-
nickbradley
- Member
-
- Posts: 3,755
Originally posted by valrod33:
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
What's complicated? 2 guys that play two positions are better than 2 guys that only play specific positions.
You just don't care.
-
nickbradley
- Member
-
- Posts: 3,755
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by nickbradley:
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 OGs > 1 OT + 1 OG
You do realize we're talking about the San Francisco 49ers who actually have players on the current roster and not an expansion team right?
Yes, with the worst O-line in the NFL according to many experts.
-
pd24
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 9,407
Originally posted by nickbradley:
Originally posted by valrod33:
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
What's complicated? 2 guys that play two positions are better than 2 guys that only play specific positions.
You just don't care.
Then why to teams even waste picks on guards?
-
WINiner
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 15,907
Originally posted by nickbradley:
Originally posted by valrod33:
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
What's complicated? 2 guys that play two positions are better than 2 guys that only play specific positions.
You just don't care.
I would rather have 2 guys that each play 1 position very well than 2 guys who can play 2 positions each, adequately.
-
ghostrider
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 8,671
Originally posted by nickbradley:
Lineman WANT to play tackle. I'm sure Gallery didn't fail at OT because he knew he could play guard.
No matter how hard I WANT to play in the NFL, it's not happening because you do realize that people fail for many reasons? Lowered expectations is one of those reasons which increases the chances for failure. Not having the skills for the job is another.
-
nickbradley
- Member
-
- Posts: 3,755
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by nickbradley:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by nickbradley:
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 OGs > 1 OT + 1 OG
You do realize we're talking about the San Francisco 49ers who actually have players on the current roster and not an expansion team right?
Yes, with the worst O-line in the NFL according to many experts.
2OGs > 1 OT + 1 OG -
Then why are OT rated higher than OGs? Wouldn't teams just draft OGs?
Whoops! Typo 2OTs > 1 OT + 1 OG.
-
pd24
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 9,407
Originally posted by nickbradley:
Originally posted by pd24:
Originally posted by nickbradley:
Originally posted by valrod33:
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
What's complicated? 2 guys that play two positions are better than 2 guys that only play specific positions.
You just don't care.
Then why to teams even waste picks on guards?
That's why guards aren't picked very high.
Why don't they just pick a OT that isn't rated very high in the 3rd or 4th round and make him play guard? Why didn't the 49ers try Boon at guard?
-
wadjay
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 401
How about this.
You are right in one aspect. If we draft two OTs, then we are more likely to get a good OT than if we only draft one.
However, your argument that 3/4 of failed OTs will make good OGs is laughable. You are suggesting that any tackle is more likely to be a good guard than any guard is. If this was truly the case, then there would be no reason to draft a pure guard at any point in the draft, teams would simply always choose tackles or centers.
The truth is that while all offensive linemen need similar talents, the guard position is not simply a second class tackle. To be elite you need a different set of skills.
So, what if the success rate of OTs moved to OG is closer to 1/5? Then what? Then taking two OTs is an awful idea.
What if the idea of putting a statistical percentage on the success rate is pure garbage, considering that a successful transition from OT to OG can mean any number of things?
And finally, the simple truth of the matter is that we're not dealing with abstract numbers but actual players.
The team has very good reasons to believe that Davis will be a very good RT - better than Bulaga. Everyone has very good reason to believe that Iupati will be a very good if not Elite LG - also better than Bulaga. So they had no reason at any point to draft Bulaga.
Drafting a player and then immediately following the pick with a contingency plan in case they fail is an awful awful idea.
-
RonMexico
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 79,853
Originally posted by nickbradley:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by nickbradley:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by nickbradley:
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 OGs > 1 OT + 1 OG
You do realize we're talking about the San Francisco 49ers who actually have players on the current roster and not an expansion team right?
Yes, with the worst O-line in the NFL according to many experts.
2OGs > 1 OT + 1 OG -
Then why are OT rated higher than OGs? Wouldn't teams just draft OGs?
Whoops! Typo 2OTs > 1 OT + 1 OG.
even if we don't need 2 OTs
-
valrod33
- Hall of Small
-
- Posts: 138,115
The Niners drafted Iupati because he is the best damn guard in the draft. Thats it nothing more needs to be said.
The niners obviously didnt feel Bulaga was a guard(thats crazy i know) so they didnt draft him.
The Niners needed a Pure Tackle and a Pure Guard not no tweener. They got what they targeted. Get over it Bulaga is a packer
-
ghostrider
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 8,671
Originally posted by valrod33:
The Niners drafted Iupati because he is the best damn guard in the draft. Thats it nothing more needs to be said.
The niners obviously didnt feel Bulaga was a guard(thats crazy i know) so they didnt draft him.
The Niners needed a Pure Tackle and a Pure Guard not no tweener. They got what they targeted. Get over it Bulaga is a packer
And deserves our ridicule heretofore.
-
WINiner
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 15,907
Bulaga reminds me of Baas. The team wanted a superior player rather than a steady player.
-
Super9er81
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 1,309
I think Bulaga has shown more skill thus far but Iupati has a higher ceiling to me. He has similar athleticism but is bigger, but doesn't have the experience.
-
WildBill
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 6,205
