I see many people mention trading down... Well here's your history lesson on why it's not likely and also not favorable.
Teams have only traded out of picks #31 or #32 a total of 5 times in the past 20 years.
Here they are:
2019 - 1-31 + 6-203 for 2-45 and 3-79. Falcons took Kaleb McGary, Rams ended up with Joejuan Williams and David Long.
2018 - 1-32 + 4-132 for 2-52 + 4-125 + 2019 2nd. Ravens took Lamar Jackson and Jaleel Scott, Eagles took Kemoko Turay, Avonte Maddox and then Miles Sanders in 2019
2017 - 1-31 for 2-34 + 4-111. 49ers took Reuben Foster. Seahawks took Cam Robinson and Tedric Thompson
2014 - 1-32 for 2-40 + 4-108. Vikings took Teddy Bridgewater. Seahawks took Kyle Van Noy and Cassius Marsh.
2012 - 1-31 + 4-126 for 2-36 + 4-101. Bucs took Doug Martin and Jared Crick. Broncos took Derek Wolfe and Omar Bolden.
As you can also see here, the team that traded out took significantly less talented players more often than not. I'd argue that the only team that may have gotten the upper hand was the Broncos in 2012. You can make a fair argument on Seattle over Minnesota in 2014 but Bridgewater wasn't bad, he was just broken, and while Van Noy has been steady, neither he nor Marsh has been great.
Also, you can see the pattern here that the best you're really going to get is a 4th round pick. No glorious hopes of returns that net you a 3rd rounder. While it's a high 4th, it's a 4th. We should not see mocks that entertain an extra 3rd rounder if you do project a trade-down because reality says it isn't happening. [Reply]
yeah - this is why I've always said "Hey, I'm fine with the theory of a trade out of the 1st round, but in practice we'd never get as much as I'd want to do it..."
An extra 3rd rounder is the bare minimum I'd take. And nobody ever wants to give up that much. And the reasoning has become pretty straighforward - past the top 20 guys in the draft, you're really looking at a bunch of similarly situated players for the next 50. It's rare that there's anybody sitting at 40 who has a guy who's just a clear tier ahead on their board that feels the need to give up a valuable pick in the 3rd round to move up 8 spots.
By and large they figure that if they can't have 1a on their list, 1k will be just fine because there's just not enough separation anymore at that point in the draft.
So teams will trade up if they 'win' the deal and the only way they're doing that is with a 4th rounder. For me, I'd rather have the flexibility afforded by the 5th year option than an additional 4th rounder.
Now Veach has done some real nice work with those early day 3 picks, so I can understand why he may be less dogmatic. But it's just not how I'd roll. [Reply]
This is excellent info! when you see the players and returns it actually makes me want to trade up a little for a better shot at a blue chip like Mcduffie if one were to start the tumble. We pick late so often that it almost makes sense to move up for better odds occasionally. [Reply]
I understand that it doesn't seem like the trade down ends up being worth it in this spot, but in comparison don't teams often trade up quite often to the top of round 2 to get their pick of the player they want on day 2 of the draft? I would think teams would view the 5th year option available at pick 31/32 would be a bit of a plus and would add more value to that pick as opposed to the beginning of the 2nd rd, but it doesn't seem like that's actually the case. [Reply]
Great info crow. I’m not sure I agree. I think it would depend on what players are available, who you are targeting and the depth at the positions you are targeting. Like last year, I would have traded down. Titans had to call the chiefs about Will Levis to try and get that 5th year option. And with the depth of similarly graded players at edge, like Derick hall, Isaiah Foskey, bj Ojulari and Keon white; I would have traded down and we could have still gotten a strong edge prospect, even if FAU was gone. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hoover:
We need the 5th year option more than anything.
That extra optional year is critical, especilly if you are talking about a guy like McDuffie for Karlaftis.
I wouldn't go that far. If you have guys like that that are that good they're gonna wanna get paid after year 3. They're not gonna be happy playing on a 5th year of a contract.
Conversely, if you trade down you get more picks to be able to draft guys like Chenal, Conner, Danna, Sneed, Josh Williams, Jaylen Watson, Isaiah Pacheco etc.
I believe that if the Chiefs weren't hosting the draft last Spring they would have trade down a few spots for a day 3 pick [Reply]
That's fair. But I think its good to have that 5th year option on those two. Allows you some flexibility. Also valid on last years draft. They wanted to make a pick on night one. I don't care what anyone says. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Couch-Potato:
Starting to feel like we'll have quality options at #32 and won't need to trade up or down.
I like 1 of these 5 as our pick at #32, currently:
1. WR Franklin
2. WR Coleman
3. WR Legette
4. OT Guyton
5. DT Robinson
Interesting when you think about what position you’re targeting when considering a trade down. if you’re targeting a position that has a higher salary on that 2nd contract, I’m less likely to trade back bc that 5th year has more value. So, if you love a WR, take him at 32. If it’s a DT like sweat, a TE or another lower cost position, that 5th year is not as valuable in the long term and I’m more likely to trade back. I’d love a trade back for sweat. I could see sweat being a great value from 35-40, similar to how we traded back and got Chris jones. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
I wouldn't go that far. If you have guys like that that are that good they're gonna wanna get paid after year 3. They're not gonna be happy playing on a 5th year of a contract.
Conversely, if you trade down you get more picks to be able to draft guys like Chenal, Conner, Danna, Sneed, Josh Williams, Jaylen Watson, Isaiah Pacheco etc.
I believe that if the Chiefs weren't hosting the draft last Spring they would have trade down a few spots for a day 3 pick
It's not about playing on it, it's the amount of time it gives you with the extension to keep it cheap. [Reply]
I don't think I can really pull it off, but what I'd love to see happen is for us to somehow take picks 32, 64, 94 and 132 to end up with 3 picks somewhere between 45 and 55.
Because if you did that, I think you could end up with one of the raw/athletic TEs, Walker, and a really nice DT prospect.
Would there be a way to manage that and come out of this draft with Amegadjie, Walker and Sweat?
I agree that a trade down in a vacuum isn't likely to do what we want here, but what if we used that trade down to generate a little more capital that would then allow us to trade UP with a couple other picks and eventually work ourselves into position to have more capital in the fat part of the depth of the draft? [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I don't think I can really pull it off, but what I'd love to see happen is for us to somehow take picks 32, 64, 94 and 132 to end up with 3 picks somewhere between 45 and 55.
Because if you did that, I think you could end up with one of the raw/athletic TEs, Walker, and a really nice DT prospect.
Would there be a way to manage that and come out of this draft with Amegadjie, Walker and Sweat?
I agree that a trade down in a vacuum isn't likely to do what we want here, but what if we used that trade down to generate a little more capital that would then allow us to trade UP with a couple other picks and eventually work ourselves into position to have more capital in the fat part of the depth of the draft?
Commanders looking for that 5th year option on a young QB decide to trade up into the first for their guy: