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 running backs (RBs) 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.
Much less interest in RBs than other positions as expected, with Najee Harris and Jaylen Warren holding down the fort atop Pittsburgh’s depth chart. Some nice athleticism atop a middling list overall.
The best interest score at RB is Kendall Milton of Georgia (9.1), tied for 37th in the entire 2024 draft class. Highly attended Pro Day including HC Mike Tomlin and GM Omar Kahn, but worthy of an asterisk considering the slew of talented prospects at greater position needs. Other strong interest marks include experience, age (22), 2023 performance, body type that meets our Alex Kozora’s past “What The Steelers Look For” studies. No meetings or college all-star games were lower interest marks. Ten athletic score, checking all the boxes he participated in (DNP in three cone). Seemingly an undrafted prospect.
Clemson’s Will Shipley is second in interest score (8.2), including a highly attended Pro Day (asterisk with several other talents), age (21), an informal combine meeting, and body type fit Pittsburgh’s drafted thresholds. No all-star game participation, experience, and performance last season were lower marks. Ten athletic score, missing the mark with 30 1/4” arms. Late day two/early day three projection.
Four players land in the seven tier: Isaac Guerendo of Louisville (7.9 interest, perfect 11 athletic scores), Michigan’s Blake Corum (7.9 interest, nine athletic), Daijun Edwards of Georgia (7.8 interest, seven athletic), and Alabama’s Jase McClellan (7.2 interest, five athletic).
Guerendo pairs this with a perfect 11 athletic score, meeting Kozora’s past criteria as well, and had an informal combine meeting, the only RB of this group to achieve those feats. Likely an early day three selection. He lacked the Pro Day attendance the rest had, putting less stock on the other names, considering the likelihood Pittsburgh had their eyes on other positions at those events.
Boise State’s George Holani (4.9 interest, nine athletic) had an informal combine meeting with Pittsburgh. No meetings for non-combine invites, or perfect 11 athletic scores. Carson Steele of UCLA had the highest athletic score of this group (ten), missing in 40-time (4.75).
Pittsburgh’s interest is obviously greater at other positions, with late and especially undrafted candidates far more likely to possibly complete the room. One thing’s for sure, I can’t wait to see how it pans out.
