In today’s NFL discourse, perception can be just as powerful as performance. And few things shape perception more than where a player is drafted. That’s exactly what’s happening in the growing debate between Howard and Aller—a debate that says more about how fans think than what the quarterbacks have actually shown.

On paper, the argument seems simple. Aller was selected in the 3rd round. Howard in the 6th. Case closed, right?

Not so fast.

Because when you dig deeper, the gap between them isn’t nearly as clear as many assume. In fact, there’s a strong case that Howard has been undervalued from the start—and may actually offer more long-term upside than the player many fans are ready to anoint.

Let’s start with the obvious: Howard has traits that evaluators dream about. Strong arm, mobility, playmaking ability outside of structure—these are the same raw tools that once made Josh Allen a risky but tantalizing prospect. When Jon Gruden, one of the most offensively-minded coaches in football, draws that kind of comparison, it’s not something to ignore.

But here’s the problem: upside scares people.

For every success story like Allen, there are countless quarterbacks who never quite put it all together. Fans have been burned before, so they lean toward what feels “safer.” And in this case, Aller fits that mold better. He’s perceived as more polished, more predictable, more “NFL-ready.”

Yet even that narrative deserves scrutiny.

Aller’s trajectory last season tells a more complicated story. He started strong, showing poise and control early on. But as the season progressed—and as defenses adjusted—his performance dipped. The consistency wasn’t there. More importantly, when it mattered most, he didn’t elevate his team to a playoff run.

Howard, on the other hand, did exactly that.

Winning a national championship isn’t just a team accomplishment—it’s a test of resilience, leadership, and the ability to perform under pressure. Going through an extended playoff format and finishing on top says something about a quarterback’s mental toughness and adaptability.

And yet, that achievement is often brushed aside in NFL conversations.

Why?

Because scouts and fans tend to separate college success from pro projection. They ask: How much of that success was the system? The supporting cast? The coaching? These are fair questions—but they’re not always applied evenly.

In Howard’s case, it feels like the skepticism is amplified by his draft position.

Then there’s the Steelers’ situation, which adds another layer to the debate.

Last year, the team didn’t have a full set of draft picks, limiting their flexibility. They waited strategically before selecting a quarterback, avoiding the media storm that surrounded prospects like Sanders and the speculation tied to a potential move for Aaron Rodgers. When they finally chose Howard, it wasn’t about instant impact—it was about long-term development.

The plan was clear: let him sit, learn, and grow into the role.

But plans change.

A new head coach brings a new vision. And with that comes uncertainty. The current staff isn’t tied to the previous regime’s decisions, which means Howard now has to prove himself all over again—while potentially competing with quarterbacks the new coach feels more comfortable with.

That’s not unusual in the NFL, but it does create a challenge.

Because development isn’t linear.

Quarterbacks—especially those with high upside—need time, reps, and patience. They need the freedom to make mistakes without the constant fear of being benched after a bad game. If Howard is truly the kind of prospect Gruden described, then pulling the plug too early could mean never seeing what he’s capable of becoming.

At the same time, the coaching staff’s approach isn’t unreasonable.

They need options. They need insurance. If Howard doesn’t progress, they can’t afford to be stuck without alternatives. That’s the reality of a results-driven league.

Still, there’s a difference between healthy competition and premature judgment.

Right now, it feels like many fans have already made up their minds—before Howard has had a genuine opportunity to prove them wrong. The label of “6th-round pick” has become a ceiling in their eyes, rather than just a starting point.

History tells us that’s a mistake.

Some of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history weren’t top picks. What separated them wasn’t where they were drafted—it was what happened after.

Opportunity. Development. Trust.

If Howard is given those things, there’s a real chance he could outperform expectations. Maybe not immediately. Maybe not perfectly. But enough to show that the gap between him and Aller isn’t nearly as wide as people think.

And if he’s not given that chance?

Then the debate becomes meaningless.

Because the biggest risk isn’t that Howard fails—it’s that we never truly find out what he could have been.

So before writing him off, maybe the real question fans should be asking is this:
Are we evaluating quarterbacks based on what they are… or just where they were picked?