As is often the case during the offseason, we start to see some re-wrapped articles around the Internet. One of the more notable is the annual re-draft articles that guys like Mel Kiper write in which they look at a previous draft a go through the first round once again, with the power of hindsight. Two days ago Mel Kiper wrote up his 2005 NFL Draft Redux, the as many would expect, Aaron Rodgers was the number one pick to the 49ers. I'm not going into that debate because we know it ends with somebody crying and stomping off with their toy, vowing "I'm taking my football and going home!" It's never a pretty picture.
Rather, I thought it'd be more interesting (and less redundant) to assess the subsequent picks and whether the 49ers might have taken a given player instead of Aaron Rodgers. There was some quality talent to be had and with hindsight we could have any of it. Your re-draft top ten was as follows:
1. 49ers - Aaron Rodgers, QB
2. Dolphins - DeMarcus Ware, LB
3. Browns - Roddy White, WR
4. Bears - Trent Cole, DE
5. Buccaneers - Justin Tuck, DE
6. Titans - Vincent Jackson, WR
7. Vikings - Matt Cassel,
8. Cardinals - Jay Ratliff, DT
9. Redskins - Braylon Edwards, WR
10. Lions - Ronnie Brown, RB
One of the interesting results of Kiper's draft include Frank Gore coming in at 17. Ahead of him after the top ten were Nick Collins (S), Jammal Brown (OT), Heath Miller (TE), Mike Patterson (DT), Lofa Tatupu (LB), and Michael Roos (OT).
I have to say that I think we could make a strong argument that Frank Gore should be ahead of Ronnie Brown on this re-draft. Gore has better numbers in part because he's averaged more yards per carry (4.7 to 4.3), but also because Brown missed significant chunks of two different seasons. Gore got hurt this past year, but still played in 11 games while Brown played in 7 games in 2007 and 9 games in 2009. Brown has played in more time-share backfields, but even still Gore seems like a better option. I'm sure I'm biased but the numbers would seem to back me up.