Iupati over Bulaga??? WTF

You guys nick is never gonna understand so its probably best to just agree to disagree

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by darkknight49:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by wadjay:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:

Originally posted by Schulzy:
Iupati is a guard, Bulaga would be a converted guard.

You can't be serious can you?

i think he is serious, this is the webzone haha. only nolan would pass on the best guard in the draft to grab a tackle to convert into a guard. we have staley signed long term and davis was just drafted as a 20 year old, were set at both tackle spots for the next decade. we needed a guard, we got the best available, how is that hard to understand?

Nobody seems to be acknowledging the fact that no 'conversion' is needed: Davis and Bulaga are both OT/OGs -- they played both positions in college.

What taking two OTs does is ensure that you have a dominant OT out of this draft...with the other one playing guard. Playing guard is easy.

What you don't seem to understand is that we have no reason to believe that Bulaga would've been very good at guard.

Could he play it? Sure. Could he play it as well as we Iupati? Not a chance.

Iupati is an immensely talented guard. Bulaga is a tackle that could probably be a decent guard. Especially after drafting a tackle that the team believes will succeed at the position, there was absolutely NO REASON to take Bulaga over Iupati.

Understand?

Probabilistically, you increase your chances of success at offensive tackle, and OTs are reasonably expected to play guard if asked (especially true since Davis and Bulaga both played guard).

Look at the math:

Assume a first-round OT has a 2/3 chance of becoming a quality OT and a 3/4 chance of becoming a quality OG.

By getting two OTs, your chances of getting a quality starting OT go up to 8/9ths and your chances of getting a quality guard go up to 15/16ths.

With the strategy we have, you only have a 2/3rds chance of getting a quality tackle instead of 8/9ths, and our guard position still has a 3/4ths chance of succeeding.

Getting two OTs is the risk-adverse strategy.

The same logic applies to inside LBs in a 3-4. If you drafted two ILBs in the first round, at least one should be able to succeed at 'Mike' and the less capable one should be able to play 'Ted'.

Same logic applies for the secondary as well.

Most on the webzone can't understand this. Most probably think that the more times you flip a coin, the more likely you are to get a certain result.

Says the guy who also said this...

Originally posted by nickbradley:
If you took Bulaga and Anthony Davis, you're virtually guaranteed that at least one of them will be a high-quality right tackle.

...and this...

Originally posted by nickbradley:
...so you're more likely to end up w/ a good RT and a good guard, or two really good guards in a worst-case scenario.

Link

Yes -- that's my argument. With TWO OTs, you're more likely to get a good starting OT and a good starting OG than you are with ONE OT and ONE OG. Get it?

and your missing the point that the niners drafted on talent and fit rather than probability.

You're more likely to have a good oline w/ Davis + Bulaga than with Davis + Iupati because you have more flexibility.

i understand the probability is in your favor, but people dont work out mathematically. The niners got the guys they felt would serve them best and drafted based on that, not on how much flexibility each pick gives them. I don't get why it's so hard to understand why they chose who they did.

Originally posted by valrod33:
You guys nick is never gonna understand so its probably best to just agree to disagree

No I understand, you guys don't.

You're stating that its better to get a pure OT and a pure OG than to take TWO OT/OGs.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by wadjay:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:

Originally posted by Schulzy:
Iupati is a guard, Bulaga would be a converted guard.

You can't be serious can you?

i think he is serious, this is the webzone haha. only nolan would pass on the best guard in the draft to grab a tackle to convert into a guard. we have staley signed long term and davis was just drafted as a 20 year old, were set at both tackle spots for the next decade. we needed a guard, we got the best available, how is that hard to understand?

Nobody seems to be acknowledging the fact that no 'conversion' is needed: Davis and Bulaga are both OT/OGs -- they played both positions in college.

What taking two OTs does is ensure that you have a dominant OT out of this draft...with the other one playing guard. Playing guard is easy.

What you don't seem to understand is that we have no reason to believe that Bulaga would've been very good at guard.

Could he play it? Sure. Could he play it as well as we Iupati? Not a chance.

Iupati is an immensely talented guard. Bulaga is a tackle that could probably be a decent guard. Especially after drafting a tackle that the team believes will succeed at the position, there was absolutely NO REASON to take Bulaga over Iupati.

Understand?

Probabilistically, you increase your chances of success at offensive tackle, and OTs are reasonably expected to play guard if asked (especially true since Davis and Bulaga both played guard).

Look at the math:

Assume a first-round OT has a 2/3 chance of becoming a quality OT and a 3/4 chance of becoming a quality OG.

By getting two OTs, your chances of getting a quality starting OT go up to 8/9ths and your chances of getting a quality guard go up to 15/16ths.

With the strategy we have, you only have a 2/3rds chance of getting a quality tackle instead of 8/9ths, and our guard position still has a 3/4ths chance of succeeding.

Getting two OTs is the risk-adverse strategy.

The same logic applies to inside LBs in a 3-4. If you drafted two ILBs in the first round, at least one should be able to succeed at 'Mike' and the less capable one should be able to play 'Ted'.

Same logic applies for the secondary as well.

Most on the webzone can't understand this. Most probably think that the more times you flip a coin, the more likely you are to get a certain result.

Says the guy who also said this...

Originally posted by nickbradley:
If you took Bulaga and Anthony Davis, you're virtually guaranteed that at least one of them will be a high-quality right tackle.

...and this...

Originally posted by nickbradley:
...so you're more likely to end up w/ a good RT and a good guard, or two really good guards in a worst-case scenario.

Link

Yes -- that's my argument. With TWO OTs, you're more likely to get a good starting OT and a good starting OG than you are with ONE OT and ONE OG. Get it?

I get your argument. I just think you don't get your own argument.

You're the one flipping the coin (drafting an OT) more than once trying increase your odds of a certain result (a good OT).

Personally, I think you're decreasing your odds of success because football is more complicated than that. You're creating a situation in which both players' roles are ill defined and the expectations of each player are less. In other words, you're creating an "it's ok if you fail" situation because "we'll just move you to guard."

Plus you're dividing your coaching resources between the two rather than dedicating the time to specialization.

Originally posted by darkknight49:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by darkknight49:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by wadjay:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:

Originally posted by Schulzy:
Iupati is a guard, Bulaga would be a converted guard.

You can't be serious can you?

i think he is serious, this is the webzone haha. only nolan would pass on the best guard in the draft to grab a tackle to convert into a guard. we have staley signed long term and davis was just drafted as a 20 year old, were set at both tackle spots for the next decade. we needed a guard, we got the best available, how is that hard to understand?

Nobody seems to be acknowledging the fact that no 'conversion' is needed: Davis and Bulaga are both OT/OGs -- they played both positions in college.

What taking two OTs does is ensure that you have a dominant OT out of this draft...with the other one playing guard. Playing guard is easy.

What you don't seem to understand is that we have no reason to believe that Bulaga would've been very good at guard.

Could he play it? Sure. Could he play it as well as we Iupati? Not a chance.

Iupati is an immensely talented guard. Bulaga is a tackle that could probably be a decent guard. Especially after drafting a tackle that the team believes will succeed at the position, there was absolutely NO REASON to take Bulaga over Iupati.

Understand?

Probabilistically, you increase your chances of success at offensive tackle, and OTs are reasonably expected to play guard if asked (especially true since Davis and Bulaga both played guard).

Look at the math:

Assume a first-round OT has a 2/3 chance of becoming a quality OT and a 3/4 chance of becoming a quality OG.

By getting two OTs, your chances of getting a quality starting OT go up to 8/9ths and your chances of getting a quality guard go up to 15/16ths.

With the strategy we have, you only have a 2/3rds chance of getting a quality tackle instead of 8/9ths, and our guard position still has a 3/4ths chance of succeeding.

Getting two OTs is the risk-adverse strategy.

The same logic applies to inside LBs in a 3-4. If you drafted two ILBs in the first round, at least one should be able to succeed at 'Mike' and the less capable one should be able to play 'Ted'.

Same logic applies for the secondary as well.

Most on the webzone can't understand this. Most probably think that the more times you flip a coin, the more likely you are to get a certain result.

Says the guy who also said this...

Originally posted by nickbradley:
If you took Bulaga and Anthony Davis, you're virtually guaranteed that at least one of them will be a high-quality right tackle.

...and this...

Originally posted by nickbradley:
...so you're more likely to end up w/ a good RT and a good guard, or two really good guards in a worst-case scenario.

Link

Yes -- that's my argument. With TWO OTs, you're more likely to get a good starting OT and a good starting OG than you are with ONE OT and ONE OG. Get it?

and your missing the point that the niners drafted on talent and fit rather than probability.

You're more likely to have a good oline w/ Davis + Bulaga than with Davis + Iupati because you have more flexibility.

i understand the probability is in your favor, but people dont work out mathematically. The niners got the guys they felt would serve them best and drafted based on that, not on how much flexibility each pick gives them. I don't get why it's so hard to understand why they chose who they did.

They do work out mathematically -- look at the bust rates:

http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftoffensivetackles.php

It's a 69.2% success rate for OTs since 1993. If you take Two OTs, that's 90.5%!

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by wadjay:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:

Originally posted by Schulzy:
Iupati is a guard, Bulaga would be a converted guard.

You can't be serious can you?

i think he is serious, this is the webzone haha. only nolan would pass on the best guard in the draft to grab a tackle to convert into a guard. we have staley signed long term and davis was just drafted as a 20 year old, were set at both tackle spots for the next decade. we needed a guard, we got the best available, how is that hard to understand?

Nobody seems to be acknowledging the fact that no 'conversion' is needed: Davis and Bulaga are both OT/OGs -- they played both positions in college.

What taking two OTs does is ensure that you have a dominant OT out of this draft...with the other one playing guard. Playing guard is easy.

What you don't seem to understand is that we have no reason to believe that Bulaga would've been very good at guard.

Could he play it? Sure. Could he play it as well as we Iupati? Not a chance.

Iupati is an immensely talented guard. Bulaga is a tackle that could probably be a decent guard. Especially after drafting a tackle that the team believes will succeed at the position, there was absolutely NO REASON to take Bulaga over Iupati.

Understand?

Probabilistically, you increase your chances of success at offensive tackle, and OTs are reasonably expected to play guard if asked (especially true since Davis and Bulaga both played guard).

Look at the math:

Assume a first-round OT has a 2/3 chance of becoming a quality OT and a 3/4 chance of becoming a quality OG.

By getting two OTs, your chances of getting a quality starting OT go up to 8/9ths and your chances of getting a quality guard go up to 15/16ths.

With the strategy we have, you only have a 2/3rds chance of getting a quality tackle instead of 8/9ths, and our guard position still has a 3/4ths chance of succeeding.

Getting two OTs is the risk-adverse strategy.

The same logic applies to inside LBs in a 3-4. If you drafted two ILBs in the first round, at least one should be able to succeed at 'Mike' and the less capable one should be able to play 'Ted'.

Same logic applies for the secondary as well.

Most on the webzone can't understand this. Most probably think that the more times you flip a coin, the more likely you are to get a certain result.

Says the guy who also said this...

Originally posted by nickbradley:
If you took Bulaga and Anthony Davis, you're virtually guaranteed that at least one of them will be a high-quality right tackle.

...and this...

Originally posted by nickbradley:
...so you're more likely to end up w/ a good RT and a good guard, or two really good guards in a worst-case scenario.

Link

pwned

pwned? How the hell is that pwned? My posts say that you've got better odds of success drafting two OTs.

The Rams will have better odds of landing a franchise QB if the pick Clausen today, but it doesn't mean they are going to do it.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by wadjay:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:

Originally posted by Schulzy:
Iupati is a guard, Bulaga would be a converted guard.

You can't be serious can you?

i think he is serious, this is the webzone haha. only nolan would pass on the best guard in the draft to grab a tackle to convert into a guard. we have staley signed long term and davis was just drafted as a 20 year old, were set at both tackle spots for the next decade. we needed a guard, we got the best available, how is that hard to understand?

Nobody seems to be acknowledging the fact that no 'conversion' is needed: Davis and Bulaga are both OT/OGs -- they played both positions in college.

What taking two OTs does is ensure that you have a dominant OT out of this draft...with the other one playing guard. Playing guard is easy.

What you don't seem to understand is that we have no reason to believe that Bulaga would've been very good at guard.

Could he play it? Sure. Could he play it as well as we Iupati? Not a chance.

Iupati is an immensely talented guard. Bulaga is a tackle that could probably be a decent guard. Especially after drafting a tackle that the team believes will succeed at the position, there was absolutely NO REASON to take Bulaga over Iupati.

Understand?

I agree with you. The previous poster has absolutely ridiculous logic. So the 49ers take 2 OT, one who won't play and have him compete as a "decent" OG, likely to be beaten out by the sub-par players we have there currently? That makes NO SENSE whatsoever from a players stand-point. Are you suggesting we take Davis and Bulaga? Bulaga doesn't beat out Baas or Rachal as a OG - highly, highly unlikely. Iupati will almost certainly beat out Baas and possibly Rachal at OG immediately. Remember you're drafting starters in the 1st round who need to contribute this year. The only way Bulaga contributes is if there's an injury.

You're neglecting the risk of Davis not being able to play RT. The hole at RT is more important than OG.

If you assume a 2/3rds chance of a 1st round OT prospect succeeding, then we're looking at a 8/9th chance of succeeding with two! Since OG is easier to play (let's say 3/4ths), the loser is 15/16ths likely to play OG well.

With a pure RT and a pure OG, you're stuck with 2/3rds at tackle.

And you're not considering the competition and personnel you already have on the team. If Davis can't play RT this season, Sims will play that spot. It's absolutely debatable that Sims with better coaching can be a serviceable RT until Davis is ready.

No you're wrong. The whole at OG is not less important, if fact it's more important when the OG you have available are not NFL-capable. According to your suggestion, we draft a OT ask him to play RG and compete - because he's not just going to walk into camp (if he signs on time) and just take the OG position from Baas or Rachal. Simms already understands he'll be mentoring a RT replacement. Snyder will NOT play RT but may compete for OG.

Davis didn't ONLY play LT in college but has been called "one of the most talented prospects seen this season (Mayock)." Iupati has been projected one day, few years into the future to possible play at OT - as a back-up.

It simply comes down to this:

You get a day-one, NFL-ready player at OG that was a definite PROBLEM for our OL last season. Don't believe me, watch the games at NFL.com. Look at Rachal.

Bulaga, you would ask him to play a position he's never played and compete against vets who may not be as gifted, but have been playing that position 3 and 4 years respectively (counting this season).

Name a recent top 12 OT that was drafted to play both OT and OG who wasn't considered a pure OT??? You can't because teams don't want tweeners in the 1st for OL guys.

But Davis and Bulaga HAVE played Guard at a high level (you will probably ignore this fact) And if you have Davis and Bulaga and Davis doesn't beat out Sims, Bulaga beats him out.

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by wadjay:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:

Originally posted by Schulzy:
Iupati is a guard, Bulaga would be a converted guard.

You can't be serious can you?

i think he is serious, this is the webzone haha. only nolan would pass on the best guard in the draft to grab a tackle to convert into a guard. we have staley signed long term and davis was just drafted as a 20 year old, were set at both tackle spots for the next decade. we needed a guard, we got the best available, how is that hard to understand?

Nobody seems to be acknowledging the fact that no 'conversion' is needed: Davis and Bulaga are both OT/OGs -- they played both positions in college.

What taking two OTs does is ensure that you have a dominant OT out of this draft...with the other one playing guard. Playing guard is easy.

What you don't seem to understand is that we have no reason to believe that Bulaga would've been very good at guard.

Could he play it? Sure. Could he play it as well as we Iupati? Not a chance.

Iupati is an immensely talented guard. Bulaga is a tackle that could probably be a decent guard. Especially after drafting a tackle that the team believes will succeed at the position, there was absolutely NO REASON to take Bulaga over Iupati.

Understand?

Probabilistically, you increase your chances of success at offensive tackle, and OTs are reasonably expected to play guard if asked (especially true since Davis and Bulaga both played guard).

Look at the math:

Assume a first-round OT has a 2/3 chance of becoming a quality OT and a 3/4 chance of becoming a quality OG.

By getting two OTs, your chances of getting a quality starting OT go up to 8/9ths and your chances of getting a quality guard go up to 15/16ths.

With the strategy we have, you only have a 2/3rds chance of getting a quality tackle instead of 8/9ths, and our guard position still has a 3/4ths chance of succeeding.

Getting two OTs is the risk-adverse strategy.

The same logic applies to inside LBs in a 3-4. If you drafted two ILBs in the first round, at least one should be able to succeed at 'Mike' and the less capable one should be able to play 'Ted'.

Same logic applies for the secondary as well.

Most on the webzone can't understand this. Most probably think that the more times you flip a coin, the more likely you are to get a certain result.

Says the guy who also said this...

Originally posted by nickbradley:
If you took Bulaga and Anthony Davis, you're virtually guaranteed that at least one of them will be a high-quality right tackle.

...and this...

Originally posted by nickbradley:
...so you're more likely to end up w/ a good RT and a good guard, or two really good guards in a worst-case scenario.

Link

Yes -- that's my argument. With TWO OTs, you're more likely to get a good starting OT and a good starting OG than you are with ONE OT and ONE OG. Get it?

I get your argument. I just think you don't get your own argument.

You're the one flipping the coin (drafting an OT) more than once trying increase your odds of a certain result (a good OT).

Personally, I think you're decreasing your odds of success because football is more complicated than that. You're creating a situation in which both players' roles are ill defined and the expectations of each player are less. In other words, you're creating an "it's ok if you fail" situation because "we'll just move you to guard."

Plus you're dividing your coaching resources between the two rather than dedicating the time to specialization.

The better o-linemen play tackle, the less successful play guard -- that's the incentive. You're not telling a power back to fail if he knows he can still play fullback. Who the hell wants to play fullback over halfback?

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by wadjay:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:

Originally posted by Schulzy:
Iupati is a guard, Bulaga would be a converted guard.

You can't be serious can you?

i think he is serious, this is the webzone haha. only nolan would pass on the best guard in the draft to grab a tackle to convert into a guard. we have staley signed long term and davis was just drafted as a 20 year old, were set at both tackle spots for the next decade. we needed a guard, we got the best available, how is that hard to understand?

Nobody seems to be acknowledging the fact that no 'conversion' is needed: Davis and Bulaga are both OT/OGs -- they played both positions in college.

What taking two OTs does is ensure that you have a dominant OT out of this draft...with the other one playing guard. Playing guard is easy.

What you don't seem to understand is that we have no reason to believe that Bulaga would've been very good at guard.

Could he play it? Sure. Could he play it as well as we Iupati? Not a chance.

Iupati is an immensely talented guard. Bulaga is a tackle that could probably be a decent guard. Especially after drafting a tackle that the team believes will succeed at the position, there was absolutely NO REASON to take Bulaga over Iupati.

Understand?

Probabilistically, you increase your chances of success at offensive tackle, and OTs are reasonably expected to play guard if asked (especially true since Davis and Bulaga both played guard).

Look at the math:

Assume a first-round OT has a 2/3 chance of becoming a quality OT and a 3/4 chance of becoming a quality OG.

By getting two OTs, your chances of getting a quality starting OT go up to 8/9ths and your chances of getting a quality guard go up to 15/16ths.

With the strategy we have, you only have a 2/3rds chance of getting a quality tackle instead of 8/9ths, and our guard position still has a 3/4ths chance of succeeding.

Getting two OTs is the risk-adverse strategy.

The same logic applies to inside LBs in a 3-4. If you drafted two ILBs in the first round, at least one should be able to succeed at 'Mike' and the less capable one should be able to play 'Ted'.

Same logic applies for the secondary as well.

Most on the webzone can't understand this. Most probably think that the more times you flip a coin, the more likely you are to get a certain result.

Says the guy who also said this...

Originally posted by nickbradley:
If you took Bulaga and Anthony Davis, you're virtually guaranteed that at least one of them will be a high-quality right tackle.

...and this...

Originally posted by nickbradley:
...so you're more likely to end up w/ a good RT and a good guard, or two really good guards in a worst-case scenario.

Link

pwned

pwned? How the hell is that pwned? My posts say that you've got better odds of success drafting two OTs.

The Rams will have better odds of landing a franchise QB if the pick Clausen today, but it doesn't mean they are going to do it.

QB is different because there's only one spot on the field. With O-linemen, there are 5.

If you were playing option football, your 2nd-best QB could play HB (like at many high schools where the best athlete plays QB)

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by wadjay:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:

Originally posted by Schulzy:
Iupati is a guard, Bulaga would be a converted guard.

You can't be serious can you?

i think he is serious, this is the webzone haha. only nolan would pass on the best guard in the draft to grab a tackle to convert into a guard. we have staley signed long term and davis was just drafted as a 20 year old, were set at both tackle spots for the next decade. we needed a guard, we got the best available, how is that hard to understand?

Nobody seems to be acknowledging the fact that no 'conversion' is needed: Davis and Bulaga are both OT/OGs -- they played both positions in college.

What taking two OTs does is ensure that you have a dominant OT out of this draft...with the other one playing guard. Playing guard is easy.

What you don't seem to understand is that we have no reason to believe that Bulaga would've been very good at guard.

Could he play it? Sure. Could he play it as well as we Iupati? Not a chance.

Iupati is an immensely talented guard. Bulaga is a tackle that could probably be a decent guard. Especially after drafting a tackle that the team believes will succeed at the position, there was absolutely NO REASON to take Bulaga over Iupati.

Understand?

Probabilistically, you increase your chances of success at offensive tackle, and OTs are reasonably expected to play guard if asked (especially true since Davis and Bulaga both played guard).

Look at the math:

Assume a first-round OT has a 2/3 chance of becoming a quality OT and a 3/4 chance of becoming a quality OG.

By getting two OTs, your chances of getting a quality starting OT go up to 8/9ths and your chances of getting a quality guard go up to 15/16ths.

With the strategy we have, you only have a 2/3rds chance of getting a quality tackle instead of 8/9ths, and our guard position still has a 3/4ths chance of succeeding.

Getting two OTs is the risk-adverse strategy.

The same logic applies to inside LBs in a 3-4. If you drafted two ILBs in the first round, at least one should be able to succeed at 'Mike' and the less capable one should be able to play 'Ted'.

Same logic applies for the secondary as well.

Most on the webzone can't understand this. Most probably think that the more times you flip a coin, the more likely you are to get a certain result.

Says the guy who also said this...

Originally posted by nickbradley:
If you took Bulaga and Anthony Davis, you're virtually guaranteed that at least one of them will be a high-quality right tackle.

...and this...

Originally posted by nickbradley:
...so you're more likely to end up w/ a good RT and a good guard, or two really good guards in a worst-case scenario.

Link

Yes -- that's my argument. With TWO OTs, you're more likely to get a good starting OT and a good starting OG than you are with ONE OT and ONE OG. Get it?

I get your argument. I just think you don't get your own argument.

You're the one flipping the coin (drafting an OT) more than once trying increase your odds of a certain result (a good OT).

Personally, I think you're decreasing your odds of success because football is more complicated than that. You're creating a situation in which both players' roles are ill defined and the expectations of each player are less. In other words, you're creating an "it's ok if you fail" situation because "we'll just move you to guard."

Plus you're dividing your coaching resources between the two rather than dedicating the time to specialization.

The better o-linemen play tackle, the less successful play guard -- that's the incentive. You're not telling a power back to fail if he knows he can still play fullback. Who the hell wants to play fullback over halfback?

Lowered expectations leads to a higher probability of failure. And if you can't see that, I'm done with you.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by valrod33:
You guys nick is never gonna understand so its probably best to just agree to disagree

No I understand, you guys don't.

You're stating that its better to get a pure OT and a pure OG than to take TWO OT/OGs.

Please Nick, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and what happens if Bulaga showed in his interviews that he wasn't as committed? what if questions are brought up about his desire? What if Bulaga says he wasn't willing to move to guard because he's more comfortable at LT? What info about him that insiders know that we don't? Throw as many probabilistic methods you want at this, they won't account for that.

that and lock this thing up.

Originally posted by ninerlifer:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by valrod33:
You guys nick is never gonna understand so its probably best to just agree to disagree

No I understand, you guys don't.

You're stating that its better to get a pure OT and a pure OG than to take TWO OT/OGs.

Please Nick, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didnt even know how to respond to that comment so i just left it but i think you responded very well

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by wadjay:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:

Originally posted by Schulzy:
Iupati is a guard, Bulaga would be a converted guard.

You can't be serious can you?

i think he is serious, this is the webzone haha. only nolan would pass on the best guard in the draft to grab a tackle to convert into a guard. we have staley signed long term and davis was just drafted as a 20 year old, were set at both tackle spots for the next decade. we needed a guard, we got the best available, how is that hard to understand?

Nobody seems to be acknowledging the fact that no 'conversion' is needed: Davis and Bulaga are both OT/OGs -- they played both positions in college.

What taking two OTs does is ensure that you have a dominant OT out of this draft...with the other one playing guard. Playing guard is easy.

What you don't seem to understand is that we have no reason to believe that Bulaga would've been very good at guard.

Could he play it? Sure. Could he play it as well as we Iupati? Not a chance.

Iupati is an immensely talented guard. Bulaga is a tackle that could probably be a decent guard. Especially after drafting a tackle that the team believes will succeed at the position, there was absolutely NO REASON to take Bulaga over Iupati.

Understand?

I agree with you. The previous poster has absolutely ridiculous logic. So the 49ers take 2 OT, one who won't play and have him compete as a "decent" OG, likely to be beaten out by the sub-par players we have there currently? That makes NO SENSE whatsoever from a players stand-point. Are you suggesting we take Davis and Bulaga? Bulaga doesn't beat out Baas or Rachal as a OG - highly, highly unlikely. Iupati will almost certainly beat out Baas and possibly Rachal at OG immediately. Remember you're drafting starters in the 1st round who need to contribute this year. The only way Bulaga contributes is if there's an injury.

You're neglecting the risk of Davis not being able to play RT. The hole at RT is more important than OG.

If you assume a 2/3rds chance of a 1st round OT prospect succeeding, then we're looking at a 8/9th chance of succeeding with two! Since OG is easier to play (let's say 3/4ths), the loser is 15/16ths likely to play OG well.

With a pure RT and a pure OG, you're stuck with 2/3rds at tackle.

And you're not considering the competition and personnel you already have on the team. If Davis can't play RT this season, Sims will play that spot. It's absolutely debatable that Sims with better coaching can be a serviceable RT until Davis is ready.

No you're wrong. The whole at OG is not less important, if fact it's more important when the OG you have available are not NFL-capable. According to your suggestion, we draft a OT ask him to play RG and compete - because he's not just going to walk into camp (if he signs on time) and just take the OG position from Baas or Rachal. Simms already understands he'll be mentoring a RT replacement. Snyder will NOT play RT but may compete for OG.

Davis didn't ONLY play LT in college but has been called "one of the most talented prospects seen this season (Mayock)." Iupati has been projected one day, few years into the future to possible play at OT - as a back-up.

It simply comes down to this:

You get a day-one, NFL-ready player at OG that was a definite PROBLEM for our OL last season. Don't believe me, watch the games at NFL.com. Look at Rachal.

Bulaga, you would ask him to play a position he's never played and compete against vets who may not be as gifted, but have been playing that position 3 and 4 years respectively (counting this season).

Name a recent top 12 OT that was drafted to play both OT and OG who wasn't considered a pure OT??? You can't because teams don't want tweeners in the 1st for OL guys.

But Davis and Bulaga HAVE played Guard at a high level (you will probably ignore this fact) And if you have Davis and Bulaga and Davis doesn't beat out Sims, Bulaga beats him out.

Of the 2007 was the ONLY year he played OG and at Iowa - all of 2008 and 2009 he played OT. So you can't definitively say he's a "high level" OG. The majority of his notoriety came at OT.

So let me get this right.... if Davis doesn't beat out Sims, Bulaga would? Really? Seriously? You honestly believe this and is the basis for the logic you argue here? We take 2 1st round OT because if the more celebrated one doesn't beat out the incumbent, the lesser regarded one will??????

I'm lost.

2 OTs > 1 OT + 1 OG

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by wadjay:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:

Originally posted by Schulzy:
Iupati is a guard, Bulaga would be a converted guard.

You can't be serious can you?

i think he is serious, this is the webzone haha. only nolan would pass on the best guard in the draft to grab a tackle to convert into a guard. we have staley signed long term and davis was just drafted as a 20 year old, were set at both tackle spots for the next decade. we needed a guard, we got the best available, how is that hard to understand?

Nobody seems to be acknowledging the fact that no 'conversion' is needed: Davis and Bulaga are both OT/OGs -- they played both positions in college.

What taking two OTs does is ensure that you have a dominant OT out of this draft...with the other one playing guard. Playing guard is easy.

What you don't seem to understand is that we have no reason to believe that Bulaga would've been very good at guard.

Could he play it? Sure. Could he play it as well as we Iupati? Not a chance.

Iupati is an immensely talented guard. Bulaga is a tackle that could probably be a decent guard. Especially after drafting a tackle that the team believes will succeed at the position, there was absolutely NO REASON to take Bulaga over Iupati.

Understand?

Probabilistically, you increase your chances of success at offensive tackle, and OTs are reasonably expected to play guard if asked (especially true since Davis and Bulaga both played guard).

Look at the math:

Assume a first-round OT has a 2/3 chance of becoming a quality OT and a 3/4 chance of becoming a quality OG.

By getting two OTs, your chances of getting a quality starting OT go up to 8/9ths and your chances of getting a quality guard go up to 15/16ths.

With the strategy we have, you only have a 2/3rds chance of getting a quality tackle instead of 8/9ths, and our guard position still has a 3/4ths chance of succeeding.

Getting two OTs is the risk-adverse strategy.

The same logic applies to inside LBs in a 3-4. If you drafted two ILBs in the first round, at least one should be able to succeed at 'Mike' and the less capable one should be able to play 'Ted'.

Same logic applies for the secondary as well.

Most on the webzone can't understand this. Most probably think that the more times you flip a coin, the more likely you are to get a certain result.

Says the guy who also said this...

Originally posted by nickbradley:
If you took Bulaga and Anthony Davis, you're virtually guaranteed that at least one of them will be a high-quality right tackle.

...and this...

Originally posted by nickbradley:
...so you're more likely to end up w/ a good RT and a good guard, or two really good guards in a worst-case scenario.

Link

Yes -- that's my argument. With TWO OTs, you're more likely to get a good starting OT and a good starting OG than you are with ONE OT and ONE OG. Get it?

I get your argument. I just think you don't get your own argument.

You're the one flipping the coin (drafting an OT) more than once trying increase your odds of a certain result (a good OT).

Personally, I think you're decreasing your odds of success because football is more complicated than that. You're creating a situation in which both players' roles are ill defined and the expectations of each player are less. In other words, you're creating an "it's ok if you fail" situation because "we'll just move you to guard."

Plus you're dividing your coaching resources between the two rather than dedicating the time to specialization.

The better o-linemen play tackle, the less successful play guard -- that's the incentive. You're not telling a power back to fail if he knows he can still play fullback. Who the hell wants to play fullback over halfback?

Lowered expectations leads to a higher probability of failure. And if you can't see that, I'm done with you.

Lineman WANT to play tackle. I'm sure Gallery didn't fail at OT because he knew he could play guard.