For several years now, I have kept a personal running spreadsheet during the draft process. The goal for me was to learn about the players, gathering information that I have tweaked along the way as I’m sure I will continue to do in the future. I will share a visual and some takeaways from the data points I create each year, simply called interest and athletic scores with explanations to follow.
As Dave Bryan and Alex Kozora discuss regularly, the Steelers have a type of player they look for, and what the scores attempt to achieve is seeing who checks many of those boxes, or vice versa. You will notice many of the inspirations for these scores come from their studies of draft trends over the years for Pittsburgh, and have fared well in who Pittsburgh has ultimately drafted.
While there is no perfect way to predict what selections the Steelers will make in the 2024 draft at the end of the month, I feel great about what the data points measure and of course would love to hear feedback as I’m always looking to improve the points system. Also, there is only so much time in the day and additional things I’d like to measure, so I focus on the crucial and/or practical choices in my opinion.
Now for more explanation to how the scores come together. The biggest point I want to make is this is not a big board or round projection view, rather trying to pinpoint names the Steelers may select regardless of when they are drafted. After I get a healthy pool of names that I hear about or research, I begin the scoring.
Interest Score: Here I configured a points system for the following important factors. College performance, body type, experience, age, position, competition level, pro day attendance, pre-draft meeting(s), and Senior/Shrine Bowl invitations/participation.
This matches up nicely to the Athletic Score: simply 11 combine metrics excluding wingspan, and whether or not they were within a threshold in each metric of any player drafted at their position by the Steelers since 2013.
Clear as mud? Here are the cornerbacks (CB) that were combine invites:
NOTE: If you don’t see a name please ask, I have many more non-combine players compiled but excluded them for a cleaner chart.
We see a deep position group with several familiar and expected names on the top right of the chart.
The top interest score is Kool-Aid McKinstry of Alabama at 11.3, tying for third highest in the entire 2024 draft class. Highly attended Pro Day with HC Mike Tomlin and GM Omar Kahn in attendance, multiple meetings (Pro Day dinner, combine), age (21), college performance last season, and body type highlight his impressive scores across the board. Experience is solid, but his lowest interest mark. Seven athletic score, with three DNPs (bench, shuttle, three cone), with smaller hands (8 1/2”) than Pittsburgh’s draft history. Outside corner primarily, and likely first round selection.
Staying with the Crimson Tide, Terrion Arnold is second among CBs in interest score (11.1). Matching Pro Day attendance along with the dinner and combine meetings, age (21), and performance last year are strengths. Body type fits as well, but is lighter than McKinstry, and less experience are lower interest marks. Ten athletic score, checking all the boxes he participated in, with a DNP on the bench. Outside corner primarily as well, with increased slot snaps in 2023, and also should go on day one.
Mike Sainristil of Michigan lands third with a 10.4 interest score, along with a ten athletic score. Heavily attended Pro Day, combine meeting, Senior Bowl invite, experience, performance, and body type fit Pittsburgh. The latter was a bit low amongst those qualities, but with nice slot experience and the Steelers need there, is less concerning. Age (23) was another lower mark in his solid interest box checking. Athletically, worked out fully, only missing in hand size (8 1/2”). Day two projection.
Georgia’s Kamari Lassiter (10.3 interest, seven athletic scores). Highly attended Pro Day, combine meeting, age (21), body type, and performance last year topped his interest score. Experience was his lowest mark, a non-issue in his great checking of the boxes. Three DNPs athletically (bench, vertical, broad), and his 4.64 40-time would set a new precedent in Pittsburgh. Primarily outside corner experience, and seemingly a day two option.
Nate Wiggins of Clemson (10.3 interest, seven athletic). Multiple meetings (pre-draft, combine), high Pro Day attendance, age (20), and performance highlight the interest score. Experience, and particularly body type (just 173 pounds) are on the other side of the coin. Three DNPs in athletic drills (bench, shuttle, three cone) and missed in weight as well. Mostly outside corner alignment, with a bit of slot which he may need to do more in the NFL. Likely a first rounder.
Iowa’s Cooper DeJean (9.2 interest, nine athletic). Multiple meetings (pre-draft, combine), age (21), and great body type are his strongest measures, with performance and experience landing a bit lower. Less Pro Day attendance than the aforementioned players. Checked all the athletic boxes he participated in, with two DNPs in the shuttle and three cone. Primarily outside corner, with box and slot on his resume as well. Another at the position expected to go on day one.
Ryan Watts of Texas (8.9 interest, perfect 11 athletic). Formal combine meeting, experience, body type, and the only cornerback to check all the boxes in our Alex Kozora’s popular “What The Steelers Look For” study. Less pro day attendance, Shrine Bowl participant, and 2023 performance were lower interest scores. Mainly outside corner alignment in college, with box snaps second most common. Day three projection.
Josh Wallace of Michigan (8.9 interest, nine athletic). Also highly attended Pro Day (asterisk with slew of prospects including Sainristil), checking the body type, experience, and performance boxes. Lower marks were no meetings, Shrine Bowl participation, and age (23). The athletic boxes he missed were 40-time (4.69) and a 4.35 shuttle. Outside corner primarily, seemingly a late/undrafted possibility.
Pittsburgh’s M.J. Devonshire (8.7 interest, eight athletic). Multiple meetings (pre-draft, informal combine), experience, and body type fit the bill. Less Pro Day attendance than many of the aforementioned prospects, Shrine Bowl participant, age (23), and performance last year were lower marks. His full athletic workout lacked in hand size (8 3/4”), shuttle (4.35), and three cone (7.12). Primarily wide corner, and seems he will be available on day three.
Kalen King of Penn State (8.1 interest, seven athletic). Senior Bowl meeting, age (21), and body type were strengths, with less Pro Day attendance, experience, and performance landed lower in his interest marks. Two DNPs (bench, three cone), missing in hand size (8 3/4”) and 40-time (4.61). Primarily outside corner in college, likely a late day two/early day three candidate.
A whopping 15 players land in the seven interest tier. Fellow Nittany Lion Daequan Hardy (7.9 interest, nine athletic). Syracuse’s Isaiah Johnson (7.7 interest, perfect 11 athletic score). Andru Phillips of Kentucky (7.7 interest, ten athletic). Toledo’s Quinyon Mitchell (7.7 interest, nine athletic). Kris Abrams-Draine of Missouri (7.6 interest, six athletic). Notre Dame’s Cam Hart (7.4 interest, ten athletic). Elijah Jones of Boston College (7.3 interest, ten athletic). Auburn’s Nehemiah Pritchett (7.3 interest, nine athletic).
But wait, there’s more: Max Melton of Rutgers (7.2 interest, ten athletic). Oregon’s Khyree Jackson 7.2 interest, nine athletic). Jarrian Jones of Florida State (7.2 interest, eight athletic). Penn State’s Johnny Dixon (7.2 interest, two athletic). Ennis Rakestraw Jr. (7.1 interest, eight athletic). USC’s Christian Roland-Wallace (7.0 interest, eight athletic). Caelen Carson of Wake Forest (7.0 interest, five athletic).
In this group of 15 cornerbacks, Pittsburgh met with Hardy, Johnson, Phillips, Mitchell, and Melton. Johnson also achieved a perfect 11 athletic score, impressively. Non-combine invites that had meetings were West Virginia’s Beanie Bishop Jr. (6.7 interest score), Shon Stephens of Ferris State (5.6 interest), and Tulane’s Jarius Monroe (6.4 interest). Ones that had perfect athletic scores were Stephens, Russell Dandy of Eastern Illinois (5.3 interest), Texas State’s Kaleb Ford-Dement (4.7 interest), late to undrafted possibilities.
Pittsburgh’s position room definitely needs talent and depth on the outside and in the slot, and the clear interest in both will be fascinating to watch unfold. One thing’s for sure, I can’t wait to see how it pans out.
