The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

TDMMC Forums => Around the NFL => Topic started by: Dolphin-UK on April 10, 2008, 01:42:38 pm



Title: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Dolphin-UK on April 10, 2008, 01:42:38 pm
http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09000d5d807adeab&template=with-video&confirm=true

ORMAN, Okla. -- Wide receiver Malcolm Kelly lashed out at Oklahoma on Wednesday after a disappointing performance in a 40-yard dash in front of NFL scouts.
Kelly sounds off

"This is my life. You know what I'm saying? This ain't no school. This ain't no classroom. This ain't got nothing to do with that. This has to do with me; my family. This is what I do. I play football. And I'm supposed to come out here and run as fast as I can."

Kelly, who left Oklahoma after his junior season, blamed his slow time of 4.68 seconds on an unexpected change in surfaces at his pro day.

"This is my life. You know what I'm saying? This ain't no school. This ain't no classroom. This ain't got nothing to do with that," Kelly said. "This has to do with me; my family. This is what I do. I play football. And I'm supposed to come out here and run as fast as I can."

Kelly skipped Oklahoma's original pro timing day last month while recuperating from a tear in his quadriceps, and said he had arranged with Oklahoma strength coach Jerry Schmidt to run on the Astroturf infield at the indoor track.

He said he was surprised when he arrived and found out he'd instead be running on the artificial turf inside the Sooners' indoor football facility.

"I already had everything set up for where I want to do it at," Kelly said. "I get out here and it's a whole different deal."

Kelly said he recently ran 40-yard dashes in 4.5 and 4.47 seconds on a firmer surface in Atlanta, where he has been training. The slower time could drop the draft stock for Kelly, who had been projected as a possible first-round pick in the April 26 draft.

"People want to say surface is surface, but it's a lot more to it than that," Kelly said. "You have to think about how much ground time you have running on this mushy surface here and how much ground time you have on Astroturf.

"Just a little bit of time could mean a whole lot of draft money."

Schmidt said he NFL scouts preferred Kelly run on the softer surface because "this is the surface that they run on" and that scouts could add fractions of a second to a 40-yard dash time if they perceive a track to be too fast.

"I told Malcolm it's up to him, wherever he wants to run," Schmidt said.

Kelly's agent, Chad Speck, said the surface was the slowest track that Kelly could have run on and suggested it could have cost him as much as two-tenths of a second.

"When it's a spongy surface and your foot sinks and is on the ground as long as it is on that surface, it's just going to correlate to a slow 40 time," Speck said.

Speck said Kelly had specially fit shoes designed to run on the other surface, but it wouldn't have been wise for him to refuse to workout despite the change in conditions.

"He's really only had about three to four weeks to get ready for this day, and for that short amount of time, every day was critical," Speck said. "He had prepared exactly for what was going to be done -- what surface it was going to be on, what shoes he was going to wear, everything."


Hmmmm, I'm sorry, but you tried to arrange it so that you ran on an artifically faster surface than was realistic, and selected footwear designed to be fast on that surface.

Word to the wise, but in football, you don't get to choose what surface you run on, if the coaches want you on a more realistic surface then you run on it, you should be more worried about the fact that you didn't have the foresight to consider all the options, and failed to pack adequate equipment for turning up at something which as you say "This is my life. You know what I'm saying? This ain't no school. This ain't no classroom. This ain't got nothing to do with that. This has to do with me; my family. This is what I do. I play football. And I'm supposed to come out here and run as fast as I can."

If it's that important to you, don't rely on someone else, hope for the best, plan for the worst, take different shoes and prepare.

Don't even get me started on the distance difference between guys running a tenth of a second faster over 40yds.


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: StL FinFan on April 10, 2008, 03:36:55 pm
A perfect example of today's culture of not taking responsibility for yourself, acting like a victim and blaming others for your problems.  ::)


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Denver_Bronco on April 10, 2008, 03:49:54 pm
Who cares if he's a late first or an early second ? I don't think the difference in those 2 contracts would be life altering money ? Hey jerk, you have a huge chance to go out on the field and get an enormous contract if you perform. Most of us never get a chance, at least you have one.


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Sunstroke on April 10, 2008, 04:40:25 pm
Word to the wise, but in football, you don't get to choose what surface you run on, if the coaches want you on a more realistic surface then you run on it, you should be more worried about the fact that you didn't have the foresight to consider all the options, and failed to pack adequate equipment...

Technically, in the NFL, he'll know EXACTLY what surface he is going to be running on that week, and the equipment staff will get the players different spikes should the surface require it. Malcolm didn't have that option, and got caught with the wrong gear. Personally...I might have been a little pissed off as well.

I definitely wouldn't have gone on a public whining binge though, because if Malcom thinks that a slow .40 time will kill his draft stock, wait 'til he sees how GMs treat whiney primadonas on their draft board.



Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Phishfan on April 10, 2008, 06:12:16 pm
He is a pussy. The article says he could have run at the facility he wanted.

"I told Malcolm it's up to him, wherever he wants to run," Schmidt said.


He made his choice and then it bit him in the ass.


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Sunstroke on April 10, 2008, 06:19:38 pm
He is a pussy. The article says he could have run at the facility he wanted.

"I told Malcolm it's up to him, wherever he wants to run," Schmidt said.


He made his choice and then it bit him in the ass.

Phish...when you read that comment, did it REALLY appear to you as though Malcolm had a choice? I read it as a "you'll run here or you don't know how much time we'll add to your time"

He still shouldn't have whined, but he did get shafted...


 


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Phishfan on April 10, 2008, 06:48:29 pm
It was still a choice and I think he would have complained either way. Still a pussy in my book.


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Spider-Dan on April 10, 2008, 08:20:55 pm
Realistically, the choice was, "run where we tell you to run," "run where you want to run and we'll add whatever arbitrary amount we decide to your time," or "don't run at all and send us home with nothing."  This is not a serious decision.

Saying "he had a choice" is a statement that is devoid of information.  I have a choice whether or not to pay taxes, but one of the "choices" involves me being hauled off to jail, so paying taxes isn't exactly optional, is it?  Similarly, if the scouts tell you to Run Here, your college staff agrees, and you choose to Run Somewhere Else, you're defeating the whole purpose of the run in the first place.  He isn't running because he enjoys it; he's running for the scouts.

OU's staff should have told the scouts, "this is where he trained, this is where he's running," or they should have told Kelly that his desired surface was a bad location from the start.  Instead, they told him he'd be running on a fast track, stood by while he trained for that surface for weeks, and then hung him out to dry at the last second.


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Phishfan on April 11, 2008, 09:42:57 am
Either way he was guaranteed to lose time. He was going to complain either way. Which argument would sound better and less whiney. "They added an arbitrary amount of time to my run" or "they forced me to wear my pretty new shoes on a different surface"?


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Spider-Dan on April 11, 2008, 12:48:43 pm
I didn't think his argument was either of those.  Read the topic.

He complained that OU moved the run to the indoor field after telling him that it would be on the astroturf track.  These are world-class athletes that have weeks of preparation for this type of event.  I mean, look at Ronnie Brown... his outstanding 40 time almost single-handedly earned him millions of dollars.  If he had run a crappy 40, there's no way he would have been picked ahead of Cadillac, much less #2 overall.

This is serious business, and OU's staff took hundreds of thousands of dollars (almost certainly millions) out of Malcolm Kelly's pocket.  Now we can sit here like bitter chumps and say, "well I make $8/hr at Blockbuster, so he should be happy to make whatever he gets," or we can realize that any person who just lost a lot of money is going to be upset.


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: StL FinFan on April 11, 2008, 01:27:13 pm
Maybe it was just him and not the surface he ran on.


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: MaineDolFan on April 11, 2008, 02:01:22 pm
Run, Forrest, Run!


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Dolphin-UK on April 11, 2008, 03:07:45 pm
I can understand that he's upset that he lost out on money, I don't have a problem with that part really.

What I have a problem with is that he was venting his frustration at being moved to a surface which would give a more representative time in the NFL, and is moaning about it.

If I go to my football training, I know we play on Astroturf, but I still take my studded boots with me.....why? Because you never know when we'll have to switch surface.  And I do that without knowing it could cost me millions of dollars.


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Spider-Dan on April 13, 2008, 05:03:50 am
Again, I don't think his objection was that he had to run on a slower surface.  His objection was that he wasn't allowed to run on the surface he trained for.  And the OU staff had previously told him that he would be running on the astroturf.

Now again, we can sit here and talk about how if we are going to a beer league softball game, we bring whatever equipment we might need, and that's all well and good.  But that has nothing whatsoever to do with a timed 40 for pro scouts.  In the scouting world, two-tenths of a second is the difference between stunningly fast and unacceptably slow, and wearing the wrong kind of shoes can easily cause that kind of a drop.

He didn't bring shoes for the indoor football field (or dirt, or concrete, or any other surface that he hadn't previously arranged to run on) because there wasn't any reason to believe he needed to.  It's not like he just showed up and they randomly picked a surface; he had already discussed the matter with OU's staff, and they told him he'd be running on astroturf.  Given that everyone involved should understand quite clearly how important this run was, that should have been the end of it... but for whatever reason, OU's staff threw him under the bus at the last minute.

THAT'S why he's mad.


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Phishfan on April 14, 2008, 09:11:39 am
sure OU's staff did it. The NFL scouts are who asked for him to run on the other surface, not OU. OU told him he could run on his chosen surface if he wanted, he chose the slower surface. Still OU caused all the problems.


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Spider-Dan on April 14, 2008, 01:01:46 pm
Um, yes, yes they did.

OU told Kelly, "Hey, you can run wherever you want," which, as I said before, is technically true; he could have ran in the parking lot if he wanted to, and no one would have stopped him.  They'd just ignore his time or write down whatever they wanted instead.

The problem was that OU's staff told him, "Sure, you'll be running on the astroturf," and then turned around and told the scouts, "Sure, we can have the run on the indoor field."  Had they told him, "You'll be running on the indoor field" to begin with, there would have been no problem.  His custom shoes would have been for that surface, and that's what he would have practiced on.


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Phishfan on April 14, 2008, 02:48:11 pm
Maybe, just maybe it broke down like this. Kelly told OU that he wanted to run on the indoor track surface and they said yes. Maybe OU had nothing to do with that at all, which is what I suspect.

Kelly had his hands in on this as well.


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Spider-Dan on April 14, 2008, 06:32:51 pm
Oh, I wouldn't doubt that he requested the astroturf.  But the point is, OU should have spoken up beforehand.  If the indoor field is the "more realistic surface," why didn't this come up before the day of the run?

The entire reason he was having this run was because he missed the original OU pro day while recovering from an injury.  So why didn't this come up then?

Again, my problem isn't with OU's staff switching the run to the indoor field.  My problem is with them doing it at the last minute.  It was, frankly, unprofessional.


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Phishfan on April 14, 2008, 09:40:07 pm
But that was not at the request of OU. The scouts who showed up that day requested it. I doubt the scouts even knew the plan beforehand. How can there be advance notice by OU when they never made the decision and they did not know about it beforehand?


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Spider-Dan on April 15, 2008, 01:22:38 pm
Read again: they already had a pro day a month ago.

Quote
Kelly skipped Oklahoma's original pro timing day last month while recuperating from a tear in his quadriceps, and said he had arranged with Oklahoma strength coach Jerry Schmidt to run on the Astroturf infield at the indoor track.
So if the astroturf is a problem, wouldn't it have come up last month?  Why didn't the strength coach say something to Kelly then?

Instead, OU waits until the day of the run and then tells him that scouts prefer the indoor football field over the astroturf.


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Phishfan on April 15, 2008, 02:54:57 pm
You are making the point I am trying to get at for me. OU had nothing to do with the scheduling of the astorturf track field, Kelly did and he missed the original workout. It was not an issue because the NFL scouts probably had no idea Kelly was planning to run there.

See what I am saying? OU had nothing to do with Kelly running on the track surface. If OU had, wouldn't all the guys have been scheduled to run on it?


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Spider-Dan on April 15, 2008, 04:42:55 pm
And here's the rub:

If OU already had a pro day a month prior, and on said pro day, the scouts had requested that the players run on the indoor field, wouldn't this have been a relevant fact to mention when Kelly later arranged to run on the astroturf?  I mean, seeing as how the OU staff was there (for the original pro day) and Kelly wasn't, it seems like that would be a good time to bring up a detail of that sort, instead of springing it on him on the day of his run.

Once again: had OU's staff shown some integrity and told the scouts, "this is what we arranged for, this is where we're running; the indoor field will not be available," then one of two things would have happened:

a) the scouts would have chalked the running surface up to "a factor out of the player's control" and taken his time as-is
b) the scouts would have penalized him anyway, but at least OU would have held up their end of the bargain and kept their word

But instead, OU chose to dump their responsibility in the player's lap at the last minute, which effectively removed any real choice he may have had.  By telling the scouts, "Oh, sure, have the run anywhere you want," they threw him under the bus.



Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Phishfan on April 15, 2008, 06:35:02 pm
That is where our difference lies. I am under the assumption that the indoor track facility was never in discussion during the Pro Day because OU arranged for that day to be handled at the correct facility. You seem to be under the assumption that they tried to have all the runs there. I am also under the impression that since Kelly was training on his own and not at OU that he made a special arrangement with them to run on the indoor track surface as it was similar to his training site. You seem to be under the impression that the OU staff and pro scouts had discussed this facility earlier and I assume that these discussions did not happen until the day of the run.



Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Spider-Dan on April 15, 2008, 08:24:55 pm
That is where our difference lies. I am under the assumption that the indoor track facility was never in discussion during the Pro Day because OU arranged for that day to be handled at the correct facility.
...and that's perfectly fine.  But if the indoor football field was the "correct" facility, why didn't they tell that to Kelly a month ago (when he arranged to run on the astroturf) instead of the day of the run?

Quote
I am also under the impression that since Kelly was training on his own and not at OU that he made a special arrangement with them to run on the indoor track surface as it was similar to his training site.
I'd say that's more of a chicken-or-the-egg question; it's impossible to know whether he trained for astroturf because that's where he arranged to run, or if he arranged to run on astroturf because that's where he was training.

However, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that if the OU staff had told Kelly, "Listen, we're running on the indoor field for our pro day, and we've been running on the indoor field for the umpteen years we've been having pro days," he probably wouldn't have invested so much time and energy into preparing to run on astroturf.

Furthermore, had all that happened, the staff wouldn't be standing around today saying, "Well, we told him he can run where he wants."  They'd be standing around saying, "We advised Malcolm that the astroturf was not the best location when he made the arrangements a month ago, but he wanted that location anyway."


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Spider-Dan on April 15, 2008, 08:33:18 pm
So it looks like he's getting a re-do:

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/11/kelly-will-run-for-scouts-on-april-16/

Quote
KELLY WILL RUN FOR SCOUTS ON APRIL 16
Posted by Mike Florio on April 11, 2008, 3:23 p.m.

Well, I’m in the awkward position of having to contradict something that was posted by MDS while I was tending to other non-PFT business (I had Earl, 30 Rock, The Office, and Scrubs on DVR).  But since MDS was merely repeating something that was posted elsewhere, I don’t feel so bad about it.

Anyway, agent Chad Speck says that the report that receiver Malcolm Kelly will run the 40-yard dash in Atlanta on Sunday without scouts present is flat-out wrong.  Instead, Speck says that Kelly will run again, for scouts, on April 16 in Oklahoma.

Kelly will run on the Astroturf surface on which he’d been preparing to run before this week’s Pro Day workout, during which he ultimately ran on FieldTurf.
  Though Kelly presumably realizes that scouts will add time to his outcome on the faster surface, there’s a chance that, even with added time, his final number will come out faster on the surface on which he feels more comfortable.

The fact that Kelly is running again at Oklahoma suggests that an effort has been made between the player and the program to mend fences.  Even though it wasn’t wise for Kelly to bad-mouth his school, it’s also not good for Oklahoma to be perceived as unfriendly to the pro prospects of its recruits, or its recruits will end up going elsewhere.

Looks like it's time to put up or shut up.


Title: Re: Kelly critical of Oklahoma after disappointing performance
Post by: Spider-Dan on April 16, 2008, 06:35:27 pm
Update: much ado over nothing

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09000d5d807cc5dc&template=with-video&confirm=true

Quote
Kelly comes away with similar results after running again
By Gil Brandt  |  NFL.com

After the controversy surrounding last week's pro day at the University of Oklahoma, Sooners wide receiver Malcolm Kelly had another workout Wednesday afternoon in Norman.

After complaining last week about the way the workout was conducted, Kelly ran this time on what the scouts considered to be a fast track -- and he posted similar numbers to those he ran last week.

Three NFL teams were on hand -- Cleveland, Green Bay and the New York Giants. Once again, he caught passes from former Nebraska quarterback Eric Crouch.

WR Malcolm Kelly (6-3 7/8, 225): Ran the 40 in 4.63 and 4.65, had a 4.15 short shuttle, 6.83 cone drill, had 14 reps in the bench press and once again looked good catching the ball. Crouch threw him 22 "catchable" passes, and Kelly caught all but one.
Sucks to be him.  Seems that he should have kept his mouth shut, if he couldn't back it up.

Still, at least he may have saved a future prospect from the same fate.