Mike Furrey

*Tony Soprano* · #1 (**permalink**) -24-10-2005

I think the Rams need to let this guy play and the coaches need to put in extra time with him after practice. He's not a big name and many people will overlook him, BUT

He's got a big heart and big drive to go along with it.

It got lost in the Indy game, but remember him making the tackle and taking the ball at the same time (early on in the game). The guy was just switched to DEF, so the learning curve is huge, but I'm wondering if his upside is also. It's amazing he's playing out there with no to little Defensive experience. Most players come in with 6 or 7 years of practicing and playing their position.

.

*RAMMAN68* · #2 (**permalink**) -24-10-2005

I agree Tony; he's played very well and has made some big plays which this D really needed.

*RamsFan16* · #3 (**permalink**) -24-10-2005

I agree. I think he by the end of this year will have made a name for himself

*sbramfan* · #4 (**permalink**) -24-10-2005

I have been one of this biggest proponents of pulling Furrey to play OJ. I really can't see how a guy who has been groomed to play FS couldn't provide better coverage than a converted receiver, especially with this teams history of thinking that apparently anyone can play safety like it's just some general position not requiring unique skills. When in fact, I think the instincts of the FS and experience are huge, since you have to somewhat guess where the ball is going to go based on the offensive formation and QB's eyes/tendencies, etc...

My biggest concern has been that, although Furry seems to make some big plays, when the Rams are getting schredded by the pass, it appears to be that our corners are terrible.....but is it perhaps that the Free Safety is not there to help and was out of position? It's hard to tell when a player isn't in on the play, if he should have been. And if this defense has been so bad against the pass, you can't blame the front 7, so I can't help but think that our corners aren't getting the support they need from the Safeties, in particular the FS, and perhaps an upgrade at this position is what is needed to improve in coverage. (yes, and firing Marmie and his sorry system as well.)

Having said all that, I think Furrey is starting to get a better feel for the position and is improving rapidly with each game, and when he IS in the right place at the right time, he seems to give 110% and make the most of it. Him and Arch played well today.

**Nick** · #5 (**permalink**) -24-10-2005

I'm not sure that Furrey is going to make the huge strides that some of you are predicting, but I think he has done okay thus far in his short time playing FS. Some tackling issues I wasn't pleased with against the Seahawks, but he clearly made his role on special teams known against the Colts. Aside from his "INT" from Conwell though, I didn't really hear him mentioned much. That could be good or it could be bad. I'm not that confident in his tackling, though I think his experience as a receiver gives him more of an advantage playing the ball than one would think. He certainly has looked better than Hawthorne thus far.

**HUbison** · #6 (**permalink**) -24-10-2005

Quote:

I didn't really hear him mentioned much. That could be good or it could be bad

Well Nick, as you alluded to, it could go either way. When the front 7 get their name mentioned, it usually is a good thing. However, when I hear the back 4 getting airtime, it usually means a big play downfield. For example, how many times in the past few weeks has Fisher and Groce been at the top of the tackles list? Personally, I'd feel better if the back 4 stayed incognito (as in undercover, not the lineman) for most of the game.