If we're lucky enough to land Bulaga @ 13, who should we take @ 17? (Davis!)

I love Iupati bc he's just a mauler at guard. Ceiling is high and getting a kid raw makes it easier to develop in the NFL bc there are no bad habits; can come in an learn fresh at the pro level. The bad about him is we don't know what he can be as a tackle.

The good thing about Bulaga is he has Tackle skills and I think can transition to guard. The bad on him is he's and Iowa guy and I cant help but think of Gallery and the short arms and ceiling is not that high...supposedly.

Easier to transition from Tackle to guard than vice versa!

I'd be happier with either, but i think we take Earl Thomas with one of those picks and get another lineman later in the draft. Or we trade back an pick up and extra 2nd and/or 3rd.

Based off of who is gone and getting Bulaga @ #13 I would go:

OG/OT Iupati
OG/C Pouncey

Not sure which I would take. Both of them would be solid rookie OG's. Pouncey gives you the Center factor though in the future. Iupati is limited to OG.

Originally posted by JR80Forever:
Based off of who is gone and getting Bulaga @ #13 I would go:

OG/OT Iupati
OG/C Pouncey

Not sure which I would take. Both of them would be solid rookie OG's. Pouncey gives you the Center factor though in the future. Iupati is limited to OG.

yeah,that's a tough call. I like the idea of a guy like Pouncey who is so versatile, but if Iupati is as good as everything thinks he will be, I think I'd rather take him.

Besides, we have Cody Wallace to take over at C!

As soon as I read the title to your thread, I grasped the depth and intelligence of your thinking. Bravo, man!!!

There is a reason that Tackles are valued so highly and Guards are not. VERY very rare for a Guard to be selected high. Hutchison is the one who comes to mind. And he was so exceptionally singular, Iupati is not at this time considered that level. In fact the debate between Iupati and Pouncey only highlights that fact.

It's relatively easy for a Tackle to covert to Guard (if he can't quite make the grade at tackle) and play at a high level and then still be available to play the tackle position if needed. The same is not true for Guard to Tackle. Guards tend to be ponderous and slower with their feet; a tackle playing guard is more nimble and is a better guard insomuch as he can do more (be a better pulling guard, for instance).

You've judged it correctly IMO. If you pick two tackles,at least ONE should make the grade and at worst you have a decent backup. If you select one tackle and a guard, and the tackle fails, you've really botched it at the greatest position of need on the OL.

It's surprising that so many people don't get it.

Good job, man. You've made me see the draft in a new way. Previously, I had been against selecting offensive linemen with BOTH early picks, but under your scenario, I'm on board.

Getting Bulaga at #13 would be great, and would allow the Niners to start him this year at RT, or even at OG if necessary.

But, there is a great need at CB. Gimme Wilson off that list.

Then Clements either restructures or he's gone. The money they save on Clements contract they can use to resign some of their guys--including Willis.

is this guy serious?

Originally posted by Rsrkshn:
As soon as I read the title to your thread, I grasped the depth and intelligence of your thinking. Bravo, man!!!

There is a reason that Tackles are valued so highly and Guards are not. VERY very rare for a Guard to be selected high. Hutchison is the one who comes to mind. And he was so exceptionally singular, Iupati is not at this time considered that level. In fact the debate between Iupati and Pouncey only highlights that fact.

It's relatively easy for a Tackle to covert to Guard (if he can't quite make the grade at tackle) and play at a high level and then still be available to play the tackle position if needed. The same is not true for Guard to Tackle. Guards tend to be ponderous and slower with their feet; a tackle playing guard is more nimble and is a better guard insomuch as he can do more (be a better pulling guard, for instance).

You've judged it correctly IMO. If you pick two tackles,at least ONE should make the grade and at worst you have a decent backup. If you select one tackle and a guard, and the tackle fails, you've really botched it at the greatest position of need on the OL.

It's surprising that so many people don't get it.

Good job, man. You've made me see the draft in a new way. Previously, I had been against selecting offensive linemen with BOTH early picks, but under your scenario, I'm on board.

but why on earth would you spend a first round pick on a guy who might end up just being a backup?

and is it really so easy to transition from OT to OG? I would rather take guys who play those specific positions, because at least then you already have an idea of their ability there.

Originally posted by Rsrkshn:
As soon as I read the title to your thread, I grasped the depth and intelligence of your thinking. Bravo, man!!!

There is a reason that Tackles are valued so highly and Guards are not. VERY very rare for a Guard to be selected high. Hutchison is the one who comes to mind. And he was so exceptionally singular, Iupati is not at this time considered that level. In fact the debate between Iupati and Pouncey only highlights that fact.

It's relatively easy for a Tackle to covert to Guard (if he can't quite make the grade at tackle) and play at a high level and then still be available to play the tackle position if needed. The same is not true for Guard to Tackle. Guards tend to be ponderous and slower with their feet; a tackle playing guard is more nimble and is a better guard insomuch as he can do more (be a better pulling guard, for instance).

You've judged it correctly IMO. If you pick two tackles,at least ONE should make the grade and at worst you have a decent backup. If you select one tackle and a guard, and the tackle fails, you've really botched it at the greatest position of need on the OL.

It's surprising that so many people don't get it.

Good job, man. You've made me see the draft in a new way. Previously, I had been against selecting offensive linemen with BOTH early picks, but under your scenario, I'm on board.

You don't draft someone 17th overall to be a backup or change position.

Originally posted by oldninerdude:
Getting Bulaga at #13 would be great, and would allow the Niners to start him this year at RT, or even at OG if necessary.

But, there is a great need at CB. Gimme Wilson off that list.

Then Clements either restructures or he's gone. The money they save on Clements contract they can use to resign some of their guys--including Willis.

how reasonable!


If we get a RT at #13, I don't care if its Bulaga, Davis, Your Mom, I don't think we should take another OT at #17. Like oldninerdude says, we have other needs, at CB specifically, And if we take another OL, which I'd be fine with, I'd rather it be a "true" OG. I don't to spend two first round picks on guys who are just going to compete against each other with the result being one that is a backup and wouldn't be active on gamedays. We need TWO starters out of the 1st.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by j3xperience:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by mcbaes72:
I would take Iupati in a heartbeat at 17. I'd split time between him and Baas, eventually replacing Baas (who never lived up to a 2nd rd pick, IIRC) after this season.

Then, in the first rd. (thanks to the Panthers), we solved both LG and RT immediately.

Why not Davis? I'm sure Davis would play Guard just as well as Iupati...

No character or motor issues. Just straight mauler from day 1. You know what Iupati gives day in day out, not so much with Davis. I feel its the safer, smarter pick.

Do you really know what you get w/ Iupati? He did play at Idaho after all.

Agreed, he played for a small program, but that's not to say he didn't play against top level competition (see: USC, Washington, Boise St., Hawaii).

To me that's the biggest misnomer of a "small division 1 programs". You just happen to be that "easy game" on all the legit team's schedules. You still play against legitimate teams every year. If he can dominate against USC, which he did from the tape, he's as proven as you can be as a college prospect.

If we get Davis or Bulaga at 13 then we trade the 17th.

Or if not, then probably Thomas, Graham, Wilson, Jackson in that order

Thomas or Wilson, most definitely.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by cgida:

Originally posted by j3xperience:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by mcbaes72:
I would take Iupati in a heartbeat at 17. I'd split time between him and Baas, eventually replacing Baas (who never lived up to a 2nd rd pick, IIRC) after this season.

Then, in the first rd. (thanks to the Panthers), we solved both LG and RT immediately.

Why not Davis? I'm sure Davis would play Guard just as well as Iupati...

No character or motor issues. Just straight mauler from day 1. You know what Iupati gives day in day out, not so much with Davis. I feel its the safer, smarter pick.

I agree, we would have a dominant line but the thought of having Rachal and a rookie on one side scares the hell out of me.

Well then you would pair Baas on the side of the Rookie and put Davis (or Bulaga) on Staley's side.

The underlining idea is to finally rid ourselves of Bass and not replace Rachal. I still think Chilo will be a good guard for us and do not want to give up on him yet, but Bass is a lost cause and should be cut if we make these picks along with Snyder.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by oldninerdude:
Getting Bulaga at #13 would be great, and would allow the Niners to start him this year at RT, or even at OG if necessary.

But, there is a great need at CB. Gimme Wilson off that list.

Then Clements either restructures or he's gone. The money they save on Clements contract they can use to resign some of their guys--including Willis.

how reasonable!


If we get a RT at #13, I don't care if its Bulaga, Davis, Your Mom, I don't think we should take another OT at #17. Like oldninerdude says, we have other needs, at CB specifically, And if we take another OL, which I'd be fine with, I'd rather it be a "true" OG. I don't to spend two first round picks on guys who are just going to compete against each other with the result being one that is a backup and wouldn't be active on gamedays. We need TWO starters out of the 1st.

My Mom is more likely a LT. Lighter, quicker, more athletic, and definitely has a mean streak.

My thought is, like yours, that we need to get two starters with those first two picks.

OL and CB would be great.

Or OL and OLB.

Or OL and SS.

Or OL and NT.

Only exception would be, dare I say it, OL and QB (future starter, if he's the BPA).

I do like taking Bulaga. He may not have a high ceiling, but he'd be a solid starter at OG at a minimum, and may be the OT who's most ready to step in this year. Start him at RT if he's the best at it, or if they like Boone at RT (and I suspect they do), then RG next to him would be fun to watch as well. Either way, Bulaga is a starter--which is what is needed. IMHO.

Originally posted by oldninerdude:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by oldninerdude:
Getting Bulaga at #13 would be great, and would allow the Niners to start him this year at RT, or even at OG if necessary.

But, there is a great need at CB. Gimme Wilson off that list.

Then Clements either restructures or he's gone. The money they save on Clements contract they can use to resign some of their guys--including Willis.

how reasonable!


If we get a RT at #13, I don't care if its Bulaga, Davis, Your Mom, I don't think we should take another OT at #17. Like oldninerdude says, we have other needs, at CB specifically, And if we take another OL, which I'd be fine with, I'd rather it be a "true" OG. I don't to spend two first round picks on guys who are just going to compete against each other with the result being one that is a backup and wouldn't be active on gamedays. We need TWO starters out of the 1st.

My Mom is more likely a LT. Lighter, quicker, more athletic, and definitely has a mean streak.

My thought is, like yours, that we need to get two starters with those first two picks.

OL and CB would be great.

Or OL and OLB.

Or OL and SS.

Or OL and NT.

Only exception would be, dare I say it, OL and QB (future starter, if he's the BPA).

I do like taking Bulaga. He may not have a high ceiling, but he'd be a solid starter at OG at a minimum, and may be the OT who's most ready to step in this year. Start him at RT if he's the best at it, or if they like Boone at RT (and I suspect they do), then RG next to him would be fun to watch as well. Either way, Bulaga is a starter--which is what is needed. IMHO.

Assuming Your Mom is off the board () would you take Bulaga over Davis? I'm not sold on Boone as a starter yet and just feel like if Bulaga is a guy that we're already saying, "Well, we can always make him a G" maybe he wouldn't be the wisest pick?