Retrospect: Should we have IR'd Malcolm Kelly?

GMScud · 10-07-2008, 01:01 AM

Malcolm Kelly has yet to make any contribution this year due to injury. Now it appears that despite recovering from the ankle, his bad knee is back again.

Should we have IR'd Kelly when putting together the 53-man and opted for another player, WR or other - maybe Billy McMullen?

From the Post (the snipet about Kelly is on the 2nd page of the article):

Rookie wide receiver Malcolm Kelly played sparingly after finally coming back from a knee injury, but his knee is swelling again, so his status will be evaluated through the week. . .

Brooks Continues To Struggle - washingtonpost.com

GTripp0012 · 10-07-2008, 01:08 AM

No, because as long as he's week to week, we can hope that he will be ready to contribute in the future. Billy McMullen is the very definition of camp scrub.

GMScud · 10-07-2008, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

No, because as long as he's week to week, we can hope that he will be ready to contribute in the future. Billy McMullen is the very definition of camp scrub.

Well, I didn't necessarily say we should have only taken McMullen if we IR'd him, just threw him out there.

DirtyLandry · 10-07-2008, 01:21 AM

It was probably a tough call for the coaches, but they probably felt like they could carry him without neccessarily getting immediate production out of him and there's no way to see into the future with injuries. From what I gathered, Kelly was actually beating out Devin Thomas in training camp.

HAILItsGAMEDAY · 10-07-2008, 09:24 AM

I really do feel that Malcolm will eventually contribute to this team. Its a very long season guys and hes just a little banged up right now.

CRedskinsRule · 10-07-2008, 09:30 AM

The only way to find out if he will make it is to put him on the field and let him learn, just like DT. This whole season may end up being just getting his feet wet, but at least he will have the year on the field and under his belt.

Monkeydad · 10-07-2008, 10:14 AM

Absolutely not. He's not injured severe enough to miss the entire season. Right now, we can make him inactive most weeks because he's really not needed. He's 5th on the WR depth chart right now.

If we'd sustain some injuries to anyone ahead of him, we may need him to play. We'd regret placing him on IR then.

JWsleep · 10-07-2008, 10:21 AM

Plus, he's practicing, participating in lots of ways that will help with the learning curve. And he still may get healthy for the second half--he will be a good target when he's ready.

MTK · 10-07-2008, 11:00 AM

I agree that his injuries don't really warrant putting him on IR. It's frustrating but they are injuries that you have to try to work through. It's a long season, you don't want to shut guys down prematurely.

That Guy · 10-07-2008, 11:07 AM

we're 4-1 looking at a possible 8-1 at the bye, so... it hasn't really hurt us.

that said, he doesn't exactly inspire confidence that he was a good pick thus far...

drew54 · 10-07-2008, 11:24 AM

This is why the NFL needs a disabled list. We could have put him on the DL for 4 weeks, and then he could have healed and been ready for last week.

MTK · 10-07-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew54

This is why the NFL needs a disabled list. We could have put him on the DL for 4 weeks, and then he could have healed and been ready for last week.

Well, there's the PUP list.

Paintrain · 10-07-2008, 12:00 PM

Nah, he's not hurting us right now with his absence so why shoot yourself in the foot for a whole season when you don't need to.

drew54 · 10-07-2008, 12:01 PM

I forgot about the PUP list. Was he on the active roster at the start of camp?

Per Wikipedia:

Physically Unable to Perform is the term for a rule in the National Football League which allows teams to designate players as "Physically Unable to Perform" or "PUP". Once they are designated as such, they are prohibited from practicing with the team. They can, however, rehabilitate and participate in team meetings. If a player begins training camp on the PUP list, they can be moved to the active roster at any time, even after one practice. A player is not allowed to be placed on the PUP list if they start training camp on the active roster.

A player who begins the season on the PUP list must sit out his team's first six games. After that point, the player is allowed to practice with the team through Week 10 of the NFL season, and can be activated any time within that window. If the player is not activated by Week 10, he must stop practicing and is unavailable to be moved to the active roster for the remainder of the season.

Swarley · 10-07-2008, 12:13 PM

It's a bit early to be looking at this retrospectively, we don't know what kind of impact (if any) he'll have as the season progresses.

10-07-2008, 01:01 AM	#1
GMScud Swearinger Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 12,626	Retrospect: Should we have IR'd Malcolm Kelly? Malcolm Kelly has yet to make any contribution this year due to injury. Now it appears that despite recovering from the ankle, his bad knee is back again. Should we have IR'd Kelly when putting together the 53-man and opted for another player, WR or other - maybe Billy McMullen? From the Post (the snipet about Kelly is on the 2nd page of the article): Rookie wide receiver Malcolm Kelly played sparingly after finally coming back from a knee injury, but his knee is swelling again, so his status will be evaluated through the week. . . Brooks Continues To Struggle - washingtonpost.com __________________ Tardy

10-07-2008, 01:08 AM	#2
GTripp0012 Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Evanston, IL Age: 36 Posts: 15,994	Re: Retrospect: Should we have IR'd Malcolm Kelly? No, because as long as he's week to week, we can hope that he will be ready to contribute in the future. Billy McMullen is the very definition of camp scrub. __________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

10-07-2008, 01:21 AM	#4
DirtyLandry Special Teams Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: lost in the sauce Posts: 377	Re: Retrospect: Should we have IR'd Malcolm Kelly? It was probably a tough call for the coaches, but they probably felt like they could carry him without neccessarily getting immediate production out of him and there's no way to see into the future with injuries. From what I gathered, Kelly was actually beating out Devin Thomas in training camp. __________________ "I just went from six to midnight."

10-07-2008, 09:24 AM	#5
HAILItsGAMEDAY Camp Scrub Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Georgetown Posts: 94	Re: Retrospect: Should we have IR'd Malcolm Kelly? I really do feel that Malcolm will eventually contribute to this team. Its a very long season guys and hes just a little banged up right now.

10-07-2008, 09:30 AM	#6
CRedskinsRule Living Legend Join Date: Aug 2008 Age: 57 Posts: 21,429	Re: Retrospect: Should we have IR'd Malcolm Kelly? The only way to find out if he will make it is to put him on the field and let him learn, just like DT. This whole season may end up being just getting his feet wet, but at least he will have the year on the field and under his belt.

10-07-2008, 10:14 AM	#7
Monkeydad Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: PA Age: 45 Posts: 17,460	Re: Retrospect: Should we have IR'd Malcolm Kelly? Absolutely not. He's not injured severe enough to miss the entire season. Right now, we can make him inactive most weeks because he's really not needed. He's 5th on the WR depth chart right now. If we'd sustain some injuries to anyone ahead of him, we may need him to play. We'd regret placing him on IR then. __________________ Not sent from a Droid, iPhone, Blackberry or toaster

10-07-2008, 10:21 AM	#8
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 55 Posts: 4,717	Re: Retrospect: Should we have IR'd Malcolm Kelly? Plus, he's practicing, participating in lots of ways that will help with the learning curve. And he still may get healthy for the second half--he will be a good target when he's ready. __________________ Hail from Houston!

10-07-2008, 11:00 AM	#9
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,518	Re: Retrospect: Should we have IR'd Malcolm Kelly? I agree that his injuries don't really warrant putting him on IR. It's frustrating but they are injuries that you have to try to work through. It's a long season, you don't want to shut guys down prematurely. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

10-07-2008, 11:07 AM	#10
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	Re: Retrospect: Should we have IR'd Malcolm Kelly? we're 4-1 looking at a possible 8-1 at the bye, so... it hasn't really hurt us. that said, he doesn't exactly inspire confidence that he was a good pick thus far...

10-07-2008, 11:24 AM	#11
drew54 The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: IOWA Age: 42 Posts: 1,324	Re: Retrospect: Should we have IR'd Malcolm Kelly? This is why the NFL needs a disabled list. We could have put him on the DL for 4 weeks, and then he could have healed and been ready for last week. __________________ No pressure, no diamonds.

10-07-2008, 12:00 PM	#13
Paintrain Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL Age: 54 Posts: 5,006	Re: Retrospect: Should we have IR'd Malcolm Kelly? Nah, he's not hurting us right now with his absence so why shoot yourself in the foot for a whole season when you don't need to. __________________ Paintrain's Redskins Fandom 1981-2014 I'm not dead but this team is dead to me...but now that McCloughan is here they may have new life! Jay Gruden = Zorny McSpurrier Kirk Cousins = Next Grossman

10-07-2008, 12:01 PM	#14
drew54 The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: IOWA Age: 42 Posts: 1,324	Re: Retrospect: Should we have IR'd Malcolm Kelly? I forgot about the PUP list. Was he on the active roster at the start of camp? Per Wikipedia: Physically Unable to Perform is the term for a rule in the National Football League which allows teams to designate players as "Physically Unable to Perform" or "PUP". Once they are designated as such, they are prohibited from practicing with the team. They can, however, rehabilitate and participate in team meetings. If a player begins training camp on the PUP list, they can be moved to the active roster at any time, even after one practice. A player is not allowed to be placed on the PUP list if they start training camp on the active roster. A player who begins the season on the PUP list must sit out his team's first six games. After that point, the player is allowed to practice with the team through Week 10 of the NFL season, and can be activated any time within that window. If the player is not activated by Week 10, he must stop practicing and is unavailable to be moved to the active roster for the remainder of the season. __________________ No pressure, no diamonds.

10-07-2008, 12:13 PM	#15
Swarley The Starter Join Date: Jan 2006 Age: 35 Posts: 1,092	Re: Retrospect: Should we have IR'd Malcolm Kelly? It's a bit early to be looking at this retrospectively, we don't know what kind of impact (if any) he'll have as the season progresses.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Retrospect: Should we have IR'd Malcolm Kelly?

Locker Room Main Forum