The linebacker position is next up on our positional rankings series ahead of the 2023 NFL draft.
When it comes to the Titans, the linebacker position is seemingly the weakest defensive group on paper. Therefore, it wouldn’t be the craziest thing in the world for Tennessee to invest a Day 2 or 3 pick on someone who could potentially add value to its room.
Unfortunately, in my personal opinion, this is one of the weaker position groups in the entire draft.
Before we get started I want to go over my grading process once again for first-time readers who don’t have any idea of how my system works. These explanations can get repetitive once you’ve read them a few times, therefore, feel free to keep scrolling and jump right into the rankings.
Over the last couple of months, I have evaluated over 150 players in total. This process includes me grading a minimum of three games for each prospect before coming up with my opinions/grades.
More often than not, I would watch at least five or six contests for each prospect before doing an evaluation. Unfortunately, there were some cases where I had trouble getting certain all-22 tapes, so I had to work with what I had.
The way this works is I would evaluate each game that I watched, and then I averaged those grades into one final film grade worth a total of 20 points.
Example: blue-chip prospects (90 percent or higher) received anywhere from 18-20 points in all likelihood.
Game tape is the only criterion that is worth 20 points on my grading scale, while other areas, such as analytics, athletic score, ceiling/floor, etc., are worth a maximum of 10 points.
Also, keep in mind that I will be doing one final update to these rankings on the morning of the draft (April 27th).
So far, we’ve already covered every offensive position, as well as EDGE and, cornerback, all of which I’ve linked to at the bottom of this article. Now, let’s continue by going over our third-to-last position group of the series.
1. Jack Campbell, Iowa
Overall grade: 79.8 (second round)
Consensus rank: No. 3
Ceiling projection: Late first round
Floor projection: Late second round
Quick analysis: Possesses the size and physicality of an old-school LB, but the athleticism and fluidity of a modern-day defender — most well-rounded LB in the draft.
2. Drew Sanders, Arkansas
Overall grade: 78.6 (second round)
Consensus rank: No. 1
Ceiling projection: Late first round
Floor projection: Late second round
Quick analysis: Best blitzing linebacker in the class who is capable of consistently wreaking havoc in the backfield on third downs. Sanders is still raw at the position, but he undoubtedly has tons of untapped potential.
3. Daiyan Henley, Washington State
Overall grade: 72.3 (second round)
Consensus rank: No. 4
Ceiling projection: Early second round
Floor projection: Late third round
Quick analysis: Athletic linebacker who attacks the ball carrier as soon as he diagnoses the play. Is a surprisingly consistent tackler despite limited experience on defense (former WR).
4. Trenton Simpson, Clemson
Overall grade: 70.2 (second round)
Consensus rank: No. 2
Ceiling projection: Late first round
Floor projection: Late second round
Quick analysis: Jack-of-all-trades type of defender who is capable of sufficiently executing whatever he is asked to do. Simpson has rare movement skills for someone his size.
5. DeMarvion Overshown, Texas
Overall grade: 68.5 (third round)
Consensus rank: No. 8
Ceiling projection: Early third round
Floor projection: Late fourth round
Quick analysis: Another versatile defender who can line up at a multitude of different spots. He has the type of makeup speed and range that allows him to recover for some of the mental lapses he has.
6. Ivan Pace Jr., Cincinnati
Overall grade: 65.9 (third round)
Consensus rank: No. 12
Ceiling projection: Mid-third round
Floor projection: Early fifth round
Quick analysis: Instinctive linebacker who many are overthinking because he lacks the ideal size and length for his position. However, Pace Jr. plays with an alpha mentality and he has a knack for finding the ball carrier.
7. Henry To'oTo'o, Alabama
Overall grade: 63.2 (third round)
Consensus rank: No. 5
Ceiling projection: Mid-third round
Floor projection: Early fifth round
Relative Athletic Score: 6.82
Quick analysis: Technically sound and cerebral linebacker who may not be a true playmaker, but he is rarely out of place/beating himself.
8. Owen Pappoe, Auburn
Overall grade: 59.1 (fourth round)
Consensus rank: No. 9
Ceiling projection: Late third round
Floor projection: Mid-fifth round
Quick analysis: High-motor and athletic linebacker who can make the pre-snap checks to get his unit in the right situation to succeed. Pappoe needs to become a faster processor post-snap
9. Dorian Williams, Tulane
Overall grade: 57.7 (fourth round)
Consensus rank: No. 10
Ceiling projection: Early fourth round
Floor projection: Late fifth round
Quick analysis: Productive linebacker who thrives in zone coverage and only allowed 161 yards last season. Must do a better job of playing through contact if he’s ever going to maximize his skill set to the fullest
10. Noah Sewell, Oregon
Overall grade: 49.8 (fifth round)
Consensus rank: No. 7
Ceiling projection: Early fourth round
Floor projection: Early sixth round
Quick analysis: Aggressive and strong linebacker who loves to attack downhill. Sewell’s lower-body stiffness is very concerning, as there are far too many examples of him being in position but failing to make the play.
More positional rankings
