KY is in the SEC? no wai
#1
Posted 22 January 2013 - 05:56 AM
There are a lot of similarities between the two, other than the first 3 letters of their last names. Both are extremely solid in pass protection. Both get to the next level and lay linebackers out to open up running lanes, both are ridiculously athletic. Maybe give the athleticism edge to Warmack and the fact that he plays in the SEC, but other than that I see two pretty identical prospects.
In conclusion, you get way more value out of your pick by taking Warford in the second than drafting Warmack in the first. Warford is an absolute mauler and would be a great addition at RG.
Anyone else care to compare the two?
#2
Posted 22 January 2013 - 06:36 AM
What would be crazy is if Fisher fell to us. We got him and Warford in the second. Our line would be stacked.
#3
Posted 22 January 2013 - 06:49 AM
If you haven't noticed yet, this years offensive guard class is very deep. Obviously the hot name is Chance Warmack, and deservingly so, but if Warmack wasn't in this years draft, Larry Warford of Kentucky would be the most coveted guard of them all.
There are a lot of similarities between the two, other than the first 3 letters of their last names. Both are extremely solid in pass protection. Both get to the next level and lay linebackers out to open up running lanes, both are ridiculously athletic. Maybe give the athleticism edge to Warmack and the fact that he plays in the SEC, but other than that I see two pretty identical prospects.
In conclusion, you get way more value out of your pick by taking Warford in the second than drafting Warmack in the first. Warford is an absolute mauler and would be a great addition at RG.
Anyone else care to compare the two?
Kentucky is not in the SEC?
#4
Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:04 AM
Kentucky is not in the SEC?
It is. Warford has gone up against some great competition. Florida, Missouri, Mississippi State, Georgia, Tennessee, Louisville. Essentially the same competition as Warmack.
#5
Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:07 AM
#6
Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:20 AM
As far as Warford v. Warmack, Warmack's got better feet in space, and is a better pass protector. They're both nasty maulers though.
#7
Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:21 AM
if we want an OT we will have to take him in the 1st imo.
Fluker and Johnson will not be around in the 2nd imo.
Go OT first then OG 2nd.
#8
Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:22 AM
Warford got beaten badly on a stunt play and that worried me. He sometimes looks lost when he's pulling. He's a bit clumsy at times. I don't think he's as quick as Warmack off the snap, nor is he as good at pass blocking. I think he's a great run blocker overall.
Warmack moves effortlessly for his size. Warford can be kinda clumsy and end up on the ground but he is certainly no slouch. I think he is an excellent pass blocker too.
#9
Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:24 AM
Kentucky is not in the SEC?
I didn't say he played in the SEC. Warmack of Bama does.
But yeah, Warford has played most of the big names from the SEC and dominates.
#10
Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:56 AM
I didn't say he played in the SEC. Warmack of Bama does.
But yeah, Warford has played most of the big names from the SEC and dominates.
I can't tell if the second part of your post is an attempt to backtrack giving Warmack sole credit for SEC experience, but Warford of Kentucky has it as well. It doesn't make sense to list it as an advantage for Warmack considering they both play in the SEC.
As for being the most coveted guard if Warmack weren't in the draft, that's not true. That'd still be Jonathan Cooper. That being said, I can see your point about the value of Warford in the second versus Warmack in the first. That being said, I don't really want to take Warford in the second. The entire point of taking Warmack wouldn't be that guard is our top need, but simply that it is a need and Warmack is a very rare caliber prospect. Warford is a good prospect, but not rare, so I'd rather take an offensive tackle(presuming there hasn't been a run on them) in the second than Warford.
#11
Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:04 AM
I can't tell if the second part of your post is an attempt to backtrack giving Warmack sole credit for SEC experience, but Warford of Kentucky has it as well. It doesn't make sense to list it as an advantage for Warmack considering they both play in the SEC.
As for being the most coveted guard if Warmack weren't in the draft, that's not true. That'd still be Jonathan Cooper. That being said, I can see your point about the value of Warford in the second versus Warmack in the first. That being said, I don't really want to take Warford in the second. The entire point of taking Warmack wouldn't be that guard is our top need, but simply that it is a need and Warmack is a very rare caliber prospect. Warford is a good prospect, but not rare, so I'd rather take an offensive tackle(presuming there hasn't been a run on them) in the second than Warford.
I've watched a lot of tape on both Warford and Cooper, and I prefer Warford. There's still a lot left to the draft process though which could ultimately determine who the better prospect is.
#12
Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:12 AM
#13
Posted 22 January 2013 - 10:43 AM
#14
Posted 22 January 2013 - 10:49 AM
Kentucky is an SEC school.I didn't say he played in the SEC. Warmack of Bama does.
But yeah, Warford has played most of the big names from the SEC and dominates.
#15
Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:16 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users





