Trading down from 31/32 and why you should throw away the theory

[Couch-Potato]

In the first I like a move up to #23 w/ HOU, #25 with GB, or #27 with ARZ.... If so, I wonder if we'd take Thomas Jr.

In the second I'm curious if #47 NYG, #51 LAR, #57 GB, or #59 HOU might be available.

Just saw a mock that had us give our 3rd #95 & 4th #133 to move up in the 3rd #86 with CLE for TE Sanders.

Not sure that Sanders is there for us, if he is go for it, but there will be attractive weapons that fall into the 3rd and I could see us making our move there.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by Couch-Potato

In the first I like a move up to #23 w/ HOU, #25 with GB, or #27 with ARZ.... If so, I wonder if we'd take Thomas Jr.

In the second I'm curious if #47 NYG, #51 LAR, #57 GB, or #59 HOU might be available.

Just saw a mock that had us give our 3rd #95 & 4th #133 to move up in the 3rd #86 with CLE for TE Sanders.

Not sure that Sanders is there for us, if he is go for it, but there will be attractive weapons that fall into the 3rd and I could see us making our move there.

I'm going to say for me personally, I don't think Sanders is even within striking distance of our 2nd round pick. He has all the looks of a really high 2nd rounder and that's provided he doesn't sneak into the back end of 1. He is so quick and efficient. To me, he's just a faster version of LaPorta. You're giving something up in blocking but man he's gonna be tough to stop as a receiving option. If we didn't need a couple of other spots filled so badly, I'd be banging a hole in the table for that kid.

[OKchiefs]

Originally Posted by kccrow

I'm going to say for me personally, I don't think Sanders is even within striking distance of our 2nd round pick. He has all the looks of a really high 2nd rounder and that's provided he doesn't sneak into the back end of 1. He is so quick and efficient. To me, he's just a faster version of LaPorta. You're giving something up in blocking but man he's gonna be tough to stop as a receiving option. If we didn't need a couple of other spots filled so badly, I'd be banging a hole in the table for that kid.

Hell, a receiver is a receiver. If Sanders is that good a prospect I wouldn't hate the pick. He can take some of the TE load off from Kelce and extend his usefulness, and I don't see why either one couldn't split out and play as a big slot receiver (so many Kelce haters call him a WR already). Either that or play a lot of 2/3 TE sets. I'd prefer a WR prospect but I wouldn't hate an elite option at TE if one presents itself.

[kcbubb]

That trade up makes sense for guyton or one of the DTs.

[RedinTexas]

It just seems to me that you should always play to your strengths and one thing that Veach has proven is that he is adept at drafting in the later rounds. We also know that other teams are now highly suspicious of the Chiefs and less likely to allow us to trade up.

This is all theoretical, but if the Chiefs could trade pick #32 for pick #36 that would create something like 50 points of value and that is the equivalent of a mid-late 4th round pick.

If there are several acceptable people available when #32 comes up, I think you have to at least make inquiries to see if it can be done. Other teams have become wary of the Chiefs trading up and have proven to be less willing to make those deals. They may not be as wary of the Chiefs if we are trading down and that still permits us to get the best of a draft day trade.

[Dunerdr]

I think trading back makes more sense on a roster with a lot of holes. We need cost controlled talent but we need it in focused areas. And its not as cut and dry as one great player vs two good ones. Every draft is different and you have to play to your board and find the pockets Veach talks about.

[RedinTexas]

Originally Posted by Dunerdr

I think trading back makes more sense on a roster with a lot of holes. We need cost controlled talent but we need it in focused areas. And its not as cut and dry as one great player vs two good ones. Every draft is different and you have to play to your board and find the pockets Veach talks about.

Yes, without question Veach should do that, but we're not talking about trading out of #32 in exchange for draft capital, we're talking about trading back a couple of spots in exchange for draft capital. I'm not saying that we absolutely should do this. I'm saying that there might be the opportunity and we shouldn't be blind to it.

Additionally, a draft pick that we get in compensation for such a move can be shifted to next year if we're not in need of more picks now.

[kccrow]

I'd be most interested in future capital in a trade-down because that capital will be higher than what we'd obtain in this draft. If it's 32 to 36 and we can get a future 3rd, I like that a lot more than a current 4th.

[Jerm]

I don’t see Veach trading down in the 1st….he’s only shown a penchant for wanting to move up, a strategy I’m 100% with.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by Jerm

I don’t see Veach trading down in the 1st….he’s only shown a penchant for wanting to move up, a strategy I’m 100% with.

The team trading down almost always loses the trade. Move up or make the pick is the best strategy.

Someone mentioned Pittsburgh... they almost never trade down. Neither does Atlanta. Teams like Seattle and LA Rams are more likely to do it.

[RedinTexas]

It might be nice to both move down AND up. Washington has #36 and #40 in the second round. Getting those picks for our picks at #32 and #64 + whatever else is required to get the deal done might be a pretty good move.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Agreed. Great thread.

[Gravedigger]

I don't care if the Bills are disemboweled with the poor decision of salary cap hell, I don't care if they're a husk of their former glory no matter how short-lived it was, you must trade up to at least pick #27 and take a player that's on the Bills wish list. It's tradition, a tradition I won't let die without a fight.

[Stryker]

Yes, stay put but preferably, MOVE UP! THIS is the time to do so! Do not move back, move UP! BTJ come on down! LOL!