Cover 3 is a weekly feature column written by PewterReport.com’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers beat writer Trevor Sikkema published every Tuesday. The column, as its name suggests, comes in three phases: a statistical observation, an in-depth film breakdown, and a “this or that” segment where the writer asks the reader to chose between two options.
SIKKEMA’S STAT OF THE WEEK
Each of us loves the game of football for our own reasons. For some, it’s the game they grew up playing. It was what they did all throughout middle and high school, perhaps even into college. I know many who have gone that path that chose to even coach afterwards. For others it might be about memories. I’ve heard so many stories of people watching or going to games with their families and friends. Football helps hold some of our happiest moments. Whatever reason it is, there’s a reason we all keep coming back to the teams we follow, not just every week, but every single day, even in the offseason.
For me, I never played football growing up. I was what you’d call a “late bloomer” in terms of body type and athletic ability in a football sense. I grew up playing hockey (ice and roller), basketball, soccer, some baseball, but never football. Sometimes I really regret it and wish I could have, but other times when I watch guys get absolutely plastered on contact, I’m reminded that my mother was probably right when she said a 5-foot-4, 120-pound soon-to-be-freshman would get killed if he went out for football.
Instead, I found a love and passion for the game through a different spark: virtual reality. Since I couldn’t actually play the game myself, I found myself putting every waking moment of my free time from the years 2002 to about 2009 into the Madden video game franchises. At first, it was the allurement of making plays with the people I controlled that made me obsessed. I’m not sure if I’m incredible proud or extremely embarrassed of how much time was spend drafting and re-drafting and re-drafting and re-drafting.
But from there it grew into mastering the game, not just on the field, but in the playbook, at the GM’s desk and in the war room on draft day. I loved the intricacies of building a team, being efficient with the roster and owning the draft every single year – that train of thought is also why I’ve come to love fantasy football so much.
I know I’m not alone in the love I have for that side of the game. Any football fan who follows the NFL draft, free agency or the trade deadline are all in that same camp to some degree. With that passion often comes a hunger to know more, the desire to not guess on what pick or what signing should be made, but learn how to put value to it and be right more often than not.
That’s what brings us to the first topic of this week’s Cover 3.
In last week’s Fab 5, Scott Reynolds referenced The NFL Draft Value Chart. It’s a tool that draft evaluators and even some NFL teams reference when making or predicting trades on draft day. It’s a simplistic way to put value to each draft pick – and by “simplistic” I mean that it’s obvious not bulletproof in it’s numbers, external forces always come into play. Where some picks may be worth more or less to certain teams than others, this chart gives us somewhat of a common ground from the probability of each selection number being a success in the NFL. Obviously the higher the pick, the higher the chance of success.
Here’s what that chart looks like.
1st Rd | 2nd Rd | 3rd Rd | 4th Rd | 5th Rd | 6th Rd | 7th Rd | |||||||
1 | 3,000 | 33 | 580 | 65 | 265 | 97 | 112 | 129 | 43 | 161 | 27 | 193 | 14.2 |
2 | 2,600 | 34 | 560 | 66 | 260 | 98 | 108 | 130 | 42 | 162 | 26.6 | 194 | 13.8 |
3 | 2,200 | 35 | 550 | 67 | 255 | 99 | 104 | 131 | 41 | 163 | 26.2 | 195 | 13.4 |
4 | 1,800 | 36 | 540 | 68 | 250 | 100 | 100 | 132 | 40 | 164 | 25.8 | 196 | 13 |
5 | 1,700 | 37 | 530 | 69 | 245 | 101 | 96 | 133 | 39.5 | 165 | 25.4 | 197 | 12.6 |
6 | 1,600 | 38 | 520 | 70 | 240 | 102 | 92 | 134 | 39 | 166 | 25 | 198 | 12.2 |
7 | 1,500 | 39 | 510 | 71 | 235 | 103 | 88 | 135 | 38.5 | 167 | 24.6 | 199 | 11.8 |
8 | 1,400 | 40 | 500 | 72 | 230 | 104 | 86 | 136 | 38 | 168 | 24.2 | 200 | 11.4 |
9 | 1,350 | 41 | 490 | 73 | 225 | 105 | 84 | 137 | 37.5 | 169 | 23.8 | 201 | 11 |
10 | 1,300 | 42 | 480 | 74 | 220 | 106 | 82 | 138 | 37 | 170 | 23.4 | 202 | 10.6 |
11 | 1,250 | 43 | 470 | 75 | 215 | 107 | 80 | 139 | 36.5 | 171 | 23 | 203 | 10.2 |
12 | 1,200 | 44 | 460 | 76 | 210 | 108 | 78 | 140 | 36 | 172 | 22.6 | 204 | 9.8 |
13 | 1,150 | 45 | 450 | 77 | 205 | 109 | 76 | 141 | 35.5 | 173 | 22.2 | 205 | 9.4 |
14 | 1,100 | 46 | 440 | 78 | 200 | 110 | 74 | 142 | 35 | 174 | 21.8 | 206 | 9 |
15 | 1,050 | 47 | 430 | 79 | 195 | 111 | 72 | 143 | 34.5 | 175 | 21.4 | 207 | 8.6 |
16 | 1,000 | 48 | 420 | 80 | 190 | 112 | 70 | 144 | 34 | 176 | 21 | 208 | 8.2 |
17 | 950 | 49 | 410 | 81 | 185 | 113 | 68 | 145 | 33.5 | 177 | 20.6 | 209 | 7.8 |
18 | 900 | 50 | 400 | 82 | 180 | 114 | 66 | 146 | 33 | 178 | 20.2 | 210 | 7.4 |
19 | 875 | 51 | 390 | 83 | 175 | 115 | 64 | 147 | 32.6 | 179 | 19.8 | 211 | 7 |
20 | 850 | 52 | 380 | 84 | 170 | 116 | 62 | 148 | 32.2 | 180 | 19.4 | 212 | 6.6 |
21 | 800 | 53 | 370 | 85 | 165 | 117 | 60 | 149 | 31.8 | 181 | 19 | 213 | 6.2 |
22 | 780 | 54 | 360 | 86 | 160 | 118 | 58 | 150 | 31.4 | 182 | 18.6 | 214 | 5.8 |
23 | 760 | 55 | 350 | 87 | 155 | 119 | 56 | 151 | 31 | 183 | 18.2 | 215 | 5.4 |
24 | 740 | 56 | 340 | 88 | 150 | 120 | 54 | 152 | 30.6 | 184 | 17.8 | 216 | 5 |
25 | 720 | 57 | 330 | 89 | 145 | 121 | 52 | 153 | 30.2 | 185 | 17.4 | 217 | 4.6 |
26 | 700 | 58 | 320 | 90 | 140 | 122 | 50 | 154 | 29.8 | 186 | 17 | 218 | 4.2 |
27 | 680 | 59 | 310 | 91 | 136 | 123 | 49 | 155 | 29.4 | 187 | 16.6 | 219 | 3.8 |
28 | 660 | 60 | 300 | 92 | 132 | 124 | 48 | 156 | 29 | 188 | 16.2 | 220 | 3.4 |
29 | 640 | 61 | 292 | 93 | 128 | 125 | 47 | 157 | 28.6 | 189 | 15.8 | 221 | 3 |
30 | 620 | 62 | 284 | 94 | 124 | 126 | 46 | 158 | 28.2 | 190 | 15.4 | 222 | 2.6 |
31 | 600 | 63 | 276 | 95 | 120 | 127 | 45 | 159 | 27.8 | 191 | 15 | 223 | 2.3 |
32 | 590 | 64 | 270 | 96 | 116 | 128 | 44 | 160 | 27.4 | 192 | 14.6 | 224 | 2 |
- Tampa’s No. 19 pick = 875
- Seattle’s No. 26 = 700
- Seattle’s No. 102 compensatory pick = 92
- Seattle’s No. 106 compensatory pick = 82
Since the main chart only calculates scheduled picks and not compensatory picks, we have to use NFL Draft Tek’s Complete 2017 Chart – I would have put that chart in this article, but it’s too big to fit on the page.
So, if we do the math, the Buccaneers would be trading a pick that is valued at 875 points for a package deal from the Seahawks that is worth 874 total points. That’s pretty dang close, and if the Bucs were to negotiate one of those compensatory third round picks into Seattle’s actual third round pick at No. 90, the value for that would be 140 and would give the Bucs a clear gain of value.
Let’s look at the chart value of what the Bucs did last year moving back for Hargreaves and then up in the second round for Aguayo – not taking the players themselves into account, just the value of the selection numbers.
The Bucs traded their No. 9 pick (worth 1,350 in value) back to No. 11 (worth 1,250 in value) to select Hargreaves. The team also received the No. 106 overall 4th round pick from the Bears to move back (worth 82 in value). So with a 100-point value difference between No. 9 and No. 11, the Bucs actually took a bit of a loss by only getting 82 points back from the additional pick.
Later in the draft the team used that No. 106 pick to move up. The Bucs were sitting at No. 74 in the third round (worth 220 in value) and used the No. 106 pick (worth 82 in value) to move up to No. 59 (worth 310 in value) to select Roberto Aguayo. In that instance, the Bucs came out on top in terms of value for the move with an 8-point gain.
Just for fun let’s look at some of the biggest draft trades from the NFL and see what their value was according to the chart.
The Jared Goff Trade
- Titans No. 1 (2016) = 3,000
FOR
- Rams No. 15 (2016) = 1,050
- Rams No. 43 (2016) = 470
- Rams No. 45 (2016) = 450
- Rams No. 76 (2016) = 210
- Rams 1st Rd 2017 = ~ 1,050
- Rams 3rd Rd 2017 = ~ 230
Since the Rams didn’t know exactly what picks they were trading in the 2017 year, we had to make an educated guess for what they might have been thinking at the time of the deal. I put their value of the 2017 1st round pick right in the middle at 1,050 and the same with their 3rd round pick. Even then, the Rams took a value loss of 3,460 points given up to only 3,000 back for the top pick.
However, now that we know what the Rams ultimately gave up, that number gets even worse since the 2017 picks turned out to be No. 5 (worth 1,700 in value) and No. 83 (worth 175) which means the Rams actually gave up 4,055 points.
The value wasn’t good and the pick itself might have been even worse.
The Julio Jones Trade
- Browns No. 6 (2011) = 1,600
FOR
- Falcons No. 26 (2011) = 700
- Falcons No. 59 (2011) = 310
- Falcons No. 124 (2011) = 48
- Falcons 1st Rd 2012 = ~ 800
- Falcons 4th Rd 2012 = ~ 60
By once again taking some sort of medium for what the future year’s picks would have been at the time of the trade, the Falcons ended up giving 1,918 points of estimated value for the Browns’ single pick worth 1,600.
Those 2012 pick ended up being No. 22 (worth 780 in value) and No. 118 (worth 58 in value) which doesn’t change much.
This year Falcons Thomas Dimitroff was asked if all that was worth it for one player and he said,
“Absolutely”
The Ricky Williams Trade
This is one of my favorite trades in football history because it’s so ridiculous.
- Washington No. 5 pick (1999) = 1,700
FOR
- Saints No. 12 pick (1999) = 1,200
- Saints No. 71 pick (1999) = 235
- Saints No. 107 pick (1999) = 80
- Saints No. 144 pick (1999) = 34
- Saints No. 179 pick (1999) = 19.8
- Saints No. 218 pick (1999) = 4.2
- Saints 1st Rd 2000 = ~ 1,050
- Saints 3rd Rd 2000 = ~ 60
In this trade, the Saints gave every single pick they had in the 1999 NFL Draft and two extra picks at the top half of the 2000 draft to move up just seven spot for running back Ricky Williams. At the time of the trade, they gave up an estimated 2,683 points which is over 1,000 points in the red – or the value of a No. 16 first round pick.
However, when you factor in that the Saints ended up picking No. 2 overall the following year and No. 64 in the picks they gave away, that value lost goes up to 4,443 points which is nearly a No. 1 overall pick of value lost in the deal.
Crazy.
Now, look, I’m sure I’m going to get people in the comment section talking about this value chart meaning nothing because it can’t take into account what player is being selected and blah, blah. Look, take a deep breath, it’s OK.
Like I referenced earlier, this not a chart to judge on whether a pick itself is good or not; that part happens on the field. But, when it comes to the war room. This chart gives us a good reference as to what general managers may be thinking in terms of movement on draft night. It takes two to tango in trades, and this chart is a way to get teams closer to a deal since interpretations can often be so far apart. The best general managers know how to work teams whose backs are against the wall to acquire gains in movement more times than not.