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!"
Thomas
