Iupati over Bulaga??? WTF

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.