There are 137 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

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

Originally posted by HessianDud:
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.

Well you may be right and I may be totally off-base, but here's my thinking (and what Nick is driving at too, I think)

1. Good Tackles are hard to find and a bust is ALWAYS a possibility, even for a "can't miss". Raiders picking Gallery is the perfect example. Now he is playing guard and doing a good job.

2. Tackle is a position of critical need for us, IF we are talking OL. I Agree with other posters who say that other positions are also critically needed, e.g., CB. That is why, in the past, I had been against drafting two OLinemen with both first rounders. I also think a gamebreaker is a position of need . And a pass-rusher. But I digress.

3. IF we select TWO highly rated Tackles . . . yes, they COULD both be busts, but the odds are greatly in our favor that one will stick. Then its END OF STORY with our ever having to worry about our OL.

4. As NB pointed out, both Bulaga and Davis have experience playing guard. They are playing tackle now because that is a more prized/skilled position, but they can certainly play guard at a very high level. So the one that does not start at tackle now starts at guard. In that sense he is NOT a BACKUP. But if one of our starting tackles goes down (high probability of happening sometime during the season), we have a starting caliber backup shifting over. You can really never have enough good tackles.

5. As an added bonus we would have THREE high caliber tackles pushing to start at TACKLE which just elevates the level of play at that position. What I have said in #3 needs emphasizing: We don't what to select a OT this year and be having the same conversation next year, i.e., "We absolutely HAVE to have a OT out of this draft". This issue MUST be put to rest.

Anyways, that's the reasoning. I may be wrong, certainly. I am also on board with those who say pick tackle and CB (Kyle Wilson, would be my pick). To a lesser extent, even a pass rusher (I have a couple in mind, if available). Or even a game changer (one might be had in the second if we're lucky).

It will be excting to see how it all unfolds. There are MANY ways to win. It's certainly not: "It had better be like this or the draft is a complete bust!"
Originally posted by Kalen49ers:
Awesome, lets draft an OT in the middle 1st round with his intentions to be a backup!

Give me Thomas, Grahan or Wilson from that list. Iupati I can also hop on board with

I agree...I'd go with Thomas or Wilson. We need one OL in the first, I'm not a fan of two..
Thomas
Originally posted by HessianDud:
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?

Bulaga would be the safe choice, and a guy who could step right in and start. Davis would be boom or bust, imho.

If those were my only choices, I'd take Davis and trust in Singletary to motivate him. If they don't take him, its because they don't like the intangibles/character issues, cause Davis appears to have everything else and a much higher ceiling.

OTOH, if they feel the team is just an OLman away from being a real contender, and they think Bulaga could solidify the OL right now, then go with him. (Nah, I still like Davis' potential better.)
Originally posted by nickbradley:

1 - STL - QB Bradford
2 - DET - DT Suh
3 - TB - DR McCoy
4 - WAS - OT Williams
5 - KC - OT Okung
6 - SEA - S Berry
7 - CLE - WR Bryant
8 - OAL - DE Pierre-Paul
9 - BUF - QB Clausen
10- JAX - DE Morgan
11- DEN - LB McClain
12- MIA - OLB Kindle
13- SF - OT Bulaga
14- SEA - CB Haden
15- NYG - RB Spiller
16- TEN - DT Williams
17- SF - ???

If it plays out like that we take Earl Thomas.
Originally posted by Kalen49ers:
Awesome, lets draft an OT in the middle 1st round with his intentions to be a backup!

Give me Thomas, Grahan or Wilson from that list. Iupati I can also hop on board with

Dude, not a backup. One starting OT, one starting guard -- with a much higher probability of success.

Say, for instance, that each OT taken in the first round has a 2/3rds chance of being a quality starter. If you get two of them, your odds of having at least one quality starter is 8/9ths. If success is a 50/50 shot, getting two OTs goes to 3/4ths.
Originally posted by LionHeartofGold:
Where is Bruce Campbell on the list?

Somewhere in the 2nd round with all the other potential Raiders Picks.
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.

Thanks. I think it's especially true for these two prospects because both played the guard position extremely well in college. Shoot, Davis was a freshman all-american at guard! And Bulaga was no slouch as a freshman. You're also insuring against the downside that Bulaga is too similar to Gallery and ends up being a pro-bowl guard.
Originally posted by HessianDud:
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.

You don't understand: Bulaga and Davis are both capable of starting at guard. So, you get one starting OT and one starting OG. Which one plays which position is yet to be determined.
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.

Not a backup: one OT and one OG.
I say Earl Thomas. Michael Lewis is one big hit away from retiring. Playing SS in the NFL he will more than likely get that big hit. I feel just uneasy that if Lewis goes down we lose a solid safety.
Originally posted by nickbradley:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
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.

You don't understand: Bulaga and Davis are both capable of starting at guard. So, you get one starting OT and one starting OG. Which one plays which position is yet to be determined.

I understand your point, and your reasoning, but it just doesn't seem likely that there are going to be two rookies starting on the OL next season, not if we expect to have a winning season. Just too big a learning curve, too much time necessary for a rookie to adjust to the speed/violence of the NFL game.

Even starting one rookie would be tough--and that would assume that he's a superior talent with his head screwed on straight. IMHO.
Originally posted by oldninerdude:
Originally posted by nickbradley:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
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.

You don't understand: Bulaga and Davis are both capable of starting at guard. So, you get one starting OT and one starting OG. Which one plays which position is yet to be determined.

I understand your point, and your reasoning, but it just doesn't seem likely that there are going to be two rookies starting on the OL next season, not if we expect to have a winning season. Just too big a learning curve, too much time necessary for a rookie to adjust to the speed/violence of the NFL game.

Even starting one rookie would be tough--and that would assume that he's a superior talent with his head screwed on straight. IMHO.

With 2 1st Round OTs, you're increasing the odds that at least one will be able to start at RT as a rookie.

OT is our most important position, and guard is 4th (secondary and pass rush in between) -- so you'd be satisfying two needs while increasing the probability that we have a quality RT in 2010.
  • 49erFanOrlandoFl
  • Info N/A
I would say Wilson or Iupati at that point
Iupati hands down.