For several years now, I have kept a personal running spreadsheet during the draft process. The goal was to learn about the players through information gathering. 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 Pittsburgh’s draft trends over the years, and has fared well in who Pittsburgh has ultimately drafted.
While there is no perfect way to predict the 2025 Steelers selections, I feel great about what the data points measure and, of course, would love to hear feedback. 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.
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.
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. Pro day numbers are only included if the player didn’t do the drill at the combine.
Clear as mud? Here are the wide receivers (WR) 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.
The top interest score by far is Ohio State’s Emeka Egbuka (11.3), tying for third best in the entire draft class. Highly attended pro day with HC Mike Tomlin, GM Omar Kahn, and OC Arthur Smith. Dinner and Combine meeting. Experience, age (22), performance, and body type check the interest boxes well. Eight athletic score (out of 11) with three DNPs (bench, broad, three cone). Primarily slot snaps in 2024 and a popular early option for Pittsburgh.
For context, the Steelers selected WR Roman Wilson in 2024, with a 10.6 athletic score that was best at the position last season. George Pickens had a 9.2 interest score and eight athletic score in 2022.
Second in this class is Tre Harris of Ole Miss (9.8). Pro day attendance (Assistant GM Andy Weidl, WR coach Zach Azzanni). Combine meeting, Shrine Bowl participant, and college performance are positives, with age (23) a weaker mark. Eight athletic score (no bench, shuttle, or three cone), checking all boxes he participated in. Mostly outside snaps, and likely would require a pick by Day Two.
Third is Matthew Golden of Texas (9.0). Multiple meetings (combine, pre-draft visit). Other high scores were age (21) and performance, with fewer years of experience and lacking pro day attendance comparatively. Six athletic score, checking all boxes he did (measurements/40-time). Mostly out wide alignment, and another early-round candidate.
Next is Georgia’s Arian Smith (9.0). Main reason is a highly attended pro day (Tomlin, Smith), but deserves an asterisk with a slew of quality prospects Pittsburgh is likely eying harder. Senior Bowl participant and experience are better marks, with college performance and age (23) on the lower side of the scores. Ten athletic score (no bench). Primarily outside snaps, and a late/undrafted projection.
Fellow Bulldog Dominic Lovett (8.7), of course, had the pro day attendance, with plus age (22). Shrine Bowl, too, but college performance and lack of meetings were negatives. Nine athletic score (no bench or three-cone). Mostly slot snaps is positive for what Pittsburgh needs, and is a late to undrafted possibility.
Jordan Watkins of Ole Miss (8.7) had the pro day attendance and an informal combine meeting. College performance and experience are other plus marks, with age (23) and lack of all-star game were low scores. Seven athletic score (missed in arm length and three DNPs). More outside snaps, and seemingly a Day Three prospect.
Pittsburgh’s Konata Mumpfield (8.7) also had heavy pro day attendance (notably Weidl and Azzanni). Shrine Bowl, age (22), and experience are positives, while college performance and lack of meetings were lower marks. Eight athletic score (missed in arm length and hand size, no bench). More outside, but a good amount of slot snaps, too. Late/undrafted projection.
Iowa State’s Jayden Higgins (8.4) checked all the boxes in Kozora’s What The Steelers Look For Study, along with a pre-draft meeting. College performance, experience, and Senior Bowl participation were strong scores, with age (23) and lack of pro day attendance on the low side of things. Ten athletic score (no bench). Mostly outside, providing notable slot reps as well. Day Two possibility.
Antwane Wells Jr. of Ole Miss (8.3) is the third Rebel at the position. Makes the list with the pro day attendance. Shrine Bowl and has experience, but age (24), college performance, and lack of meetings were on the poor side. Eight athletic score (three DNPs), primarily outside snaps, and projected Day Three prospect.
TCU’s Savion Williams (8.2) was at the Big 12 pro day, which Azzanni attended, and also had a pre-draft visit. Good college performance and experience. No all-star game and age (23) lower in comparison. Six athletic score (DNPs), checking the size and 40-time boxes. Wide snaps primarily and likely a Day Two candidate.
Isaac Teslaa of Arkansas (8.1) was the second WR to make Kozora’s list, along with the only perfect 11 athletic score so far. The Senior Bowl participant had lower interest marks overall: college performance, age (23), and lack of meetings. Mostly slot snaps are a positive, and projects on Day Three.
Notre Dame’s Beaux Collins is the final player with a plus-eight interest score (8.1). Highly attended pro day (Tomlin, GM Omar Khan, and Smith), experience, and age (22) are his best scores. No all-star game, college performance, and lack of meetings were worse scores. Ten athletic score (no bench), wide alignment primarily, and seemingly an undrafted prospect.
Twelve receivers land in the seven tier of interest scores:
Tennessee’s Don’t’e Thornton Jr. (7.9 interest, eight athletic scores), Miami’s Xavier Restrepo (7.9, six), Tennessee’s Bru McCoy III (7.9, four), Utah State’s Jalen Royals (7.8, 11), Colorado’s Jimmy Horn Jr. (7.7, nine), Andrew Armstrong of Arkansas (7.6, 11), Oregon’s Traeshon Holden (7.6, eight), Stanford’s Elic Ayomanor (7.5, nine), Iowa State’s Jaylin Noel (7.4, ten), Virginia Tech’s Da’Quan Felton (7.3, 11), Florida’s Chimere Dike (7.3, nine), and Missouri’s Luther Burden III (7.0, five).
Of this group, Pittsburgh met with Restrepo, Armstrong, Holden, Ayomanor, and Noel in various capacities. Armstrong also had a perfect 11 athletic score, along with Royals and Felton, the three players in the tier to also make Kozora’s list.
TCU’s Jack Bech (6.9 interest score, nine athletic) had an informal meeting, as did UNLV’s Ricky White III (5.8, eight). Colorado State’s Tory Horton (5.9, eight athletic) was the final combine WR that met with Pittsburgh (formally).
Other combine invites with perfect athletic scores were Virginia Tech’s Jaylin Lane (6.8 interest), Texas Tech’s Josh Kelly (6.7), Minnesota’s Daniel Jackson (6.3), and UCF’s Kobe Hudson (5.3). Hudson’s interest score ranked last among Combine WRs. Kelly and Colorado’s LaJohntay Wester were also at the Big 12 Pro Day that Azzanni attended.
Pittsburgh’s splash addition of WR DK Metcalf in free agency has lessened the need to address the position in the draft. Clear interest remains, though, and it will be fascinating to watch it unfold. One thing’s for sure: I can’t wait to see how it pans out.
Do you think Pittsburgh will draft one of the names listed above? Who are some of your favorites? Thanks for reading, and let me know your thoughts in the comments.
