Browns Sign WR Furrey
I am a fan of this move. I made a comment last year suggesting that Furrey is the type of slot WR I would like to see on the Browns.
6 months ago
Roger Dorn
45 comments
0 recs |
Comments
So does anyone think that this means a Braylon for Thomas Jones swap is in the works?
by cboldt12 on May 5, 2009 7:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Care to elaborate? I mean are the Browns seem to be stockpiling WR’s, and even though I would like to have Mr. Michigan on the team still, it doesn’t look like he will be. I just was hoping that you would have a little more to say on the issue, thats all.
by cboldt12 on May 5, 2009 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jones as the centerpiece for a deal for Edwards makes 0 sense. Also, roster movement of depth players like Furrey should not have any impact on what we do with our best players
by Roger Dorn on May 5, 2009 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
While the Furrey signing intrigues me, adding him and two 2nd-round WRs in addition to what we have is not “stockpiling WRs”. That still puts Patten, Steptoe, and Hubbard fighting for #5 on the depth chart, and it’d be hard to argue that any of those 3 are better than a #5 receiver.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on May 6, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hubbard has the athleticism to be much better than a #5. We haven’t seen him in close to a calendar year.
Not saying our WR depth didn’t need a full scale makeover this offseason, but adding 4 players at any position could be seen as stockpiling.
Keep Braylon, Tony Grossi either has no clue what ManKok is doing or is their puppet and pumping out smokescreens.
by rufio on May 6, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Grossi is willfully playing puppet for Mankinis then I would like to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to Tony Grossi for everything mean I have thought about him over the past 3 months
by Roger Dorn on May 6, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Likewise. I wonder if that sort of thing has ever happened in the past. What kind of news is coming out of New England?
by rufio on May 7, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am pretty sure Belichik acts like the media doesn’t exist there, and they have learned to accept it because of the success
by Roger Dorn on May 7, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So do they just speculate or they just don’t write anything or what? I guess none of us should really know. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bill had control of the Boston Globe’s sports department.
by rufio on May 7, 2009 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They speculate, just not in an annoying way
by Roger Dorn on May 8, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry Roger, I haven’t been around in a few days, I see the Tony Grossi doesn’t get it post.
by cboldt12 on May 5, 2009 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder who makes the roster between him, Ellis, Hub, Step, and Norwood
Eric Berry Bandwagon
by BradyQuinnisBeast on May 5, 2009 9:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This also means we wont sign that titan guy
Eric Berry Bandwagon
by BradyQuinnisBeast on May 5, 2009 9:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I was reading reports that he is the same style of possesion reciever as Bennett. Put up impressive numbers in 2006. I’m happy with him.
by tjk_doc on May 6, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s a lot smaller, so I wouldn’t say “same style” but I believe the possession receiver tag is appropriate.
by rufio on May 6, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what makes a guy a possession receiver? his whiteness?
bennett’s best year in terms of overall production had him averaging 15.6 yds/catch, which last year would have put him 15th in the league. i don’t think he did that by catching 6 yard slants and then running for 9 more. everything i remember of him was stretching the field down the sideline.
if he’s a possession receiver now, it’s not because it’s his best skill set; it’s because he’s old and doesn’t have the speed anymore.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on May 6, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
See, I could see Robiskie turning into a possession receiver, and last I checked, he is not white. I think it comes down to hands more than anything
by Roger Dorn on May 6, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, but his comment is true because every white receiver is labeled a possesion receiver no matter what his skill set is. Kind of like how every white American basketball player is compared to Larry Bird no matter what kind of player he is (well, at least back when there were white American basketball players).
by Buckeye Brad on May 6, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kevin Curtis is not a possession receiver. I wouldn’t call Wes Welker a possession receiver either.
by rufio on May 7, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would say wes welker is the definition of a possesion receiver. 6.8 ypc
Eric Berry Bandwagon
by BradyQuinnisBeast on May 7, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Possession to me means someone that doesn’t drop that ball, meaning they are the most likely to increase your chances of keeping the chains moving because of the lack of drops
Welker would fit that description
by Roger Dorn on May 7, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe that was based on one of very few NE games I saw last year. If you were just watching the game and didn’t know who Moss was, you would have thought Welker was the Patriots’ #1 (Miami? Seattle?). The dude is extremely quick and agile, and you have to commit more than one CB to him if you really want to shut him down.
On the other end of that, he does seem to have good hands and is a very good option on 3rd down. Maybe Welker is a vague case, and we really don’t say anything about him by using the “possession” label.
In any event, he is good and fast.
And BQisBeast, I don’t know where you got 6.8, but I am looking at Welker’s career ypc as 10.9, and 10.5ypc last year.
by rufio on May 8, 2009 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I got it here
I dont know whos right i mean yahoo does post some dumb stuff(besides that link to DBN)
by BradyQuinnisBeast on May 8, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nevermind i looked at YAC. Thats my bad. I was being stupid. my fault
by BradyQuinnisBeast on May 8, 2009 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s really sort of funny. I mean, don’t we expect all receivers to be “possession” receivers? That is, we expect them to possess the ball when it’s thrown to them, rather than dropping it, or allowing someone else to possess it. I know that when analysts say someone is a “possession receiver” that they usually mean he lacks tremendous downfield speed. So I guess the two broad types of receivers are “speed” guys and “he’ll usually catch it if you throw it to him” guys. The other meaning of “possession receiver” seems to be someone who isn’t afraid to go over the middle, make a tough catch, and take the hit. That would mean that the “speed” guys mostly prefer to stick close to the sidelines. I vote that we ban the term “possession receiver” (if for no other reason, I get tired of typing quotation marks). Who do I talk to about it?
by drjeo on May 6, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe “possession” and “speed” receivers are vague cases, but sometimes the tags mean something. Joe Jurevicious was a quintessential possession receiver. Bernard Berrian is a quintessential speed receiver.
Jurevicious was always open because of his enormous catching radius, big body, route running, and hands. If Braylon and Kellen drew double coverage, you could count on him. Steady and reliable, probably not going to break one for 60 yards.
Berrian makes his money by eating up CBs’ cusions, and then simply running by them. He will drop a few, but once he gets behind a DB, look out.
In these situations, the tags mean something. Maybe when you take it to someone like Boldin or T.O. or other guys calling them “possession” or “speed” receivers doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I still think it does in the cases of Bennett and Furrey.
by rufio on May 8, 2009 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what makes a guy a possession receiver? his whiteness?
You appologize to Anthony Gonzalez right now!
by Bernie19Kosar on May 7, 2009 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Drew Bennett and Furrey are both possession receivers.
They are different styles of receiver, however, and I tried to talk about that by noting their difference in size. They get open in different ways. They should be used in different situations. They have different strengths and weaknesses. They operate as possession receivers in different ways.
Furrey is more crafty, quick, and agile, works better out of the slot. He isn’t big for a WR, and he is better outsmarting defenders and working underneath than he is just flat out burning people.
Bennett is really freaking tall for a WR, and is a long-strider. His ypc is/was high because he is the type of receiver who builds speed as he goes: he doesn’t have great burst, suddenness, change of direction, agility, etc. but his legs are so long that once he gets up to speed, DBs have trouble matching him. He is pretty good at running vertical routes. He also has a pretty good height advantage to win deep jump balls, and you don’t want to throw a jump ball over the middle because that usually means your WR is going to get lit up by a LB or S and will end up on Sportscenter—another reason he catches/caught the ball deep.
Both are possession receivers because they don’t do everything well (even though they do different things well), and do not rely heavily on brute speed to get open, and are reliable catching the ball.
Josh Reed is probably a black possession receiver.
Issac Bruce is a black possession receiver.
Keyshawn was a black possession receiver.
Robiskie will probably be a black possession receiver.
There is a relatively small % of NFL WRs DBs who are white and have elite speed. That doesn’t make white guys slow, that doesn’t make minority guys fast. What makes Furrey and Bennett—or anyone else—a “possession” WR is how they play the game, not the color of their skin.
by rufio on May 7, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, there are many black possession recievers. Nobody said all possession receivers are white, but that all white receivers are labeled as possession receivers. The second statement does not imply the first. And I know the term “possesion receiver” is vague and undefined, but that’s how fans and the media label white receivers. I’m not saying it’s a correct label, just that it’s commonly used.
That’s how fans and the media label players — in a sport dominated by black players like the NFL, young white players are invariably compared to other white players in the leage. The same thing happened with Troy Smith — he was compared to Michael Vick and other black quarterbacks who were mobile and ran the ball often. Kirk Herbstreit always made the comparison that he was actually more like Drew Brees, which is very accurate. But since Troy Smith is black, the media compared him to other black QB’s. And I’ll be if another black golfer starts playing he’ll be compared to Tiger Woods no matter what type of player he is. And that’s why when fans see a white receiver they automatically labe him a “possession receicver” no matter what his skill set is.
by Buckeye Brad on May 8, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m still going with Kevin Curtis and Gonzo, although Anthony’s name might imply some Hispanic. He is definitely white before he is black if you have to choose one of the two.
Maybe there are a bunch of idiot fans out there who try to throw around terms like “possession receiver” to make it seem like they know something about the game and unfairly lump all white receivers in that category. I wouldn’t know because I try to stay away from idiot fans. I can’t help but listen to idiot announcers sometimes, and have no trouble believing they would do this. The Troy Smith-Michael Vick comparison was just flat out wrong.
In either event, I still contend that Furrey and Bennett are both possession receivers, and it has everything to do with their playing style.
by rufio on May 8, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn’t disagreeing with you, rufio, just clarifying my comments about what I hear other people saying.
by Buckeye Brad on May 8, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I went to high school with Tony (that’s what he was called in HS), can’t say for certain, but I am pretty sure he has at least some Latino descent if not entirely. His brother, Joe, was a good corner for Ignatius and played at Indiana in college
by Roger Dorn on May 8, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, a white guy! Glad we finally found someone to replace Jurevicius.
by Buckeye Brad on May 5, 2009 9:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
By the way, how is his name pronounced? The two logical choices would be “Few-ry” or “Furry”. I like both. Now we have a WR who either is a Fury, or is Furry. Both bring good images to mind.
by drjeo on May 6, 2009 3:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I am pretty sure it’s pronounced like furry
by Roger Dorn on May 6, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When I look at the name, I’ve been pronouncing it in my head like Fure-reeeee.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on May 6, 2009 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t mean to be Johnny-come-lately, and maybe this thread was around way before the front-page post, but is there anyway that discussions can be consistently consolidated into one thread – just to centralize everyone’s remarks? Perhaps by referring people to the front-pager and deleting the tangents? /unsolicited advice
by joeee on May 8, 2009 1:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’ve been craving for that ability to merge posts in some fashion. The FanShot came first and already had several comments; for promotional reasons (so stories can appear on Yahoo and Google) though, I’m supposed to do a writeup most of the time as opposed to just promoting the FanShot.
But, then I have mixed thoughts — should I close the FanShot since it already had somewhat of a discussion started? I probably should in the future.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on May 8, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, I wondered why you didn’t just promote the FanShot and let the discussion continue there. I see that you had a valid reason. I’d say in the future, you should close the discussions on the FanShot and tell everyone to consolidate it in the new thread.
It’s too bad you can’t just copy the comments from one thread and paste them in another, thus merging the two threads. Maybe that’s something you can suggest to the SBNation folks.
by Buckeye Brad on May 8, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, thread merge would be great since most of the fanshots don’t really contribute anything other than the source
by Roger Dorn on May 8, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
















