Mike Furrey Is More The Bears Speed

by Adam T on Jan 29, 2009 7:15 AM CST Comment 46 comments

We are getting closer and closer to the Bears shattering our hopes. We all know it won't happen, but some of us are just hanging on to the fact that maybe this year is the year the Bears spend money and bring in some real players. This article think Furrey could be a good option for us at receiver.

Although he has no reason other than he is a wide receiver and the Bears have signed a former Lion before.

The Detroit Lions have release WR Mike Furrey. Furrey had one good year in 2006 where he racked up 98 catches and 1.086 yards. He has been pretty quite since then, though he was playing behind Roy Williams and Calvin Johnson.

So how are you liking your knew Bears receiving corp of Devin Hester, Mike Furrey, Devery Henderson and Earl Bennett?

0 recs | Comment 46 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Not as much

Not as much as I would like Boldin, Hester Furrey, Henderson and Bennett.

by sabbath999 on Jan 29, 2009 8:50 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

not as much as I'd like Boldin and who gives a crap

That post was more my disdain for knowing the Bears will take the cheap and easy way out of fixing the wide receiver issue.

Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!

by Adam T on Jan 29, 2009 9:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

if the Bears make a move and that’s a big IF they would do the Furry thing more than the Boldin thing. I think they just do it to irritate me.

If things came easy, then everybody would be great at what they did, let's face it.
Mike Ditka

by Ditkavsworld on Jan 29, 2009 9:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Boo...

Im tired of getting back ups and 3rd string people!! WE NEED STARTERS!!!!

by ~sweetness~ on Jan 29, 2009 9:31 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yep

Unfortunately, we are Bears fans so we all know it won’t happen.

by McRipper on Jan 29, 2009 9:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I know right..

I would rather see them pick up a Rookie than get Furry, Henderson, Crayton, Moore, or any other teams 3wr. There is a reason these guys put up decent numbers at times. It’s because they don’t get covered because these teams that they are on have 2 better WR!!! If you put any of these guys on our team as a starter you won’t see those types of numbers… The ideal thing for us to do would be to get chad, housh, boldin, or any other STARTING WR in the NFL and have him/them as our 2 starters and hester in the slot! With his speed he would smoke LBs or S’s that try to match up with him..

by ~sweetness~ on Jan 29, 2009 9:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Henderson has to come with a bit what if

Brees can make any receiver look good. Is Henderson a product of Brees or is he really a good receiver? I’d tend to lean to the former.

Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!

by Adam T on Jan 29, 2009 9:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree..

They really only use Henderson when they wanna go deep.. We need a possession WR!!

by ~sweetness~ on Jan 29, 2009 9:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

WR

I think Housh would be the best pick up in FA for us.. He is money at getting 1st downs. The guy was catching 5-10 balls a game with Cincys back up QB who was horrible.. Almost as bad as Grossman…

by ~sweetness~ on Jan 29, 2009 9:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Henderson

Has “Rashied Davis” like hands..no thank you.

by tfrabotta on Jan 29, 2009 11:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm thinking

of a nice Kim Carnes parody right about now.

Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!

by Adam T on Jan 29, 2009 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

lol

by tfrabotta on Jan 29, 2009 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I noticed

that a lot of people keep talking about Devery Henderson? Do people actually think we will get HIM I wish but, it’s not likely and like everyone is saying Furrey has some potential as a player but not enough to fill the need of our Bears (#1 receiver). Do you guys feel that Henderson would be a good #1 for the Bears or a #2??? I agree that Boldin and Housh would be good #1’s for us.

by Stellarpete22 on Jan 29, 2009 9:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I started a lot of Henderson talk

The reason was the Bears should try for Boldin or TJ or Edwards or somebody, but we know they won’t. I picked Henderson as a tier 2 receiver to show somebody the Bears might go after. Now I am just in the habit of using him as an example.

Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!

by Adam T on Jan 29, 2009 9:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Henderson is still young, and has big-play ability.

Whilst any receiver who gets balls thrown their way by Brees is going to look good, I have to say that I have watched Devrey for years, and I really like the kid.

Things will get better as they improve...

by Dane Noble on Jan 29, 2009 9:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

$$$

I still say they show Housh the money and go out and get him!! Henderson would be a good option if we didn’t have Hester, but I think we would be good with Housh, Lloyd, Hester, Bennett, and then pick up a 6’3+ rookie..

by ~sweetness~ on Jan 29, 2009 10:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I like that tandem

What ever happened to the tall guy we drafted last year—something “Monk”??? He seemed to have real good size from what I read.

by Stellarpete22 on Jan 29, 2009 10:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Monk

I think they ended up releasing him.. Not 100% sure though..

by ~sweetness~ on Jan 29, 2009 10:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

They Did

Then he was on the NY Giants Practice Squad then they dumped him and last I heard he was back at Arkansas playing basketball.

by GallopingGhost on Jan 29, 2009 10:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hester in the slot..

I’ve got madden 09 for the 360. I put Hester in the slot and it is just insane. If the other team is in a 4-3 or a 3-4 nobody can touch him. I think this is a must for us, because their is just so much you can do with it. Everything from reverses, screens, deep ball, and not to mention putting him on either side of the field!!

by ~sweetness~ on Jan 29, 2009 10:16 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Not good enough but....

I DO agree that Hester would be a better fit as a slot receiver and feel that’s where he should be playing at all times. More opportunities to take advantage of opponents. The outside receivers should be for the better route runners and taller receivers in my opinion.

by Stellarpete22 on Jan 29, 2009 10:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Madden 09

I got Cutler and Bouldin in a trade. Olsen will eat up some Defenses if you let him.

If things came easy, then everybody would be great at what they did, let's face it.
Mike Ditka

by Ditkavsworld on Jan 29, 2009 10:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Eh It's Better but not good enough

Plus, the Bears would convert him back to safety, which Lovie did when Furrey was in St. Louis. And then convert him back to WR b/c we know how the Bears love secondary WRs!

by GallopingGhost on Jan 29, 2009 10:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

+1

Things will get better as they improve...

by Dane Noble on Jan 29, 2009 10:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We need depth at WR

I think Furrey would be a good addition instead of Booker. They both command about the same amount of money. We still need a WR in the first round. Hester,Maclin,Furrey,Loyd.Bennet

by luckie815 on Jan 29, 2009 10:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Maclin?

Would you rather have a younger clone of Hester or a 6’4 guy? Something we don’t have..

by ~sweetness~ on Jan 29, 2009 10:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No Clone

I don’t think Maclin is a clone of Hester. I think he like 6’ or something. Hester’s true height is probably 5’9 maaaaaybe 5’10. I think that Percy Harvin is a Hester clone though. I would like to see us pick up Heyward-Bey. he’s about 6’3 200. more of what you’re talking about. But is Darius Heyward-Bey worth the 18th pick?

by Subotai on Jan 29, 2009 11:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

??

Not gonna be able to answer that until after the combine….

by ~sweetness~ on Jan 29, 2009 11:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

rhetorical

that was a rhetorical question. there is no way to know if anyone will pan out.

by Subotai on Jan 29, 2009 11:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This is true..

very true..

by ~sweetness~ on Jan 29, 2009 11:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

unfortunately

I thought drafting a heisman trophy winning RB would pan out for us ahem Rashan Salaam. and well, 10 fumbles later…

although, I have to say, I called Curtis Enis. that was terrible.

by Subotai on Jan 29, 2009 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

WRs

Sign Housh, draft Heyward-Bey if avail as #2.

That gives you Housh #1, HB #2, Hester in the slot. Add Olsen and Clark, and Forte out of the backfield and I think you have some weapons. I think the Bears will fail if they try to draft a #1 WR this year. Housh will give DHB 3 years to develop into that #1. The Bears should be signing a FA WR and OL AND drafting a WR and OL.

by McRipper on Jan 29, 2009 10:58 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Thank You...

Thats what I’m talkin about!!!!!!!

by ~sweetness~ on Jan 29, 2009 11:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I've also

seen that Orakpo is a going to go around 14th pick or so. I would try to trade up to get him 1st. Then for the 2nd pick get the best biggest WR available(Oklahoma or Texas #1 wr). 3rd pick S and then beef up the O Line and fill some other needs!!!

by ~sweetness~ on Jan 29, 2009 11:04 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe I'm reading this wrong,

But I have seen a lot of folks talking about picking up an OLineman in the later rounds. WE HAVE GOT TO GET AN OLINEMAN IN THE 1ST!!

In reality, a late-rounder may not be able to play immediately, if at all. A first round lineman is almost a guarantee to start.

Yes, we need a #1 receiver. Yes, we need someone to get pressure on the QB. Yes, we need to be able to give Forte breaks.

But it all starts with the OL. As I’ve said in previous comments… if C. Williams can go, and we get a OLineman who can start immediately, we have just upgraded our OL by 40% (not counting TEs).

And I really think that is our biggest need.

Things will get better as they improve...

by Dane Noble on Jan 29, 2009 11:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Apply directly to the forehead

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Jan 29, 2009 11:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You all have got to have massive head aches

right now. There is a lot of forehead applying going on.

Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!

by Adam T on Jan 29, 2009 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

True

But have you seen how many OL are entering the draft? Tons. Who are we losing on the OL??

by ~sweetness~ on Jan 29, 2009 11:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's a few immediate starters... all potential 1st rounders.

Michael Oher, OT, Ole Miss (may be the only one off the board when we pick)
Eugene Monroe, OT, Virginia
Jonathan Luigs, C, Arkansas
Xavier Fulton, OT, Illinois
Herman Johnson, G, LSU
Duke Robinson, G, Oklahoma
Ciron Black *, OT, LSU

I’m not saying we are losing anyone, but we need to upgrade our OL to have any success throwing to whoever our WRs are going to be.

Things will get better as they improve...

by Dane Noble on Jan 29, 2009 11:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

OL

I think the OL in the draft that have starting potential will be slim by the 18th pick. Don’t get me wrong there are gonna be lots of decent guys left but your talkin a whole diff level than college where experience is a big factor. If we get a OL in the 2nd or 3rd rnd it will still help out as far as subs go.. Use our guys we have now to mentor whatever OL we get..

by ~sweetness~ on Jan 29, 2009 11:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No way.

No way we should draft only back-up OLinemen. If we don’t pick up a immediate starter in FA, and if we don’t draft an immediate starter in the draft…

Dang, I don’t even want to think about having the same unit we had last year.

Things will get better as they improve...

by Dane Noble on Jan 29, 2009 11:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

OL rough around the edges

I agree we need to make it better, but they did do a decent job run blocking this year. If they pick up a starting OL in FA then I think 2nd or 3nd is fine for an OL. If they don’t they need to look at their options at the 18th pick..

by ~sweetness~ on Jan 29, 2009 11:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I like it?

I mean, I would like to have Boldin or Housh, but I don’t think we NEED those guys to have an effective offense next year. With Furrey, Hester, Olsen, and Clark I think we’d be okay (need a second RB, too, though).

That’s another thing—why do people always ignore Olsen when talking about our WRs? He is a big part of this passing game. You can’t ignore him and then say “the Bears have no weapons”.

by TCBullfrog on Jan 29, 2009 11:36 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Let's Face It

We are dealing with Lovie and Angelo were not going to get Housh or Boldin Period Dot. We have to get lucky in the draft and hope a change of secenery for a second tier WR works out.

by luckie815 on Jan 29, 2009 11:53 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I like Furrey

Sure he’s not a Boldin or TJ, but Angelo’s not going to go after one of those guys anyway. I know I’ve seen him put up some good numbers against the Bears the past 3 years or so. He seems to be a pretty clutch guy too, catches them when they count. I’m surprised Detroit dropped him. He’s not a real #1, but if Hester can become a #2 and Furrey’s a #2, that’s kind of like having a number one opposite Hester….kind of…

by lindemrm on Jan 29, 2009 12:34 PM CST reply actions 0 recs