Iupati over Bulaga??? WTF

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

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.

Assuming Anthony Davis does NOT bust, what would happen if Bulaga feels that he can be a legit NFL OT and wants legit OT money when he comes due for a new contract . . . but he is stuck at OG because we have no other position to place him?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by pd24:

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.

Then why is Gallary not a very good guard? Why didn't anyone think of moving Kwame Harris to guard? This idea is full of fail. We got the best guard in the draft and guard was also a position of need.

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

Originally posted by HessianDud:

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.

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

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.

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

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

Originally posted by HessianDud:

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.

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?

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.