POLL: Trade Down at Pick 29?

[Boone]

We're on the clock at Pick 29 and the phone rings.

Do we trade down or stick and take the best player available?

 

[Boone]

I almost didn't include an 'it depends' choice because a lot of folks will gravitate towards 'wait and see'. But I'm wanting to know what your instincts say to do, push come to shove - trade down for more picks or get the best talent with the picks you have?

I think there is a strong argument to be made for not monkeying around and doing trade downs. Sure, in the abstract, 'more picks' sounds good, especially when your draft pick cupboard is depleted. That's certainly the case with our Commanders this year.

The problem I have with it, you'd better hit on those later picks if you give up the chance to get the best talent available earlier on. There is a difference between the kind of players available in round 1 and ones like Ben Sinnott and Luke McCaffery who we drafted last year. Those are just an example of two players who, a year in, we still have no idea if they will pan out, be stars, or duds.

You can blow a draft pick in any round and I get that. So some will ask, if that's true, doesn't it make sense to give yourself as many chances as possible to hit? And that's certainly one way to look at it. I guess I would argue that the odds of finding a stud difference-maker (and isn't that the whole goal of the draft?) are higher the sooner you make the pick. There is more consensus and evidence supporting the potential future success of a draft pick early vs. later. That's why the highest % of NFL players still in the league 5 years after being drafted comes from 1st rounders and falls steeply the later they were drafted.

So that's my mindset in terms of trading out of round 1. Keep it simple. Stick and get your stud there.

 

[burgold]

I picked depends, but I'm really 80% trade down/20% grab player you love or it better be a good trade down deal that we "win."

 

[burgold]

The interesting counter to my "trade down" desire is that I think Peters has done a pretty idea stocking the roster with solid players, but we are still light on stars and playmakers. So, if you think there is a star at edge, running back, wide receiver, or corner then getting that playmaker might be worth getting two solid players or more depth guys. Now just to be wishy washy, I would like us to be less dependent on one year contracts so filling out more depth and getting more solid guys is a good thing, too.

 

[DWinzit]

I selected it depends on the offer. They need to add picks but not at the cost of moving too far away from the upper level talent.

I really would like them to be able to come out with Edge, DB, LB, OL and WR by the end of the 4th round. (I can see them exchanging one of those positions for lets say DT, or LB)

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

I'm also a strongly "trade down" candidate. However, a few points:

• I don't want to trade out of a "tier." Whatever that is. If there are 5-10 players they all have graded similarly, all of the same level, and we can trade down a few picks, grab another pick, and still get a guy which will help as much as the guy at 29, I'd do it.
• I wouldn't trade down just to do it. The compensation would have to be fair
• I'd be ok trading down for an additional pick in 2026.
• The absolute ideal scenario would be trading back with Cleveland who has the first pick of the second round so they could come up and grab a QB and get the 5th year option. Assuming they don't pick a QB with the second overall pick.
• If you don't get value OR there is only one player left in the "tier" and there is a drop-off on your board to the next player, stay put and pick.

So, all that said, I'd still say "it depends" but I'd try REALLY hard to trade down between 3-10 spots and pick up a mid-round pick.

 

[Boone]

Thoughts on your Cleveland scenario...

That first pick on Day 2 is highly coveted for obvious reasons. A team with that pick not only has dibs on the best player still available, but they are in prime position to trade it for a greater value. And for that reason, you aren't going to get as 'much' in return if you move from 29 to the start of rd 2 imho. But if the plan were to be to trade down to that pick, and THEN do another trade down, that might make a lot of sense because of what you'd likely get for moving out of that day 2 starting pick.

 

[burgold]

There is a part of me that would love to trade #29 this year for somebody's first next year (let's say the Browns if their QB hungry) and say a 2025 3rd or fourth. I mean our draft this year would probably be hurting, but I'd love to be armed with two number ones next year.

 

[DWinzit]

I'd be ok trading down for an additional pick in 2026.

This would really be ideal and get a great bang for your buck but we really need to talent and youth infusion this year IMO.

So, all that said, I'd still say "it depends" but I'd try REALLY hard to trade down between 3-10 spots and pick up a mid-round pick.

Totally what I'd be looking for! If you could tack on a real late pick this year or next, now that would be icing on the cake.

 

[RWJ]

I certainly hope so. It takes two to dance and hopefully there is a partner that wants to at #29. I hope AP gets to do what he is best at and with more picks he can.

 

[Hail Raiser]

(let's say the Browns if their QB hungry)

Me picturing a Godzilla sized Kenny Picket running around GB snatching up players as they're drafting and devouring them.

Happy 420 day to those who celebrate.

 

[Hail Raiser]

Anything other than "it depends" is RonMart level front officing.

 

[Boone]

Not sure about that? Because Ron showed it didn't matter where he picked, he would find a way to produce a head-scratcher.

Completely different story with Adam Peters (or at least, to this point, he has earned that belief). So assuming competence there, it's a matter of what is the level of talent of particular players at pick 29 vs. getting more (but perhaps less talented) players. It's a legitimate conversation.

I think you are right that, at some level, it has to depend on exactly what we are talking about and who is available in that moment. I was just curious which way people would lean...

 

[Hail Raiser]

Not sure about that? Because Ron showed it didn't matter where he picked, he would find a way to produce a head-scratcher.

Completely different story with Adam Peters (or at least, to this point, he has earned that belief). So assuming competence there, it's a matter of what is the level of talent of particular players at pick 29 vs. getting more (but perhaps less talented) players. It's a legitimate conversation.

I think you are right that, at some level, it has to depend on exactly what we are talking about and who is available in that moment. I was just curious which way people would lean...

I'm probably one of the more vocal people about not trading away draft picks and wanting more, for sure, so that's obviously how I'd lean, but there are plenty of players I don't want to trade away from.

I think it's going to depend on who drafts QB and when, early in the 1rst.

There are just too many variables to make the decision, but sure, I want more shells in the shotgun.

The reason Ron sucked at drafting, is because he knew which position he was going to draft before the draft.

 

[Boone]

I always got the feeling Ron had a need to be the 'smartest guy in the room' - in the case of the draft, that meant doing things no one else would do. Like drafting 170 lb-ers to play CB in the NFL. And by all accounts, he was determined to make that Forbes pick no matter what. I don't think a smart competent GM is EVER set on any particular move in advance, other than with the possible exception of drafting a starting QB.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

I'm probably one of the more vocal people about not trading away draft picks and wanting more, for sure, so that's obviously how I'd lean, but there are plenty of players I don't want to trade away from.

If we’re on the clock and there are 5 players I wouldn’t want to trade away from and o could trade down 4 spots, I’d do it.

The question is one of quantity of guys in the same “tier” and their impact. If you have a band of players and really could take any, then you can trade down.

If you have one player left at that tier, then you pick them.

 

[The Brotherhood]

At face value, although I chose "it depends", the question had me tempted to pick at 29 if on the clock, mainly because of team AP smarts (Newton, Sainristil in mind) & the likely better than average chance of bringing in a game day talent.

Having said that, I feel like AP hinted he would go for more picks if there was a willing tango partner.

But if a Gun fell to us at 29, I'm picking

 

[ClaretSkins]

Feels like they won't trade down unless they can guarantee a "Commander Tag" player is there. It felt like a sense of pride as to how many CT players they drafted last year, so I'm guessing that will have a big impact on what they do. At least with AP at the helm now, it feels like the chances of a player like Forbes having one of those tags is hopefully lower.

 

[The Brotherhood]

Yes hard to see that happening on AP's watch - they've had so many guys through, for interviews & double checks. Leaving no stone unturned.

Such an intriguing draft, this one.

 

[Hail Raiser]

did we win taking Sinnott and Sain over Coop?

Sinnott qas like my main guy, but he sucked and looks like a bust(shocking to me and I am not throwing that on him yet)

Sainrilstil has been way better than expected. Dudes awesome and saved our season. He's as responsible for our great year as Daniels IMO, but he's still not better than Coop, so that trade back hasn't aged well.