Malcolm Kelly's Private Pro Day Results

[joseephuss]

Here's a few names that weren't really that fast.

Steve Largent-hall fo famer was about a 4.6 guy
Jerry Rice was probably around a 4.7 40 type guy
Emmitt Smith probably never really ran much over 4.5 or 4.6 range.

I could probably go on with more. 40 times are way overrated.

He doesn't look like a Largent, Rice or Irvin to me.

I agree that 40 times are overrated, but that is only because the media tend to only focus on them. Teams don't focus only on 40 times. They look at everything and a 40 time is part of that evaluation.

I don't care for either Malcolm Kelly or Limas Sweed as first rounders. I watched both and was not impressed enough with either to see them as first rounders. The second would be fine, but neither had that dominate type look or feel to them that signifies first rounder in my opinion. It did not help that the Big 12 did not seem to have any dominant defenses to test either guy the past couple of years.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I don't think the 40 times are the be all, end all that people make them out to be.

Didn't TO supposedly run like a 4.6 when he was coming out? I dare anyone to try and claim that he's as slow as 4.6 on the football field cause you'd be crazy.

I don't know if Kelly will, or won't, be an outstanding Pro or not but I know from having seen him play that he definately either runs much faster than a 4.6 on the football field or he was lucky enough to play a bunch of people in the Big 12 who run 4.7 or slower.

His counterpart was very productive this year, and I don't discount that, but for anyone to look at the numbers and just try and claim he was better obviously never watched the darn Sooners play. (I can't stand them, as a team, but they have players from time to time I like)

Early in the year when they were doing more 1 on 1 with both of the reciever Malcom blasted out to an extremely fast start. I believe he started the season off with something like 14 or 15 grabs with 7 of them for scores. After that teams made a much greater effort to keep him double teamed and not allow him to go off. Thus, leaving the other guy (Whose very good as well), to almost always be 1 on 1. He SHOULD have put up better numbers with that kind of favorable coverage.

Kelly may never be great, I don't know, but I just know from having seen him play both on TV, and live, that he plays much faster than that, has outstanding hands, and runs very nice routes.

Someone will get a quality pro reciever with him. Great or outstanding? I don't know. But quality? For sure.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

He doesn't look like a Largent, Rice or Irvin to me.
quote]


I'm sure, back in the day without the hindsight of their careers to fall back on, that had you only seen those times then Largent, Rice, and Irvin probably didn't look like the stars they were, either, coming out.

I don't think Kelly is necassarily in those guys leagues, either way, but I don't think he'll necassarily suck cause he ran a 4.65 on some forty yard dash.

 

[joseephuss]

He doesn't look like a Largent, Rice or Irvin to me.
quote]


I'm sure, back in the day without the hindsight of their careers to fall back on, that had you only seen those times then Largent, Rice, and Irvin probably didn't look like the stars they were, either, coming out.

I don't think Kelly is necassarily in those guys leagues, either way, but I don't think he'll necassarily suck cause he ran a 4.65 on some forty yard dash.

I didn't say he would suck. Just that he didn't look like a first rounder.

I have watched Kelly play and really don't care about his time that much. My evaluation has been because of his play on the field and it doesn't look like first round material to me. I watched Irvin in college and he did look like a first rounder while playing for The U.

 

[QT]

I didn't say he would suck. Just that he didn't look like a first rounder.

I have watched Kelly play and really don't care about his time that much. My evaluation has been because of his play on the field and it doesn't look like first round material to me. I watched Irvin in college and he did look like a first rounder while playing for The U.

It's a good thing Tex Schramm, Gil Brant, and Tom Landry thought Irvin was a first rounder. I remember that draft. Sterling Sharpe and Tim Brown went ahead of Irvin.

 

[TheCount]

I don't think the 40 times are the be all, end all that people make them out to be.

Didn't TO supposedly run like a 4.6 when he was coming out? I dare anyone to try and claim that he's as slow as 4.6 on the football field cause you'd be crazy.

I'm so tired of this argument, and it's not even like you're the only one that does it. How many T.O.'s has this league seen in its existence?

Not every good college pro that has poor numbers is going to end up being a hall of fame candidate, some of them simply flop.

Where are the Bryant Johnson comparisons? Reggie Williams? Michael Clayton? Koren Robinson?

All these guys were good college players, ran poorly and got drafted. They aren't T.O., they contribute on their teams but they don't make pro bowls or break records.

Just cause a guy has a bad workout but played well in college, doesn't mean he's going to always defeat the odds.

 

[joseephuss]

It's a good thing Tex Schramm, Gil Brant, and Tom Landry thought Irvin was a first rounder. I remember that draft. Sterling Sharpe and Tim Brown went ahead of Irvin.

All three were great and would have helped Dallas, but being somewhat biased I believe Irvin was the best of the three and the best fit.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's a good thing Tex Schramm, Gil Brant, and Tom Landry thought Irvin was a first rounder. I remember that draft. Sterling Sharpe and Tim Brown went ahead of Irvin.

But, to be fair, had Sharpe been able to play his entire career, he probably would have ended up as one of the very best WRs of all time. No joke. Sharpe, IMO, was the best WR in football when he was in Green Bay. As for Tim Brown, well, he's 2nd all-time in receptions, 3rd all-time in yards and 6th all time in TDs in NFL History.

That might have been the best draft for WRs ever. Anthoney Miller was a heck of a WR, Wendell Davis and Aaron Cox never really worked out but in addition to those 6 WRs taken in the first round, Flipper Anderson, Brian Blades, Brett Perriman and Quinn Early were all taken within the first 60 selections of that draft. Mike Haynes was taken at the top of the 7th by Atlanta and he was a pretty decent WR as well. No shame in being the 3rd WR off the board in that class. There were some pretty good WRs that year.

 

[Dallas]

I'm so tired of this argument, and it's not even like you're the only one that does it. How many T.O.'s has this league seen in its existence?

Not every good college pro that has poor numbers is going to end up being a hall of fame candidate, some of them simply flop.

Where are the Bryant Johnson comparisons? Reggie Williams? Michael Clayton? Koren Robinson?

All these guys were good college players, ran poorly and got drafted. They aren't T.O., they contribute on their teams but they don't make pro bowls or break records.

Just cause a guy has a bad workout but played well in college, doesn't mean he's going to always defeat the odds.

Umm I could argue the opposite very easily. Just cuz a guy has a bad workout but played well in college, doesn't mean he can't beat the odds and do well in the NFL.

MK was clearly the #WR in the draft until that bad showing he put on at Norman. The kid tries again and does actually do better. What would you be saying if he ran these same times back at Norman?

Your obvious refusal to see anything positive about MK is pouring out in your posts regarding him.

I know my support for him is also pouring out in mine but I know for a fact the kid is a baller and can flat out play.

Most fans of the Big 12 in here will say the same thing. Did you even watch the kid in college? Maybe I should be asking that question first. You aren't one to watch some yourtube video and say they are all-pro because of it are you?

 

[TheCount]

Umm I could argue the opposite very easily. Just cuz a guy has a bad workout but played well in college, doesn't mean he can't beat the odds and do well in the NFL.

How is that the opposite? All you're doing is spinning what I said, just like you've been spinning every critical article of Kelly.

MK was never CLEARLY the #1 receiver, this class has no standouts. I've seen draft sites that have one-year-wonder Devin Thomas at #1.

I have absolutely no bias against Kelly, he has good hands and is a bigger guy (two qualities I like in receivers) I just think it's ridiculous to only pay attention to the good and ignore the bad. I've argued against Devin Thomas as a 1st round pick due to his only having one good year.

The fact that you are incapable of seeing any shortcomings in your guy isn't my fault, I'm simply letting you know it ain't all sunshine and flowers.

 

[FCBarca]

But, to be fair, had Sharpe been able to play his entire career, he probably would have ended up as one of the very best WRs of all time. No joke. Sharpe, IMO, was the best WR in football when he was in Green Bay. As for Tim Brown, well, he's 2nd all-time in receptions, 3rd all-time in yards and 6th all time in TDs in NFL History.

That might have been the best draft for WRs ever. Anthoney Miller was a heck of a WR, Wendell Davis and Aaron Cox never really worked out but in addition to those 6 WRs taken in the first round, Flipper Anderson, Brian Blades, Brett Perriman and Quinn Early were all taken within the first 60 selections of that draft. Mike Haynes was taken at the top of the 7th by Atlanta and he was a pretty decent WR as well. No shame in being the 3rd WR off the board in that class. There were some pretty good WRs that year.

Sterling was a terror...Brings back some nightmares

 

[Dallas]

How is that the opposite? All you're doing is spinning what I said, just like you've been spinning every critical article of Kelly.

MK was never CLEARLY the #1 receiver, this class has no standouts. I've seen draft sites that have one-year-wonder Devin Thomas at #1.

I have absolutely no bias against Kelly, he has good hands and is a bigger guy (two qualities I like in receivers) I just think it's ridiculous to only pay attention to the good and ignore the bad. I've argued against Devin Thomas as a 1st round pick due to his only having one good year.

The fact that you are incapable of seeing any shortcomings in your guy isn't my fault, I'm simply letting you know it ain't all sunshine and flowers.

Whoa whoa whoa. I never said I didnt see any short comings in MK. There obviously is one in his speed. He was never a speed guy playing in college so I didn't feel the need to point that out. Anyone who watched him during college knew he wasn't some barn burner. He uses his body well to get deep and runs excellent routes. Add the hands and I think he was clearly the #1WR on many boards before his 1st pro day.

Look - don't take things so personal. Who really cares I like the guy. I like Sweed also. I dont think he was worth a #1 eval tho. I think Kelley clearly was a better receiver in college than Sweed and proved that.

Most real national mocks had Kelley going to the Bills in the 1st. That isn't something I made up. Sure they may be down on him now a bit because of his 40. Thats fine. I hope MK falls all the way down to us at 28 or trade one of them for a vet WR. Im all ok w/ that.

My whole defense of the kid was mainly because everyone in this thread was selling him so short.

I am just not a guy who says this certain kid will fail cuz I say so. I am no Theo w/ a crystal ball and who can call every future of every kid in the draft.

I wish I could. I can't. I have no mo-jo.

Plent of machismo though...

 

[Bob Sacamano]

is this the Red River Shootout?

 

[Stash]

I would take Sweed over Kelly if it were my decision. And it's not even because of the numbers involved. It's because of the players' mental makeup. I think Sweed is a much more humble, hardworking, team-oriented guy.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I'm so tired of this argument, and it's not even like you're the only one that does it. How many T.O.'s has this league seen in its existence?

Not every good college pro that has poor numbers is going to end up being a hall of fame candidate, some of them simply flop.

Where are the Bryant Johnson comparisons? Reggie Williams? Michael Clayton? Koren Robinson?

All these guys were good college players, ran poorly and got drafted. They aren't T.O., they contribute on their teams but they don't make pro bowls or break records.

Just cause a guy has a bad workout but played well in college, doesn't mean he's going to always defeat the odds.

Did I say that they always would? No.

And just because he ran poorly and played well in college doesn't mean he's going to flop.

Which is my only thing. People look at the 40 times and immediately think they know, for sure, whether a guy will or will not be something.

As I said, more than once, I didn't know if he'd be a great player or wouldn't. BUt I think he's going to wind up being a good player for someone.

 

[Dallas]

I would take Sweed over Kelly if it were my decision. And it's not even because of the numbers involved. It's because of the players' mental makeup. I think Sweed is a much more humble, hardworking, team-oriented guy.

Odd. I heard the exact opposite about Sweed. He wasn't a good route runner and folks said he wasn't an all out 100% giver during games.

Taking plays off so to speak.

 

[Stash]

Odd. I heard the exact opposite about Sweed. He wasn't a good route runner and folks said he wasn't an all out 100% giver during games.

Taking plays off so to speak.

I've seen those comments made about Kelly, not Sweed.

"raw route runner"

"not quick getting into and out of his breaks"

"will look disinterested when the ball isn't coming his way"

"reasons to believe he has 'bust' potential"

I would be interested to know where you heard what you did about Sweed.

All information I've seen points to exactly the opposite.

 

[Dallas]

I've seen those comments made about Kelly, not Sweed.

"raw route runner"

"not quick getting into and out of his breaks"

"will look disinterested when the ball isn't coming his way"

"reasons to believe he has 'bust' potential"

I would be interested to know where you heard what you did about Sweed.

All information I've seen points to exactly the opposite.

To support your argument. I would expect nothing less.

BTW: All of this information I was talking about regarding Sweed was coming from the LongHorn boards. Not NFL.COM

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Lindy's rates Malcolm Kelly #3, and Sweed, #5

which stash conveniently forgets to note

 

[TheCount]

Did I say that they always would? No.

And just because he ran poorly and played well in college doesn't mean he's going to flop.

Which is my only thing. People look at the 40 times and immediately think they know, for sure, whether a guy will or will not be something.

As I said, more than once, I didn't know if he'd be a great player or wouldn't. BUt I think he's going to wind up being a good player for someone.

It's not about knowing or not knowing, we're talking about draft position here. As I've said, MK could be productive, he could be a star, or he might not be.

What I'm arguing is draft position and value. I'm not saying his 40 times makes him a sure bust, but it has to adjust his draft position.

Just like Sweed's lapses and injury have adjusted his, just like Desean's size has adjusted his and just like Mario's lack of size without top speed has.

From 11 to Buffalo to us at 28, according to mocks, would be just such an adjustment. To the 2nd round would be a pretty big adjustment as well, and not complete invalid. I'm just saying it's justified, you can't ignore it.

Unlike ABQ however, I don't think he makes it out of the second unless something else happens. His attitude over his first 40 run certainly didn't help him either, so who knows, but I don't see how he makes it out of the 2nd when he was formerly a top 15 prospect.