Re: Malcolm Kelly possible cut?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;709303]I haven't seen much from Kelly or Thomas since they were drafted. I had a wildly divergent opinion of the two as pro prospects since coming into the league, but their performances have been remarkably similar. Part of that is that they've had to compete with each other for playing time, because I feel that Moss had his touches scripted for him most of the Zorn era, and that Thomas, Kelly, and Randle El were sort of forced to work around him (and Cooley, when he was healthy).

It would have been nice if one had been much more prepared than the other and had taken all the reps and succeeded, but I think, legitimately, neither is ahead of the other.

It's really Shanahan's first challenge is deciding what to do with these two. He hasn't been impressed by either in minicamp. It's too early to throw up his hands and quit on these guys, but they can't be allowed to compete with each other any longer. One or the other really needs to be pushed into the spotlight and allowed to fail. With Cooley and Davis both getting their touches -- remember Cooley is learning to play all receiving positions in the offense so the Redskins can choose to get the ball to him without having to change the gameplan -- this isn't going to be a three receiver offense. That's more or less why Randle El was cut.

If Moss wins his spot in the starting lineup, one of the these two is going to have to learn to contribute on special teams for the rest of his rookie deal.[/quote]

I agree with everything you've said, but I don't necessarily think that the third receiver has to contribute to special teams. I could easily envision Moss as the #1, Thomas as the #2, Kelly as the #3, and Thomas contributing to special teams as well.

Re: Malcolm Kelly possible cut?
 

I thought thomas made some nice tackles on specials last year. I remember at least one play where he was the first one down there and made a nice open field tackle on the returner.

Re: Malcolm Kelly possible cut?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;709304][B]Kelly played really well at the start of last year, [/B]but when he got that finger injury, he really allowed it to cut into parts of his game that it shouldn't have. When it healed, he finished very strong with Thomas out. I have legit questions about his ability to perform with pain.

If there's anyone here that is familiar with his performances/successes/struggles at OU, jump in here, please.[/quote]

He did???? I didn't see it.

Re: Malcolm Kelly possible cut?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;709357]He did???? I didn't see it.[/quote]

How quickly we forget about those 7 catches...

[SIZE=1]in the first 5 games[/SIZE] ;)

Re: Malcolm Kelly possible cut?
 

[quote=mattyk;709360]how quickly we forget about those 7 catches...

[size=1]in the first 5 games[/size] ;)[/quote]

lol!!!

Re: Malcolm Kelly possible cut?
 

RedskinsDotCom

RT @RedskinsBlog Saw WR Anthony Armstrong heading back to review film on Monday. Guess that's how you get to be a breakout guy in mini-camp.

Re: Malcolm Kelly possible cut?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;709328]TO would love nothing better than to be in the DC media, going against Dallas and Philly 2x's at least a year, and I would welcome him here for a one year incentive laden contract.[/quote]

I agree completely. Shanny probably doesn't want him here but if they do wind up signing him the only kind of contract I am sure they would give him would be little or no guaranteed and it would all be performance based. PS I am proud to announce this is my century mark post and I am no longer a camp scrub! HAIL!!

Re: Malcolm Kelly possible cut?
 

[quote=tryfuhl;709239]he's available![/quote]

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/28/vikings-claim-marko-mitchell/]Vikings claim Marko Mitchell | ProFootballTalk.com[/url]

If Farve comes back i predict huge things for the kid. Almost started a new thread, that would undoubtedly become a sticky, titled "Marko Mitchell proves everyone but me wrong".

Re: Malcolm Kelly possible cut?
 

[quote=InsaneBoost;709134]Link: [URL="http://www.csnwashington.com/06/21/10/Redskins-53-Man-Roster-Version-10/landing.html?blockID=257987&feedID=2993"]Redskins' 53-Man Roster, Version 1.0[/URL]

I'd really hate to lose Kelly[/quote]

Malcolm Kelly being cut is about as likely as Devin Thomas being cut.
They had virtually the exact same stats last year not to mention that Malcolm has the best hands on the team.

Re: Malcolm Kelly possible cut?
 

[quote=SkinzWin;709307]If Kelly doesn't play well we all know what dreaded two letters are coming. T.O. [B]I bet all of my skins nick-nacks that if they Kelly does poorly and they cut him T.O. will get a nod to see what he can do.[/B] I'm still out to lunch as to whether it would be good.[/quote]

I'd take that bet because I doubt the Shanahans are going to cut a 3rd year receiver that they are just starting to work with. A better bet would be if they bring in TO at some point in camp to replace Galloway/Wade/Furrey. If you're going with an older receiver, why not go with one that's closer to his elite status than one 3 years removed or a never was like Wade or Furrey?

Re: Malcolm Kelly possible cut?
 

[quote=30gut;709476]Malcolm Kelly being cut is about as likely as Devin Thomas being cut.
They had virtually the exact same stats last year not to mention that Malcolm has the best hands on the team.[/quote]

That being said, regardless of all of these delusions of talent and expected production, unless they prove worthy of being a playmaker this offseason, I say they should get cut. make way for guys that will actually take their 3 years in the league and try to grow. Don't you think its time we start at least tossing around the word.......bust????


Most of the Fans on this here forum are way too forgiving. Most of ya held out for J.C, hoping he would turn it around, and the same is true for D. Thomas and M. Kelly, hoping they will EVENTUALLY turn it ON. Its funny the one guy that impressed us the most and has the prototypical build for a WR, and is also the youngest and has shown the most talent, we get rid of and let the Vikes pick him up. Tis a shame.

Right now, I'd take Marko Mitchell over both of these underachieving bums.

Re: Malcolm Kelly possible cut?
 

I think it's pretty incredible that of the 3 pass catchers we drafted in the 2nd round of the draft 3 years ago...Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly have been utter busts but we have found an absolute gem in Fred Davis.

I mean, who would have predicted that 3 years down the road, Fred Davis would be viewed as a potential game-changer but DT and MK have shown that they suck.

Re: Malcolm Kelly possible cut?
 

Marko Mitchell hasn't proved anything in the NFL. He doesn't have any more a prototypical WR build than either Kelly or Thomas. If either Kelly or Thomas were to get cut, they'd be picked up just as fast by another team

And remember Mitchell has already been cut by one team since he was cut by the Redskins

Re: Malcolm Kelly possible cut?
 

[quote=rbanerjee23;709562]I think it's pretty incredible that of the 3 pass catchers we drafted in the 2nd round of the draft 3 years ago...[B]Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly have been utter busts[/B] but we have found an absolute gem in Fred Davis.

I mean, who would have predicted that 3 years down the road, Fred Davis would be viewed as a potential game-changer but [B]DT and MK have shown that they suck.[/B][/quote]

Isn't that overstating it just a bit? Of course we want and expect more from them but Thomas had a decent year last season, especially once Zorn wasn't calling plays anymore. Kelly won a starting job out of camp and then struggled but was basically a rookie last year. I'd like to see them with at least a season with a real coaching staff before writing them off for good.

Re: Malcolm Kelly possible cut?
 

Seems like the arguement for just "One more season" of evaluation always trumps anything else. Good players, and especially ones that are destined to be great, excel no matter the situation. Who gives a shit you have a shitty coach, produce. Run your routes, show us your potential. Lack of good coaching is no excuse for lack of production or at least a glimpse of production.