Good points, Naw.
I think the Lions could sell drafting Curry, but it would only be a quick fix. Because to do it you'd kind of have to talk down the top of the draft offensively.
Since the Lions have so little on offense outside of Megatron, they'd need a good reason not to try to take the best offensive skill player on the board first. The OT reason is a good one. The defensive reason isn't bad, but Aaron Curry didn't destroy college football. He wasn't even on that great of a team. So the only thing anybody knows about him is that he's supposed to be good--but f**k who isn't supposed to be good at the number one pick in the draft.
So to sell him they'd have to say, 'yeah, we're building the best defense in the NFC North, probably the league, come watch it's going to be incredible.' And when they were hit with, 'um, OK, but you still don't have an offense,' they'd have to say something to the effect of 'we thought we'd be overpaying at that spot for the offensive talent on the board, we didn't think that about Curry.'
Which is a fine answer. Right up until Stafford runs a team to the playoffs in 2010 or Jason Smith starts going to Pro Bowls every year. Then people look back and say, 'those clowns were just like the clowns before them, f**k this team.'
Which they'd say if Stafford blew, but at least the Lions could then say, 'hey, we took a franchise QB, THE position, we didn't take another WR or a shot on something else, we tried and he sucked.'
What's both funny and sad in this is how much pressure the current system puts on teams to get their first pick in the draft absolutely right if they're pretty much anywhere from number one through about 10. Because if you miss it's so damn costly.
The Lions are bad because they're mismanaged and that, but they're also bad because when their front office has blown top picks in the past, they're locked into those horrible contracts for horrible players. The cycle perpetuates if you either have bad scouting/management, bad luck, or both.