Green Bay acquired defensive back Derek Combs from Kansas…
Green Bay acquired defensive back Derek Combs from Kansas City in April 2003 for a future seventh-round pick. Kansas City eventually used the 238th overall selection in 2005 on tackle Jeremy Parquet, while Combs did not become a major Packers contributor. The Chiefs received a real draft asset and Green Bay took a low-cost chance on a veteran, but neither side created substantial value, supporting an Even Trade.
Green Bay Packers Received
- player Derek Combs
Kansas City Chiefs Received
- pick 2005 7th round pick (238th overall, Jeremy Parquet)
Trade Analysis
Why Green Bay Made the Deal
Green Bay was taking a low-cost roster swing. Derek Combs had NFL experience and could compete for work in the secondary and on special teams, while the acquisition cost was pushed two drafts into the future. A 2005 seventh-rounder represented limited immediate sacrifice, allowing the Packers to add competition without disrupting the core of their 2003 draft plan.
What Kansas City Received
The Chiefs chose future flexibility instead. The conditional compensation became a 2005 seventh-round selection, No. 238 overall, which Kansas City used on tackle Jeremy Parquet. Turning a player who was available for trade into a draft choice is sound roster management, even when that choice falls near the end of the draft.
How the Careers Shaped the Result
Hindsight does not produce a strong winner. Combs did not turn into a significant long-term piece for Green Bay, and Parquet did not create a major Kansas City payoff from the acquired pick. That keeps the evaluation centered on the original economics: one team obtained an immediate player, the other obtained a distant late-round chance, and neither converted that modest asset into outsized production.
Final Verdict
Even Trade. Both teams receive a C. Green Bay's cost was small enough that the attempt was reasonable, while Kansas City deserves credit for extracting a future pick rather than losing the player without compensation. Because neither return delivered notable long-term value, the most accurate conclusion is that the transaction stayed roughly as balanced in hindsight as it looked when it was made.