Not a ton of consensus doesn't mean teams will trade down, because there is no guarantee that their guy will be there later on. Just because there isn't consensus doesn't mean Chicago won't have someone at #2 who they like a lot more than what they would get at 7, either because they feel they are a much better prospect, or because they want to address a specific position of need that won't be there at #7.
We could maybe see a trade down if there are a string of players who fit the same need and all have similar value, like 3-4 defenseman, but then we get to a point a few picks in where maybe the last center is available on the board. That's the kind of scenario where if a team wants a D, they might accept a premium to move down 3-4 spots, because they know mathematically that they are still guaranteed one of the D.
If you look historically at teams going off the board in the top 5, fans always scream that they should have traded down. They don't understand that if a team views Thomas Hickey, Jake Sanderson, Jesperi Kotkaniemi, or Moritz Seider as the best player available in the top 5, the risk of losing out on a top 5 talent isn't worth trading down. There is never a guarantee they will be there later. In most of those cases, they probably wouldn't be - but fans because they don't scout the players only view things in generalities and think "that guy was 15th on Bob's list, they are dumb for not getting an extra 2nd rounder!". Trading down is nearly impossible to do if a team has eyes on a specific player, or on a specific need that there aren't multiples of.
