I fully understand the critiques that followed his college career with respect to the technical aspects. The narrow base, flat-footed attempts, sailed throws derived from the mechanical rawness. But what I cannot for the life of me understand is how it was questioned that he could even become a functional passer. I've always been intrigued into what those assessments were looking at. Me personally, I thought that his upside was at least that of a solid passer. His tape against Purdue sold me on that. It begun poorly with a sail on the nine route. But it was then littered with promising throws. There was a play right before the end of the first half where he scrambled, pump faked, scrambled to the sideline, and instead of taking the alley upfield, he squared his shoulders and threw a pass that traveled 30 yards to his TE Micky Crum that caught him in stride, in bounds, and landed just above the outstretched hands of the defender. It ended up as an incompletion, but that thing was on a rope. And it was far from the only throw to showcase the upside.
And that's where my issue lies. I'm merely referring to upside, potential. Was I worried about his floor? Yes. And that's coming from someone who took him in the 1st round of the FM. I thought that he needed polish to reach his upside. But I also thought that his concerns in that aspects were from the waist down. Far easier to fix than going from the waist up. I am very much relieved to not have quietly overblown what he could be. But I will perpetually struggle to comprehend why so many didn't even see the possibility of him being at least just a capable passer.
