I was reading a blog by Mike Florio (of ProFootballTalk.com) posted on The Sporting News, that made mention of the Falcons making the seventh worst move of the off-season by drafting Matt Ryan over Glenn Dorsey.
I won’t dispute whether Dorsey was the better pick/player, but I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that the gulf between the two is so significant that it makes taking Dorsey a “safe” pick and Ryan a risky one.
The key point of contention I have with Florio’s entry is this part:
So Atlanta took a huge risk by selecting Matt Ryan. As history tells us, the odds of success when taking a quarterback that high are the equivalent of flipping a coin.
Everything might work out for the Falcons. But the chances of that happening would have been better if they had taken Dorsey at No. 3 and a quarterback in Round 2.
I don’t dispute that success rates of first round quarterbacks is about around 50-50 in terms of developing into quality NFL players.
I understand that missing on a first round quarterback can do a lot more damage to your team than a first round defensive tackle and/or second round quarterback. But that seems “soft” to me: drafting under the mindset of minimizing destruction as opposed to maximizing construction. That operates under the idea of maintaining the status quo, which is the last thing any Falcon fan should want.
And either way, according to Peter King, had the Falcons taken Dorsey at No. 3, they would have settled on Chad Henne in the second round. And if that’s true, then I have no misgivings whatsoever about choosing Ryan instead of Dorsey. Because the way I see it, the gap in ability between Ryan and Henne is so significant, that it’s worth the risk.