Eric Warfield - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

bucky · 05-18-2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cubedoggy

These also could be a number of reasons why he will make an effort to harness his abilities here; the Pats tend to be vigilant when it comes to "problem children."

Ex. 1: Christian Peter
Ex. 2: Kenyatta Jones
...and, on the other side, Ex. 3: Corey Dillon

You're right. I'm not predicting anything. He could very well make the team and even start. I'm just responding to the original thread that asked what makes him worse than Samuel, Hobbs and Gay. At the moment, I would project Warfield behind Samuel, Hobbs, Gay, and Scott on the CB depth chart. If Rodney comes back healthy, I could see Hawkins being ahead of Warfield as a CB/S/nickel type DB. However, I'm enthusiastic about seeing what this guy can do and would love to see him earn a starting spot.

shakadave · 05-18-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keegs

Can someone explain to me why everybody on here feels that this guy won't be starting? Is hobbs a better corner? is samuel? is gaY?
How do you know?

At times like this I like to reach for my Sporting News Scouting Guide. The most recent (summer 2005) edition ranks them....

1. Samuel (27)
2. Warfield (37)
3. Gay (72)
4. Hobbs (16th on the rookie CB list)

(overall NFL CB ranking in parentheses)

But Warfield has aged another year, Samuel and Gay have matured another year, but played either questionably-at-times or not at all (IR). And Hobbs is so new it's hard to say.... I guess I need
(1) The 2006 Guide to come out, but better yet
(2) A training camp!

P.S. Law (3)

PatsChick87 · 05-18-2006, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakadave

At times like this I like to reach for my Sporting News Scouting Guide. The most recent (summer 2005) edition ranks them....

1. Samuel (27)
2. Warfield (37)
3. Gay (72)
4. Hobbs (16th on the rookie CB list)

(overall NFL CB ranking in parentheses)

But Warfield has aged another year, Samuel and Gay have matured another year, but played either questionably-at-times or not at all (IR). And Hobbs is so new it's hard to say.... I guess I need
(1) The 2006 Guide to come out, but better yet
(2) A training camp!

P.S. Law (3)

Dave - Law was ranked (3) after missing half of 2004? Makes one wonder how they do their rankings when players hit IR? Any ideas?

shakadave · 05-18-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsChick87

Dave - Law was ranked (3) after missing half of 2004? Makes one wonder how they do their rankings when players hit IR? Any ideas?

That's right, Law was (3). I think they sort of project how good they think a player is at that time. For example, if a great player has an off year, he might slip a bit in the rankings but not way down with the mediocre players; his track record shows that it was just an off year. If a player has been out injured but can reasonably be expected to resume playing well, Sporting News doesn't penalize him in the rankings for having been injured. I like this system because they end up ranking how good a player supposedly is "these days."

They have a "grading system" with categories Rare player, Outstanding player (e.g. Law), Solid starter, Good starter (e.g. Samuel, Warfield), Adequate starter (Gay, Poole), Marginal starter/good backup (Poteat), Adequate backup, Marginal backup (Chad Scott), Poor player, and Young player (i.e. rookie). They put a number grade on each player (e.g. 6.4) but I'm not sure it comes from any formula.

This is a magazine that comes out every June or July (I think?) and is a great resource. Of course you can debate whether Andruzzi is really the 32nd best guard in the NFL, or if he should have been ranked 33rd. Whenever the Pats acquire somebody in a trade, as a free agent, etc., the first thing I do is look in this guide to get an estimate of how good a player we just got.

They also have a ranked list of the 200 best players in the NFL, all positions combined (!), that makes for great browsing. For example, last summer they had 1. LT 2. Pay-a-ton 3. Brady 4. Moss 5. Orlando Pace 6. Ray Lewis 7. Torry Holt 8. Ed Reed 9. Roy Williams 10. Tony Gonzalez ... 45. Rodney.... 47. Law.... 58. Bruschi.... 61. Dillon.... What fun! Strangely, Seymour was 64 after being #2 (in the whole NFL) the year before!!!! Maybe a new stats freak got on the selection committee?

Brady-To-Branch · 05-18-2006, 09:32 PM

From KC Joyner's Scientific Football: 2005...

NOTE: Review is for the 2004 season...

Quote:

Warfield's stats don't look that bad but they don't tell the whole story. He struggled in multiple games, especially in the middle of the season, but got better later in the season.

One thing that stands out about Warfield's numbers is his completion percentage. He ranked 3rd in completion percentage, but had a lot of help from 20 missed passes. Even with his completion percentage, Warfield gave up 7.3 yards per attempt, which placed tied for 35th. This clearly shows that when Warfield was beaten, he was beaten for a lot of yards.

What makes his completion percentage even odder is that Warfield ranked 70th in soft coverage percentage. It looks very much like Warfield played relatively tight at the line at the snap, but didn't react quickly enough to the ball in the air, or tried to play more position defense rather than physically disrupting the receiver. This type of play was probably responsible for his nearly 30-yard per completion average on deep passes. If Warfield got into a good position, he stopped you. If he didn't get into good position, he couldn't fight his way back through it and was beaten.

Even though his completion percentage was excellent, I still don't think Eric Warfield is very good playing on an island, and he's often left on one by the Chiefs scheme. If those 20 missed passes are converted into completions next year, his numbers will start to match his performance. He's simply not a very good tight man coverage CB.

Remix 6 · 05-18-2006, 09:35 PM

^ and thats why many say hes better off at Safety

***patpatriot*** · 05-18-2006, 10:35 PM

This is a guys with some limitations which can be compensated for by proper positioning. Belli has been lauded by many players in that he "puts them in a position to win". I think he can make Warfield into a very productive player. Remember, he played with a *sucky* defensive line and a so-so linebacker corps. The big thing with Warfield is "can he stay off the booze"? Very tough to do. Much harder than staying off other (illegal) drugs. So, we can't build any defensive schemes that depend on him because he's not dependable.

AzPatsFan · 05-19-2006, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patpatriot

This is a guys with some limitations which can be compensated for by proper positioning. Belli has been lauded by many players in that he "puts them in a position to win". I think he can make Warfield into a very productive player. Remember, he played with a *sucky* defensive line and a so-so linebacker corps. The big thing with Warfield is "can he stay off the booze"? Very tough to do. Much harder than staying off other (illegal) drugs. So, we can't build any defensive schemes that depend on him because he's not dependable.

I can't speak to the recivism rate for AA alcoholics but it is significantly better then the average boozer.

As for the "hard drugs"; The recidivism rate for crack Cocine is the highest and is > than 97 % and worse than Heroin with a 95% recidivism.

I know its fashionable to bash tobacco but the US adult population used to smoke at a 76+% rate. The adult population now smokes at a 20% rate so almost half the US population quit so far (or died). The recidivism rate for Tobacco is under 33%...

Keegs · 05-20-2006, 01:54 AM

I should have posted this in my original message.

It seems like a well known fact that KC's defense has sucked. Their line has sucked, their linebackers have sucked. This does not make it very easy for a starting cornerback like Warfield.

Of course he is going to give up some yards. Look how are DBs did when our line and linebackers were banged up.
I think he would play just fine and it would not surprise me if he was starting at some point throughout the season. I definetely feel that he is only behind Samuel and Hobbs as of now.

GoWesleyan · 05-20-2006, 05:03 AM

Where'd you get that recidivism info AzPatsFan? That's interesting stuff.