04-28-2016, 12:24 PM
Sure, why not? You wouldn't trade in the first place if you didn't think you were getting the better deal. So why wouldn't you want to saddle a Division rival with the bad end of a deal? The right trade could set your rival back for years.
Of course the risk and reward are greatly magnified, because you're going to face that team twice a year. That's 8x more often than you face an NFC team and roughly 6x more often than you face a non-Division AFC team. The consequences of messing up a trade will reverberate for years. We are still smarting from taking Gabbert over Watt. Not only was Gabbert a very bad pick, but Watt continues to hammer us 2x a year.
If Tennessee wants Tunsil at #5 and Dave is pretty sure his guy will be there at #15, I would do it. Tunsil is high-risk to me, and I trust Dave to get good value with the picks he gains. If Tunsil busts and Dave adds 2 or 3 good players with those picks, it's win-win-win.
Of course the risk and reward are greatly magnified, because you're going to face that team twice a year. That's 8x more often than you face an NFC team and roughly 6x more often than you face a non-Division AFC team. The consequences of messing up a trade will reverberate for years. We are still smarting from taking Gabbert over Watt. Not only was Gabbert a very bad pick, but Watt continues to hammer us 2x a year.
If Tennessee wants Tunsil at #5 and Dave is pretty sure his guy will be there at #15, I would do it. Tunsil is high-risk to me, and I trust Dave to get good value with the picks he gains. If Tunsil busts and Dave adds 2 or 3 good players with those picks, it's win-win-win.