Iupati over Bulaga??? WTF

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.

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

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

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.

Bulaga reminds me of Baas. The team wanted a superior player rather than a steady player.

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.

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by WildBill:
Denver's plan was to always draft the receiver after giving Marshall up, bu they didn't want to use that high of a pick to take a receiver. It showed in their draft.

OL fixed now to look for some DBs on day 2

Aren't there more than one round of picks?

Does the name T.O. ring a bell? Or how bout Chrebet? Or how bout McCaffery?

There are PLENTY of solid WRs' in this draft. And with all the Linemen taken in the first round there are STILL plenty of WRs' to be taken in the later rounds. If you need Linemen(Denver does need them) you could take one or more and STILL get a WR. Personally I think there is way too much infatuation with the Wildcat. I heard more about that gimmick scheme than I ever want to hear during a draft in my lifetime again. All it does is MASK a protection issue. When you finally DO put a QB on the field under Center you STILL have to keep him upright. If he's layin on his back chances are that it leads to a turnover. And turnovers KILL teams looking to make the Playoffs.

So by all means Denver take as many skill players as you want to. Keep your line problems in place. I will laugh my azz off while Nolan has to make something out of the better part of that team. Don't get me wrong I like Nolan, but I think it's kind of nice that he has to suffer the way that his 1st overall pick has had to suffer.

And now I'm going to love it when Alex finally has his breakout year or dies trying. Once and for all this question @ QB will be answered. I'm so JJ'ed right now it's fantastic!

~Ceadder

Well, the word out of denver was...and they acted on it as did we... realy don't care what they do. Only concerned with wha the niners do.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by mayo63:
Don't worry, jr80 NickBradely is kind of hard headed.

Davis/Bulaga would have been equivelant to drafting two OT/OGs!

You are missing the point! Iupati is the better Guard! Which is what we want the best at that the poition.

Davis is the better tackle. Buluga is veritle is that what you want to say? Okay cool, but I am tired or versatility I want the best for the position and we got it. You think Bulauga is better than davis then why do the critics talk about his tendacy to lean too much and why they mention Brandon Graham manhandling him? If graham can do that, it will continue into the pros. Plus if graham can do that then what about DE who are like him that are already in the pros?

Whether it is true or not, many are saying that Iupati can be the next Hutchinson but bigger faster stronger and more authletic -if that doesn't wet your whistle I don't know what will. Nobody has compareed Baluga to anyone of note.

Originally posted by Rsrkshn:

Originally posted by bigtony2tone:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by bigtony2tone:
Why would anyone rather project a high floor/low ceiling OT to OG over the consensus BEST OG in the draft? Why man? Stop it now! I'd understand maybe if we'd picked Pouncey instead. But we're talking about Iupati-----an absolute stud!

Happy with the picks...would have been happier with Bulaga -- maximizes the likelihood of a stud RT.

I'll admit I really REALLY wanted Bulaga. But I understand why Davis was the pick. Much higher ceiling player. I am still confused why we traded up for him though. Seems like a waste of a 4th round pick.

I concur with everything said.

My feeling is that we blinked when a more studly group would have stood tight. I'm very disappointed that we gave up a pick in a very DEEP draft to jump pver one team (miami), when both teams ahead of us were not in need of an OT. I know the Niners made the standard excuse: "We were afraid someone else would jump ahead of us". Yea, right! Just didn't have the nerve, or ability to analyze what was going on.

It's just plain disingenuous to say that something was wrong with Bulaga ('thoughhe did have that Thyroid problem) and that is why he fell. I'm sure some teams had him rated higher. Davis is NOT perfect. Interesting that Green Bay picked him up (They needed a OT also, but held their ground). There are a lot of highly rated OTs still out there, no need to panic. Shades of Alex Smith/Aaron Rodgers (there was something terribly wrong with Rodgers too, right?). Will be interesting to see how Bulaga works out for them versus Davis for us. GBs offensive line has been worse that ours.

We needed to be accumulating picks not giving them away unneccesarily.

Nick: I just knew that you would stir up a hornets nest by bringing this up. I, of course, totally understand the point you are making and I do agree with you. But the homies on this site are so myopic, it's almost not worth the effort to present another point of view. This is supposed to be a DISCUSSION board, but more and more it's becoming dominated by people who just "don't want to know" or discuss anything in a civil manner.

What people are failing to recognized is that you and me (and several others who are silent) are PERFECTLY HAPPY with the way things have gone . . . we just feel that things could have been better. The possibiltites were there, that's all that's being discussed.

I stand for being totally against unnecessarily giving away picks in a deep draft. I believe that we did that yesterday. It has severely limited the team's ability to fill critical needs. Cornerback, for sure. Pass rusher (unless you think Laboy is the answer . . . I don't). Game-breaker is going to have to wait until next year.

Hindsight is 20/20 everything is done and said. However, there is no certainty that things would pan out the way it did if we waited where we did. Meaning different would have been picked at 11 maybe 12. We may still would have gotten Davis, but maybe not Iupati. You don't know for sure. After all McClain was taken (I saw that coming) but many did not, also who saw alualu or tebow?

The niners wanted to fix the line so they went after the men they had at the top of their chart. Baluga was not at the top of their chart. I understand what the author of this thread is trying to say, big emphasis is on trying... and what others are saying is that they wanted the best at the position. Baluga in the niners eye was not the best at his position whether it be T or G. And Baluga has not only medical issues, but on film they showed his weaknesses, like against graham.

As I also stated, I am tired of taking hybrid athletes who could project to somewhere else. Stop! It hasn't worked well for the niners. Plus because we have two OL coaches so the kids will be alright. Its like taking a class and giving them two teachers, more one on one. Plus Davis is young. If he plays just good (not great) he will be here 15 years a long time we don't have worry.

Originally posted by wadjay:
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.

I think the better stat to look for is how many pure guards mad the probowl and all pro compared to how many converted OTs have converted and made it to probowl all pro. When they did, you will probably find that they played OT in the pros for awhile before transitioning. Like 7-8 years and not straight out of college.

Even Anthony Davis called Iupati a beast at guard. I don't know how we could have possibly done better on an interior lineman.