Blog: Pats sig Eric Warfield

[T-ShirtDynasty]

So it seems ... as we did at this time last year.

Ya beat me to it. We were all drooling over our depth in the secondary last year. Pffft.

 

[Mosi Moose]

... we have another solid veteran, but Warfield is not a long term solution, any more than Buckley or Poole was... or Starks, for that matter.

Drafting a rookie like Samuel or Hobbs is a 4 or 5 year opportunity. This changes nothing to the idea of drafting a player like Richard Marshall. It's "true Belichick" to fill out his roster to the point where you wonder what position he will possibly need to draft.

I agree, but I don't know if we go for a CB in Rd 1 or 2 now (which eliminates someone like Marshall) but I do think we get one on Day 1--Rd 3 is my guess. We have never had enough depth at CB and the more competition for Scott and Warfield, the better we will be.

 

[BelichickFan]

Having a ridiculous run of injuries last year doesn't mean we will again this year. We have very good depth, as good as any team in the league. That doesn't mean we won't see Troy our there again but there is no reason to believe we will. We should be absolutely rock solid at CB this year.

 

[Remix 6]

Heres mine:

Samuel #1

Warfield/Hobbs #2

Warfield/Hobbs #3

Gay/Scott #4

Gay/Scott #5

 

[Alk]

Who was it that swore up and down that there was no way we would sign the troubled Warfield even though we just signed a troubled Dillon a few years ago?

 

[Remix 6]

not me..i said we wouldnt sign a loud mouth and "freelancer" individual like Arrington.

 

[Neophius]

Hello, everyone. I just hopped on this board real quick because I'm a long time Chiefs fan (born in KC...it's in the blood).

Anyway, I just wanted to share a few thoughts on Warfield if anyone is interested:

1) A good corner. Outstanding athleticism who is usually in good position to make a play.

2) Has improved his tackling quite a bit. For the most part, he isn't afraid to take on ball carriers. He isn't the greatest open field tackler, but he'll hold his own. It'll be interesting to see how the Pats use him.

3) Has a tendency to gamble for the INT. You can see last year's KC game against the Texans as a prime example of Warfield bating the out route, jumping it at the last minute for a touchdown.

4) The one big knock on Warfield is lapses in concentration. He doesn't take plays off, but he'll occasionally look lost or confused. Sometimes his athleticism lets him catch up; other times he'll get burned like the 2 TD game against Buffalo last year.

Frankly, I'm going to miss Warfield. He has consistently been underrated because of the horrid Chiefs secondary (not helped at all by a nonexistant pass rush). He's not perfect, but definately an asset as a number 2 corner. Coach Edwards didn't want him because he didn't fit the scheme; I think it had a lot to do with his DUIs.

The final straw concerning the DUIs was when 2 years ago we lost a heart breaker against Houston. He went out, got drunk, and didn't call a taxi. He really hurt the team, and I know my fellow fans were extremely pissed off (the coaching staff wasn't too pleased). Warfield didn't start the next season until around week 7 or so, but he seemed to rebound after a couple games.

Final Evaluation:

A good second CB, but Warfield might really blossom at the FS position due to his ball-hawking abilities if you have enough talent at CB. Not the best option at NB, as he operates in space more effectively. An above-average CB in man to man when his concentration is fully focused.

Here's a link to the best Chiefs board around if you'd like to talk to some diehard Chief fans about Warfield:

http://www.chiefscoalition.com/Forums/

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Okay, here's an idea of Warfield's "high tackle number games" from last year, and how they happened. Obviously, we can't really pin down what happened in every instance from stats, and if we were BB and SP we would do this with film. Nonetheless:

Week 9 vs. Oakland: 11 solo
Week 11 vs. Hou: 9 solo
Wk 12 vs. NE: 9 solo

Week 9 - opposing QB compiled 175 yards, 2 TD, 1 int.
2 tackles were runs for a total of 5 yards. 9 were passes for a total of 107 yards (11.9 yards per opponent catch). He also had a tackle on Jordan catching a pass out of the backfield, which was called back, and a pass defensed. Warfield recorded 11 out of the team's 53 tackles, or more than one in five. The next highest tackle total for KC was 5.
In week 9, Warfield was either victimized in coverage, but eventually made the hit every time (passed against in one of five total plays,) or was chasing down tackles resulting from other blown coverages. We need to see film to know this.

Week 11 - opposing QB compiled 182 yards, no TD, 1 int.
The Chiefs destroyed the Texans in week 10; it's not surprising that there were no run stops, since Hou. was playing from behind. Again, his 9 tackles led the team, which totalled 45 tackles; again, Warfield made one stop in every 5. Carr's completions on Warfield stops totalled 69 yards for 7.7 yards per catch. He also intercepted Carr for a 57 yard interception TD.

Week 12 - opposing QB compiled 248 yards, 1 TD, 4 int.
Oy. Anyway, Warfield stopped 3 runs, and 6 passes on his 9 tackles. Again, he led the team, which made 49 total tackles. This gave him a little less than one in every 5. His 6 pass play tackles were on plays totalling 52 yards, for an average of 8.7 yds./catch. He had no interceptions, but Wesley took the ball 3 times, and 1 other chief also picked off Tom not-so-terrific that day.

Opposing QB totals for Warfield's 3 "high tackle total" games:
3 TDs (1/game avg.) 605 yds (202/gm avg.) 6 int. (2/game)

Wesley, who got the int.s for the Chiefs, also seemed to take a Deion-like attitude toward tackling, racking up 2-4 in these games. Or, he smothered his man, and Warfield was the guy to throw against. Again, we need to see film to determine this. But even worst-case, "defaulting" to burning Warfield results in a pretty dismal overall track record for opposing QBs, when he's popping the guy with the ball. I tend to think he was picking up a lot of the slack from other DBs and LBs, and just LIKES to pop the guy with the ball.

But I'm an optimist at heart. Anyway, what I want to know is, what did he cost?

PFnV

 

[mgteich]

What a great idea, draft a first round corner and cut Gay and Poteat. NOT

I agree, but I don't know if we go for a CB in Rd 1 or 2 now (which eliminates someone like Marshall) but I do think we get one on Day 1--Rd 3 is my guess. We have never had enough depth at CB and the more competition for Scott and Warfield, the better we will be.

 

[Neophius]

Kansas City played a lot of soft zones the last couple years. Typically the CBs would sit about 7-10 yards off the ball, waiting for a quick pass rush to force the short throw.

Our pass rush sucked royally for the most part.

Because of this, tackle numbers went pretty high for the secondary, but the YAC was typically low for most of the games (however, this meant that those catches were still going for almost 8-9 yards a game, hence our terrible yardage ranking).

 

[tombonneau]

Hello, everyone. I just hopped on this board real quick because I'm a long time Chiefs fan (born in KC...it's in the blood).

Anyway, I just wanted to share a few thoughts on Warfield if anyone is interested:

1) A good corner. Outstanding athleticism who is usually in good position to make a play.

2) Has improved his tackling quite a bit. For the most part, he isn't afraid to take on ball carriers. He isn't the greatest open field tackler, but he'll hold his own. It'll be interesting to see how the Pats use him.

3) Has a tendency to gamble for the INT. You can see last year's KC game against the Texans as a prime example of Warfield bating the out route, jumping it at the last minute for a touchdown.

4) The one big knock on Warfield is lapses in concentration. He doesn't take plays off, but he'll occasionally look lost or confused. Sometimes his athleticism lets him catch up; other times he'll get burned like the 2 TD game against Buffalo last year.

Frankly, I'm going to miss Warfield. He has consistently been underrated because of the horrid Chiefs secondary (not helped at all by a nonexistant pass rush). He's not perfect, but definately an asset as a number 2 corner. Coach Edwards didn't want him because he didn't fit the scheme; I think it had a lot to do with his DUIs.

The final straw concerning the DUIs was when 2 years ago we lost a heart breaker against Houston. He went out, got drunk, and didn't call a taxi. He really hurt the team, and I know my fellow fans were extremely pissed off (the coaching staff wasn't too pleased). Warfield didn't start the next season until around week 7 or so, but he seemed to rebound after a couple games.

Final Evaluation:

A good second CB, but Warfield might really blossom at the FS position due to his ball-hawking abilities if you have enough talent at CB. Not the best option at NB, as he operates in space more effectively. An above-average CB in man to man when his concentration is fully focused.

Here's a link to the best Chiefs board around if you'd like to talk to some diehard Chief fans about Warfield:

http://www.chiefscoalition.com/Forums/

Thanks for the good post, Neo. Based on your write up, it does indeed sound like Warfield might make a better FS. At worst he sounds like a really solid nickel guy, at best an above average #2 CB.

Problem with the Pats is they don't really have that dominant #1 CB, though I guess how many teams do in today's NFL ??

 

[mgteich]

I agree that none are sure starters, and none are sure non-starters. The competition is wide open, with Hank as injury insurance.

Should be interesting at CB in camp.

Hobbs. Warfield. Gay. Samuel. Scott.

Can you name one of those who will be a starter for sure . . . or one who won't be a starter for sure ?

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

Not a bad looking secondary now. It's not one that will break NFL records or anything but a good solid group that should do a very good job for us if injuries don't become as much of a problem as they did last season.

 

[Digger44]

if we do take a CB..like late first day..i would like Danieal Manning..small school....big player. Hes got speed and is a ball hawk.

I agree as long as it is past round 2. Not sure he will make it all the way to round 4, so mid 3 is a great pick for him.

 

[tombonneau]

Contributed to a thread re: Warfield on that Chiefs board ...

http://www.chiefscoalition.com/Forums/index.php?showtopic=46522&st=0&gopid=731632&#entry731632

Sounds like a lot of them are corroborating what Neo was saying on this thread. A good CB with all the necessary physical skills, solid tackler, just suffers from lapses of concentration at times and occassionally gives up the big play.

One thing that was unencouraging is one poster indicated that he seemed like he simply didn't care too much about the game of football.

We just got rid of one of those apathetic check-cashers in the secondary, I'd hate to bring on board another one ..........

 

[Mosi Moose]

What a great idea, draft a first round corner and cut Gay and Poteat. NOT

Read my statement again Mg. I'm saying that we WON'T draft a CB in Rd 1 or 2, but could if there is one at 3A or 3B that BB likes. Have BB/Pioli gone through a draft with the Pats and NOT drafted a CB (honest question--I'm not sure).

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Neo, thanks for filling in big, big gaps there. Even reading the stats and play by plays I was amazed at how little tackling happened via your LBs in these games. Of course, this is even more skewed because I focused on Warfield's "tackle-heavy" games.

What you've said here definitely backs up the impression that he's a solid corner, and out of all corners, a real good candidate for conversion to safety. Versatility is always prized in Patsland.

PFnV

 

[SoonerPatriot]

My prediction?

Samuel: #1

Scott #2

Warfield #3

Hobbs #4

Gay #5

Poteat #6


We have fabulous depth in the secondary this year!

We all thought that we had "fabulous" depth in the secondary last year, yet when it was all said and done guys were being signed off the street. I would bet on a rash of injuries again before I would bet that we will have fabulous depth in the secondary all the way to week 17 and beyond. Expect the worst when it comes to injuries with this team. You'll generally be on the mark.

 

[Neophius]

Pleasure to help out. I've been a huge fan of the Pats' organization. I'm also a big Brady over Manning supporter (I've had to defend Brady to just about everyone at work...sigh ).

 

[DaBruinz]

What I liked about the 12-tackle game is, that meant he was all over the field, making plays whether on the run or the pass. Either that, or he got beat on a ton of plays, yet still was able to pop the guy just about every time.

Okay, just to substantiate for last year's Warfield >6 tackle games, I am going to go back and look at the drives and scoring in those games... it should at least give us a clue as to which way this sorted out in his case.

PFnV

Actually, you failed to answer my question. You didn't tell me which game it was so that I could take a look at the play-by-play. If the tackles came from receptions to his side of the field, then it wouldn't show anything but that the receivers were getting open and he was making the tackle after the fact. And It would be nice to be able to review the play-by-play to see if that was the case and how many yards receivers were getting. Now, if they were more tackles against the run, that would be a good thing.