I think King has the capacity to be another Penix. Many of the comments above are pretty much the same ones people used to make about him and for the same reasons. Penix has a tendency to take a chance with the ball and let his WRs sort it out. With a good OL and really good receivers he has proven effective doing just that, unless put under extreme duress like he was last night. So why the difference between the two?
First, I'd say it is due to this being King's first year with Faulkner. Or, better, vice versa. Weinke had a pretty good idea of what he could do but Faulkner didn't. Now the two are, I think, more in sync. This seemed to show up in King's performance as the season went on, especially in the emergence of his running. Second, we tend to forget that King isn't the only one who is in the Faulkner-player feedback loop. The WRs are right in there and, of course, the best example is Haynes, who essentially learned his position as the season progressed. I expect the second year of symbiosis will find King improving even more.
But … you never know. More confidence in how the O works might tend to exacerbate his tendency to force throws and there is no guarantee the WRs (we lose several), the OL, and the RB situations will improve over this year. I don't expect anything until I see next year's team on the field for a few games myself.
