You have some very good points that you link with blanket statements and poor points- the 2000’s lions could’ve been a solid team however we picked Harrington, Charles Rodgers, etc. However the team was mismanaged as you said (and had been long before that and really until today). You also said that coaching is a huge part of it and you’re 100% correct. But saying that because heisman trophy winners don’t succeed that it shows drafting big doesn’t matter is a fallacy because imo counter to what you say the higher up draft picks are ready right away because they have the most production at the best schools- which is why central Michigan’s Antonio brown went in the 6th round whereas guys from Michigan, LSU, Georgia etc get that exposure, plus the heisman normally goes to a qb with bloated numbers playing in a totally different offense from what he’ll play in the NFL. But the players are ready, they haven’t had NFL practices and coaching but they’ve been playing since they were 10 and at the highest level of football in every age group. Again, I agree with your point that you can find good players wherever but you need to have good management and scouting which the lions haven’t had- when was the last time a lions 4th rounder was producing like deshawn hand? So in previous lions regimes we couldn’t decipher the most talented players at our position of drafting and quite frankly fucked up every single pick and that’s how you go 0-16, and that’s how you pick Eric ebron over Aaron Donald and obj. Picking in the top 5 takes the thinking out of the equation because those prospects are normally the consensus top 7 or so, but once you get into the mid teens you rely on your scouting and talent evaluation more and that’s what scares me with the lions (but I actually trust Bq).