WTFphile :: Where the WTF comes to play.

This is the current draft board. Click the button next to the player you would like to draft, then click submit at the bottom of the page to make it official. Players that have checkmarks next to their names have already been drafted.

2003 Rookie Draft Class

Defensive Backs

Name

INT

Terence Newman
Kansas State

56	38	63	70
63	44	69	10
69	50	75	5
50	31	56	15

Outlook: Newman starred at Kansas State and now brings his show on the road to the WTF. Some scouts see him as a premier defender while others see him as solidly above average. In either case, players like this normally don't stay on the board too long.

Tecmo comparison: Everson Walls

Name

INT

Marcus Trufant
Washington State

56	56	56	60
63	63	63	20
50	50	50	20

Outlook: Trufant is a jack-of-all-trades at the safety position. Unfortunately, he's also a master-of-none. Even so, he should be a very solid addition to your defensive backs. We've seen players like him (Mike Minter) develop into superstars with a little seasoning.

Tecmo comparison: Jarvis Williams

Name

INT

Andre Woolfolk
Oklahoma

44	38	38	70
50	44	44	10
56	50	50	5
38	31	31	15

Outlook: Woolfolk has Carnell Lake-esque upside but is highly unlikely to get to that skill level. A late-round selection might be in the cards for Andre.

Tecmo comparison: Keith Taylor

Name

INT

Sammy Davis
Texas A&M

38	50	31	70
44	56	38	20
31	44	25	10

Outlook: Davis, who I will call the Candy Man for some odd reason, will not amount to much of anything in the WTF.

Tecmo comparison: Rod McSwain

Name

INT

Nnamdi Asomugha
California

69	56	56	70
75	63	63	15
63	50	50	15

Outlook: Asomugha has elite speed, to the point where quarterbacks are so wise to his antics that they don't throw in his direction too often. In a year full of great defensive backs, Nnamdi is one of the best.

Tecmo comparison: Deion Sanders

Name

INT

Charles Tillman
Louisiana-Lafayette

50	50	63	70
56	56	69	15
44	44	56	15

Outlook: Tillman is a little slower than some of his brethren, but does a tremendous job making plays on the football. Expect him to go off the board before the first round ends.

Tecmo comparison: Donnell Woolford

Name

INT

Eugene Wilson
Illinois

50	63	50	60
56	69	56	15
44	56	44	25

Outlook: Wilson is a punishing hitter who is serviceable enough in other ways to hold down a roster spot for years to come.

Tecmo comparison: Ray Crockett

Name

INT

Rashean Mathis
Bethune-Cookman

56	44	63	70
63	50	69	10
50	38	56	20

Outlook: Mathis has what it takes to be a premier defender in this league. He should work on his tackling ability. In time, scouts are saying he could become the next Wayne Haddix due to a similar playing style as the former Titan/Oiler legend.

Tecmo comparison: Ronnie Lippett

Name

INT

Drayton Florence
Tennessee-Chattanooga

50	56	44	70
56	63	50	10
44	50	38	20

Outlook: Florence is stout in run defense but quite lacking as a pass defender. Depending on the rest of your DB corps, he could be a reasonable option.

Tecmo comparison: Ray Horton

Name

INT

Ricky Manning
UCLA

50	25	50	75
56	31	56	10
44	19	44	15

Outlook: Manning can come up with the occasional interception but can't tackle, period. If he hits his upside he could really flourish.

Tecmo comparison: Don Griffin

Name

INT

Donald Strickland
Colorado

44	50	31	70
50	56	38	15
38	44	25	15

Outlook: Strickland is a practice squad options at best. Opposing quarterbacks would love to throw in his direction.

Tecmo comparison: Mark Lee

Name

INT

Terrence McGee
Northwest State

56	31	56	70
63	38	63	10
50	25	50	20

Outlook: McGee is fast and can intercept the ball but has trouble bringing down big ball carriers, which could cause his stock to slip a little bit.

Tecmo comparison: Louis Oliver

Name

INT

Asante Samuel
Central Florida

63	50	69	70
69	56	75	10
56	44	63	20

Outlook: Samuel could be the best of this year's crop due to a mix of great speed and fantastic ball skills. He'll be gone in the top five.

Tecmo comparison: Gill Byrd

Name

INT

Ike Taylor
Louisiana-Lafayette

50	44	50	60
56	50	56	10
44	38	44	30

Outlook: Taylor is an all-around average performer who has the skills to be a decent 3rd or 4th DB option or provide depth on the practice squad.

Tecmo comparison: Maurice Hurst

Name

INT

Frank Walker
Tuskegee

38	38	44	70
44	44	50	20
31	31	38	10

Outlook: "Walker" accurately describes the way this guy moves, while everyone else around him is running. Point being, he's slow.

Tecmo comparison: Felix Wright

Name

INT

Chris Johnson
Louisville

38	44	44	60
44	50	50	30
31	38	38	10

Outlook: Johnson is similar to Walker. Both players would be lucky to get a roster spot for 2003.

Tecmo comparison: Mike Prior

Name

INT

Leigh Bodden
Duquesne

50	56	56	70
56	63	63	5
44	50	50	25

Outlook: Bodden is an interesting small school option who can intercept the ball and has awesome upside. He's a physical cornerback who can tackle. A late first-round selection wouldn't be entirely impossible here.

Tecmo comparison: Ricky Reynolds

Name

INT

Roderick Hood
Auburn

44	56	50	75
50	63	56	10
38	50	44	15

Outlook: Hood is slow, but makes up for it with average skill in other areas. Worth stashing on your practice squad.

Tecmo comparison: Brian Washington

Name

INT

Troy Polamalu
USC

69	75	56	70
75	81	63	10
63	69	50	20

Outlook: Polamalu is a beast with a flowing mane of hair who is head and shoulders above his peers in run defense due to his violent hits. He should be a star in the WTF.

Tecmo comparison: Ronnie Lott

Name

INT

Ken Hamlin
Arkansas

50	63	50	60
56	69	56	15
44	56	44	25

Outlook: Hamlin is another hard hitter who is average in other ways. Looks like a 2nd rounder to me.

Tecmo comparison: Steve Atwater

Name

INT

Bryan Scott
Penn State

44	56	38	70
50	63	44	20
38	50	31	10

Outlook: Bryan Scott is the classic Joe Paterno product, a hard-nosed player who makes up for a lack of physical skill with his tenacity. Unfortunately, skill is of utmost importance in the WTF.

Tecmo comparison: Martin Bayless

Name

INT

Mike Doss
Ohio State

38	50	44	60
44	56	50	30
31	44	38	10

Outlook: Doss is pretty worthless but has a little upside and could be worth a practice squad spot.

Tecmo comparison: Patrick Hunter

Name

INT

Terrence Kiel
Texas A&M

38	50	38	70
44	56	44	20
31	44	31	10

Outlook: Kiel is not likely to be drafted and will never see a WTF field unless he buys a ticket.

Tecmo comparison: Bennie Blades

Name

INT

Chris Crocker
Marshall

50	50	50	70
56	56	56	15
44	44	44	15

Outlook: Crocker is an average safety who should manage to hold down a roster spot for a few seasons.

Tecmo comparison: James Washington

Name

INT

Todd Johnson
Florida

38	50	25	80
44	56	31	20

Outlook: Johnson couldn't catch AIDS in Zimbabwe. Pass.

Tecmo comparison: Andre Waters

Name

INT

Terrence Holt
North Carolina State

44	38	50	70
50	44	56	10
38	31	44	20

Outlook: Holt is a guy worth stashing on the practice squad who could make your roster in a pinch.

Tecmo comparison: Mark Murphy

Name

INT

Yeremiah Bell
Eastern Kentucky

50	63	44	70
56	69	50	15
44	56	38	15

Outlook: Bell looks like a late-bloomer of sorts who has great upside as a hard-hitting safety. Someone will take a chance on Bell in the fourth round.

Tecmo comparison: Vencie Glenn

Name

INT

Keith Davis
Sam Houston State

38	44	25	70
44	50	31	20
31	38	19	10

Outlook: Davis is garbage.

Tecmo comparison: Andre Waters

Name

INT

Quintin Mikell
Boise State

50	50	44	60
56	56	50	25
44	44	38	15

Outlook: Mikell has reasonable speed and good upside but lacks good hands. He will struggle to earn a roster spot, but probably will find a home somewhere.

Tecmo comparison: Mike Harden