The first round of the 2016 NFL draft was filled with trades, but one of the slipped under the radar for everyone except Chicago Bears and Tampa Bay Buccaneers fans. The Bucs dropped down from number nine to number eleven in exchange for Chicago's fourth-round pick, 106th overall and the eighth pick in the fourth round. The Bears picked Leonard Floyd at number nine, while the Bucs got Vernon Hargreaves -- a player they almost certainly would have drafted anyway.
Under the old Jimmy Jones chart, the Bucs didn't get the value they should have gotten. The ninth pick is worth 1350 points there, the 11th is worth 1250 points, and the 106th pick just 82. Good thing that chart wasn't even accurate when it was put out back in the 1990s, it's hopelessly inaccurate right now.
A much better chart is that of Chase Stuart, who look at average value at every draft pick. In that chart, the Bucs turned a pick worth 20.6 points, into a pick worth 19.3 points and one worth 4.9 points, for a surplus of 3.6 -- or a solid 17.5% return on investment. It's not as good as some of the other trades we saw in the first round, but they certainly came out the winners in that trade based on analytical value.
Another way to look at this trade is to examine recent, similar trades. Exact circumstances change because of available players and demand, but it can still give us a general look at what other teams usually get. Last year, for instance, the San Diego Chargers gave up the 117th and 142nd picks to move up from number 17 to number 15. The year before, the Cleveland Browns got the 145th pick to move down from number eight to number nine. And in 2012, the Seattle Seahawks got the 114th and 172nd picks to move down from number 12 to number 15.
With those comparisons, it looks like the Bucs dropped down a little cheaply, but no comparison is perfect. In all, the Bucs got a high fourth-round pick to drop down two spots and draft the player they would have taken anyway. That's a good deal, even if other teams got slightly more value in similar spots in the past.