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.

2004 Rookie Draft Class

Defensive Backs

Name

INT

DeAngelo Hall
Virginia Tech

56	38	56	50
63	44	63	30
69	50	69	10
50	31	50	10

Outlook: Hall has massive upside and could end up as one of the finer defensive backs in the WTF. The problem is that his effort is not always consistent, and he is a relatively poor tackler. He could play himself out of a starting job, so beware.

Tecmo comparison: Everson Walls

Name

INT

Dunta Robinson
South Carolina

56	63	50	60
63	69	56	20
50	56	44	20

Outlook: Robinson is a hard-hitting cornerback who doesn't possess great hands nor amazing speed, but will get the job done on most plays.

Tecmo comparison: Carnell Lake

Name

INT

Ahmad Carroll
Arkansas

44	38	38	60
50	44	44	10
56	50	50	20
38	31	31	10

Outlook: Carroll has some major upside but is unlikely to achieve WTF stardom. Could be worth a late-round gamble.

Tecmo comparison: Keith Taylor

Name

INT

Chris Gamble
Ohio State

56	50	63	60
63	56	69	10
50	44	56	30

Outlook: Speaking of a Gamble, Chris is an above-average, though unspectacular, performer in every way and will find himself with a starting job in the WTF for years to come.

Tecmo comparison: Donnell Woolford

Name

INT

Ricardo Colclough
Tusculum

56	25	25	70
63	31	31	10
44	19	19	20

Outlook: Colclough is being targeted as primarily a kick/punt returner who may develop into a reasonable defensive back over time. Those prospects, however, are bleak. At least he has wheels.

Tecmo comparison: Allen Rossum

Name

INT

Keiwan Ratliff
Florida

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

Outlook: Ratliff is another guy who is targeted by some as a punt returner, but he has some reasonable ball skills too. He's not likely to win a starting job anytime soon, but he could be worse.

Tecmo comparison: Mark Murphy

Name

INT

Shawntae Spencer
Pittsburgh

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

Outlook: Spencer lacks the speed to play against most elite WTF receivers, but has some ability to catch the ball and could see a late-round selection in his future.

Tecmo comparison: Ray Horton

Name

INT

Nathan Vasher
Texas

50	44	56	55
56	50	63	20
63	56	69	15
44	38	50	10

Outlook: If Vasher stays healthy, he could really surprise to become one of the finer defensive backs in his class. He has good ball skills and instincts, but needs to find a way to stay on the field consistently.

Tecmo comparison: Bobby Humphery

Name

INT

Jason David
Washington State

50	25	50	60
56	31	56	20
44	19	44	20

Outlook: David is very small for a defensive back and will get totally owned by larger receivers. In coverage, he's not too bad and can make the occasional play on the ball. A late-rounder.

Tecmo comparison: Jay Taylor

Name

INT

Nathan Jones
Rutgers

38	50	38	60
44	56	44	20
31	44	31	20

Outlook: Jones is a career backup variety of player who won't see much, if any, WTF action.

Tecmo comparison: Nesby Glasgow

Name

INT

Jacques Reeves
Purdue

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

Outlook: Reeves could take some time to develop into a useful player but is a little slow. He's likely a practice squader.

Tecmo comparison: Tyrone Braxton

Name

INT

Randall Gay
LSU

38	31	44	60
44	38	50	20
31	25	38	20

Outlook: Gay is another backup unlikely to see the field.

Tecmo comparison: Mike Prior

Name

INT

Joselio Hanson
Texas Tech

50	38	38	60
56	44	44	20
44	31	31	20

Outlook: In an mmmbop, Hanson will be gone from the WTF.

Tecmo comparison: J.B. Brown

Name

INT

Sean Taylor
Miami (Fla.)

63	69	50	55
69	75	56	25
56	63	44	20

Outlook: Taylor has great speed and good ball skills and should be among the better free safeties the WTF has seen. Here's hoping he stays on the field for a long time.

Tecmo comparison: Ronnie Lott

Name

INT

Bob Sanders
Iowa

56	63	44	60
63	69	50	30
50	56	38	10

Outlook: Sanders is kind of undersized for a safety, but is a hard hitter who excels in rushing defense and makes the players around him better. Don't expect great ball skills and Sanders will be a nice player to add to your repertoire of quality defenders.

Tecmo comparison: Carl Lee

Name

INT

Michael Boulware
Florida State

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

Outlook: Boulware is a big hitter like his brother Peter. He'll likely compete as a strong safety in the WTF.

Tecmo comparison: Louis Oliver

Name

INT

Madieu Williams
Maryland

50	56	56	60
56	63	63	20
44	50	50	20

Outlook: Williams is a hard hitter in the secondary and is pretty good at snagging the occasional interception. His lack of elite speed means that the cornerback position is something he struggles with, but as a free safety he would be somewhat ideal.

Tecmo comparison: Jarvis Williams

Name

INT

Sean Jones
Georgia

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

Outlook: Jones is similar to Madieu Williams, a slightly better tackler but less of a ballhawk. He'd be a nice mid-round selection in this draft.

Tecmo comparison: Kevin Ross

Name

INT

Stuart Schweigert
Purdue

50	56	38	60
56	63	44	20
44	50	31	20

Outlook: With decent speed and excellent tackling form, Schweigert is a stalwart run defender who fails to make plays in the passing game, which could cause his draft stock to slip significantly.

Tecmo comparison: Lionel Washington

Name

INT

Matt Ware
UCLA

38	31	31	60
44	38	38	25
31	25	25	15

Outlook: Ware is a two-sport athlete (football/baseball) whose chances of WTF stardom appear quite bleak.

Tecmo comparison: Eugene Daniel

Name

INT

Will D. Allen
Ohio State

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

Outlook: Allen's poor tackling form and meager ball skills will leave him relegated to practice squad duty for the bulk of his career despite his reasonable quickness.

Tecmo comparison: Patrick Hunter

Name

INT

Gibril Wilson
Tennessee

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

Outlook: Wilson is a great run defender who can rack up a ton of tackles in a hurry. As a strong safety in pass coverage, he is able to be exposed but can still hold his own.

Tecmo comparison: Eddie Anderson

Name

INT

Erik Coleman
Washington State

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

Outlook: Coleman is a speedy player and sure tackler who will struggle in man coverage situations.

Tecmo comparison: Nate Odomes

Name

INT

Keith Lewis
Oregon

44	38	38	60
50	44	44	20
38	31	31	20

Outlook: Lewis is a pretty crappy player with little chance at doing much in the pro game.

Tecmo comparison: Keith Taylor

Name

INT

Jordan Babineaux
Southern Arkansas

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

Outlook: Babineaux is a small school project who could become a reasonable starter if given the chance to develop his skills. Worst case scenario, he would probably be worthy of a practice squad invite.

Tecmo comparison: Toi Cook