Sorry Pop I don’t think you are keeping up with the thread. You would be correct if Snead trades down down down but he now has the capital to trade up down and all around in the all important rounds 2 3 and 4. I bet he trades up in round 2 if his tier 2 picks start fading.
If he trades up, he gives up other capital to do so.
Oddly enough, the 30th-32nd picks have historically been pretty good players, but even moreso since 2010. Excluding last year, because rookies taint the numbers, since 2010 those 3 picks have yielded 17 real contributors, only 5 busts, and 1 (Jahvid Best) who suffered career ending injuries before reaching potential (keeping in mind that in 2016, there were only 31 1st round picks). Dating back from 2009 to 2002, when we went from 31 to 32 teams, and then back to 1999, when we went from 30 to 31, things get more dicey and draw the historical average down. As a matter of fact, aside from the top 5 and 14-17, 29-32 are the best positions in the entire draft.
The speculated reasoning on this is this is prime territory for a team to move in and grab a guy who's unnecessarily fallen for one reason or another. Teams recognize that somebody is on the board who, by all rights, shouldn't be, and want to snag that person before resetting the draft order. These fallers typically only last to the first 4 or 5 picks of the 2nd round. The rationale towards staying in those selections is you will almost always see at least one player with top 10 or top 15 level talent sitting there (this year, it's the OT from Florida; last year, it was Lamar Jackson; the year before, Reuben Foster, etc.). Teams that stay in these slots typically do very well with them because they can afford a BPA strategy, rather than look at need. As a result, they almost always get a value proposition.
If one is to apply some math (considering teams in these last 3 spots are typically the best teams in the league), the proper value of trading out of these 3 positions is a future year's 1st round pick as well as a low round (mid-low 6th) selection, which is A) almost certainly going to be an improvement in standing and B) a luxury top teams can institute, since they are typically more complete organizations.
If you go back through history of teams that have traded out of low 1st round positions for later picks in the same draft, the results are overwhelmingly negative. Only the Patriots have shown relative success doing this, because they have a tendency of turning those 2nd round picks they pick up for getting out of the 1st round....for future 1st round picks. The logic in trading out of the 1st round entirely is that one should go no more than 4 or 5 picks deep into the 2nd round.
Is this flawless math? No, this study we're doing at work as part of a machine learning application still has 5 years to go. But the numbers don't bear out what we did yesterday as being a wise decision. The obsession with accumulating as many picks as possible is going to be considered a relic-level thought process within 10 years.