Trade down hypotheticals

[Gooseneck]

Going to do another Trade down for Bills:

 

[RedWolf]

What is up with you taking two centers in a single draft, in multiple mocks???

 

[Gooseneck]

What is up with you taking two centers in a single draft, in multiple mocks???

I said to myself; "How could I really irritate RedWolf" Next draft has a long snapper at 7.

 

[KDawg]

I really don’t understand the value of these draft simulators.

They never play out the way people play them out.

I get that they are fun to do, but I’m not sure there is really any value there.

 

[RWJ]

1. The "Divisional Tax" Move: Dallas Cowboys

• The Trade: 7 for 12 (347), 92 (40), and 2027 3rd (~45 with discount).
• Total Value Received: 432 pts (Net Gain: +6)
• The Logic: This is a fair-value swap. It’s a slight win on paper, but you're helping a rival.
• Their Target: Dallas is desperate for an edge like David Bailey or a lockdown corner like Mansoor Delane or a LB like Styles.

2. The "Refuel" Move: Miami Dolphins

• The Trade: 7 for 11 (358), 87 (44), and 94 (38).
• Total Value Received: 440 pts (Net Gain: +14)
• The Logic: This is arguably the best "pure value" deal. Only dropping four spots and picking up two Top-100 "darts" is exactly how Peters likes to build.
• Their Target: Miami likely moves up for Carnell Tate (WR) to give Tua a true X, or Mansoor Delane (CB).

3. The "Day 2 Jump": LA Rams

• The Trade: 7 for 13 (336), 61 (84), and 2027 4th (~15 with discount).
• Total Value Received: 435 pts (Net Gain: +9)
• The Logic: Getting pick 61 is huge because it gives us a second-round presence, but the drop to 13 is steeper than it looks.
• Their Target: The Rams are rumored to be eyeing Jeremiyah Love (RB) or Francis Mauigoa (OT).

4. The "Second Round Search": NY Jets

• The Trade: 7 (426) + 187 (8) for 16 (305), 44 (121), and 140 (20).
• Total Value Received: 446 pts (Net Gain: +12)
• The Logic: This officially gets us back into the middle of the 2nd round. It’s a 9-spot drop, but pick 44 is a day-one starter.
• Their Target: The Jets would likely be aggressive for Carnell Tate or the top corner on their board.

5. The "High Stakes" Move: Buffalo Bills

• The Trade: 7 for 26 (211), 126 (25), and 2027 1st (~180 with discount).
• Total Value Received: 416 pts (Net Loss: -10)
• The Logic: Mathematically a loss today, but it’s a bet on the 2027 1st being high. Peters only does this if he thinks the 2026 class is flat after the top 10.
• Their Target: Buffalo needs a game-changer like David Bailey or Rueben Bain Jr.

6. The "Tunsil Reversal": Houston Texans

• The Trade: 7 (426) + 187 (8) for 28 (196), 38 (143), 106 (30), and 167 (13).
• Total Value Received: 382 pts (Net Loss: -52)
• The Logic: The "Irony Trade." Houston gives us back our own 2nd and 4th rounders from the Tunsil deal. While the "points" look bad, it gives Peters a massive amount of mid-round swings.
• Their Target: They move up for Francis Mauigoa to be Tunsil's long-term replacement.

---

The Verdict: Why the Miami (Dolphins) deal is the winner
In my opinion, the Dolphins (7 for 11, 87, 94) is the best move for Washington.
Why? It’s the highest "Net Gain" (+14) while keeping us in the elite Tier 1 of the draft. Dropping to 11 almost guarantees we still land a cornerstone defender like Mansoor Delane or Rueben Bain Jr., but adding those two picks in the late 3rd round allows Peters to find a starting center (like Sam Hecht) or a safety. We fix the depth issues without losing out on a blue-chip star.
Would you guys take the volume from the Jets/Texans, or stick close to the top with Miami?

I did these off the top of my head then calculated them. I would probably redo the Texans one so instead of giving us 106 they give us 69, which would net us 39 more points in that trade and make it a lot more even. For future picks, I discounted them by 15% and just had the team pick in the same spot they did this year, which is obviously a bit risky (but the 15% discount somewhat mitigates that risk)

I think this is an example of whether its Tate, Mauigoa, Styles, or Bailey there will be teams that would like to trade up (doesn't mean they will cause these are high sticker prices).

IF we were to trade down, #2 scenario all the way.

 

[RedWolf]

IF we were to trade down, #2 scenario all the way.

And we use all of those picks to draft centers and long snappers!!! 🤣🤣🤣

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

If I was to entertain a trade down scenario (which as I said, I'm philosophically opposed to in the first round), I'd almost punt on this years draft and go for a 1st or 2nd next year. It's really a great weapon to have 2 1sts in a draft. Because then you can do what I like doing, and move UP if there is what you feel like is a generational prospect. Or you could do it again next year, trade one of them for a 2028 pick, and keep kicking the can down the road until you need it to go up or find a way to get 2 blue chip prospects in the same draft.

I'm not going to work the different charts or websites to see how that would work, or the value, or yadda yadda. But if there was any world where I wouldn't be grumpy if we traded down from #7 (and if we do, I will almost certainly be salty, fair warning), it would be if we picked up very significant assets next year.

 

[Boone]

I think we've traded messages a few times on this topic I just don't think we see this the same. The draft regularly reinforces the fact that we are not as good as we think we are at predicting player outcomes. As such, the benefit of more picks generally outweighs the relative difference in hit rate of the potential selections.

You either trust your front office or you don't. We've had a lot of reasons not to do that in recent history around here. I know our past trade downs weren't successful... I see that as a flaw in our talent evaluation, not a product of trading back. You can trade up, trade back, or stay put and still select bad players.

If there is a player on the board that stands above the others... go ahead and pick. I assume that in most situations, there is cluster of players that the team views similarly. If that's true, Id always advocate that they take advantage of any opportunity to move back and acquire picks.

I agree with Disco here... I think the other aspect of this that doesn't get enough attention is your front office's ability to accurately predict what other teams are going to do. Not to be here but the overwhelming advantage in staying where you are and making a selection is, you know who is available. You can 100% make your pick based on who is there and how you have them rated. The moment you accept a trade-back you are thrown into the unknown. You may be able based on pre-draft intel and having done your homework on your fellow GM's 'tendencies' but you can't know for certainty what those teams now drafting in front of you are going to do. That puts you at a major risk of giving up certainty only to find that the player you feel will be there that would make you happy at your new draft slot is sniped by the team picking in front of you, requiring you to then 'pick the best player who wasn't your preferred choice'. The other thing that can, and often does, happen is that other front offices likely see your trade down, and are able to ascertain who it is you are hoping/expecting to be there at your new draft slot. If it's someone they absolutely have had targeted and are determined to get, they trade up to get that player and ruin your plan entirely.

I'm not a huge fan of trade downs, especially early ones, because of all of the unknowns that come into play.

This is a great thread btw, thanks to those posting possible scenarios for doing the hard work.

One final comment. The absolute WORST reason for a GM to do trade down deals is because you've squandered picks previously and have a bare draft shelf. This is probably the biggest criticism I have of Adam Peters. He blew picks on an awful decision to bring in Lattimore. He did it again bringing in Deebo Samuel for a 1 year rental (assuming he isn't brought back). It happens. But don't compound the mistakes by trying to recoup picks in trade downs.

 

[RWJ]

I too appreciate the feedback on everyone's posts. All have relevancy to them. I think it lies with the GM. They are either good or bad at their craft whether they trade down or sit and pick. Respectfully, just my One thing I will give credit to AP for is being a good manager of funds when it comes to FA (players and contracts). Maybe he's a better capologist. As far as the drafting is concerned, it ain't too hot yet.

 

[philibusters]

In a lot of these trade downs to like 13, 14, or 16 I end up with an O-Lineman. I think Fano who can be a T, G, or C and Ioane who is a Guard are pretty good prospects and often best available in the middle of the first round in trade back scenarios. I would be fine taking an O-Lineman in a trade back scenario

 

[RedWolf]

In a lot of these trade downs to like 13, 14, or 16 I end up with an O-Lineman. I think Fano who can be a T, G, or C and Ioane who is a Guard are pretty good prospects and often best available in the middle of the first round in trade back scenarios. I would be fine taking an O-Lineman in a trade back scenario

Hell no...too many other holes and priorities. Pick developmental OL/DL further down in the draft

 

[philibusters]

Hell no...too many other holes and priorities. Pick developmental OL/DL further down in the draft

To me just take the best player at a need position. You get a good guard like Fano or Ioane and we can really run the ball, open up playaction. Our interior is a little ify with both that LG and C spots having some questions. But I am taking the O-Line on the assumption you are getting a much higher quality player there then at other positions. To me Ioane and Fano (as a Guard or Center, not as a Tackle) or arguably top 10 players int his draft, so if you got them at 16 its a win.

 

[RedWolf]

philibusters
I hear you and understand your point but I just think we have greater needs at this time

 

[DWinzit]

I would feel lot better about a trade down at 7 if Peters had a better hit rate I the past two drafts. So far he hasn't wow'd me so might just as well take the top player that hopefully fits a need as well

 

[RexTomb]

And we use all of those picks to draft centers and long snappers!!! 🤣🤣🤣

 

[Bulldog]

I am still a bit miffed that we took a slot receiver in McCaffrey in Round 3 in 2024 and Lane in Round 4 in 2025 and yet here we are with folks, including national media, talking about the Commanders need for Makai Lemon or another threat from the slot.

The Rams were able to pull Puka Nacua out of the air in the 5th round of the draft but neither of our picks can do much more than return kicks and punts, which is usually what you look for #6, #7 and UDFA players to do.

 

[philibusters]

I am still a bit miffed that we took a slot receiver in McCaffrey in Round 3 in 2024 and Lane in Round 4 in 2025 and yet here we are with folks, including national media, talking about the Commanders need for Makai Lemon or another threat from the slot.

The Rams were able to pull Puka Nacua out of the air in the 5th round of the draft but neither of our picks can do much more than return kicks and punts, which is usually what you look for #6, #7 and UDFA players to do.

I still have hope for McCaffrey and Lane, but I would probably prefer an outside receiver. I think there is still a reasonable shot one of them ends up a solid number 3 receiver who can give you around 500 yards per season. But neither of them as proven they are a solid 3 yet.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

I agree with Disco here... I think the other aspect of this that doesn't get enough attention is your front office's ability to accurately predict what other teams are going to do. Not to be here but the overwhelming advantage in staying where you are and making a selection is, you know who is available. You can 100% make your pick based on who is there and how you have them rated. The moment you accept a trade-back you are thrown into the unknown. You may be able based on pre-draft intel and having done your homework on your fellow GM's 'tendencies' but you can't know for certainty what those teams now drafting in front of you are going to do. That puts you at a major risk of giving up certainty only to find that the player you feel will be there that would make you happy at your new draft slot is sniped by the team picking in front of you, requiring you to then 'pick the best player who wasn't your preferred choice'. The other thing that can, and often does, happen is that other front offices likely see your trade down, and are able to ascertain who it is you are hoping/expecting to be there at your new draft slot. If it's someone they absolutely have had targeted and are determined to get, they trade up to get that player and ruin your plan entirely.

Yeah, this is all very true. I am not sure there is any good way for any team to really predict what the other 31 teams are going to do. Peters said it specifically with his draft this year. But the farther you go down the draft, the less clear it is.

Which is another reason to stick and pick.

I'm not a huge fan of trade downs, especially early ones, because of all of the unknowns that come into play.

Me neither.

Here's the other thing, and I've mentioned it before: whatever draft chart you look at, the higher the pick the higher the value. Why? The reason is simple: the higher the pick, the better the odds of finding a blue chip player.

So by trading down, you are playing AGAINST the odds of finding a blue chip player.

And whatever chart you look at, it's exponential in terms of value.

For example, according to the Jimmy Johnson chart, the first pick is worth 3000 points. The 7th pick is worth 1500, exactly half of the first overall pick. Here's a link to the chart from Pro Football Reference:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm

While the cumulative value of the picks you attain might add up to the same value, the flip side is each pick is more risky than the one you gave up.

So, from a certain point of view, you're betting against the odds, at least to find a blue chip player high in the draft.

This is a great thread btw, thanks to those posting possible scenarios for doing the hard work.

I agree, this is a really thoughtful thread!

One final comment. The absolute WORST reason for a GM to do trade down deals is because you've squandered picks previously and have a bare draft shelf. This is probably the biggest criticism I have of Adam Peters. He blew picks on an awful decision to bring in Lattimore. He did it again bringing in Deebo Samuel for a 1 year rental (assuming he isn't brought back). It happens. But don't compound the mistakes by trying to recoup picks in trade downs.

100% accurate. It's like doubling down on a pair of 2's if you screwed up one trade and then force another trade to try and make up for it.

While I didn't mind any of the trades in a vacuum when they were made, of his 3 trades, one has been a disaster, one I'm totally "meh" on, and one has been fantastic.

I was for the Lattimore trade when they did it. They had a real chance to make a run (which they ended up doing) and they needed another CB because the secondary was a mess. They took a swing, they missed. You can't hit a home run without taking the bat off your shoulder, so I didn't mind the swing, but it clearly was a swing and a miss for a strikeout.

The Deebo trade, it's a 5th round pick. Eh. Whatever. Deebo had one season that's better than 95% of all 5th round picks will ever have.

And I'd do the Tunsil trade 100 times out of 100. You got a top 5, maybe the best LT in football for 3-5 years without having to give up a 1st. That's a home run for sure.

It's important to note that this year's diminished draft capital is because of ONLY the Tunsil trade. The Lattimore and Deebo trades have already been paid for. And if you look at the 2nd and 4th which are missing as picks for Tunsil, I mean, I can live with that.