Chance Warmack - OG - Alabama

[K-9]

I'll take Warmack ahead of any QB or WR at 8, that's for dam sure.

 

Agree that Warmack is the better and more highly rated player than any of them. But I can't see the Bills having the balls to do it. It would be a PR disaster because most fans don't think in terms of good football players. They think in terms of good positions.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[C.Biscuit97]

The last time the Bills drafted a Guard in the first round he set up shop in the Pro Bowl for a lot of years.

 

That's only because he threw good parties in Hawaii. And I love Ruben but what did good guard play really get us?

 

No joking, but I will seriously light myself on fire if the Bills draft a guard #8. I really enjoy life so I pray this doesn't happen.

[Orton's Arm]

It's the only point that matters.

The Bills would have to be complete morons to draft a guard at #8 who they're going to lose a few years from now when they don't want to give him 50millon dollars, and to do so only a couple months after they just lost a highly drafted guard who they didn't want to pay 50million for would approach the unassailable heights of stupidity.

From a personal standpoint, it would probably be my last straw for supporting this team.

 

 

Let's see how having 50 million tied up in a guard actually works out for the Titans before we decide whether that opinion is informed.

 

Good post!

 

Even if drafting Warmack at 8th overall might seem like a good tactical decision, it would be a very poor strategic move.

[Astrobot]

Warmack isn't enough better than a guy like Warford,or Cooper,to justify taking at 8.

 

http://nflsfuture.co...couting-report/

 

http://www.sbnation....scouting-report

Bingo.

An OG that the Bills have talked extensively to, JC Tretter, from Cornell, is on most mocks at RD4-5. They think highly of him.

 

Emory Hunt from FootballGamePlan has the Bills going with Barrett Jones in RD3. If he's there, I'll eat my hat, but good value for O-Line depth, something that has screwed us in the past few years.

 

MY preference is Tretter or Dallas Thomas on Day 3.

[Rob's House]

I think Warmack would be a fine pick. The left side of our line would be bigger & more physically imposing than any I can think of. He wouldn't be my first choice, but he's in my top 8.

 

I also reject the notion that replacing Levitre with Warmack would be running in place b/c Warmack is a different kind of player & one I expect to be far more dominant than Levitre. And the money that would have gone to pay Levitre for the next 4 years can be used elsewhere.

[Magox]

It's the only point that matters.

The Bills would have to be complete morons to draft a guard at #8 who they're going to lose a few years from now when they don't want to give him 50millon dollars, and to do so only a couple months after they just lost a highly drafted guard who they didn't want to pay 50million for would approach the unassailable heights of stupidity.

From a personal standpoint, it would probably be my last straw for supporting this team.

 

 

Let's see how having 50 million tied up in a guard actually works out for the Titans before we decide whether that opinion is informed.

 

This is the exact point that I recently made. Levitre was already playing at a pro bowl level, he would of most likely been in Hawaii if he was playing on a halfway decent team, and if we weren't prepared to pay him the going rate for his caliber of play, then it would be beyond moronic to draft a guard at #8.

[Orton's Arm]

I think Warmack would be a fine pick. The left side of our line would be bigger & more physically imposing than any I can think of. He wouldn't be my first choice, but he's in my top 8.

 

I also reject the notion that replacing Levitre with Warmack would be running in place b/c Warmack is a different kind of player & one I expect to be far more dominant than Levitre. And the money that would have gone to pay Levitre for the next 4 years can be used elsewhere.

 

If you were building a house, you'd start with a blueprint. That blueprint exists because you (and presumably an architect) sat down and envisioned your house as you want it to be.

 

A GM should do the same thing. Without a clear picture in his head of the team he intends to build, he will never get anywhere. Once he has that clear picture, he should spend his most valuable resources putting the most crucial pieces of the picture into place.

 

If the Bills were to add Warmack to their war machine, the primary benefit would be in their running game. Yes, the passing game would benefit too, because of improved pass protection coming from the LG position. But even if Warmack completely dominated his man on every single pass play, the QB's time in the pocket would be limited by the other defenders Warmack wasn't blocking. Is it worth using the 8th overall pick on a guy whose primary benefit will be to help your team's run blocking?

 

The New York Times did a regression analysis which demonstrated that the passing game is four times as important as the running game. (I can translate that into statistics speak if anyone's interested.) Bearing that regression analysis in mind, a GM should seek to have elite players for the passing game: WRs, a LT, pass rushers, CBs, and above all, an elite QB. Warmack has nothing to do with any of that stuff. (Unless you're concerned about the Bills' ability to block elite 3-4 NTs.)

 

The Bills should use the 8th overall pick on a player who will make the Bills much better at passing or at stopping the pass. I don't think Warmack falls into either of those categories.

[K-9]

The New York Times did a regression analysis which demonstrated that the passing game is four times as important as the running game. (I can translate that into statistics speak if anyone's interested.) Bearing that regression analysis in mind, a GM should seek to have elite players for the passing game: WRs, a LT, pass rushers, CBs, and above all, an elite QB. Warmack has nothing to do with any of that stuff. (Unless you're concerned about the Bills' ability to block elite 3-4 NTs.)

 

While it was a great exercise in statistical analysis, the Times article didn't break any new ground. And it certainly didn't teach anyone a thing about football or the athletes that play the game.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Smoke-E]

Buddy Nix will never draft an OG period. His philosophy is to draft T's and convert them to G's, if they dont work out as tackles. I'm not sure Nix has drafted one OG since hes been with the team. If you remember Mark Asper was viewed more as a C by the Bills when he was drafted. You might be able to get Justin Pugh from Syracuse in the 2nd round who has the ability to play tackle.or guard, and probably wouldnt be much of a dropoff from Warmack. If we're to take Buddy at his word, which I do, theres virtually no chance a G will be considered with the 8th pick.

 

This is true - or at least it seems true. I like the logic.

 

An excellent point. If it isn't worthwhile to pay Levitre $8 million a year, due in large part to the lack of importance of the LG position, it isn't worthwhile to use the 8th overall pick on Levitre's replacement.

 

This is also an excellent point.

 

My concern is that our OL is average at best and it needs to be solidified and improved before we draft a franchise QB and throw him into the fire. It is true that some guys succeed regardless, but I'm in favor of a plan that addresses OL (and D-Line) before using a top 5-10 pick on a franchise QB. Maybe an OG at No.8 is not great "value" and maybe its not "sexy" but the Big Ugglies play a much much bigger role than they get credit for. Ideally, I'd like to see them trade back as often as possible, accumulate picks and try to rebuild the entire roster with youth, starting in the trenches. What I don't want is a rookie QB playing behind an average OL and throwing to unopen receivers. Having said that, I also don't want a WR at No.8! That is some of the craziest talk on the whole Wall! High picks - or even first round picks - on WRs is just plain stupid. Unless its Fitzgerald or Megatron, forget it. Get WR late in the draft.

 

Of course, the silver lining to drafting a rookie QB THIS year is that it virtually assures us the No.1 pick next year, which we can then use to get Clowney. That sounds good to me too!

[Bufcomments]

Look at it like this guys....

 

CJ Spiller is the best weapon the Bills have. Fred Jackson when healthy is a close second. Stevie is 3rd. IMO

 

If your 2 best players on your team are RB's, why not draft a player that can make those players better??

 

It may not be the most sexy pick. But if what they say about Warmack is true then you got a Guard that can play 10 years at a high level. He is a once in a decade Guard.

 

Don't the Bills need a LG? He fills a need and is a possible Pro-bowl guard on top of that??

 

I for one would have no problem at all if the Bills took Warmack. Being an ex-Olineman myself in college I know that it all starts up front.

 

Warmack in the 1st

 

QB's Nassib, Wilson, or Matt Scott in the 2nd round to me would be an excellent start to the draft.

[Orton's Arm]

This is true - or at least it seems true. I like the logic.

 

 

 

This is also an excellent point.

 

My concern is that our OL is average at best and it needs to be solidified and improved before we draft a franchise QB and throw him into the fire. It is true that some guys succeed regardless, but I'm in favor of a plan that addresses OL (and D-Line) before using a top 5-10 pick on a franchise QB. Maybe an OG at No.8 is not great "value" and maybe its not "sexy" but the Big Ugglies play a much much bigger role than they get credit for. Ideally, I'd like to see them trade back as often as possible, accumulate picks and try to rebuild the entire roster with youth, starting in the trenches. What I don't want is a rookie QB playing behind an average OL and throwing to unopen receivers. Having said that, I also don't want a WR at No.8! That is some of the craziest talk on the whole Wall! High picks - or even first round picks - on WRs is just plain stupid. Unless its Fitzgerald or Megatron, forget it. Get WR late in the draft.

 

Of course, the silver lining to drafting a rookie QB THIS year is that it virtually assures us the No.1 pick next year, which we can then use to get Clowney. That sounds good to me too!

 

Opportunities to obtain franchise QBs are very rare. If you lack a franchise QB, and if you're reasonably confident a player will become the QB you're looking for, you take him. If the Bills are convinced a guy like Nassib or Barkley can be the long-term answer, they should take him at 8th overall.

 

The Bills' OL played well last year, at least when healthy. I'll grant that Levitre is a significant loss. But that loss can be made good with a free agent signing, or by taking an OG later in the draft.

 

If the Bills aren't comfortable with any of the QBs in this year's draft, then they should wait until next year. But the decision about when to take a QB should be based on getting the best QB possible. Better to get an Aaron Rodgers before the OL has been fixed than a Mark Sanchez after having waited to fix the OL. That said, I agree with those who feel that fixing a broken OL should always be an urgent priority--especially if the plan is to draft a young QB.

 

As for using the 8th overall pick on a WR: I would have been perfectly happy to have used the 3rd overall pick on A.J. Green a few years back. That's because Green is a special player, and because a special WR can dramatically impact the passing game. A guy like Green can be productive even when being double covered. If one of your players can force them to use up two of theirs--at any position--then that changes the equation. That said, I agree that you shouldn't use a top-10 pick on a WR unless there's reason to believe you're getting a special talent like Green.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Edwards' Arm

[zow2]

I didn't read the entire thread but if they draft a guard at #8, I'm done. Draft a QB in that spot, i don't care if it's Geno, Barkley, Nassib, Glennon, whatever....just draft a QB then move on.

[Orton's Arm]

While it was a great exercise in statistical analysis, the Times article didn't break any new ground. And it certainly didn't teach anyone a thing about football or the athletes that play the game.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

> While it was a great exercise in statistical analysis, the Times article didn't break any new ground.

 

It didn't? Are you aware of prior statistical analysis which have covered the same subject?

 

> And it certainly didn't teach anyone a thing about football or the athletes that play the game.

 

If it didn't, then it should have. I have heard t.v. announcers say, on numerous occasions, that the key to winning football games is to be able to run the ball and stop the run. The Times analysis disproved that. If you want to make the case that the announcers' theory had already been disproved prior to the Times analysis, fine. Show me the prior disproof.

[Rob's House]

If you were building a house, you'd start with a blueprint. That blueprint exists because you (and presumably an architect) sat down and envisioned your house as you want it to be.

 

A GM should do the same thing. Without a clear picture in his head of the team he intends to build, he will never get anywhere. Once he has that clear picture, he should spend his most valuable resources putting the most crucial pieces of the picture into place.

 

If the Bills were to add Warmack to their war machine, the primary benefit would be in their running game. Yes, the passing game would benefit too, because of improved pass protection coming from the LG position. But even if Warmack completely dominated his man on every single pass play, the QB's time in the pocket would be limited by the other defenders Warmack wasn't blocking. Is it worth using the 8th overall pick on a guy whose primary benefit will be to help your team's run blocking?

 

The New York Times did a regression analysis which demonstrated that the passing game is four times as important as the running game. (I can translate that into statistics speak if anyone's interested.) Bearing that regression analysis in mind, a GM should seek to have elite players for the passing game: WRs, a LT, pass rushers, CBs, and above all, an elite QB. Warmack has nothing to do with any of that stuff. (Unless you're concerned about the Bills' ability to block elite 3-4 NTs.)

 

The Bills should use the 8th overall pick on a player who will make the Bills much better at passing or at stopping the pass. I don't think Warmack falls into either of those categories.

That blueprint may include a dominant offensive line as a primary focal point. An elite QB or WR may well be preferable to an elite G, but if there isn't an elite QB or WR available when you pick then that doesn't do you much good.

[K-9]

> While it was a great exercise in statistical analysis, the Times article didn't break any new ground.

 

It didn't? Are you aware of prior statistical analysis which have covered the same subject?

 

> And it certainly didn't teach anyone a thing about football or the athletes that play the game.

 

If it didn't, then it should have. I have heard t.v. announcers say, on numerous occasions, that the key to winning football games is to be able to run the ball and stop the run. The Times analysis disproved that. If you want to make the case that the announcers' theory had already been disproved prior to the Times analysis, fine. Show me the prior disproof.

 

I look at the game through eyes of the personnel that comprise it. Including GMs and coaches. The key to winning a football game has never changed, prior statistical analyses or not. Bill Polian, for one, said as long as 25 years ago that you need a great QB and great personnel on the other side of the ball to stop a great QB. And that wasn't some new paradigm he was describing. You also DO need to run and stop the run or, in other words, make the opponent one-dimensional so that you dictate the percentages. Do you think announcers and other analysts repeat that mantra because they're ignorant of the NY Times regression analysis? It's a helluva lot easier to rack up big passing plays when the other team can't stop your run game. Especially against elite QBs.

 

So no, the Times didn't inform me of anything that hasn't been obvious for a long time. And again, it didn't educate anyone in the way of the personnel that play the game or the frameworks in which they play it.

 

Like I said, it was a nice exercise in numbers. But if you wish to believe it was so much more or that it caused or should cause a huge seismic shift in paradigm around the league, more power to you.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[KollegeStudnet]

Warmack sucks

 

War sucks...not Warmack

[Smoke-E]

Toddy McShay's new Mock Draft is out. He has the Bills taking Warmack at No.8. Take it for what you will.

[Orton's Arm]

I look at the game through eyes of the personnel that comprise it. Including GMs and coaches. The key to winning a football game has never changed, prior statistical analyses or not. Bill Polian, for one, said as long as 25 years ago that you need a great QB and great personnel on the other side of the ball to stop a great QB. And that wasn't some new paradigm he was describing. You also DO need to run and stop the run or, in other words, make the opponent one-dimensional so that you dictate the percentages. Do you think announcers and other analysts repeat that mantra because they're ignorant of the NY Times regression analysis? It's a helluva lot easier to rack up big passing plays when the other team can't stop your run game. Especially against elite QBs.

 

So no, the Times didn't inform me of anything that hasn't been obvious for a long time. And again, it didn't educate anyone in the way of the personnel that play the game or the frameworks in which they play it.

 

Like I said, it was a nice exercise in numbers. But if you wish to believe it was so much more or that it caused or should cause a huge seismic shift in paradigm around the league, more power to you.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

> You also DO need to run and stop the run or, in other words, make the opponent one-dimensional so that

> you dictate the percentages. Do you think announcers and other analysts repeat that mantra because they're

> ignorant of the NY Times regression analysis?

 

Yes. Just as I think Marv Levy was also ignorant of the conclusions of that statistical analysis when he said that winning games is 1/3 offense, 1/3 defense, and 1/3 special teams. The statistical analysis explained 80% of the observed variation in teams' winning percentages, while ignoring all special-teams related variables. At most variation in special teams play accounts for 20% of winning, and very probably less.

 

Another football cliche disproved by the statistical analysis is the adage that offense puts people in the seats, but defense wins championships. The analysis did not find that defense was any more important to winning games than offense.

 

> So no, the Times didn't inform me of anything that hasn't been obvious for a long time.

 

So you're claiming that even if you hadn't seen the analysis, you would have been able to guess that the passing game is about four times as important as the running game? Do you have any evidence to support such a claim?

 

> And again, it didn't educate anyone in the way of the personnel that play the game or the frameworks in which they play it.

 

There are two scenarios under which the above could be true. 1) If front office personnel around the league were already aware of the fact that the passing game is four times as important as the running game. 2) If front office personnel around the league were so full of themselves that they believed that a regression analysis could not materially add to their existing knowledge of the game.

 

As for 1), over the last 40 years the Bills have used 25% of their first picks of the draft on RBs. During that span, they have been about 10 times as likely to use their first pick of the draft on a RB as on a QB. If television announcers and other insiders talk about running the ball and stopping the run, and if at least some of them act as we've seen the Bills act, then where is the evidence that they have always been aware that the passing game is four times as important as the running game?

Edited March 28, 2013 by Edwards' Arm

[K-9]

> You also DO need to run and stop the run or, in other words, make the opponent one-dimensional so that

> you dictate the percentages. Do you think announcers and other analysts repeat that mantra because they're

> ignorant of the NY Times regression analysis?

 

Yes. Just as I think Marv Levy was also ignorant of the conclusions of that statistical analysis when he said that winning games is 1/3 offense, 1/3 defense, and 1/3 special teams. The statistical analysis explained 80% of the observed variation in teams' winning percentages, while ignoring all special-teams related variables. At most variation in special teams play accounts for 20% of winning, and very probably less.

 

Another football cliche disproved by the statistical analysis is the adage that offense puts people in the seats, but defense wins championships. The analysis did not find that defense was any more important to winning games than offense.

 

> So no, the Times didn't inform me of anything that hasn't been obvious for a long time.

 

So you're claiming that even if you hadn't seen the analysis, you would have been able to guess that the passing game is about four times as important as the running game? Do you have any evidence to support such a claim?

 

> And again, it didn't educate anyone in the way of the personnel that play the game or the frameworks in which they play it.

 

There are two scenarios under which the above could be true. 1) If front office personnel around the league were already aware of the fact that the passing game is four times as important as the running game. 2) If front office personnel around the league were so full of themselves that they believed that a regression analysis could not materially add to their existing knowledge of the game.

 

As for 1), over the last 40 years the Bills have used 25% of their first picks of the draft on RBs. During that span, they have been about 10 times as likely to use their first pick of the draft on a RB as on a QB. If television announcers and other insiders talk about running the ball and stopping the run, and if at least some of them act as we've seen the Bills act, then where is the evidence that they have always been aware that the passing game is four times as important as the running game?

 

Before we go off on a tangent, I'll just cut to the chase. There are those that know the game, it's players, and the paramaters in which they play and those that don't. The NY Times' regression analysis was conducted in a vacuum, completely devoid of other pertinent facts relative to the outcome of any particular game and in what order those pertinent facts occurred and to what variance each affected the other.

 

Which is more important, a 90 yard run for the winning score or a 90 yard pass? Which is more impactful, a fumbled running attempt or an intercepted pass? Exactly.

 

Only a stat geek would take umbrage with Marv Levy's coaching speak about how each phase of the game contributes 1/3 to a win.

 

Good luck in your never ending quest to quantify and explain all of the known universe in a statistical analysis. I'll stick to what I know in the meantime. But if you and Nate Silver ever own a team, you may want to staff it with people that know personnel and what makes them tick before trying to coach and manage the team yourselves.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Astrobot]

We have 13 O-Linemen right now on the roster and a seasoned O-Line coach, Pat Morris, who's created a top 10 rushing offense nine times in his 15-year NFL coaching career.

 

I have locked Warmack out over at DraftTek so the computer doesn't pick him at #8.