There are 18 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 nickbradley:
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.

Well put. And that's your point, isn't it? Insuring that we have a quality RT as soon as possible. Plus filling another need, even if it isn't one of the highest priority. Unfortunately they happen to go hand in hand . . . you have to sacrifice a greater need to ensure that you have absolutely nailed down your GREATEST need.

In defense of ondude: he makes a valid point about rookies on the OL. It does take time for an OL to gell. They do need to play together . . . rookies, or no rookies. and with rookies it may take longer, we don't know. However, with everyone clamoring for a fix on the OL, you have to bite the bullet some time. They may not make the greatest impact in their first year . . . but it is a first step.

This is not going to satisfy those you want impact players NOW. You're certainly going to get the greatest IMMEDIATE impact out of a game-breaker with speed. Or a CB with speed who can cover. Or a impactful pass-rusher. But then you must be satisfied with fixing your OL over a greater timeline.

It's all about making the correct compromises. There are different ways to skin the cat.
  • LA49erFan4ever
  • Info N/A
Hell no i do not wanna draft two O-linemen in the 1st round..1 O line is fine but 2 in the 1st round no way especially if their are LEGIT playmakers available rather than picking some scrubs in the 3rd or later rounds who we like to fanatsize about being playmakers..
Iupati. Draft couldn't go any better than that.
S Thomas
  • Luca
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 324
Originally posted by cwilson830:
Iupati. Draft couldn't go any better than that.

Agreed!!!
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.


As first round talent is concerned....they better damn welll be ready to start immediatly! The learning curve should be finished by the end of training camp and offseason. If they havent adjuseted to the speed and violence of football by NOW, what the hell are they going in the first round for? Besides possibly QB's...the first round needs to bring STARTERS!!...not projects that take time to "adjust" to the speed and violence of the game of football.
Take Kyle Wilson
Lupati...lets fix the o line already.
Originally posted by JizzmasterZero:
As first round talent is concerned....they better damn welll be ready to start immediatly! The learning curve should be finished by the end of training camp and offseason. If they havent adjuseted to the speed and violence of football by NOW, what the hell are they going in the first round for? Besides possibly QB's...the first round needs to bring STARTERS!!...not projects that take time to "adjust" to the speed and violence of the game of football.

That's BS. It's very rare that a rookie should be starting on an NFL team from day one and it usually means that team is not very good, or at least is very weak at the position they play.
Originally posted by Thorhawk:
Lupati...lets fix the o line already.

it's not Lupati! its Iupati
1. Iupati
2. Mays
3. Clausen
i don't think we get a true starting OT at #13, but the Rothliesberger deal is a fly in the ointment. Realistically we have to pick no later than #7 to get Bulaga/Williams/ Okung(gone earlier). I would be in favor of finally, tardily, ever so slowly, fixing this dang OL. One OT at #7, then Iupati at #17, and bingo the OL is solid. To not do so just condemns us to yet another yr of mediocrity. Oh, and for the swap of #13 to #7, throw in a 3rd rd pick from next yr.

Look, a solid OL which Bulaga/Williams & Iupati means , will make the Qb better, the TEs better, the wideouts better and Frank better. Also it will keep the D off the field less than 60% of the time, sometimes worse than that. Then forget the OL, as it is built, and fix the rest of the problems(passrush OLB, RB, CB,S , DT, DE) later. But fix the OL. WE have tried to build an OL with 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounders, and it hasn't worked. Do it now.
I wouldn't go with 2 OL in round 1, we need to upgrade all areas of our team and we can grab a quality OG in round 2 or 3. I would take either Williams/Graham/or Kyle Wilson whomever the 9ers have rated the highest.