Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

KY is in the SEC? no wai

Bwood

By Bwood,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Bwood Newbie

Bwood

Posted
Posted

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheRumGone Grand Master

TheRumGone

Posted
Posted

I see that as well. And Warford matched up against some pretty good DLineman and excelled. I would take him in the second. And focus on Wide Reciver/Dlineman in the first. This is actually the ideal scenario since I guess it's kind of wierd to take a gaurd in the top 15. I also thought I was watching identical players when I watched the two of them.

What would be crazy is if Fisher fell to us. We got him and Warford in the second. Our line would be stacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Panthro Community Regular

Panthro

Posted
Posted

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pantherj Grand Master

pantherj

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jungleking Newbie

jungleking

Posted
Posted

I think that between Warford, Cooper, and Fluker, we can find much better value in the second round than taking Warmack in the first.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bwood Newbie

Bwood

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OHK Newbie

OHK

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bwood Newbie

Bwood

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Waldo
      Clowney released

      By Waldo · Posted

      Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
    • pantherclaw
      Houston Texans... You Suck!!!

      By pantherclaw · Posted

      I have zero issues with this.  
    • MHS831
      Panthers start making cuts to roster

      By MHS831 · Posted

      Sorta related.  I just looked up a stat:  Success rates for NFL draft's second rounders.  I was surprised that it is 49%.  The success rate for first rounders is 58%.   Here success does not mean those that did not bust, it means that roughly half of the players selected in the second round become full-time starters at some point in their careers.  Busts do that too.  However, considering the fact that a first round talent is worth up to 1800 points (first overall pick) more than the first pick of the second round and as low as 350 points (last pick in first round) higher than the last pick in round 2, it seems there could be cases in which it would be to your advantage to trade out of round 1 and draft two or three second rounders for the value.  Of course, the elite players are likely to be gone, and some positions overwhelmingly suck after round 1 (traditionally, like QB or LT, for example), but if you need to find starters at positions like DT, G, LB, S, C, TE, RB, etc, there could be a time when you trade back for more starters.  I was surprised that the margin between rounds 1 and 2 was only 9%.    While I realize that some of you sofa scholars are thinking, "Well duh?  Trading back gives you more players." as you wipe the Cheetos off your shirt.  Not the point.  The point is you have to consider the draft,the needs (and the number of them), and you need to scout the second and third rounds like you do the first, the cap, and the long-term impact.  If you can find 2 players with a 49% chance of becoming a starter, are you better off than drafting one player who has a 58% chance in the long term? So if I traded away my first rounder for two second rounders (a trade most teams would make) regularly, when I got 10 second rounders (by trading 5 first rounders), 5 would be starters.  If I did not trade and kept my 5 first rounders, 3 would be starters.  Furthermore, their rookie contracts would be much cheaper than the 5 first rounders. 
×
×
  • Create New...