For a 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 offensive tackles (OT) 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.
Leading the position group in interest score is a popular name for Pittsburgh, Amarius Mims of Georgia at 12.2, ranking first in the entire 2024 draft class. Highly attended Pro Day including HC Mike Tomlin and GM Omar Khan (key historically to first round picks), one of the most courted prospects by Pittsburgh (including a pre-draft visit), age (21), massive body type, oh my. While the interest score is incredibly strong, experience was his lowest mark. Playing right tackle the last three seasons is also a fit with the Steelers, considering the desire of many to get Broderick Jones to left tackle where the fellow Bulldog was drafted to play. Nine athletic score, due to two DNP’s (bench, three cone).
Taliese Fuaga of Oregon State is second with a 10.1 interest score. Multiple meetings (pre-draft visit and Senior Bowl), OL coach Pat Meyer at his Pro Day, age (22), body type, and college performance highlight his very solid marks. Also an expected first round selection who solely played right tackle the last three seasons. Checked every athletic testing box he participated in (DNPs in bench, shuttle, and three cone) for an eight athletic score.
Washington’s Troy Fautanu is third in interest score (9.8). Pre-draft and Pro Day meetings, with Meyer in attendance for the latter, Senior Bowl invite, and body type highlight his strongest marks. Age (23), experience, and 2023 performance were lower marks among very solid box checking. Primarily a left tackle, but has five-position potential. Eight athletic score, with two DNP’s (shuttle, three cone), but barely missed the threshold in hand size (9 1/2”). Expected first/second round selection.
Alabama’s JC Latham (9.3 interest, four athletic scores). Highly attended Pro Day, combine meeting, age (21), body type, and performance are the highlights in his solid score. Athletically, only measured in and checked all those boxes. Largely a right tackle the last three seasons, and an expected first round pick.
Javon Foster of Missouri (9.2 interest score, ten athletic score). Multiple meetings (Combine, Senior Bowl), Pro Day attendance, body type, and performance highlight his interest boxes, with age (24) being the lowest mark. Primarily left tackle experience. Only athletic box unchecked was barely missing on the bench (18 reps). Day three projection.
Blake Fisher of Notre Dame (9.0 interest score). Pre-draft meeting (combine), Pro Day attendance, age (21), and body type are strengths. College performance and experience were lower marks. Perfect 11 athletic score, also making our Alex Kozora’s popular “What The Steelers Look For” list. Right tackle the last two seasons, seemingly a late day two/early day three option.
Tyler Guyton of Oklahoma (8.9 interest, ten athletic). Multiple meetings (Pre-draft, Senior Bowl), Pro Day attendance, age (22), body type, and a right tackle primarily fit in Steelers lenses. Performance last season was his lowest mark. Checked every athletic box he participated in (DNP in bench). Day one/two projection.
Michigan’s Karsen Barnhart (8.7 interest). Highly attended pro day (asterisk with their slew of talent), Shrine Bowl participant, along with a perfect 11 athletic score. Performance last season, and particularly no meetings were his low marks. Mostly right tackle experience, seemingly a late round/undrafted player.
Jordan Morgan of Arizona (8.6 interest, nine athletic scores). Senior Bowl meeting, Pro Day attendance, age (22), body type, and performance are all solid. Substantial left tackle snaps the last three seasons. Checked all the athletic boxes he participated in, with DNPs in the shuttle and three cone. Likely second round/day two candidate.
Notre Dame’s Joe Alt (8.4 interest) will likely be long gone before Pittsburgh’s first round selection (barring a trade), so a lack of meetings with Pittsburgh makes sense. Pro day attendance, age (21), performance, body type, boasting a perfect 11 athletic score, and making the “What The Steelers Look For” box checking are all impressive.
Roger Rosengarten of Washington (eight interest, ten athletic scores). As I stated with Fautanu, Meyer attended their Pro Day. Rosengarten’s age (21) is also attractive. Senior Bowl participant (that I noted struggling), with college performance and experience low marks. Substantial right tackle snaps the last two seasons for the seemingly day three prospect.
Five players land in the seven tier of interest scores: Pittsburgh’s Matt Goncalves (7.8 interest, eight athletic). Trente Jones of Michigan (7.7 interest, ten athletic). Christian Jones of Texas (7.3 interest, nine athletic). Penn State’s Olumuyiwa Fashanu 7.2 interest, seven athletic). Jeremy Flax of Kentucky (7.1 interest, five athletic).
Among this group, Pittsburgh had pre-draft meetings with Guyton and Goncalves. Players with lower interest scores that met with Pittsburgh include Houston’s Patrick Paul (6.4 interest, nine athletic) and KT Leveston of Kansas State (5.0 interest, eight athletic). Two others have perfect 11 athletic scores: Frank Crum of Wyoming (6.7 interest) and Louisiana’s Nathan Thomas (6.5 interest). Crum also made Kozora’s list as well.
Non-combine invites with meetings and strong marks in this study include Travis Glover of Georgia State (8.8 interest, perfect 11 athletic), and West Virginia’s Doug Nester (8.7 interest, perfect 11 athletic), late to undrafted possibilities.
There is certainly a desire for Pittsburgh to bolster their offensive tackle position, and several intriguing prospects that seemingly fit the bill. With several needs across the roster, it’s likely a when and not if scenario. One thing’s for sure, I can’t wait to see how it pans out.
