PDA

View Full Version : Denver CB could be on Browns' radar



BOSSHOGG30
05-23-2008, 04:49 PM
Sorry if this is old news or if this has already been posted... I didn't see this anywhere with my quicks search.


Denver CB could be on Browns' radar

May 22, 2008 1:45 PM


Posted by ESPN.com's Bill Williamson

Here's a name that makes sense for the Cleveland Browns to pursue in their desperate search for a cornerback: Denver's Domonique Foxworth.

Don't be surprised if the Browns start sniffing around on his availability in the wake of Daven's Holly injury. The Browns need a cornerback pronto and might have to look to trade for one. Foxworth could be more available than most starting-quality cornerbacks because he is not a penciled-in starter in Denver even though he has played extensively at both cornerback and safety in his three NFL seasons.

Because he is a nickel cornerback and is entering the final year of his contract, the Broncos' asking price might be reasonable to the Browns. With the Browns scrambling, there is little doubt they'll research Foxworth.

Ziggy
05-23-2008, 04:54 PM
It would make sense. Denver is deep at corner and Cleveland needs one. Not to mention the fact that Foxy may leave next season for a chance to start. I don't think we could get much in a trade. A 4th rounder at best would be my guess, but something is better than nothing. I think Paymah will make a decent nickel back this year.

Lonestar
05-23-2008, 05:05 PM
BY ALL MEANS let him go..

I won't have to listen to all the "foxy is great" crap all year..

BUT Please gets something more than a 6th rounder..

BroncoWave
05-23-2008, 05:35 PM
BY ALL MEANS let him go..

I won't have to listen to all the "foxy is great" crap all year..

BUT Please gets something more than a 6th rounder..

100% agreed. I've never gotten all the hype over Foxy. He's always appeared to be just an average CB to me. If the Browns give us a good offer, we should definitely pull the trigger.

Nature Boy
05-23-2008, 06:08 PM
Foxworth sucks.

Retired_Member_001
05-23-2008, 06:12 PM
Foxworth sucks.

Such thought provoking words.

Northman
05-23-2008, 06:14 PM
Saw this on the mane. If Cleveland covets Foxy that much and thinks he could be a starter Denver better get more than a third for him. If not, keep Foxy for Depth purposes.

Skinny
05-23-2008, 06:17 PM
I'll be fine if he stays or goes. You can never have to much depth at CB over the length of a 16 game season (hopefully longer). More importantly in Foxworth's case, we now have some depth at Safety.

At the same time Paymah is capable of playing the nickel , so if we can get a nice draft pick selection for him while he's in the last year of his contract, that's good too.

Buff
05-23-2008, 06:31 PM
I read this yesterday, but when I saw it came from Bill the hack Williamson and it was all speculation I didn't figure it was anything to be taken seriously...

I mean, it does make sense from a need perspective, but Cleveland already gave up 2 2009 picks, one of which was their 3rd rounder, and after not picking on day 1 this year, I'd be shocked if they give up another pick in next year's draft...

I don't know what else they'd send us if not a 2009 draft pick?

topscribe
05-23-2008, 06:34 PM
It would make sense. Denver is deep at corner and Cleveland needs one. Not to mention the fact that Foxy may leave next season for a chance to start. I don't think we could get much in a trade. A 4th rounder at best would be my guess, but something is better than nothing. I think Paymah will make a decent nickel back this year.

Shanny implied that they drafted Williams because they were not deep at CB.
If Foxworth goes, they once again will not be deep at CB.

Why would we plug a hole, only to unplug it again to gain a could-be, might-be
third- or fourth-round draft choice next year or something like that? To me,
that would be ridiculous.

If Cleveland wanted to give me a 2nd, then he would have my blessing on
out the door. Yes, I know that is ridiculous, that Foxy isn't worth a 2nd.
But, as I said, if I am going to weaken a spot important as CB, I'm going to
do it for a ridiculous offer.

-----

Nature Boy
05-23-2008, 06:43 PM
I read this yesterday, but when I saw it came from Bill the hack Williamson and it was all speculation I didn't figure it was anything to be taken seriously...

I mean, it does make sense from a need perspective, but Cleveland already gave up 2 2009 picks, one of which was their 3rd rounder, and after not picking on day 1 this year, I'd be shocked if they give up another pick in next year's draft...

I don't know what else they'd send us if not a 2009 draft pick?

A Defensive Lineman? :laugh:

Nature Boy
05-23-2008, 06:47 PM
Shanny implied that they drafted Williams because they were not deep at CB.
If Foxworth goes, they once again will not be deep at CB.

Why would we plug a hole, only to unplug it again to gain a could-be, might-be
third- or fourth-round draft choice next year or something like that? To me,
that would be ridiculous.

If Cleveland wanted to give me a 2nd, then he would have my blessing on
out the door. Yes, I know that is ridiculous, that Foxy isn't worth a 2nd.
But, as I said, if I am going to weaken a spot important as CB, I'm going to
do it for a ridiculous offer.

-----

I think Shanahan is not particularly high on Foxworth, even for depth versus what Foxworth may bring in in terms of trade value. Shanahan would jump for joy if he can get a 3rd rounder for Foxworth.

WhatEver!!!
05-23-2008, 06:53 PM
A Defensive Lineman? :laugh:

I like the idea of getting something from the Browns that we might need. Do they have a good backup that we could trade with them?? Backup -- Lineman (Def or Off), TE (if Tony is out), an extra placekicker, good special teamer, etc...

Or if they want to give us a draft pick I would say nothing lower than a third, and put an incentive in there that if he plays 70% of the downs we get a 2nd :shocked: Just kidding about the second but that is what the Jets did to us with Robertson so why can't we do it to the Browns

topscribe
05-23-2008, 07:09 PM
I think Shanahan is not particularly high on Foxworth, even for depth versus what Foxworth may bring in in terms of trade value. Shanahan would jump for joy if he can get a 3rd rounder for Foxworth.

I'm going by what Shanny said. And he said that they drafted Williams
because they had only four CBs, and that put them in a squeeze this last year.
If they trade off one of their CBs now, they are back to four.

They wouldn't let Foxy go last year to KC for a safety, remember, but they
preferred just to play Foxy at safety instead. Doesn't sound to me that
Shanny is not too high on Foxy.

The fact remains: Trade any one of the CBs off, and the Broncos once
again have depth issues there. I just don't see it.

-----

Watchthemiddle
05-23-2008, 07:18 PM
FOxy for Chad Johnson straight up.

:coffee:

Northman
05-23-2008, 07:21 PM
I'm going by what Shanny said. And he said that they drafted Williams
because they had only four CBs, and that put them in a squeeze this last year.
If they trade off one of their CBs now, they are back to four.

They wouldn't let Foxy go last year to KC for a safety, remember, but they
preferred just to play Foxy at safety instead. Doesn't sound to me that
Shanny is not too high on Foxy.

The fact remains: Trade any one of the CBs off, and the Broncos once
again have depth issues there. I just don't see it.

-----


Agreed.

nevcraw
05-23-2008, 07:22 PM
trade hime for K2 straight up. Then we could hire the best knee guy in the country to keep up with him and Robertson..

Nature Boy
05-23-2008, 07:32 PM
I'm going by what Shanny said. And he said that they drafted Williams
because they had only four CBs, and that put them in a squeeze this last year.
If they trade off one of their CBs now, they are back to four.

They wouldn't let Foxy go last year to KC for a safety, remember, but they
preferred just to play Foxy at safety instead. Doesn't sound to me that
Shanny is not too high on Foxy.

The fact remains: Trade any one of the CBs off, and the Broncos once
again have depth issues there. I just don't see it.

-----

I don't disagree with you that the Broncos need depth. I read the same thing about when Shanny said a team can never have too many DBs, especially in the AFC West. I just don't think Mike Shanahan likes Foxworth too much and that his trade value is worth more than keeping him. If the Broncos did like Foxworth, they would have extended his contract instead of dangled him in free agency as a Restricted FA but no one was interested.

I say we hope the Browns offer us a player we can shuffle in our rotation or a 3rd rounder in 2009.

G_Money
05-23-2008, 07:45 PM
I can understand how Foxy would help the Browns. After all, Savage has said he wants 5 corners and right now he has about 2.

But I don't see what they have an excess of that would help us.

They have a bunch of #3-#4 wideouts in OTAs, but so do we.

They have a couple of backup MLBs, but so do we.

Anything else?

Because we also like to carry around 5 CBs, and to dip into that depth would likely require us to get something we DON'T have.

From a Steve Doerschuk article:


That opens the question: Where do the Browns have an excess?

Start at inside linebacker. They need to clear room for their top 2008 draft pick, Beau Bell. Last year, D'Qwell Jackson, Andra Davis and Leon Williams rotated at the two inside linebacker spots in the Browns' 3-4 scheme.

Savage probably will dangle Travis Wilson as part of a package. Wilson's value has been hurt by the fact he has barely played since coming aboard as a 2006 Round 3 draft pick. Wilson was the Browns' busiest receiver in Wednesday's spring practice.

Head Coach Romeo Crennel praised him afterward.

"He's showing that maybe he's able to pick it up better this time around," Crennel said. "He made some plays yesterday. He made some plays today."

The wideout corps is crowded after veterans Donte Stallworth and Kevin Kasper were acquired in the offseason, with Braylon Edwards, Joe Jurevicius and Joshua Cribbs already on board.

Running back Jerome Harrison has looked electrifying when he has played, but the Browns seldom used him behind Jamal Lewis and Jason Wright last year. Harrison might interest someone.

Veteran tight end Steve Heiden could be available, in the wake of adding tight end Martin Rucker in the draft.

Obviously, the players mentioned here would not fetch a top cornerback. Savage says he is more in the market for quality depth.

We have plenty of RBs that'll be in camp at this point. Don't see the need there.

I wasn't thinking TE at all, but if they get nervous about Sheff's defective foot then maybe I could see something with a guy like Heiden.

Still, we're likely to lose Foxy for nothing next year in FA, so if the Browns offer us a decent something (players, pick, both) then you'd think we'd have to look into it, especially if it's a something that's more than a year-long rental on a backup.

I just don't see what they'd have, unless they overpay now with at least the draftpick (3rd) we were hoping to get for Foxy in the offseason.

~G

Superchop 7
05-23-2008, 08:29 PM
Unless the value is too much to pass on, keep him.

He is in a contract year, he will play his tail off.

dogfish
05-23-2008, 08:51 PM
Shanny implied that they drafted Williams because they were not deep at CB.
If Foxworth goes, they once again will not be deep at CB.



-----


well, he might have said that because it's more diplomatic than "foxworth and/or paymah is gone after this year, and we're going to need another competent nickel/dime corner". . . i suspect williams was drafted with more of an eye towards next year-- JMO. . .


on epositive of a potential trade-- and this is assuming that we won't re-sign both foxworth and paymah, which i AM assuming right now, although you never know for certain-- is that it would free up a roster spot. . . even though foxworth is more valuable to us this year, it could be better for the club in the long term to be able to retain a player like barrett, alridge or woodyard. . . othwerwise, some of this young talent that we just picked up might end up being signed somewhere else if they have a good camp, and we try to pass them through waivers en route to the practice squad. . .

it's very possible that the FO doesn't know for sure what they're going to do with fox and paymah next year, but if they feel that they're not going to re-sign him, i'd take a mid-round draft pick over a one-year rental. . . if i really considered us a strong super bowl contender this year i'd feel differently, but right now i think stocking up on as much young talent as possible is the best thing we can do, and the more draft picks we can accumulate, the better our chances of finding quality young players who can be here for the long haul. . .

Nature Boy
05-23-2008, 09:06 PM
Unless the value is too much to pass on, keep him.

He is in a contract year, he will play his tail off.

I don't see why a player who is not even a starter needs anymore motivation to play better. The fact that he's a couple bad plays from getting benched all season is reason enough to play at 110%.

Superchop 7
05-23-2008, 09:13 PM
I don't see why a player who is not even a starter needs anymore motivation to play better. The fact that he's a couple bad plays from getting benched all season is reason enough to play at 110%.

__________________________________________________ _________________________________________________

I think he learned a valuable lesson this offseason.

Nobody came calling.

The truth is, players have a "B" game and an "A" game.

He will be bringing his "A" game this year.

Nature Boy
05-23-2008, 09:39 PM
O, I agree with you, I'm just saying.

And I also think last season was the best of Foxworth's abilities.

omac
05-23-2008, 11:21 PM
I'd rather trade him for a 4th rounder, or maybe a developmental DT if they have one.

Cleveland Rocks
05-23-2008, 11:30 PM
Browns shouldn't because they just signed Cousin.

Furthermore, the Browns should not give up anything to get a player.

Timmy!
05-23-2008, 11:43 PM
Gimme a 3rd, or gimme Foxy.

G_Money
05-23-2008, 11:47 PM
Browns shouldn't because they just signed Cousin.

Furthermore, the Browns should not give up anything to get a player.

I'm not really sure what you mean by that. They still need at least one decent backup CB and I'm not sure how they can get one for free. They can't really wait for camp cuts.

I suppose they could try to find a UDFA to snag, that hasn't already been snagged.

Otherwise if they lose another corner to a freak camp injury they're gonna be over a barrel and begging someone to take worse advantage of them then.

Still, I don't think it'll be a trade with us that helps give them some depth there. They do need it though - it's hard to stop anybody if you're playing safeties at corner, and they're looking to really compete this year.

Aren't you?

~G

Cleveland Rocks
05-23-2008, 11:51 PM
I'm not really sure what you mean by that. They still need at least one decent backup CB and I'm not sure how they can get one for free. They can't really wait for camp cuts.

I suppose they could try to find a UDFA to snag, that hasn't already been snagged.

Otherwise if they lose another corner to a freak camp injury they're gonna be over a barrel and begging someone to take worse advantage of them then.

Still, I don't think it'll be a trade with us that helps give them some depth there. They do need it though - it's hard to stop anybody if you're playing safeties at corner, and they're looking to really compete this year.

Aren't you?

~G

There are plenty of free agents if the team needs somebody THAT bad. The media is blowing this situation at corner completely out of proportion. Nothing but rumors. Savage wouldn't trade away any more picks at this time. There are plenty of players in free agency that can be signed - not counting future moves by teams. Why trade any draft pick for a player from the Broncos when there are plenty of other players out there. It makes absolutely no sense and I highly doubt Savage would go for a move as you are all talking about. He's smarter than that. I would rather the Browns give DeMario Minter another shot than to trade a pick to Denver.

PatricktheDookie
05-24-2008, 01:51 AM
Shanny implied that they drafted Williams because they were not deep at CB.
If Foxworth goes, they once again will not be deep at CB.

Why would we plug a hole, only to unplug it again to gain a could-be, might-be
third- or fourth-round draft choice next year or something like that? To me,
that would be ridiculous.

If Cleveland wanted to give me a 2nd, then he would have my blessing on
out the door. Yes, I know that is ridiculous, that Foxy isn't worth a 2nd.
But, as I said, if I am going to weaken a spot important as CB, I'm going to
do it for a ridiculous offer.

-----

Exactly my thoughts.

topscribe
05-24-2008, 02:02 AM
well, he might have said that because it's more diplomatic than "foxworth and/or paymah is gone after this year, and we're going to need another competent nickel/dime corner". . . i suspect williams was drafted with more of an eye towards next year-- JMO. . .


on epositive of a potential trade-- and this is assuming that we won't re-sign both foxworth and paymah, which i AM assuming right now, although you never know for certain-- is that it would free up a roster spot. . . even though foxworth is more valuable to us this year, it could be better for the club in the long term to be able to retain a player like barrett, alridge or woodyard. . . othwerwise, some of this young talent that we just picked up might end up being signed somewhere else if they have a good camp, and we try to pass them through waivers en route to the practice squad. . .

it's very possible that the FO doesn't know for sure what they're going to do with fox and paymah next year, but if they feel that they're not going to re-sign him, i'd take a mid-round draft pick over a one-year rental. . . if i really considered us a strong super bowl contender this year i'd feel differently, but right now i think stocking up on as much young talent as possible is the best thing we can do, and the more draft picks we can accumulate, the better our chances of finding quality young players who can be here for the long haul. . .

No, there was nothing diplomatic about it. Shanny has said since 2005 that
a team cannot have too many CBs. Why do you think he drafted three at
that time?

When Shanny pointed out this year that four were not enough, he cited the
problems they went through when the position incurred injuries. When he
said the Broncos need five CBs, he was dead serious. :nod:

-----

Stargazer
05-24-2008, 04:42 AM
If a team is willing to offer a high draft pick, Denver should move him.

Stargazer
05-24-2008, 04:46 AM
He is in a contract year, he will play his tail off.

I haven't seen anything/good/great out of him since he's entered the league.

TXBRONC
05-24-2008, 06:17 AM
Saw this on the mane. If Cleveland covets Foxy that much and thinks he could be a starter Denver better get more than a third for him. If not, keep Foxy for Depth purposes.

Maybe Cleveland would give up a first day pick for Foxworth but I kind of doubt it.

turftoad
05-24-2008, 10:43 AM
No, there was nothing diplomatic about it. Shanny has said since 2005 that
a team cannot have too many CBs. Why do you think he drafted three at
that time?

When Shanny pointed out this year that four were not enough, he cited the
problems they went through when the position incurred injuries. When he
said the Broncos need five CBs, he was dead serious. :nod:

-----

My thoughts on this is Shanny drafted 3 that year hoping he could find 1 starter out of the bunch.
We did get one, unfortunatly we all know what happened there.
D. Will was the only one with starting potential.
Foxworth is average at best.
I also think Shanny drafted Jack Williams with thoughts that Foxworth will not be around wheather it's this year or next.
I think Shanny talked about the depth thing just to appease any of us (and Fox) that had any doubt about drafting J. Will.

If Foxworth is a Bronco this year, it will be his last in orange and blue.

topscribe
05-24-2008, 11:05 AM
My thoughts on this is Shanny drafted 3 that year hoping he could find 1 starter out of the bunch.
We did get one, unfortunatly we all know what happened there.
D. Will was the only one with starting potential.
Foxworth is average at best.
I also think Shanny drafted Jack Williams with thoughts that Foxworth will not be around wheather it's this year or next.
I think Shanny talked about the depth thing just to appease any of us (and Fox) that had any doubt about drafting J. Will.

If Foxworth is a Bronco this year, it will be his last in orange and blue.

This term "average" has seemed to pop up lately and has been applied quite
frequently in a number of different incidences. How many of the 1,696 players
in the league are not "average"? Maybe it's all the statistics courses I took
in college, I don't know.

Anyway, if Foxworth is "average," and he is a quality backup, which he is,
how does that denigrate his value to the Broncos? Because it has seemed
to have been cast in a bad light here.

The third and fourth rounds in a draft are "tweeners" of sorts: You may find
a starter, or you may find a quality backup. You hope to find one of the
two. The Broncos found quality backups in Foxworth and Paymah. Therefore,
they became valuable cogs in the defense, especially at a position that
requires significant depth.

It really makes no difference now what the motive was for drafting three
CBs. It matters how it turned out. How it turned out was, Foxworth and
Paymah are still here, contributing, and D-Will would have been a starter,
had it not been for an incident that had nothing to do with how the draft
turned out.

The fact of it is, the Broncos had only four quality CBs, and the injury
problems exposed that lack of depth. I accept Shanny's explanation about
drafting Williams, that they need at least five good CBs, because it makes
sense, because that is what I would do for those very reasons.

As I mentioned, in the midst of all the speculation whether Foxworth will be
here next year, I don't believe even Shanahan or Foxworth know that at
this time.

And what happened with the tender signing bears no indication to me. That
was business: the Broncos didn't know what to pay, and Foxworth didn't
know what to ask. Had someone made an offer, then the Broncos would
have had the decision whether to match it. I think they would have because
of that very problem with depth. To lose Foxworth at that point would have
severely depleted the position.

With Williams, the Broncos now have what they believe are five quality CBs.
I just don't see them caving into some kind of trade that would put them
right back to four, with one of them totally inexperienced on the pro level,
unless the offer for Foxy would be ridiculously high. And that is the only
circumstance under which I would let him go at this point.

If someone offered a 2nd for him, yes. Because that is the only way I would
take a chance of depleting the depth at CB. Value for value just doesn't
make sense at this point. I hope it also doesn't make sense to the Broncos.

-----

Requiem / The Dagda
05-24-2008, 12:35 PM
Denver may as well get rid of a player who is worth good value than watch him walk in free agency for nothing; and for those sentiments alone I believe the Broncos would listen long and hard at any reasonable trade offer proposed by the Browns for Foxworth's services. Denver isn't going to be keeping both Paymah and Foxworth with the way the salary cap is, and drafting Jack Williams, who they think is a good player pretty much signaled that.

Bailey, Bly, Paymah, Williams and insert another defensive back here. We're fine at the position without Foxworth. The best in the business, another top fifteen NFL corner, and a guy in Paymah who can play the three and Jack Williams who would be a fine dime in the NFL. Keeping all those players and signing them to future contracts would saturate how much we're giving up at the position. With Bailey looking for a new contract in a year or so, it's going to make sense not to over-saturate the value we already have there now.

It makes perfect sense to trade Foxworth if the offer is right, and it's still a strong-spot on the team. Shanahan might have emphasized the importance of a strong group of corners in the AFC West, and in particular the whole NFL where teams are having great three and four-wide sets, but regardless -- we have great players there even if we were to trade away Foxy.

Value is value, regardless. You know, "just another (round here) pick" has turned into some good trade value for us in the past, and if I recall correctly - those extra picks in the past have landed us players like Karl Paymah and some of our draft choices this year. When it's a strong possiblity the player won't be here next year, why not and try and get something for him?

It's about competition and making your team better. Losing Foxworth isn't going to hurt us that much, if any this year and the possibility of getting a decent draft choice in the process for his services makes sense for a team looking to build through the draft.

It's as clear as day. If the offer is good, you make the deal. The value makes perfect sense for this team. There are barely any NFL teams with as quality of CB's as the Broncos have now. Losing Foxworth wouldn't change that at all. Future picks give future possibilities and long-term potential. It's also clear the Foxworth wants to start, and trading him away would give him a possibility to do that -- and allow the Broncos to do what they need to do to ensure that other needs are met in the future.

Foxworth is an "A" class person off the field and in the community; and he's a solid football player. The only argument I have against any of this isn't the depth issue, but losing a guy who has invested a lot of time in the community, and in regards to Darrent Williams' life post-mortem. These are the players you keep to build teams around because they're positive influences all over the board. He's already an important player representative in the league; and I'd hate to lose him for those reasons. Then again, we have a lot of young, high-character players right behind him - so maybe replacing him won't be too hard.

We'll see though, we'll see.

turftoad
05-24-2008, 12:43 PM
Denver may as well get rid of a player who is worth good value than watch him walk in free agency for nothing; and for those sentiments alone I believe the Broncos would listen long and hard at any reasonable trade offer proposed by the Browns for Foxworth's services. Denver isn't going to be keeping both Paymah and Foxworth with the way the salary cap is, and drafting Jack Williams, who they think is a good player pretty much signaled that.

Bailey, Bly, Paymah, Williams and insert another defensive back here. We're fine at the position without Foxworth. The best in the business, another top fifteen NFL corner, and a guy in Paymah who can play the three and Jack Williams who would be a fine dime in the NFL. Keeping all those players and signing them to future contracts would saturate how much we're giving up at the position. With Bailey looking for a new contract in a year or so, it's going to make sense not to over-saturate the value we already have there now.

It makes perfect sense to trade Foxworth if the offer is right, and it's still a strong-spot on the team. Shanahan might have emphasized the importance of a strong group of corners in the AFC West, and in particular the whole NFL where teams are having great three and four-wide sets, but regardless -- we have great players there even if we were to trade away Foxy.

Value is value, regardless. You know, "just another (round here) pick" has turned into some good trade value for us in the past, and if I recall correctly - those extra picks in the past have landed us players like Karl Paymah and some of our draft choices this year. When it's a strong possiblity the player won't be here next year, why not and try and get something for him?

It's about competition and making your team better. Losing Foxworth isn't going to hurt us that much, if any this year and the possibility of getting a decent draft choice in the process for his services makes sense for a team looking to build through the draft.

It's as clear as day. If the offer is good, you make the deal. The value makes perfect sense for this team. There are barely any NFL teams with as quality of CB's as the Broncos have now. Losing Foxworth wouldn't change that at all. Future picks give future possibilities and long-term potential. It's also clear the Foxworth wants to start, and trading him away would give him a possibility to do that -- and allow the Broncos to do what they need to do to ensure that other needs are met in the future.

Foxworth is an "A" class person off the field and in the community; and he's a solid football player. The only argument I have against any of this isn't the depth issue, but losing a guy who has invested a lot of time in the community, and in regards to Darrent Williams' life post-mortem. These are the players you keep to build teams around because they're positive influences all over the board. He's already an important player representative in the league; and I'd hate to lose him for those reasons. Then again, we have a lot of young, high-character players right behind him - so maybe replacing him won't be too hard.

We'll see though, we'll see.

I concur. Good post Dream.

topscribe
05-24-2008, 12:46 PM
Denver may as well get rid of a player who is worth good value than watch him walk in free agency for nothing; and for those sentiments alone I believe the Broncos would listen long and hard at any reasonable trade offer proposed by the Browns for Foxworth's services. Denver isn't going to be keeping both Paymah and Foxworth with the way the salary cap is, and drafting Jack Williams, who they think is a good player pretty much signaled that.

Bailey, Bly, Paymah, Williams and insert another defensive back here. We're fine at the position without Foxworth. The best in the business, another top fifteen NFL corner, and a guy in Paymah who can play the three and Jack Williams who would be a fine dime in the NFL. Keeping all those players and signing them to future contracts would saturate how much we're giving up at the position. With Bailey looking for a new contract in a year or so, it's going to make sense not to over-saturate the value we already have there now.

It makes perfect sense to trade Foxworth if the offer is right, and it's still a strong-spot on the team. Shanahan might have emphasized the importance of a strong group of corners in the AFC West, and in particular the whole NFL where teams are having great three and four-wide sets, but regardless -- we have great players there even if we were to trade away Foxy.

Value is value, regardless. You know, "just another (round here) pick" has turned into some good trade value for us in the past, and if I recall correctly - those extra picks in the past have landed us players like Karl Paymah and some of our draft choices this year. When it's a strong possiblity the player won't be here next year, why not and try and get something for him?

It's about competition and making your team better. Losing Foxworth isn't going to hurt us that much, if any this year and the possibility of getting a decent draft choice in the process for his services makes sense for a team looking to build through the draft.

It's as clear as day. If the offer is good, you make the deal. The value makes perfect sense for this team. There are barely any NFL teams with as quality of CB's as the Broncos have now. Losing Foxworth wouldn't change that at all. Future picks give future possibilities and long-term potential. It's also clear the Foxworth wants to start, and trading him away would give him a possibility to do that -- and allow the Broncos to do what they need to do to ensure that other needs are met in the future.

Foxworth is an "A" class person off the field and in the community; and he's a solid football player. The only argument I have against any of this isn't the depth issue, but losing a guy who has invested a lot of time in the community, and in regards to Darrent Williams' life post-mortem. These are the players you keep to build teams around because they're positive influences all over the board. He's already an important player representative in the league; and I'd hate to lose him for those reasons. Then again, we have a lot of young, high-character players right behind him - so maybe replacing him won't be too hard.

We'll see though, we'll see.

Yes, Shanny was really concerned about depth, one significant reason he
drafted Williams. He will be releaved to find out he can dispense of a CB
and not have to worry about depth.

What was he thinking?

-----

turftoad
05-24-2008, 12:51 PM
Yes, Shanny was really concerned about depth, one significant reason he
drafted Williams. He will be releaved to find out he can dispense of a CB
and not have to worry about depth.

What was he thinking?

-----

Sometimes Shanahan does not tell the truth when it comes to his plans. I, for one ,don't believe everything that comes out of his mouth.

Buff
05-24-2008, 12:54 PM
People, this is never going to happen. Cleveland has already traded away their 2009 3rd rounder and their 2009 5th rounder...


Martin Rucker Tight end Selection: Fourth round, 111th pick (Acquired from Dallas for 2009 third-round pick).
Paul Hubbard Wide receiver Selection: Sixth round, 191st pick (Reacquired from Philadelphia for 2009 fifth-round pick).


That leaves them with just 5 picks headed into next year, after not having a pick until round 4 this year... They simply don't have the leverage to make this happen. Thus, proving once again that Bill Williamson is a hack.

Requiem / The Dagda
05-24-2008, 01:03 PM
Yes, Shanny was really concerned about depth, one significant reason he
drafted Williams. He will be releaved to find out he can dispense of a CB
and not have to worry about depth.

What was he thinking?

-----

I'm not sure what he was thinking, but how many people on this board were trashing the Williams pick when it was actually made?

Quite a few, but let's get to the main point:

Everyone knows depth is important to every team. However, we're still four deep at cornerback even if Foxworth was traded. I have no problems with placing a versatile defensive back (we signed several safeties) as a fifth defensive back. They have the ability to do that.

Injuries are a part of the game, and it's always great to be prepared. Having five options at corner is always nice, but I think that Reid, or some of our other defensive backs would have the versatility to serve as that fifth guy on this team. That's how a lot of teams have it, and they seem to be doing fine.

If Denver didn't have Champ Bailey or Dre Bly, this is an absolute no-brainer -- but we do have those guys, a solid veteran in Paymah and a promising rookie who has great starting potential in Williams. It's very likely that one of Paymah or Foxworth won't be here next year, so it's absolutely plausible that the Broncos would be interested in adding value.

I'm just not seeing the argument how getting rid of an at-best (barring injury) nickel cornerback on this team depletes the quality we have at the position. Good starters, and as mentioned - two other good depth players. Now, I'm assuming Williams will be decent as a dime as a rookie, and I think it is a fair assumption.

I just don't really see sense in the arguments grasping onto a general statement regarding player depth at positions by a head coach and preaching it as gospel to a reason why we shouldn't get rid of a player. This head coach has said a lot of things over his tenure with the Denver Broncos, and half the time we've learned he was just blowing smoke our way. I'll miss Foxworth for what he's done as a leader in the areas I mentioned, but I'm not going to miss him for his play on the field. Players like him can be replaced, it's that simple. Coupled with the information regarding contracts I've given in both these posts, and the fact that we'd only be in need of a fifth cornerback if we got rid of him, I'm willing to accept any trade regarding Foxworth as long as the pick compensation is reasonable.

Requiem / The Dagda
05-24-2008, 01:08 PM
People, this is never going to happen. Cleveland has already traded away their 2009 3rd rounder and their 2009 5th rounder...


Martin Rucker Tight end Selection: Fourth round, 111th pick (Acquired from Dallas for 2009 third-round pick).
Paul Hubbard Wide receiver Selection: Sixth round, 191st pick (Reacquired from Philadelphia for 2009 fifth-round pick).


That leaves them with just 5 picks headed into next year, after not having a pick until round 4 this year... They simply don't have the leverage to make this happen. Thus, proving once again that Bill Williamson is a hack.

This argument only exists in a world where people tend to inflate the value of players to meet their Madden-esque draft wants. Realistically, at best - Foxworth would only have given us a third round selection. They still have the picks to make the value right. A fourth-rounder for Foxworth straight up is realistic value, and a trade that would probably be proposed. That seems to be the going-rate for above-average starters. Heck, even players like Randy Moss who are Pro-Bowlers and All-Time Greats go for that pick compensation. I'd love a super-high pick from the Browns too, but that's not going to happen. So they're missing a few picks? So what. They're a team that is strong and has filled their needs. They still have their day one picks, and aren't shy about being aggressive. Them tossing us a fourth-rounder is completely possible and reasonable.

If the Broncos were tossed that sort of a bone, they should probably take it. It's better than letting him walk in free agency, which is something I see happening given the fact that he's not a starter in Denver as long as Bailey and Bly are around.

I'm not sure why Williamson is a hack here. It's a reasonable assumption to believe the Browns are in need of a cornerback. Well, that's not an assumption -- that's a fact. Coupled with the fact that Foxworth has been involved in trade talks for (rumored, legitimacy in question; but it was reported that a few teams did ask about his availability) a while, it seems reasonable to put two and two together.

I'd take a fourth for Foxworth. Yummy. :cool:

Buff
05-24-2008, 01:15 PM
This argument only exists in a world where people tend to inflate the value of players to meet their Madden-esque draft wants. Realistically, at best - Foxworth would only have given us a third round selection. They still have the picks to make the value right. A fourth-rounder for Foxworth straight up is realistic value, and a trade that would probably be proposed. That seems to be the going-rate for above-average starters. Heck, even players like Randy Moss who are Pro-Bowlers and All-Time Greats go for that pick compensation. I'd love a super-high pick from the Browns too, but that's not going to happen. So they're missing a few picks? So what. They're a team that is strong and has filled their needs. They still have their day one picks, and aren't shy about being aggressive. Them tossing us a fourth-rounder is completely possible and reasonable.

If the Broncos were tossed that sort of a bone, they should probably take it. It's better than letting him walk in free agency, which is something I see happening given the fact that he's not a starter in Denver as long as Bailey and Bly are around.

I'm not sure why Williamson is a hack here. It's a reasonable assumption to believe the Browns are in need of a cornerback. Well, that's not an assumption -- that's a fact. Coupled with the fact that Foxworth has been involved in trade talks for (rumored, legitimacy in question; but it was reported that a few teams did ask about his availability) a while, it seems reasonable to put two and two together.

I'd take a fourth for Foxworth. Yummy. :cool:

To tender Foxworth at the 3rd round level and then turn around and trade him for a 4th would be dumb...

But the larger point I was trying to make is that Cleveland is not going to trade away half of their draft again... They can't. With 2 picks already gone, I just don't see them giving up a 2nd or 4th in any scenario...

dogfish
05-24-2008, 01:22 PM
To tender Foxworth at the 3rd round level and then turn around and trade him for a 4th would be dumb...


why?? we couldn't get a 3rd, is it better to take a 4th, or let him walk next year and get no compensation? i'll take a 4th any day-- we have a solid history of turning picks in that round into quality starters at RB and on the offensive line. . . .



But the larger point I was trying to make is that Cleveland is not going to trade away half of their draft again... They can't. With 2 picks already gone, I just don't see them giving up a 2nd or 4th in any scenario...


they're in a win now mode, as evidenced by the trades they've already made for veteran players-- they have an offense that's ready to compete, they need to finish bringing the defense up to speed. . . cornerback is the one glaring hole on their roster. . . foxworth is young and still has upside, but has also gotten a lot of expereince and proven that he can be a solid contributor at this level-- how high are their chances of doing better than that with a 4th round pick? given his age, he's still a player that a team can build around going forward, but he's ready to play now. . . i won't be the slightest bit surprised if they make a move for a veteran corner. . . .

Requiem / The Dagda
05-24-2008, 01:22 PM
To tender Foxworth at the 3rd round level and then turn around and trade him for a 4th would be dumb...

Why? Teams didn't bite on Foxworth because he was tendered at that level. If teams wouldn't give up a third, why is it stupid to trade him for the next best value available? It's the only logical way to assume a trade would happen.


But the larger point I was trying to make is that Cleveland is not going to trade away half of their draft again... They can't. With 2 picks already gone, I just don't see them giving up a 2nd or 4th in any scenario...

I'm sure that's what people thought when they continued to trade away future picks to get some players they wanted in last years draft. I'm not so sure that's an assumption I'd be willing to make considering they've traded future picks (and a lot) the past two years. A trade for a fourth would still give them their #1, #2, #5, #7 choices in the draft. Who is to say they couldn't trade down and get another pick from another selection?

It doesn't really seem like they have a whole lot of holes. If they have the chance to get a starter for a fourth rounder, they're absolutely going to pull the trigger. Those offers don't come along very often. I don't like delving into Madden territory with trades, but there is always a possibility of a 2009 pick, with a 2010 conditional, much like the Lelie trade brought us.

With that said, if the Browns really need a cornerback, they'll try and trade for one. They've been getting veteran players who can help them win now with the younger ones they have. Looks like it's starting to pay off for them. It doesn't matter to me either way, but it's a trade possibility that seems to have validity in more than just one way.

Buff
05-24-2008, 01:29 PM
I just don't see the urgency to move Foxy, even with an expiring deal. Why compromise and take a 4th rounder when you could have an experienced, serviceable nickel/dime back? Who's to say we don't resign him next year? He obviously isn't a starting CB if no one bit for a 3rd rounder... Bly and Champ can't play forever.

It's the classic case of draftniks outhinking themselves IMO... We've got a 4th rounder next year, and we've got a versatile CB this year, there's no need to go out and make a deal for the sake of making a deal... Let someone make us an offer we can't refuse.

And in regard to Cleveland, I guess it's not out of the realm of possibility for them to give up another pick... Savage has shown a willingness to. It just seems unlikely to me.

dogfish
05-24-2008, 01:45 PM
I just don't see the urgency to move Foxy, even with an expiring deal. Why compromise and take a 4th rounder when you could have an experienced, serviceable nickel/dime back? Who's to say we don't resign him next year? He obviously isn't a starting CB if no one bit for a 3rd rounder... Bly and Champ can't play forever.

It's the classic case of draftniks outhinking themselves IMO... We've got a 4th rounder next year, and we've got a versatile CB this year, there's no need to go out and make a deal for the sake of making a deal... Let someone make us an offer we can't refuse.

salary cap, homie. . . we can't pay him starter's money (and even a smaller veteran contract will still be a lot more than we're paying williams, who wasn't drafted to ride the pine IMO) to be a depth guy for the next 2-3 years. . . especially when paymah seems to have passed him on the depth chart at CB. . . that 4th rounder can very easily turn into a player who can give us a lot of the same things fox brings to the table for a fraction of the cost, and we're going to need a fat chunk of extra salary cap room in the next few years-- re-signing guys like marshall, dj williams and dumervil is a lot more important than retaining a nickel/dime back. . . .


something else to consider-- and i'm just throwing this out here for discussion, not necessarily saying that this is what i believe. . . but it's possible that the team may not think fox is worth the type of contract that they anticipate being needed to re-sign him. . . they get to watch his game film, and they see him practice every day. . . maybe they think he's more replaceable than some of us do. . .

JMO, but i don't really feel that he's progressed that much since his excellent rookie season (i also don't think that moving him around has done him any favors, but that's neither here nor there, as it's already happened). . . it seems to me that fox is a lot more comfortable keeping the action in front of him (which may be part of the reason they've used him at safety), and giving receivers a big cushion. . . i haven't had the heart to re-watch many of our games the past two seasons, so don't kill me if you see it differently, but i don't think he's very aggressive breaking on the ball-- he seems a little too worried about giving up the big play, and may be a little too content allowing the catch and then coming up to make the tackle. . . of course, you want your DBs to find a balance, but with two new coordinators since he was drafted, it IS possible that the team no longer thinks he's a great fit for the scheme we want to run going forward. . . to me, he's a classic man-off corner, and if we want to play more tight man behind slowik's blitzes, that could potentially make him expendable. . . not saying that's what's going on, but i do think it's a possibility. . . fox is a solid player, but hardly irreplaceable. . .

with two highly paid starters, i just can't see how we can justify re-signing both fox and paymah next year. . . williams is a much more affordable option for the dime spot, and we will probably draft another corner next year. . . obviously it's all speculation at this point, but rumors have been churning all offseason that fox would be moved-- maybe it's just baseless media hype, but if so why haven't they been spreading rumors that we'd trade paymah? in many of these types of incidents, it turns out that where there was smoke there was fire. . . .

Buff
05-24-2008, 02:07 PM
I agree that he doesn't deserve starter's money, but if he didn't even get a nibble on the 3rd round tender, then there's no chance he's going to get starters money. So, if we keep him for depth and he splits time with Paymah, who's to say we can't resign him next year for cheap?

I agree he hasn't progressed the way some of us had hoped... But I also think he's a decent nickel/dime back, and at his current salary, I prefer him to an unknown draft choice...

Granted we'd be taking a risk letting him hit free agency next year, who knows who'd overpay for him, but I'd rather take that chance than trade for the sake of trading, and then have 1-2 starters go down in the secondary this year.

dogfish
05-24-2008, 02:39 PM
So, if we keep him for depth and he splits time with Paymah, who's to say we can't resign him next year for cheap?


someone may well be a lot more willing to offer a decent contract than a 3rd rounder AND a decent contract. . . and the basic NFL salary structure says we can't sign him for nearly as cheap as we did jack williams. . . .




Granted we'd be taking a risk letting him hit free agency next year, who knows who'd overpay for him, but I'd rather take that chance than trade for the sake of trading, and then have 1-2 starters go down in the secondary this year.



i don't understand why you're saying trading just for the sake of trading. . . if we can get a 4th for him, that's a valuable pick! think about guys like elvis dumervil, brandon marshall, mike anderson and chris kuper (actually a 5th)-- i'd trade one year of foxworth's services to have any one of those guys on the cheap for the next 4-5 years, wouldn't you? i think that what it all comes down to is that some of us ascribe different values to draft picks as opposed to players. . . they may not be proven guys in this league yet, but i'd absolutely trade fox and his one year contract for owen scmitt or tashard choice and their rookie deals. . . .

BroncoWave
05-24-2008, 03:41 PM
I'm not sure what he was thinking, but how many people on this board were trashing the Williams pick when it was actually made?

Quite a few, but let's get to the main point:

Everyone knows depth is important to every team. However, we're still four deep at cornerback even if Foxworth was traded. I have no problems with placing a versatile defensive back (we signed several safeties) as a fifth defensive back. They have the ability to do that.

Injuries are a part of the game, and it's always great to be prepared. Having five options at corner is always nice, but I think that Reid, or some of our other defensive backs would have the versatility to serve as that fifth guy on this team. That's how a lot of teams have it, and they seem to be doing fine.

If Denver didn't have Champ Bailey or Dre Bly, this is an absolute no-brainer -- but we do have those guys, a solid veteran in Paymah and a promising rookie who has great starting potential in Williams. It's very likely that one of Paymah or Foxworth won't be here next year, so it's absolutely plausible that the Broncos would be interested in adding value.

I'm just not seeing the argument how getting rid of an at-best (barring injury) nickel cornerback on this team depletes the quality we have at the position. Good starters, and as mentioned - two other good depth players. Now, I'm assuming Williams will be decent as a dime as a rookie, and I think it is a fair assumption.

I just don't really see sense in the arguments grasping onto a general statement regarding player depth at positions by a head coach and preaching it as gospel to a reason why we shouldn't get rid of a player. This head coach has said a lot of things over his tenure with the Denver Broncos, and half the time we've learned he was just blowing smoke our way. I'll miss Foxworth for what he's done as a leader in the areas I mentioned, but I'm not going to miss him for his play on the field. Players like him can be replaced, it's that simple. Coupled with the information regarding contracts I've given in both these posts, and the fact that we'd only be in need of a fifth cornerback if we got rid of him, I'm willing to accept any trade regarding Foxworth as long as the pick compensation is reasonable.

Dream, your posts are always spot on! Great post! :salute:

turftoad
05-24-2008, 03:56 PM
Keep in mind fellas that Paymahs a FA after this year also.

Requiem / The Dagda
05-24-2008, 04:05 PM
Keep in mind fellas that Paymahs a FA after this year also.

Yeah, that's sort of a big reason behind the logic of a trade including Foxworth.

Denver has a ton of money invested into Bailey and Bly, and it's been talk for a while now that Bailey will be getting a new deal since he's played out a decent portion of his deal. I believe this will be his fifth year, and he signed a six year. (I may be wrong on that.) Bailey is obviously going to be a priority over Domonique Foxworth. He's a Hall of Fame shoe-in, and he's the best there is. Bailey will get a new contract, and it'll probably be pretty big. The saturation of his contract with Bly's will be enormous when that happens. Denver won't have the luxury of paying Foxworth starting dollar to play a back-up role.

The best bet they'll have, and this is what I've been saying since Williams' passed on, is to get Paymah in at a reduced rate. He was thought to have had the most potential out of any of them, and did very well in several scenarios last year. I'm hoping he can have a really good year, and I'm hoping he'll come back for us at a decent-sized contract. Couple that in a year later and we'll have Jack Williams, who will be a one-year veteran who will play a decent role on the team at a great rookie price. All that means is we have to find a guy capable of playing the fifth cornerback spot. I'm fairly certain Lamont Reid could do that, as well as Underwood or Manuel from the safety positions.

Now, obviously Foxworth in the mix makes us a extremely strong cornerback group, but I'd still say we're one of the tops in the league without him. Paymah can do what he does at the cornerback level and Denver brought in several safeties and drafted Josh Barrett in hopes to have a future prospect at the position. We got deeper at the defensive backfield, and I'm confident that we have the players necessary on the roster now to fill Foxworth's void if he were moved.

I'm part of the crowd that doesn't see his departure as a big deal. Like I said before, as a player he is expendable, but I'm going to hate losing his genius in the community and elsewhere. However, I'm hopeful that the high character guys we brought in this year, and guys like Tim Crowder, etc. from last year can help carry on that tradition.

Requiem / The Dagda
05-24-2008, 04:17 PM
On another note, when I say over-saturating a position with money, I'm just referencing how much money we'll have invested at a particular position. (I thought I'd clarify if anyone was wondering.)

I like Foxworth, but is giving him a contract here better than hammering out a long-term deal for DJ Williams? Every little bit counts, especially in a salary-cap area that's totally crazy. Guys from the 2006 NFL Draft class will be coming up on new contracts at the end of 2010, [Day 2 selections like Dumervil, Marshall and Kuper] so if they do well this year, we could see a bulk of our money (we have a bit) going and securing those guys long-term.

I don't know about you, but I think we'll need those players a lot more than we'll need Foxworth, given the strength and need assessment at particular positions. Yet another reason in favor of a trade including Foxworth, that is -- if you're interested in the big picture.

TXBRONC
05-24-2008, 09:39 PM
I'll be fine if he stays or goes. You can never have to much depth at CB over the length of a 16 game season (hopefully longer). More importantly in Foxworth's case, we now have some depth at Safety.

At the same time Paymah is capable of playing the nickel , so if we can get a nice draft pick selection for him while he's in the last year of his contract, that's good too.

While I would like to keep Foxworth around because he is good player. But since he is UFA at the end of this season and the fact he's not going re-sign us it would be better to trade him and get something for rather let him go and get nothing.

Superchop 7
05-24-2008, 11:24 PM
May I please state the obvious.

Our d-line is suspect.

If the d-line is suspect, the secondary needs to be great.

topscribe
05-24-2008, 11:29 PM
May I please state the obvious.

Our d-line is suspect.

If the d-line is suspect, the secondary needs to be great.

Well, the secondary was great last year, at least the CBs.

Which goes to show that, if the D-line is poor, it doesn't matter how great the secondary is.