Wild Guess - Stephen Denmark at safety

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,084
Liked Posts:
23,406
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Take this for what it's worth. There is someone on Twitter (@unclemike21) who is representing himself as a host for "The Halas Hall Brawl", they have a podcast. He says that he spoke with Stephen Denmark and his mentors right now are Eddie Jackson and Ha Ha Clinton Dix.

Okay...flame away for providing information that is completely speculative.
I never had an issue with the safety thing as DB is one of the most interchangeable positions in football. I only had issue with him being kept on the active roster even if he didn't show much in the pre.
 
Last edited:

gallagher

Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile
Donator
Joined:
Sep 27, 2010
Posts:
6,242
Liked Posts:
5,495
Location:
Semi-Nomadic
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Michigan Wolverines
  2. Ohio Bobcats
Fake news, vaccines cause autism, climate change is a conspiracy, tornado sirens are annoying, blah blah blah. I cannot break it down to any simpler form. As a consequence of Pace's trades, there is a vacuum of 1st through 3rd round picks for a couple of years. This causes a distortion in the value added from rookie contracts. I literally cannot be any simpler than that.
Well no, we are short a first and third next year, but gained a second rounder (from the hopeless Raiders) back. After that, we're in the clear. Last draft's first was spent on Mack, who is clearly more valuable than any first rounder that was available in the entire draft (and without Mack, we aren't picking in the back half of the first). Last year's second was spent to acquire Miller in the previous draft, who comes in this year poised to start (which is what you want out of a second rounder, so we got out value).

I'm not asking you to make it simpler. Everyone here understands what a budget is. We all know what it cost to turn this team into a playoff contender. What I asked was to substantiate your claim; Provide evidence that the Bears are worse off because we traded for Mack to support your assertion. Because when you're claim amounts to "we could have had unproven players on cheaper contracts," all you're doing is complaining about the pricetag for the best player on our team.

This concern just appears groundless and I don't know why you're sticking to it. If not having the picks we traded for Mack is a long-term concern, then the logical and prudent move is to trade Mack for whatever we can get now while he is a young future hall of famer.

So let's cut to the chase - if the raiders offered to trade for Mack and offered the same deal we gave them, do you take it?
 

pinkfloydster

Active member
Joined:
Aug 31, 2013
Posts:
724
Liked Posts:
464
What I asked was to substantiate your claim; Provide evidence that the Bears are worse off because we traded for Mack to support your assertion.

Where on God's green earth did I say the Bears are worse off with the Mack trade? Just because I point out the shortcomings of it, doesn't mean I don't think it wasn't a fantastic trade.
 

Sculpt

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
8,498
Liked Posts:
2,895
I think what some are missing here is that Denmark has a floor of "special teams ace"...and at worst will be pushing McManis to be great at that ST's captain spot or be challenged by a better athlete with similar gusto for contact.

Denmark projects as a safety for many reasons, but regardless Pagano experiments with big nickel and likely views alot of guys as just "DB's" of different skill sets he can use in different situations. I think he prefers a bunch of tools in that DB tool kit, and whatever was discussed with him when or where Pace came back with Skrine/athletic freak Denmark/ underrated pedigree undersized CB from Kansas State/ and found him HaHa Clinton Diks.

I don't care what they do, as they already accomplished giving Pagano what he wanted and asked for clearly.
Just curious, why is Denmark projected to be a Safety? (Anybody)

Not saying he isn't, I just haven't heard any reasons yet.
 

pinkfloydster

Active member
Joined:
Aug 31, 2013
Posts:
724
Liked Posts:
464
Just curious, why is Denmark projected to be a Safety? (Anybody)

Not saying he isn't, I just haven't heard any reasons yet.

I get your point...there is practically zero tape out there. My rationale for my crazy speculation is a guess that #1 Denmark has trouble with an NFL professional wide receiver double move. Why do I say this? Almost every human on planet earth would have similar difficulties. There is no tape of him against an NFL quality WR. #2, He can tackle - sparse film does support this and I think he is a natural tackler since he only played defense one year. So, former WR (like Eddie Jackson), runs fast, tall, likes to tackle, has trouble with man to man coverage = possible safety.
 

Visionman

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 28, 2017
Posts:
7,995
Liked Posts:
4,451
Just curious, why is Denmark projected to be a Safety? (Anybody)

Not saying he isn't, I just haven't heard any reasons yet.
Because hes a big athletically gifted DB. That's pretty much it, i think...
 

Raskolnikov

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
22,240
Liked Posts:
7,739
Location:
Enemy Territory via southern C
Because hes a big athletically gifted DB. That's pretty much it, i think...
He’s also aggressive natured and he is also longer limbed than most individuals that succeed at NFL CB. He hasn’t shown CB play of that level, didn’t have the school to practice elite skills against elite players.

His inexperience with athletic traits is easier to make into a safety or a big nickel, imo.
 

Sculpt

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
8,498
Liked Posts:
2,895
Why Denmark a Safety...

I get your point...there is practically zero tape out there. My rationale for my crazy speculation is a guess that #1 Denmark has trouble with an NFL professional wide receiver double move. Why do I say this? Almost every human on planet earth would have similar difficulties. There is no tape of him against an NFL quality WR. #2, He can tackle - sparse film does support this and I think he is a natural tackler since he only played defense one year. So, former WR (like Eddie Jackson), runs fast, tall, likes to tackle, has trouble with man to man coverage = possible safety.
Because hes a big athletically gifted DB. That's pretty much it, i think...
He’s also aggressive natured and he is also longer limbed than most individuals that succeed at NFL CB. He hasn’t shown CB play of that level, didn’t have the school to practice elite skills against elite players.

His inexperience with athletic traits is easier to make into a safety or a big nickel, imo.
Seems like the general reason given to change this guy into a Safety is he isn't good enough to be a CB. = p

Inexperience at CB isn't a reason to switch to Safety. It's possible a player doesn't have enough the hip-flip ability to be a CB, but he has the measurables to be a CB, particularly height and speed; so I'm sure they'll train him there first... also because it's a generally more prized position.
 

Chicago4Life

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 24, 2012
Posts:
3,419
Liked Posts:
1,916
Why Denmark a Safety...




Seems like the general reason given to change this guy into a Safety is he isn't good enough to be a CB. = p

Inexperience at CB isn't a reason to switch to Safety. It's possible a player doesn't have enough the hip-flip ability to be a CB, but he has the measurables to be a CB, particularly height and speed; so I'm sure they'll train him there first... also because it's a generally more prized position.

i'd say the reason to switch to safety also has to do with the learning curve. No doubt they will refine his CB skills but given his size and athleticism it would be a mistake not to try him at SS. HHCD will likely be gone after this season leaving another hole with the likes of bush and dhc as the lone options.

the CB position has better depth assuming guys like joseph, mincy and franklin have made improvements in their game.
its very likely prince is let go after this season with the bears cap situation. The likely choice to fill the void would be tolliver again assuming he's made good progress...and having joseph, mincy or franklin will be key for the bears depth.
 

Raskolnikov

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
22,240
Liked Posts:
7,739
Location:
Enemy Territory via southern C
Why Denmark a Safety...




Seems like the general reason given to change this guy into a Safety is he isn't good enough to be a CB. = p

Inexperience at CB isn't a reason to switch to Safety. It's possible a player doesn't have enough the hip-flip ability to be a CB, but he has the measurables to be a CB, particularly height and speed; so I'm sure they'll train him there first... also because it's a generally more prized position.
You are probably right, but as more of a stats man I’m just pointing out the odds of finding a 6’3” CB are incredibly small and you pointed out the biological issue that physiologically you can’t flip hips or be as quick at 6’3”.

I will point out here that Richard Sherman is a bright standford educated individual like Charles Tillman is veru bright, and if you can both anticipate and read plays you can make up for some lankiness, but I don’t see that here, think 220lbs is too big for Cb, and just feel the obvious here is that the kid is built like a free safety or a big nickel, call him whatever you like but pagano uses three safety formations so it may never be understood what his position is.

Fact is he is a big aggressive DB that likes to hit things.
 

Raskolnikov

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
22,240
Liked Posts:
7,739
Location:
Enemy Territory via southern C
And I think he was a great selection particularly following up selection of Shelley, who is a bonified Star big school CB that lacked height and pure top speed.

To follow that up with mr. Small school measurables and make them roommates, etc at camp I think is brilliant.
 
Last edited:

pinkfloydster

Active member
Joined:
Aug 31, 2013
Posts:
724
Liked Posts:
464
Why Denmark a Safety...




Seems like the general reason given to change this guy into a Safety is he isn't good enough to be a CB. = p

Inexperience at CB isn't a reason to switch to Safety. It's possible a player doesn't have enough the hip-flip ability to be a CB, but he has the measurables to be a CB, particularly height and speed; so I'm sure they'll train him there first... also because it's a generally more prized position.

FWIW

 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,084
Liked Posts:
23,406
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
i'd say the reason to switch to safety also has to do with the learning curve. No doubt they will refine his CB skills but given his size and athleticism it would be a mistake not to try him at SS. HHCD will likely be gone after this season leaving another hole with the likes of bush and dhc as the lone options.

the CB position has better depth assuming guys like joseph, mincy and franklin have made improvements in their game.
its very likely prince is let go after this season with the bears cap situation. The likely choice to fill the void would be tolliver again assuming he's made good progress...and having joseph, mincy or franklin will be key for the bears depth.
Mostly true but I'd still train him as a CB first simple to gain the required NFL coverage skills. That's what needs to emphasized right now because he lacks them. If they want to switch to or add the SS position next the offseason, fine, he's certainly a physical fit. If roced to play right now, he'd get beat off the line and double moves etc. At safety he'd bite and miss reads. Really raw but In a good place to become something if Pagano takes him under his wing.
 

legendxofxlink

Whistle Dixie
Joined:
Apr 25, 2014
Posts:
10,494
Liked Posts:
11,911
Location:
Tennessee
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Nashville Predators
  1. ETSU Buccaneers
  2. Tennessee Volunteers

All he has to do is be good at taking angles, wrapping up and smart enough to not play out of position, all things Dix seems to have struggled with before... Coverage skills aren't as much of a high prerequisite at this other safety position.
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,084
Liked Posts:
23,406
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
All he has to do is be good at taking angles, wrapping up and smart enough to not play out of position, all things Dix seems to have struggled with before... Coverage skills aren't as much of a high prerequisite at this other safety position.
Basically fan speculation like on this board but saying, "As of the moment, there is not another suitable replacement on the roster, meaning if the Bears do not re-sign Clinton-Dix, they would have to either draft his replacement next year or sign another free agent." is being ignorant of Bush and Houston-Carson. Moving Denmark to SS in a year is not necessarily a bad idea but I'd prefer if a writer had a better argument for it other than we don't have any other safties when we do.

To counter, one could almost as easily assume we don't bring back Amukamara next year and we don't have an
obvious heir apparent there either. We have backups like at S but at this point, we don't even know if Denmark makes the active roster.

As I've said earlier. I'm OK with wherever they want to position him but I'd prefer him stay at CB this year to refine his coverage technique. It won't hurt his S development one bit.
 
Last edited:

pinkfloydster

Active member
Joined:
Aug 31, 2013
Posts:
724
Liked Posts:
464
Basically fan speculation like on this board but saying, "As of the moment, there is not another suitable replacement on the roster, meaning if the Bears do not re-sign Clinton-Dix, they would have to either draft his replacement next year or sign another free agent." is being ignorant of Bush and Houston-Carson. Moving Denmark to SS in a year is not necessarily a bad idea but I'd prefer if a writer had a better argument for it other than we don't have any other safties when we do.

To counter, one could almost as easily assume we don't bring back Amukamara next year and we don't have an
obvious heir apparent there either. We have backups like at S but at this point, we don't even know if Denmark makes the active roster.

As I've said earlier. I'm OK with wherever they want to position him but I'd prefer him stay at CB this year to refine his coverage technique. It won't hurt his S development one bit.

The Denmark Kool Aid has to be viewed through the lens that the Bears are like 12 million over the cap for next year already. Still have to sign our draft picks. Well, you get the picture. Amukamara gets replaced by Toliver. Dix replaced by Denmark. Floyd by Roy Robertson Harris. Call it wishful thinking. Call it mathematical certainty. I can think of a dozen other adjectives that apply.
 

modo

Based
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
29,162
Liked Posts:
25,103
Location:
USA
I honestly think if Denmark sticks on the roster it will be due to his ability to play CB. I really think they want him to be a 6’3” CB
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,084
Liked Posts:
23,406
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
The Denmark Kool Aid has to be viewed through the lens that the Bears are like 12 million over the cap for next year already. Still have to sign our draft picks. Well, you get the picture. Amukamara gets replaced by Toliver. Dix replaced by Denmark. Floyd by Roy Robertson Harris. Call it wishful thinking. Call it mathematical certainty. I can think of a dozen other adjectives that apply.
So from projection to a complete guess or 11 other adjectives. Yes, we are over the cap but that cap will increase like every year and turnover is part of the equation. Denmark 1st needs to make the team. For all we know he'll be a liability in coverage and they try to put 15 pounds on him for a shot at LB, LOL. SS seems the safest guess but only because we have no idea if he can cover an NFL WR 1 on 1. I suspect the prospect of having a stronger and more athletic Richard Sherman type of CB, however unlikely, wont be easily dismissed.
 
Last edited:

Porkchop

Well-known member
Joined:
Jun 5, 2016
Posts:
661
Liked Posts:
607
Brandon Hardin says "Wassssup"

Well, here's hoping Denmark isn't comprised of broken glass held together by scotch tape and used bubble gum like Hardin was.
 

Top