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 offensive lineman (IOL) 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 Pittsburgh showing quite a bit of interest in the position, players with center capabilities in particular. Meetings, well attended Pro Days, and pre-draft meetings stand out at the top of the best interest scores as well.
The highest interest score at the position is a familiar name, Oregon’s Jackson Powers-Johnson (11.3), tying for the third highest interest score in this year’s draft. This included multiple meetings, offensive line coach Pat Meyer at his Pro Day, college performance, body type, and age (21). A favorite for many as Pittsburgh’s first round pick, but notably HC Mike Tomlin and GM Omar Kahn were not at his Pro Day, which would break a historical precedent. His seven athletic score was due to DNP’s (40-time, 10-split, shuttle, three cone), checking all the boxes that he participated in. Strictly a center last season fits Pittsburgh’s need, and has guard snaps too.
Duke’s Graham Barton comes in second with a 10.7 interest score. The versatile lineman (mostly left tackle) that many believe could be elite as a center (with experience there his first season). Boasts a perfect 10.0 RAS at that position, best athletic marks of any center since 1987. Important context is a seven athletic score, due to three DNP’s (bench, vertical, and broad jump) and slightly smaller hands then Pittsburgh’s tendencies (9 3/8”). Multiple meetings (pre-draft, combine), Pro Day attendance (including OC Arthur Smith), age (21), body type, experience, Senior Bowl Participant are all strong scores, and good 2023 performance was his lowest interest mark. First-round selection.
Zach Frazier of West Virginia has the best balance in both scores, a 10.0 interest score and perfect eleven athletic score. He’s one of just two players at the position to achieve the latter, impressively. Checks the interest boxes, highlighted by a position coach at the Big 12 Pro Day and a pre-draft visit. Strong candidate that could slot in right away as a starter ready center. Substantial and strictly center snaps the last three seasons is attractive, with some guard experience. Seemingly a day two pick considering how the position value tends to drop, but could require a second round trade up for Pittsburgh to acquire.
Sedrick Van Pran-Granger of Georgia is has the second 10.0 interest score. Checks all the interest boxes, with a highly attended Pro Day and combine meeting his strongest marks. His six athletic score included two DNP’s (vertical and broad jumps), notably missing the mark in arm length (31 3/8”) along with hands (9 1/2”). All center experience in college is attractive, substantially the last three years. Likely a day two pick.
Michigan was a school with high Pro Day attendance, with a slew of talent at various positions, including three IOL. Among them, the highest interest score was LaDarius Henderson (8.8). Played tackle last season, but his performance dipped, and more experience at guard point to IOL possibly being the better NFL fit. Six athletic score: four DNP’s and missing the bench threshold. Seemingly a day three candidate.
Trevor Keegan, a fellow Wolverine, comes in at 8.7 interest, and ten athletic scores (DNP on bench). Checks many boxes, but largely playing guard, and no pre-draft meeting are notably lower marks in Steelers lenses. Also, a likely day three prospect.
Beaux Limmer of Arkansas (8.5 interest, nine athletic score). Center and guard experience, along with multiple pre-draft meetings highlight his box checking, with Pro Day attendance (to our knowledge) lacking compared to his peers. Athletically, he importantly missed the mark in arm length (31 7/8”), along with hand size (9 1/2”). Many consider him a day three pick.
Oklahoma’s Andrew Raym (8.4 interest, five athletic scores). Pre-draft meeting and Pro Day attendance top his interest score, with college performance at center last season his lowest mark. 40-time, 10-yard split, and vertical jumps did not meet Pittsburgh’s historical thresholds, along with three DNP’s. Seemingly, a late day three option.
Penn State’s Hunter Nourzad (8.3 interest, five athletic). Multiple meetings (pre-draft, informal at the combine), experience, body type, and excelling at the Shrine Bowl are his strongest interest marks. While 2023 performance and age (23) were good, they were his lower scores. Measured and benched athletically, with six DNPs resulting in his low athletic score. Nice alignment versatility, strictly center last year, with guard and tackle snaps on the resume as well. Likely day three prospect.
Charles Turner III of LSU (8.1 interest, six athletic scores). Strong Pro Day attendance, but several talented prospects Pittsburgh likely had their eyes on is notable, especially considering no pre-draft meetings. Solely center experience the last two seasons is attractive though, but performance was a lower mark compared to several peers. Full athletic workout, with hands, 40-time (5.59), 10-split (1.87), bench (22), and three cone (7.88) all less than ideal. Likely a day three selection.
Zak Zinter of Michigan (8.0 interest, three athletic scores). The aforementioned Pro Day attendance highlights the former (with an asterisk), with guard only experience being an important lower mark for the Steelers. Only measured in, checking the height, weight, arm thresholds, but missing in hand size (9 3/8”). Late day two, early day three projection.
Miami’s Matt Lee (8.0 interest, eight athletic scores). Substantial snaps strictly at center the past four seasons is appealing, along with a meeting and Pro Day attendance topping his interest marks. Played in the Shrine Bowl, compared to the vast majority of aforementioned prospects being Senior Bowl invites or participants. Full athletic workout, but misses the mark in arm length (32 1/8”), hands (9 1/4”), and three cone (7.97). Seems to be a day three candidate.
Six players land in the seven tier of interest scores: Tanor Bortolini of Wisconsin (7.7 interest, nine athletic scores). Michigan State’s Nick Samac (7.5 interest, four athletic). Drake Nugent of Michigan (7.3 interest, nine athletic). Kingsley Eguakun of Florida (7.2 interest, nine athletic). South Carolina’s Nick Gargiulo (7.1 interest score, perfect eleven athletic). Javion Cohen of Miami (7.0 interest, seven athletic).
Pittsburgh had pre-draft meetings with Bortolini, Samac, Nourzad, Eguakun, and Cohen, with the vast majority of that group center experienced. This re-emphasizes the amount of homework they have done at arguably the biggest position of need on the roster for 2024. Gargiulo’s perfect athletic score is impressive as well, and fits Alex Kozora’s “What The Steelers Look For” list.
Other IOL that met with Pittsburgh were Christian Mahogany of Boston College (6.8 interest, ten athletic), Utah’s Sataoa Laumea (6.6 interest, seven athletic), Brandon Coleman of TCU (6.5 interest, eight athletic), and South Dakota State’s Mason McCormick (6.4 interest, perfect 11 athletic). McCormick also made Kozora’s list, along with Dominick Puni (6.7 interest, perfect 11 athletic, no meetings with Pittsburgh). A notable non-combine invite that met with Pittsburgh was Oregon’s Steven Jones (7.4 interest, five athletic).
The probability of the Steelers using an early draft pick at center is obviously high, with the question of just how early and who keeping us on pins and needles until the end of the month. One thing’s for sure, I can’t wait to see how it pans out.
