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

Linebackers

Name

INT

Terrell Suggs
Arizona State

56	56	31	60
63	63	38	20
50	50	25	20

Outlook: Suggs is a hybrid defensive lineman/linebacker who will play full time at linebacker in the WTF. He has the potential to be a disruptive force off the edge and to snare the occasional interception. In time he could develop into one of the league's studliest defenders.

Tecmo comparison: Percy Snow

Name

INT

Nick Barnett
Oregon State

50	63	31	70
56	69	31	10
44	56	25	20

Outlook: Barnett has good speed and great tackling ability. He performs best when he patrols the middle of the field where he can read the quarterback's eyes.

Tecmo comparison: Carl Banks

Name

INT

Boss Bailey
Georgia

44	50	19	60
50	56	25	10
56	63	31	5
38	44	13	25

Outlook: To some scouts, the brother of the Redskins' Champ Bailey looks like a very strong addition to a team's defense, but the majority think that Boss will face a tougher transition to the WTF style of play.

Tecmo comparison: Michael Brooks

Name

INT

E.J. Henderson
Maryland

50	50	13	60
56	56	13	20
44	44	13	20

Outlook: When healthy, Henderson can be an extremely disruptive player on defense. He's a playmaker with the ability to lead his team in tackles from a middle linebacker position.

Tecmo comparison: Chris Spielman

Name

INT

Pisa Tinoisamoa
Hawaii

44	56	19	70
50	63	13	20
38	56	13	10

Outlook: Tinoisamoa brings some Hawaiian flair to the WTF. He's an average linebacker with some upside and would be worth a mid-round selection.

Tecmo comparison: Chris Martin

Name

INT

Kawika Mitchell
Georgia

44	63	13	70
50	69	13	10
38	50	13	20

Outlook: Mitchell is a punishing tackler when he can get to the ball carrier. He lacks the top-end speed you'd like to see in a linebacker but he definitely can be a game-changing player.

Tecmo comparison: Scott Davis

Name

INT

Chaun Thompson
West Texas A&M

38	50	13	70
44	56	13	20
31	44	13	10

Outlook: Thompson would be reasonable as a fourth linebacker, but probably will never amount to much.

Tecmo comparison: Tracy Rocker

Name

INT

Victor Hobson
Michigan

44	50	13	70
50	56	13	10
38	44	13	20

Outlook: Hobson has a little speed and can probably hold down a linebacking spot for a few seasons, but he won't be a game-changing player.

Tecmo comparison: Andre Tippett

Name

INT

Antwan Peek
Cincinnati

38	44	13	80
44	50	13	20

Outlook: Peek sucks.

Tecmo comparison: Keith Delong

Name

INT

Lance Briggs
Arizona

56	69	25	70
63	75	31	10
50	63	19	20

Outlook: Briggs is likely the best of this year's linebacking crop. He can do it all and should become a force in the middle of your defense.

Tecmo comparison: Dennis Byrd

Name

INT

Gerald Hayes
Pittsburgh

44	56	13	80
50	63	19	10
38	50	13	10

Outlook: Hayes would be a reasonable late-round pickup to provide some depth to your linebacking corps.

Tecmo comparison: Sam Mills

Name

INT

Angelo Crowell
Virginia

44	44	13	70
50	50	13	10
38	38	13	20

Outlook: Another below-average linebacker…nothing to see here….

Tecmo comparison: Rufus Porter

Name

INT

Bradie James
LSU

50	44	13	60
56	50	13	20
44	38	13	20

Outlook: Bradie James is an interesting prospect. If he hits his upside he could end up being a steal, but his poor tackling skill will cause his stock to slip a little bit. Someone will probably take a chance on James in the second round.

Tecmo comparison: John Offerdahl

Name

INT

Matt Wilhelm
Ohio State

38	50	13	70
44	56	19	20
31	44	13	10

Outlook: Wilhelm was a star at Ohio State but will struggle to make a WTF roster.

Tecmo comparison: Greg Manusky

Name

INT

James Davis
West Virginia

31	38	13	70
38	44	13	20
25	31	13	10

Outlook: Davis will never see a WTF field, and would be lucky to get a practice squad invitation.

Tecmo comparison: Eric Hill

Name

INT

Hunter Hillenmeyer
Vanderbilt

44	50	13	70
50	56	13	20
38	44	13	10

Outlook: Hillenmeyer's upside is high but most scouts see him as a complementary linebacker instead of the star of the corps. He'll be a late-round selection.

Tecmo comparison: Chris Martin

Name

INT

Cato June
Michigan

50	56	31	70
56	63	38	15
44	50	25	15

Outlook: June is a playmaker who could develop into a force over time.

Tecmo comparison: Karl Mecklenburg

Name

INT

Tony Gilbert
Georgia

38	38	13	80
44	44	13	5
31	31	13	15

Outlook: Gilbert will not amount to anything as a WTF player. Depth only here.

Tecmo comparison: Eugene Marve

Name

INT

Mario Haggan
Mississippi State

38	50	13	70
44	56	13	10
31	44	13	20

Outlook: Haggan is not very good, but reasonable enough to hang around the league in someone's linebacking corps for a few seasons.

Tecmo comparison: Duane Bickett

Name

INT

Tully Banta-Cain
California

44	56	13	60
50	63	13	15
38	50	13	25

Outlook: Banta-Cain is a special teams ace who over time could become a notable linebacker as well, if given the proper tools for success.

Tecmo comparison: Shane Conlan

Name

INT

Scott Shanle
Nebraska

44	50	13	70
50	56	13	10
38	44	13	20

Outlook: Shanle won't be the focus of a team's linebacking corps but can hang on for a few seasons as a reasonable 3rd or 4th linebacker. With some training he could end up being a good one.

Tecmo comparison: Sam Mills

Name

INT

Brendon Ayanbadejo
UCLA

50	31	13	70
56	38	13	10
44	25	13	20

Outlook: Ayanbadejo is a special teams ace who is rather unskilled when it comes to the linebacker position. His Simon Fletcher-ish upside should entice someone to take him around the third round.

Tecmo comparison: Simon Fletcher

Name

INT

Vinny Ciurciu
Boston College

31	44	13	70
38	50	13	15
25	38	13	15

Outlook: Ciurciu is a career backup who is likely to be practice squad material in the WTF.

Tecmo comparison: Joe Kelly

Name

INT

Gary Brackett
Rutgers

50	50	25	70
56	56	31	10
44	44	19	20

Outlook: Brackett won't be confused with a star linebacker right now, but is a smart player who should develop over time.

Tecmo comparison: Kyle Clifton

Name

INT

Stephen Cooper
Maine

44	56	19	60
50	63	19	15
38	50	19	25

Outlook: Cooper would be a fine choice as a 3rd or 4th linebacker. He cannot be expected to be a leader at this point but could become one over time.

Tecmo comparison: Michael Brooks

Name

INT

Jarret Johnson
Alabama

44	63	13	70
50	69	13	10
38	56	13	20

Outlook: Johnson is a hard-hitter, but is somewhat new to the linebacking position after spending his college years as a defensive end. That makes him a little slower than you'd expect a linebacker to be, but also a little stronger. Jarret would make an interesting 2nd or 3rd round selection.

Tecmo comparison: Gary Plummer