Without trying to take this thread off-topic, your post echos what I've been thinking for the last four years or so, and that is having the #1 overall pick - or a top 5 pick for that matter - hurts your team in the long run. Allow me to explain:
If you're a team picking in the top 5 of the draft (Detroit, St. Louis, KC, Seattle & Cleveland this year) you generally have several holes to fill on your roster before being competitive again. Having said that, you're now saddled with having to tie up a large percentage of your salary cap into one player. So not only did you address just one position, you have to take care of the rest with 10% less salary cap room. Heaven forbid you draft a bust.
On the flip side, if you're a team picking in the 20's or 30's (let's say for example: The New England Patriots
). They have far fewer holes in their roster that need to be addressed than a team picking in the top 5 does. Not only are the Patriots going to get a quality prospect @ #24, but they're only going to tie up roughly 2 million dollars in annual salary to this player, leaving them cap space needed for extensions and free agency. If they draft someone @ 24 that doesn't pan out, it's not as crippling to their salary cap as if he were the first overall pick.
Sorry for taking this slightly OT, but if anyone else has input on this I'd love to hear it.