Furrey released by Lions

[madlithuanian]

For those potentially interested in him as a FA... Furrey is out there.

 

They released a few other guys, but no other name seemed of interest or was recognizable to me. There was mention of a safety, but I couldn't remember the name.

[Pixote]

I like Furrey, he would be an improvement over Booker yet as lot cheaper. Should be interesting to see who else becomes available. Let's face it, many WRs that will be available in FA would be an upgrade over several we carried on the roster this year.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Furrey would be a real nice potential impact move. I think the Bears would be well suited by adding a Furrey and Torri Holt and than hoping the in-house combo of Hester/Bennett can develop. You'd have some young guys plus a veteran whose just one year removed from a string of like 7 straight 1000 yard seasons and another veteran who is still relatively young that is a season away from a huge year as well. Our WR corps would be pretty legit, imo.

[madlithuanian]

Exactly!

 

I like Furrey, he would be an improvement over Booker yet as lot cheaper. Should be interesting to see who else becomes available. Let's face it, many WRs that will be available in FA would be an upgrade over several we carried on the roster this year.

[BearSox]

Furrey would be a very solid pickup to be our slot receiver. It sounds like Earl Bennett isn't cut out for the NFL, and will be lucky to make the roster next year. Furrey runs good crisp routes, is quick, is tough, and has reliable hands, everything you look for in a slot receiver. If we draft maybe Hakeem Nicks in round 2 (I think he'll be the for us, I see about 5-7 WR's taken before him) and sign Leonard Weaver, we have the potential for a solid receiving core:

 

Z Receiver: Hester

X Receiver: Nicks

Y Receiver: Furrey/Olsen

TE/4th Receiver: Clark/Olsen/Davis

*FB: Weaver

H Back: Forte

[Pixote]

It sounds like Earl Bennett isn't cut out for the NFL, and will be lucky to make the roster next year.

 

Please tell me how you came to this conclusion.

[BearSox]

Please tell me how you came to this conclusion.

The fact that the only playing time he could earn last year was a couple plays vs. the Texans, and from what Ron Turner said about him practically being terrible. He'll probably make the team though next year as we did invest a 3rd in him, but we did cut Bazuin and Okwo a year after we drafted them, and they were 2nd and 3rd round picks.

[Pixote]

The fact that the only playing time he could earn last year was a couple plays vs. the Texans, and from what Ron Turner said about him practically being terrible. He'll probably make the team though next year as we did invest a 3rd in him, but we did cut Bazuin and Okwo a year after we drafted them, and they were 2nd and 3rd round picks.

 

I am unaware of Turner's comments. After his first year with the Bears everyone made the same assumption about Beekman. Now, you could be absolutely correct. However, I will reserve my opinion on him until I see what happens this year.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

We heard so much about rookie Earl Bennett during the offseason and in training camp. Why did he hardly play during the season, especially with a lack of production at the wide receiver position?

 

Evan D.

Schaumburg, Illinois

 

It’s not because we don’t have confidence in Earl. We do. Earl’s going to be a really good player. Earl wasn’t playing the game as fast as he needs to play the game early in the year. He just wasn’t. It’s a transition going from college to the NFL. Some guys can make that transition in a week. Some guys it takes three years to make the transition. When he had an opportunity to play and in practice, he just wasn’t playing at the speed he needed to play at. The last part of the season, especially the last three or four weeks, he was playing that fast. He started to play with confidence and he was learning to play the game fast. So we did start to try to get him in the game plan a little bit more in the end. He will be a big factor for us. This offseason is going to be real important for him, but we’ve got a ton of confidence in him.

Sounds like Turner has plenty of confidence in Bennett.

[bradjock]

How the hell would Furrey be an improvement over Booker? These two are similar in a lot of ways. Both supposedly have "great hands Booker's slow, Furrey's probably slower. Furrey turns 32 in May, while Booker turns 33 in July. Both are listed as 6-0, with Furrey at 195, & Booker 205 (as per NFL.com) Furrey caught for 181 yards last season, Booker 211.

 

I just don't see how bringing in a bad/mediocre WR will help things. Seemingly every WR we have is a nice #3.

 

As for the hands, what happened to Bookers? I posted last August when I saw our WR's doing practicing catch "lob-passes" with one hand. The kind you see at the corner of the end-zone. Every other WR caught the ball by balancing it with the palm of his hand, and quickly smothering it with his chest. Meanwhile, Booker snatched the ball out of the air with one hand just like he was catching a baseball.

 

I was sure as hell we'd found our sure-handed WR who'd be the QB's friend. I still REALLY don't understand: With hands like that, how did he develop the drops???? It's like a disease.

 

I'm not sure Furrey would be an upgrade over Rasied Davis.

[Wesson44]

IMHO the problem with our WR is that they all want to score TD'S!!!!! The art of catching the ball first is second in their minds. Have you noticed that Fitzgerald/ Steve Smith and others always goes to catch the ball FIRST then makes their moves or whatever. Our WR miss balls thrown right at then in the numbers because they are trying to get yards after the catch instead of making sure they have the ball first. Just look at some of the drops!

[jason]

Furrey would be a very solid pickup to be our slot receiver.

It sounds like Earl Bennett isn't cut out for the NFL, and will be lucky to make the roster next year.

 

I don't think Furrey is an upgrade to Booker. Sounds like a pointless move to me.

 

As for Earl Bennet, I haven't heard what you are claiming. I know that everyone has their panties in a bunch to get a WR, but maybe, just MAYBE, the sure-handed WR the Bears need is actually already on the roster. Hmm? Using his lack of playing time as your justification is laughable at best considering this coaching staff's inability to judge offensive talent. It's even more comedic when one considers the fact that the anemic Bears' offense SHOULD have had some changes that never took place. It'd be different if the offense was actually good last year.

[Connorbear]

I don't think Furrey is an upgrade to Booker. Sounds like a pointless move to me.

 

As for Earl Bennet, I haven't heard what you are claiming. I know that everyone has their panties in a bunch to get a WR, but maybe, just MAYBE, the sure-handed WR the Bears need is actually already on the roster. Hmm? Using his lack of playing time as your justification is laughable at best considering this coaching staff's inability to judge offensive talent. It's even more comedic when one considers the fact that the anemic Bears' offense SHOULD have had some changes that never took place. It'd be different if the offense was actually good last year.

Agreed. If Furry is the only choice, I would much rather see what Bennett and Rideau can offer us.

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

From one standpoint, it would send a message. You drop easy passes in actual games, and you will be cut.

 

From that standpoint alone, I see no problem cuting Marty (who I used to love), and giving Furrey a shot.

 

How the hell would Furrey be an improvement over Booker? These two are similar in a lot of ways. Both supposedly have "great hands Booker's slow, Furrey's probably slower. Furrey turns 32 in May, while Booker turns 33 in July. Both are listed as 6-0, with Furrey at 195, & Booker 205 (as per NFL.com) Furrey caught for 181 yards last season, Booker 211.

 

I just don't see how bringing in a bad/mediocre WR will help things. Seemingly every WR we have is a nice #3.

 

As for the hands, what happened to Bookers? I posted last August when I saw our WR's doing practicing catch "lob-passes" with one hand. The kind you see at the corner of the end-zone. Every other WR caught the ball by balancing it with the palm of his hand, and quickly smothering it with his chest. Meanwhile, Booker snatched the ball out of the air with one hand just like he was catching a baseball.

 

I was sure as hell we'd found our sure-handed WR who'd be the QB's friend. I still REALLY don't understand: With hands like that, how did he develop the drops???? It's like a disease.

 

I'm not sure Furrey would be an upgrade over Rasied Davis.

[bradjock]

From one standpoint, it would send a message. You drop easy passes in actual games, and you will be cut.

 

From that standpoint alone, I see no problem cuting Marty (who I used to love), and giving Furrey a shot.

 

Maybe, but what's the explanation for every damn WR we bring in dropping easy passes?

[jason]

Maybe, but what's the explanation for every damn WR we bring in dropping easy passes?

 

Good question. Somehow guys with good hands come to the Bears and lose their hands. I won't make excuses for the WRs, but I'd say it probably has something to do with the fact that the combination of the overly conservative offensive scheme, the poor OL and average QB not providing for the chances of specific routes that other teams typically run, and the horribly inconsistent OC causes understandable complacency.

[madlithuanian]

Thos seem to be as good a reason as any...

 

However, if we look at the last 3 to come in of any real note...

 

1. Moose, while very good and a good career, when we brought him in, he came off a silly season. I think that season was an anomoly

2. Booker, while good a while ago, it's clear that he's lost it.

3. Lloyd...he was never really tha great elsewhere. Not sure what we expected, but he played decently when he was on the field.

 

 

So, maybe the guys we're bringing in aren't all that...

 

Good question. Somehow guys with good hands come to the Bears and lose their hands. I won't make excuses for the WRs, but I'd say it probably has something to do with the fact that the combination of the overly conservative offensive scheme, the poor OL and average QB not providing for the chances of specific routes that other teams typically run, and the horribly inconsistent OC causes understandable complacency.

[BigDaddy]

IMHO the problem with our WR is that they all want to score TD'S!!!!! The art of catching the ball first is second in their minds. Have you noticed that Fitzgerald/ Steve Smith and others always goes to catch the ball FIRST then makes their moves or whatever. Our WR miss balls thrown right at then in the numbers because they are trying to get yards after the catch instead of making sure they have the ball first. Just look at some of the drops!

 

Excellent point. Frankly, instead of wasting our time thinking about guys like Furrey, we should be thinking about ways to secure the "TOP" talent out there. Guys like Furrey aren't "difference makers". Basically, they are leftovers and we've got all the leftover WRs we can use right now. We think we're gonna catch lightning in a bottle here? Come on, our coaches don't develop players and if Furrey got cut by Detroit, what do we think we're gonna get out of him? Forget this stuff. Let's get onto the business of securing a premier WR, whatever the cost. If Hester ever gets it, THAT is our lightning in a bottle.

[bradjock]

Good question. Somehow guys with good hands come to the Bears and lose their hands. I won't make excuses for the WRs, but I'd say it probably has something to do with the fact that the combination of the overly conservative offensive scheme, the poor OL and average QB not providing for the chances of specific routes that other teams typically run, and the horribly inconsistent OC causes understandable complacency.

 

Great points. I wonder how a guy like Steve Breaston would do for the Bears? My guess is awful.

[bradjock]

Thos seem to be as good a reason as any...

 

However, if we look at the last 3 to come in of any real note...

 

1. Moose, while very good and a good career, when we brought him in, he came off a silly season. I think that season was an anomoly

2. Booker, while good a while ago, it's clear that he's lost it.

3. Lloyd...he was never really tha great elsewhere. Not sure what we expected, but he played decently when he was on the field.

 

 

So, maybe the guys we're bringing in aren't all that...

 

Good points. Just to bring up something slightly off the subject: If given a choice between the two, do we bring back Lloyd or Booker? Reguardless of their contract status, which Lloyd's a FA & Boloker has 1 year left but could be dumped easily, who would you rather have?

 

The thought is we don't want Lloyd back, but he was overall our #2 WR and had good chemistry with Orton.

 

Booker is the cagey veteran who had a horrible year . . . but I still think he could rebound.

 

Either way, going into next season we're guaranteed to have Hester, Bennett & Rashied (If for nothing else other then his special teams.) We'll add at least one through the draft or free agency . . . between the two do you keep Booker or Lloyd?

[madlithuanian]

Wow! That's really a tough question.

 

My heart is telling me Booker. He did so well for us in the past, and just had a bad year last year. Maybe he can rebound, and he is under contract.

 

My head is telling me Lloyd. Pay him another 1 year to show how dedicated he is to the team. Maybe the injury was an oddity. As you say, he did have a nice connection w/ Orton. Maybe you try to build on that.

 

I think I approach Lloyd, and if he can be had for reasonable money, I go with him. If he is unreasonable, I say stick with Marty. But tell him he was brought on for his hands, and he best start holding onto the pill or he will be benched!

 

Good points. Just to bring up something slightly off the subject: If given a choice between the two, do we bring back Lloyd or Booker? Reguardless of their contract status, which Lloyd's a FA & Boloker has 1 year left but could be dumped easily, who would you rather have?

 

The thought is we don't want Lloyd back, but he was overall our #2 WR and had good chemistry with Orton.

 

Booker is the cagey veteran who had a horrible year . . . but I still think he could rebound.

 

Either way, going into next season we're guaranteed to have Hester, Bennett & Rashied (If for nothing else other then his special teams.) We'll add at least one through the draft or free agency . . . between the two do you keep Booker or Lloyd?

[madlithuanian]

I'd tend to agree. Sadly.

 

It's all so interconnected, and none of the pieces other than Forte and Olsen thrill me...

 

 

 

Great points. I wonder how a guy like Steve Breaston would do for the Bears? My guess is awful.

[bradjock]

I'd tend to agree. Sadly.

 

It's all so interconnected, and none of the pieces other than Forte and Olsen thrill me...

 

That is sad, but you do bring up to huge upsides for this team. Last year at this time, how would you have felt if you'd known we'd draft a player in the 2nd round who appears to be destined for the pro-bowl? Or that Olsen would continue to improve and get better? I doubt Olsen will be a pro-bowl, but "Damn-good player" will soon be attached to his name.

 

Maybe we're not that far off . . .

[madlithuanian]

So true! I've been ridiculously thrilled with Forte! And he seems like a genuinely good kid. I've always thought highly of Olsen, but was pleased he made good strides. I'd be more than happy if he were just a damn good player!

 

We need a good draft and some good FA's... Unfortunately, I think we're still far off in the coaching dept...

 

That is sad, but you do bring up to huge upsides for this team. Last year at this time, how would you have felt if you'd known we'd draft a player in the 2nd round who appears to be destined for the pro-bowl? Or that Olsen would continue to improve and get better? I doubt Olsen will be a pro-bowl, but "Damn-good player" will soon be attached to his name.

 

Maybe we're not that far off . . .

[nfoligno]

Read an article that said our future interest in Lloyd may come down to how much sway Turner has. The impression is Turner may not have much of an issue w/ Lloyd, but Lovie does. So whether or not we make a player for Lloyd may come down to whether or not Turner can convince Lovie he has value for the team. Personally, I think we simply take a pass on him. To me, it just seems like Lovie really soured on him. The article mentions his injury and how long it took him to return from it, also saying most player w/ the same injury would have returned in half the time. Combine that w/ his bonehead comment about not returning before he is 100%, and I just think Lovie is ready to see him leave.

 

Whether or not we keep Booker may, IMHO, come down to what our plans are at the WR position. If we add a veteran in FA, I think Booker is gone. If we add a WR through the draft, I can see the staff keeping Booker. If we add a rookie, our experience level at WR will be very low w/o Booker. I can see us simply letting him walk, but if we have so little at the position, both in talent and experience, I can simply see the staff giving him another year to show he has something left in the tank.

 

Good points. Just to bring up something slightly off the subject: If given a choice between the two, do we bring back Lloyd or Booker? Reguardless of their contract status, which Lloyd's a FA & Boloker has 1 year left but could be dumped easily, who would you rather have?

 

The thought is we don't want Lloyd back, but he was overall our #2 WR and had good chemistry with Orton.

 

Booker is the cagey veteran who had a horrible year . . . but I still think he could rebound.

 

Either way, going into next season we're guaranteed to have Hester, Bennett & Rashied (If for nothing else other then his special teams.) We'll add at least one through the draft or free agency . . . between the two do you keep Booker or Lloyd?