2005 NFL Draft (1 Viewer)

[Raider Nation]

2005 was a great example of why the draft is such an inexact science. Typically, it isn't fair to judge a draft until three years after the fact. However, in the case of the 2005 draft, you can already be cautiously optimistic in attempting to predict the future for just about every 1st-rounder here. How many teams would have done things differently in this 1st round if they could go back in time? By my count... almost HALF the teams would. I'll put a red asterisk next to the teams who I believe would make a different choice if they could. These picks would warrant do-overs for several different reasons, as I will note parenthetically.

1 San Francisco - Alex Smith QB Utah

2 Miami - Ronnie Brown RB Auburn

3 Cleveland - Braylon Edwards WR Michigan

4 Chicago - Cedric Benson RB Texas * (Chicago didn't expect Thomas Jones to be so good)

5 Tampa Bay - Carnell Williams RB Auburn * (Underachiever/injury risk?)

6 Tennessee - Adam Jones CB West Virginia * (Next question...)

7 Minnesota - Troy Williamson WR South Carolina * (Total bust to this point - can't catch a cold)

8 Arizona - Antrel Rolle CB Miami

9 Washington - Carlos Rogers CB Auburn * (I could be wrong, but he doesn't seem to be "Top-10-special")

10 Detroit - Mike Williams WR Southern California * (Ummmm...)

11 Dallas - DeMarcus Ware OLB Troy

12 San Diego - Shawne Merriman OLB Maryland

13 New Orleans - Jammal Brown T Oklahoma

14 Carolina - Thomas Davis OLB Georgia * (I won't say they regret taking him, but 100 tackles/3 sacks in 2 years isn't great)

15 Kansas City - Derrick Johnson OLB Texas

16 Houston - Travis Johnson DT Florida State * (They thought he'd dominate)

17 Cincinnati - David Pollack OLB Georgia * (Unfortunate injury)

18 Minnesota - Erasmus James DE Wisconsin * (Injuries)

19 St. Louis - Alex Barron T Florida State * (Appears to be terribly average)

20 Dallas - Marcus Spears DE Louisiana State

21 Jacksonville - Matt Jones WR Arkansas * (The experiment has failed so far)

22 Baltimore - Mark Clayton WR Oklahoma

23 Oakland - Fabian Washington CB Nebraska

24 Green Bay - Aaron Rodgers QB California * (Who knows if he'll ever be the starter?)

25 Washington - Jason Campbell QB Auburn

26 Seattle - Chris Spencer C Mississippi

27 Atlanta - Roddy White WR Ala.-Birmingham * (His QB doesn't help him, but White is soft and drops passes)

28 San Diego - Luis Castillo DE Northwestern

29 Indianapolis - Marlin Jackson CB Michigan

30 Pittsburgh - Heath Miller TE Virginia

31 Philadelphia - Mike Patterson DT Southern California

32 New England - Logan Mankins G Fresno State

This also illustrates why the Patriots are the Patriots. Picking last in the round, they get studly Logan Mankins. Obviously, Lofa Tatupu (2nd round) and Frank Gore (3rd round) would now go in the 1st round. Interestingly, both Darrent Williams (2nd round) and Damien Nash (5th round) went in this draft. RIP So... any disagreements or additions you'd make to my list? I've got thick skin. Let me have it.

 

[duaneok66]

2005 was a great example of why the draft is such an inexact science. Typically, it isn't fair to judge a draft until three years after the fact. However, in the case of the 2005 draft, you can already be cautiously optimistic in attempting to predict the future for just about every 1st-rounder here. How many teams would have done things differently in this 1st round if they could go back in time? By my count... almost HALF the teams would. I'll put a red asterisk next to the teams who I believe would make a different choice if they could. These picks would warrant do-overs for several different reasons, as I will note parenthetically.

1 San Francisco - Alex Smith QB Utah

2 Miami - Ronnie Brown RB Auburn

3 Cleveland - Braylon Edwards WR Michigan

4 Chicago - Cedric Benson RB Texas * (Chicago didn't expect Thomas Jones to be so good)

5 Tampa Bay - Carnell Williams RB Auburn * (Underachiever/injury risk?)

6 Tennessee - Adam Jones CB West Virginia * (Next question...)

7 Minnesota - Troy Williamson WR South Carolina * (Total bust to this point - can't catch a cold)

8 Arizona - Antrel Rolle CB Miami

9 Washington - Carlos Rogers CB Auburn * (I could be wrong, but he doesn't seem to be "Top-10-special")

10 Detroit - Mike Williams WR Southern California * (Ummmm...)

11 Dallas - DeMarcus Ware OLB Troy * (Only because of who went with the very next pick - D'OH!)

12 San Diego - Shawne Merriman OLB Maryland

13 New Orleans - Jammal Brown T Oklahoma

14 Carolina - Thomas Davis OLB Georgia * (I won't say they regret taking him, but 100 tackles/3 sacks in 2 years isn't great)

15 Kansas City - Derrick Johnson OLB Texas

16 Houston - Travis Johnson DT Florida State * (They thought he'd dominate)

17 Cincinnati - David Pollack OLB Georgia * (Unfortunate injury)

18 Minnesota - Erasmus James DE Wisconsin * (Injuries)

19 St. Louis - Alex Barron T Florida State * (Appears to be terribly average)

20 Dallas - Marcus Spears DE Louisiana State

21 Jacksonville - Matt Jones WR Arkansas * (The experiment has failed so far)

22 Baltimore - Mark Clayton WR Oklahoma

23 Oakland - Fabian Washington CB Nebraska

24 Green Bay - Aaron Rodgers QB California * (Who knows if he'll ever be the starter?)

25 Washington - Jason Campbell QB Auburn

26 Seattle - Chris Spencer C Mississippi

27 Atlanta - Roddy White WR Ala.-Birmingham * (His QB doesn't help him, but White is soft and drops passes)

28 San Diego - Luis Castillo DE Northwestern

29 Indianapolis - Marlin Jackson CB Michigan

30 Pittsburgh - Heath Miller TE Virginia

31 Philadelphia - Mike Patterson DT Southern California

32 New England - Logan Mankins G Fresno State

This also illustrates why the Patriots are the Patriots. Picking last in the round, they get studly Logan Mankins. Obviously, Lofa Tatupu (2nd round) and Frank Gore (3rd round) would now go in the 1st round. Interestingly, both Darrent Williams (2nd round) and Damien Nash (5th round) went in this draft. RIP So... any disagreements or additions you'd make to my list? I've got thick skin. Let me have it.

this list shows you just how overhyped the draft is . . . look at the top of the boardSmith is OK, Ronnie is OK, Carnell is banged up, Cedric MAY be good, and Braylon hasn't done much yet . . .

and that's the top 5 . . . lol . . .

 

[awesomeness]

Your supposed to wait 3 years to judge a draft for a reason. I see this list changing a lot in the next year.

 

[patrickmcgroin]

I don't dislike Thomas Davis, but it seems Carolina just isn't sure what to do with him.

 

[Raider Nation]

Before this thread goes too far, I want clarify what I mean by "If they had it to do over again..."

What I mean is, are the teams pleased with the player they took. If they are (in my estimation, anyway), I did not place a red asterisk next to the player. But I think it's safe to assume that EVERY ONE of the teams who picked in the top 10 would take Merriman if they were on the clock again.

Would anyone take issue with that?

Also, I want to eliminate the "domino effect." For instance, if the Niners take Merriman, the Dolphins then stay with Brown. I pictured it more like going to each team at the same time and telling them they can take someone else if they so desire. Does any of that make sense?

 

[duaneok66]

Before this thread goes too far, I want clarify what I mean by "If they had it to do over again..."

What I mean is, are the teams at least reasonably pleased with the player they took. If they are (in my estimation, anyway), I did not place a red asterisk next to the player. But I think it's safe to assume that EVERY ONE of the teams who picked in the top 10 would take Merriman if they were on the clock again.

Would anyone take issue with that?

no, Merriman would probably go in the top 3 . . . disagree with Brown (STL); he looks good, but needs to cut down on the penalties . . . need to wait before judging him . . .

you have to take the asterisk off Ware, they are pleased with him, of course they would take Merriman if they coud do it over again, so everyone in the top 11 would have an asterisk if that was your criteria . . .

 

[Mimo]

The Lions are still kicking themselves because Merriman would have been their pick, if they had not had a wedgey for Mike Williams.

 

[Raider Nation]

Before this thread goes too far, I want clarify what I mean by "If they had it to do over again..."

What I mean is, are the teams at least reasonably pleased with the player they took. If they are (in my estimation, anyway), I did not place a red asterisk next to the player. But I think it's safe to assume that EVERY ONE of the teams who picked in the top 10 would take Merriman if they were on the clock again.

Would anyone take issue with that?

no, Merriman would probably go in the top 3 . . . disagree with Brown (STL); he looks good, but needs to cut down on the penalties . . . need to wait before judging him . . .

you have to take the asterisk off Ware, they are pleased with him, of course they would take Merriman if they coud do it over again, so everyone in the top 11 would have an asterisk if that was your criteria . . .

Fair enough. I'll do so.

 

[Capella]

Why is Caddy an underachiever after one season, when he was more than productive in his first? A bit of an unfair tag, imo.

 

[Raider Nation]

Why is Caddy an underachiever after one season, when he was more than productive in his first? A bit of an unfair tag, imo.

Fair question.I think more people are down on him now than were high on him entering 2006.

Time will tell, of course, but the reputation he had coming out of Auburn has taken a hit.

 

[Christo]

Why is Caddy an underachiever after one season, when he was more than productive in his first? A bit of an unfair tag, imo.

Fair question.I think more people are down on him now than were high on him entering 2006.

Time will tell, of course, but the reputation he had coming out of Auburn has taken a hit.

How?PFW's "Negatives" state that he is undersized and has an injury history. Scouts question whether he will be able to handle the inside pounding on a regular basis. Durability could be an issue. It's last sentence in the "Summary": Williams is a difference-maker who could start right away, but whether he is able to stay healthy for a full NFL season is a question."

Seems spot on to me.

 

[Raider Nation]

Why is Caddy an underachiever after one season, when he was more than productive in his first? A bit of an unfair tag, imo.

Fair question.I think more people are down on him now than were high on him entering 2006.

Time will tell, of course, but the reputation he had coming out of Auburn has taken a hit.

How?PFW's "Negatives" state that he is undersized and has an injury history. Scouts question whether he will be able to handle the inside pounding on a regular basis. Durability could be an issue. It's last sentence in the "Summary": Williams is a difference-maker who could start right away, but whether he is able to stay healthy for a full NFL season is a question."

Seems spot on to me.

"Reputation" as far as being The Next Great Stud Back. I have no time to search at the moment, but pre-2005 draft, people here were drooling all over themselves thinking about how he'd do in the NFL.And again, he still might. He's a guy who went in the 1st round of many drafts last year. The online league I'm drafting in right now with Rudnicki, Caddy was the 23rd RB off the board, and this is a league full of RB sluts. More so than most normal leagues, even. Some guys who went ahead of him: Marshawn Lynch, DeAngelo Williams, Thomas Jones, Edge, A-Pete, MJD and Chad Johnson.

Just saying that his perceived value is apparently in the crapper.

 

[Saints-Man]

As a tangent to your thoughts, as I recall the Saints traded with Houston to get T Brown at 13. There were many questions as to whether Brown was worth it. After switching sides(RT in college to LT in his 2nd pro year) and making the Pro Bowl, he was worth it.

 

[BoltBacker]

There was a pretty good article posted a couple months ago where they redrafted the round based on where players would go today. If the search function wasn't so frustrating I'd try to find it because it was very interesting..... but alas it is and I won't.

Castillo went much, much higher in the redraft.

 

[snorlax]

I don't think the Packers are unhappy with the Aaron Rodgers pick. I also don't think this draft looks that bad to this point compared to other drafts.

 

[Raider Nation]

I don't think the Packers are unhappy with the Aaron Rodgers pick. I also don't think this draft looks that bad to this point compared to other drafts.

If you want to tackle another recent draft in the same fashion I did, fire away.The "what if" factor is fun.

 

[duaneok66]

I don't think the Packers are unhappy with the Aaron Rodgers pick. I also don't think this draft looks that bad to this point compared to other drafts.

so they spent a #1 on a pick that has yet to see the light of day? and this on a mediocre team with needs all over the place??

 

[snorlax]

I don't think the Packers are unhappy with the Aaron Rodgers pick. I also don't think this draft looks that bad to this point compared to other drafts.

so they spent a #1 on a pick that has yet to see the light of day? and this on a mediocre team with needs all over the place??

1. Favre isn't going to be there forever. Every year he considers retirement before deciding to come back. I think that it will still be a year or two before he finally calls it quits, but there have been moments in the past when he would've retired if he had to make a decision at that point.The retirement talk wasn't quite at the point it has been the last couple years when the Packers took Rodgers, but I feel like when someone who's taken as much consistent punishment as Favre has goes down, it's not going to be pretty. It's better to be prepared with someone who's had some time in the offense when that point comes than to have to start completely over.2. There was a long time before the draft when Aaron Rodgers was viewed as the #1 pick. He had an unusual delivery, but he played in a pro offense at Cal, and he would have been a popular pick as the hometown guy in San Francisco. After the 49ers decided to go with the guy they thought had more potential in Alex Smith, Rodgers fell because no one felt they had the need at quarterback at that time. I didn't think the Packers had a very strong need for quarterback back then, but I was okay with them taking a player with Rodgers' potential.3. You're going to call Rodgers a bad pick because he's barely played to this point? Quarterback is inarguably the most important position on any football team, and it's important to be prepared there for both the present and the future. Especially when you have a living legend at QB, you want to make sure your team turns out more like San Francisco's did after Montana and Young than Denver after Elway, Miami after Marino, and Dallas after Aikman.Thankfully, Favre hasn't retired yet, but he will someday, and Rodgers will likely be given the first shot at succeeding him. Give him some time as the starter after years in the offense before judging him. Even if he doesn't work out as the starting quarterback, I don't think picking him was a poor choice. It's hard to question picking someone who was once regarded as the #1 pick to follow in the footsteps of your HoF QB.I typed for too long here, especially considering that I've been absorbed in the Law & Order marathon.

 

[duaneok66]

I don't think the Packers are unhappy with the Aaron Rodgers pick. I also don't think this draft looks that bad to this point compared to other drafts.

so they spent a #1 on a pick that has yet to see the light of day? and this on a mediocre team with needs all over the place??

1. Favre isn't going to be there forever. Every year he considers retirement before deciding to come back. I think that it will still be a year or two before he finally calls it quits, but there have been moments in the past when he would've retired if he had to make a decision at that point.The retirement talk wasn't quite at the point it has been the last couple years when the Packers took Rodgers, but I feel like when someone who's taken as much consistent punishment as Favre has goes down, it's not going to be pretty. It's better to be prepared with someone who's had some time in the offense when that point comes than to have to start completely over.2. There was a long time before the draft when Aaron Rodgers was viewed as the #1 pick. He had an unusual delivery, but he played in a pro offense at Cal, and he would have been a popular pick as the hometown guy in San Francisco. After the 49ers decided to go with the guy they thought had more potential in Alex Smith, Rodgers fell because no one felt they had the need at quarterback at that time. I didn't think the Packers had a very strong need for quarterback back then, but I was okay with them taking a player with Rodgers' potential.3. You're going to call Rodgers a bad pick because he's barely played to this point? Quarterback is inarguably the most important position on any football team, and it's important to be prepared there for both the present and the future. Especially when you have a living legend at QB, you want to make sure your team turns out more like San Francisco's did after Montana and Young than Denver after Elway, Miami after Marino, and Dallas after Aikman.Thankfully, Favre hasn't retired yet, but he will someday, and Rodgers will likely be given the first shot at succeeding him. Give him some time as the starter after years in the offense before judging him. Even if he doesn't work out as the starting quarterback, I don't think picking him was a poor choice. It's hard to question picking someone who was once regarded as the #1 pick to follow in the footsteps of your HoF QB.I typed for too long here, especially considering that I've been absorbed in the Law & Order marathon.

I feel you . . .