FACTS.”
No official winner was announced, but many fans believed Kimes performed better. Similar debates will likely return next season, with both analysts preparing again.
