Originally Posted by desertsteel
Well, let me clue you in: the concerns with negative plays center around his long windup and slow delivery. People say it makes him prone for turnovers just based on how it looks. The reason past stats are important are because his throwing motion has NOT CHANGED. And he was NEVER more mobile than he is now. So for that reason the past is a good predictor of the future.
Want to know what I see?
I see a guy who has had a mediocre career and has spent much of that career riding the pine for one team or another who now has an opportunity to validate his existence. He's not being asked to step in for a starter who has a sore finger and will be back, good as new next week. Instead he's stepping into a situation where two of the next three games we play will likely play a major role if not outright decide our playoff future and it's a pretty good bet that he'll likely play in all of them.
For a person who has spent the last few years watching other people be successful, he probably can't wait to seize this opportunity to have his career actually mean something. When he was interviewed after the Cheif's game, he said all of the usual "rah-rah" stuff about being ready and being the "next man up". But at the very end of that interview he was asked if he'll be ready and he answered like a kid who was getting his first big shot at something and he promised that he would be ready and that he won't be rusty.
This guy is pumped and he's ready to redeem himself and his career and to take advantage of an opportunity to make all of the disappointing years of waiting seem worth it and I hope he gets the chance because I think he'll make the most of it.
There isn't a statistic in the world that can measure that sort of thing.
That's what I see.