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 interior defensive linemen (IDL) 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.
Here we see lots of interest in the 2024 class of IDL prospects, who fare very well athletically, along with a couple familiar names in Pittsburgh lenses on the top right. High level of competition is a common strength for the entire group.
The top interest score is Ruke Orhorhoro of Clemson (11.5), ranking second in the entire 2024 draft class, and pairs that with a perfect 11 athletic score. Heavily attended Pro Day including HC Mike Tomlin and GM Omar Kahn, combine meeting, Senior Bowl invite, age (22), body type, good experience, and also fits our Alex Kozora’s popular “What The Steelers Look For” list. While still solid, performance last season was his lowest score. Projects well to Pittsburgh’s need and type at DE, and seemingly will be a day two selection.
Maason Smith, also of LSU, has a 10.6 interest score and ten athletic score. Also made Kozora’s list, the highly attended Pro Day, pre-draft meeting, and age (21) are the highlights of his interest score, while performance last season, and experience were lower marks. 8 1/2” hands the only box missed in athletic score. Across the line experience, interior primarily, including last season. Likely day two prospect.
Missouri’s Darius Robinson has a strong 10.6 interest score. Multiple meetings (pre-draft, combine, and Senior Bowl), age (22), performance, experience, body type, with a perfect 11 athletic score and checks all the “What The Steelers Look For” boxes at IDL. Lesser Pro Day attendance, and played edge rusher most his final season with the Tigers and in the Senior Bowl, were lower scores. Encouragingly played across the line throughout college though, and a projected second round pick.
Clemson’s Tyler Davis (9.9 interest score, perfect 11 athletic score). Highly attended Pro Day, Senior Bowl participant, informal combine meeting, college performance, and body type were all stronger marks. Age (23) was one of his lowest scores. Defensive tackle alignment primarily, and projected day three candidate.
Logan Lee of Iowa has a 9.8 interest and perfect 11 athletic scores, making Kozora’s list as well. Multiple meetings (Pre-draft, Combine with DL coach Karl Dunbar), and body type were some of his strongest box checking. Shrine Bowl participant, age (23), performance last season were weaker marks. Aligned on the interior primarily through college, and projected day three prospect.
Justin Eboigbe of Alabama (9.8 interest score, seven athletic score). Highly attended Pro Day (with Tomlin and Khan, one of several talents there), informal combine meeting, Senior Bowl participant, and body type are strengths. Still good marks, but age (23) and performance last season were his lowest marks. Four DNPs (bench, broad jump, shuttle and three cone), checking all the boxes he participated in. Alignment versatility, playing edge most in 2023, and is seemingly a late day two/early day three option.
LSU’s Jordan Jefferson (9.7 interest, perfect 11 athletic scores). Highly attended Pro Day (asterisk with a slew of prospects), informal combine meeting, Senior Bowl participant, and body type highlight the interest score. College performance and age are good too, but some lower marks. Interior alignment primarily, and likely a late round/undrafted possibility.
Florida State’s Braden Fiske (9.1 interest, ten athletic score). Multiple meetings (pre-draft, Senior Bowl), Pro Day attendance, excelled at the Senior Bowl, experience, and body type are strengths. Arm length (31”) is on the low side of Pittsburgh’s draft history, along with age (24), and college performance in the interest box checking. DNP in the three cone, meeting all the other athletic thresholds. Interior alignment primarily, with some across the line snaps. Seemingly will go in the second round.
Zion Logue of Georgia (9.0 interest, ten athletic scores). Highly attended Pro Day, experience, age, and body type are strengths, but no meetings, Shrine Bowl invite, and performance last season were lower marks. Missed the threshold athletically on the bench (17 reps), but checked every other box. Interior alignment versatile, a late pick to undrafted player most likely.
Michigan’s Kris Jenkins (8.6 interest, ten athletic scores). Another highly attended Pro Day, with age (22), body type, and performance last season his best marks, but no meetings or college all-star game participation. DNP in the three cone, checking every athletic box he participated in. Experience across the line, mainly on the interior, and seems to be a day two draftee.
DeWayne Carter of Duke (8.3 interest, perfect 11 athletic scores). Senior Bowl meeting, Pro Day attendance, experience, and body type within Pittsburgh’s historical draft thresholds. Age (23) and performance last season were good, but lower factors of his interest score. Mainly interior alignment in college, and likely an early day three prospect.
Mississippi State’s Jaden Crumedy (8.2 interest, ten athletic scores). Pre-draft visit, Pro Day attendance, Senior Bowl participant, with good experience. Age (23), and particularly performance last year were his low scores. The athletic box he didn’t check was only 14 reps on the bench. Alignment versatility is attractive, mainly inside, and will seemingly be available on day three.
Michael Hall Jr. of Ohio State (8.0 interest, nine athletic scores). Senior Bowl meeting, Pro Day attendance, age (20), and body type top his interest score, with experience and last seasons performance on the low side. Two DNPs athletically (shuttle, three cone), meeting past standards otherwise. Mainly played inside, with a bit of alignment variety, possibly a late day two/early day three selection.
Eight players have interest scores in the seven tier: T’Vondre Sweat of Texas (7.7 interest, eight athletic). Texas A&M’s McKinnley Jackson (7.5 interest, perfect 11 athletic). Byron Murphy II of Texas (7.4 interest, ten athletic). Auburn’s Marcus Harris (7.3 interest, perfect 11 athletic). Brandon Dorlus of Oregon (7.3 interest, ten athletic). Jer’Zhan Newton of Illinois (7.3 interest, four athletic), LSU’s Mekhi Wingo (7.2 interest, ten athletic), and Leonard Taylor III of Miami (7.2 interest, nine athletic).
In that group, Pittsburgh met with Jackson and Murphy II. Another player that met with Pittsburgh was Gabe Hall of Baylor (6.6 interest, ten athletic). A notable non-combine invite that met with Pittsburgh was Northern Iowa’s Khristian Boyd (5.7 interest, four athletic). Four non-combine players had perfect 11 athletic scores: Kyler Baugh of Minnesota (6.2 interest), USC’s Kyon Barrs, Cole Godbout of Wyoming (5.6 interest), and Texas A&M-Commerce’s Levi Drake Rodriguez, all seemingly undrafted possibilities.
There is certainly a desire for Pittsburgh to bolster IDL, and several intriguing prospects that seemingly fit the bill. With several needs across the roster, it’ll be fascinating to see it all unfold. One thing’s for sure, I can’t wait to see how it pans out.
