There are 90 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

What is everyone's fascination with Mike "Lupati"??

Originally posted by WillistheWall:
Okay I'm kind of getting annoyed with this thing. I'm not saying he'll be a bust/bad player. But I mean come on, I see a bunch of people saying "we need Mike LUPATI!!!!!!" "pick Lupati 13th!". Umm guys, have you even seen him play? Probably not since that's not even his name, it's iupati. With an I! I saw him play a little bit, paid attention to his last game of the season that bowl game, he did pretty well. I thought it looked like he could've been called for holding a few times but oh well. In the Senior bowl practices and the game I wasn't very impressed, but I don't want to diss on the guy's whole career or anything because of one week where he was out of position. But then I see people saying "well maybe we can play him at RIGHT TACKLE!". NO, just no thank you. He looked bad at any spot besides left guard(the position he's played for a while) at the senior bowl, he has a bit of a tendency to hold, and you guys want him at tackle. Seriously? Seriously guys? Our offense is finally getting some continuity, and we want to start a rookie at a position he's never played before? And that seems like a good idea to you? That's a horrible idea IMO. If we pick the guy just play him at LG, it's not like it's impossible to improve on David Baas.

Second, I see people wanting us to pick him 13th. That's another terrible idea. He'll most likely be there at 17. NYG who picks after us is likely to draft McClain or another linebacker since they lost Antonio Pierce, and they could also use help in the secondary. TN could use a corner opposite Finnegan or maybe a safety. I doubt they'd pick Iupati. And Seattle needs a left tackle BADLY, as well as playmakers like a good running back or wr(Spiller or Bryant). The smart move if we plan on picking Iupati IMO, would be to take the guy we really like who slips down at 13(maybe Haden, Trent Williams/Bulaga, Spiller, Earl Thomas, etc) and then you take Iupati at 17(I really don't see him as a top 16 pick, I'm not an expert but I don't see teams in front of us at either spot picking a guard with their first rounder). But then you might miss out on your right tackle. To be perfectly honest, it makes significantly more sense to me to make sure we get our RT with one of our 1st rounders and a playmaker with the other.

I wouldn't hate taking him, but a RT first please!!
he's big, strong, powerful, mauler, run blocker and we need that on the oline.
Your hate is based on nonsense. You even say, "Ummm...I've watched him and yeah...he played pretty good n' all!"

He's a great prospect at a position of need. We're still a run first type offense, and that type of approach starts with the o-line. Baas is not the answer and we're hoping that Rachal will progress. So drafting a G is not a bad idea, especially if you can get a highly-rated G and therefore be able to lock him up for 5-6 years.

Stop hatin'!
Originally posted by doc_brown_:
Your hate is based on nonsense. You even say, "Ummm...I've watched him and yeah...he played pretty good n' all!"

He's a great prospect at a position of need. We're still a run first type offense, and that type of approach starts with the o-line. Baas is not the answer and we're hoping that Rachal will progress. So drafting a G is not a bad idea, especially if you can get a highly-rated G and therefore be able to lock him up for 5-6 years.

Stop hatin'!


When did I say I hated him? I just said that #1 his name is NOT LUPATI, and #2 we shouldn't take him with 13 when he'll be around at 17. If people don't even know how to spell his name I don't expect that they've watched him play. And even though he's a good prospect, I feel the hype has gotten a bit out of control and he does have a few flaws just like all the other top prospects. I'm just being honest. I wouldn't be ecstatic to land him at 17, but if we did I wouldn't b***h about it like everyone did when we picked Balmer.
Originally posted by Jakemall:
Originally posted by WillistheWall:
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by DarthNiner:
Iupati, dude... with an "I".

I know... that's what half of my post is about.

Again, I'm not saying I'd be pissed if we picked him at 17. But I would be if we picked him at 13. That'd be a reach for sure. If we pick an OL at 13 it better be an offensive tackle.

I'd definately be okay with taking Lupati at 17, but not 13...unless we play him at RT.

But he'd be a rookie LG who has never played RT before. We need a guy who is a legit OT, not a guy who is a rookie AND transitioning to a whole new position. Dude isn't a RT, atleast not right now. If we pick him he needs to stay at LG for a year IMO. I don't want Smith or Carr or whoever our QB is to get killed.
Originally posted by WillistheWall:
Originally posted by Jakemall:
Originally posted by WillistheWall:
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by DarthNiner:
Iupati, dude... with an "I".

I know... that's what half of my post is about.

Again, I'm not saying I'd be pissed if we picked him at 17. But I would be if we picked him at 13. That'd be a reach for sure. If we pick an OL at 13 it better be an offensive tackle.

I'd definately be okay with taking Lupati at 17, but not 13...unless we play him at RT.

But he'd be a rookie LG who has never played RT before. We need a guy who is a legit OT, not a guy who is a rookie AND transitioning to a whole new position. Dude isn't a RT, atleast not right now. If we pick him he needs to stay at LG for a year IMO. I don't want Smith or Carr or whoever our QB is to get killed.

Didn't he play tackle in the senior bowl?
Originally posted by Jakemall:
Originally posted by WillistheWall:
Originally posted by Jakemall:
Originally posted by WillistheWall:
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by DarthNiner:
Iupati, dude... with an "I".

I know... that's what half of my post is about.

Again, I'm not saying I'd be pissed if we picked him at 17. But I would be if we picked him at 13. That'd be a reach for sure. If we pick an OL at 13 it better be an offensive tackle.

I'd definately be okay with taking Lupati at 17, but not 13...unless we play him at RT.

But he'd be a rookie LG who has never played RT before. We need a guy who is a legit OT, not a guy who is a rookie AND transitioning to a whole new position. Dude isn't a RT, atleast not right now. If we pick him he needs to stay at LG for a year IMO. I don't want Smith or Carr or whoever our QB is to get killed.

Didn't he play tackle in the senior bowl?


He moved around a little bit but mainly he was moving around some in the practices and he didn't look good at tackle if I remember correctly. And you know what? I don't expect him to, especially not against NFL calibre players. He's never played the position except for that week really and he's a rookie left guard. If we pick him its as an improvement to David Baas IMO.
Originally posted by stevenking57:
Originally posted by DarthNiner:
Originally posted by WillistheWall:
Originally posted by jreff22:
It's Iupati with an I

If you read my post that's what I said... My point is everyone calling him "Lupati" has most likely never even seen him do anything.

Post was too long. We all have short attention spans here.

Too long....wait, what's the subject again?

Hmm?
Originally posted by mayo63:
There's no reason to take Iupati at #13, he is perfectly slotted for us and will be there at #17.

this
  • LA_NINERS
  • Info N/A
Originally posted by 49ersalldaway126:
because we want a good o line


This is becoming a retarded statement.

Who's saying these rookie OL will make any damn difference for our team?

Yet, the Green Bay Packers had the WORST OL last year, basically every one was injured - gave up the most sacks and Aaron Rodgers was running for his life.

Their running back still had a nice year and Aaron Rodgers brought that team to the playoffs coming from the NFC North.

Our OL is only as good as our Quarterback and talent.

We add more weapons for Alex Smith, we'll see a great increase in success for the bust.

[ Edited by LA_NINERS on Apr 3, 2010 at 08:09:14 ]
Originally posted by LA_NINERS:
Originally posted by 49ersalldaway126:
because we want a good o line


This is becoming a retarded statement.

Who's saying these rookie OL will make any damn difference for our team?

Yet, the Green Bay Packers had the WORST OL last year, basically every one was injured - gave up the most sacks and Aaron Rodgers was running for his life.

Their running back still had a nice year and Aaron Rodgers brought that team to the playoffs coming from the NFC North.

Our OL is only as good as our Quarterback and talent.

We add more weapons for Alex Smith, we'll see a great increase in success for the bust.

ask miami how much jake long helped
ask the browns how much joe thomas helped
ask ravens how oher has helped
ask the broncos how much ryan clady helped

i can go on for a while
  • mayo49
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 22,072
Good players are always good to get.
Originally posted by 49ersalldaway126:
Originally posted by LA_NINERS:
Originally posted by 49ersalldaway126:
because we want a good o line


This is becoming a retarded statement.

Who's saying these rookie OL will make any damn difference for our team?

Yet, the Green Bay Packers had the WORST OL last year, basically every one was injured - gave up the most sacks and Aaron Rodgers was running for his life.

Their running back still had a nice year and Aaron Rodgers brought that team to the playoffs coming from the NFC North.

Our OL is only as good as our Quarterback and talent.

We add more weapons for Alex Smith, we'll see a great increase in success for the bust.

ask miami how much jake long helped
ask the browns how much joe thomas helped
ask ravens how oher has helped
ask the broncos how much ryan clady helped

i can go on for a while

This can go the other way as well though.

ask Chicago was Chris Williams really worth it ?
ask Arizona was Levi Brown really worth it ?
ask the Lions was Gosder Cherilus really worth it ?
ask the Rams was Alex Barron really worth it ?

Some of those guys have become decent at best but they did not really prove to make an instant impact like the 4 you mentioned, and 2 of the 4 you did mention were rated as top 5 players regardless of position in their class coming out.

I see your point but there is the other end of the spectrum on it.

At the end of the day we need to address the OL and early at that (at the very least 1 of our first 3 picks in the top 50 should be on the OL) in this draft because we don't have as deep of a pool of weapons offensively as the Packers do, hell even the Eagles did well with poor OL play last year and they too had a deep pool of offensive talent but allowing your QB to be sacked that many times is playing with fire and we don't want to be burned yet again.
ya thats true but 1st round OL has teh lowest bust rate out of all positions and speedsters can be found almost everywhere

like best in R2 or mccluster which has far better value than spending a top 15 pick when we clearly have otehr needs IMO if hes there at 17 take him but not at 13

[ Edited by 49ersalldaway126 on Apr 3, 2010 at 08:50:27 ]
Originally posted by mayo63:
There's no reason to take Iupati at #13, he is perfectly slotted for us and will be there at #17.