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 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 like. The scores attempt to see 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. It has fared well in who Pittsburgh ultimately drafted.
While there is no perfect way to predict what the 2024 Steelers selections will be, I feel great about what the data points measure. Of course, I’d 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 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 point 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: This is 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? Let’s start with interior defensive linemen (IDL) who 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 is Ohio State’s Tyleik Williams (10.3), tied for sixth-best in the entire draft class. Highly attended pro day (HC Mike Tomlin, GM Omar Khan, DC Teryl Austin). Performance, age (22), and experience are good marks. Five athletic score, with six DNPs, checking the boxes he did participate in. B gap primarily last season, and likely goes within the first two rounds.
For context, Steeler Logan Lee was drafted in 2024 with a 9.8 interest and perfect 11 athletic score, while Keeanu Benton had 10.5 interest and an 11 athletic score in 2023.
Second in this class is Georgia’s Nazir Stackhouse (9.8). Pro day attendance (Tomlin, Austin), performance, age (22), experience, and Shrine Bowl are good box checks. Perfect 11 athletic score, also making Kozora’s What The Steelers Look For List (WTSLF) as well. Lack of meetings is the clearest negative. Virtually even split of A and B gap snaps is also a plus for the late-round prospect.
Third best is Michigan’s Kenneth Grant (9.6). Austin was at his pro day. Tomlin and Khan weren’t (Aaron Rogers visit), but reports are Pittsburgh met with Michigan players the night before. Possibly Grant, but not enough info to credit his interest score. WTSLF qualifier, and 11 athletic score. Plus performance, age (21), combine meeting, and Shrine Bowl. Experience is a lower mark. B gap snaps most, with notable A gap. First-round prospect.
Six more with at least a 9 interest score (nine total), much more than the majority of positions this year. Emphasizes the quality and Steelers interest in the 2025 IDL class.
Vernon Broughton of Texas has a 9.4 interest score. Less pro day attendance (area scout), but did have a dinner and combine meeting. Performance, body type, age (22), experience, and Senior Bowl are other plus marks. Four athletic, only measuring in, and checking those boxes. B gap primarily, with notable over the tackle snaps. Day Two/Three, the latter seemingly more likely.
Alabama’s Tim Smith (9.3) had Tomlin, Khan and Austin at his pro day. Performance, body type, age (22), experience, and Senior Bowl are strong scores. Lack of meetings is a clear negative. Ten athletic, checking all the boxes he participated in (no bench). B gap most for the Day Three prospect.
Clemson’s Payton Page (9.3) had high pro day attendance (Tomlin, Austin) including a dinner. Performance, body type, age (22), and experience on the plus side. No all-star game and lacking multiple meetings on the other side of the coin. Nine athletic (no shuttles), checking every other box. B gap primarily, seemingly an undrafted guy.
Another Buckeye in Ohio State’s Ty Hamilton (9.1). The pro day attendance, experience, and Senior Bowl are strong scores. Perfect 11 athletic score. Low marks include performance, age (23), and no meetings. Nearly all B gap alignment last year, a likely Day Three possibility.
Georgia’s Warren Brinson (9.1) is the second Bulldog. Pro day attendance (Tomlin, Austin), performance, body type, experience, Shrine Bowl, and an informal meeting are positives. Age (23) on the low side. Ten athletic, with a DNP in three-cone, meeting all other thresholds. B gap, along with a high percentage over the tackle. Late/undrafted projection.
Oregon’s Derrick Harmon (9.1) had multiple meetings (pre-draft, combine). Performance, body type, and age (21) other strong marks. Experience, and especially less pro day attendance (scout) his low scores. Six athletic, checking the measurement and 40-time boxes (five DNPs). B gap, with substantial over the tackle snaps too. First round talent.
Eight players in the eight range of interest scores.
Toledo’s Darius Alexander (8.7) had a pre-draft meeting late in the process. Perfect 11 athletic score, and qualified in Kozora’s WTSLF study. Performance, experience, and Senior Bowl other positives. Age (24), level of competition, and less pro day attendance (scout) are his negative marks. Vastly a B gap player, with a likely Day Two draft range.
JJ Pegues of Ole Miss (8.7) had Assistant GM Andy Weidl at his pro day, and was a pre-draft visitor. Performance, body type, experience, and Shrine Bowl other pluses. Age (23) a lower score. Nine athletic, due to two DNPs (broad jump, three-cone). B gap, with notable outside the tackle reps. Day Three candidate.
Another Longhorn in Texas’ Alfred Collins (8.3). Combine meeting, performance, body type, experience, and Senior Bowl are nice box checks. Age (23), and lesser pro day attendance (scout) lower marks. Six athletic (five DNPs), with no 40, bench, or shuttles. B gap most, but alignment versatile last year including A gap and over the tackle. Day Two player.
Nebraska’s Ty Robinson (8.2) has a perfect 11 athletic score, along with making Kozora’s WTSLF list. Performance, experience, and Senior Bowl other positives. Lack of meetings, less pro day attendance (scout), and age (23) are weaker marks. B gap primarily and spent time in wider alignment too. Day Two/Three prospect.
Notre Dame’s Howard Cross III (8.2) had a heavily attended pro day (Tomlin, Kahn, Austin). Performance and experience among his best scores, while age (23), lack of meetings and no all-star game were weaker. Nine athletic, with two DNPs (no 40,10-split), checking all other boxes. Majority of time in the B gap, Day Three projection.
Michigan’s Mason Graham (8.2) is the second Wolverine, with Austin at his pro day. Plus performance, body type, and age (21). Experience and lack of meetings were lesser marks. Four athletic score, only measuring in and benching (six DNPs), and missed the hand size threshold. Primarily a B gap player in 2024, and likely top ten selection.
Another second player from a school in Notre Dame’s Rylie Mills (8.2). Good pro day attendance (Tomlin, Kahn, Austin), performance, body type, and experience. Age (23), lack of meetings, and no all-star game are negatives. Four athletic, only measuring in, and meeting that criteria. Vast majority were B gap snaps, Day Two/Three possibility.
Oregon’s Jamaree Caldwell (8.1) is the second Duck at the position. Pre-draft visitor, performance, experience, and Senior Bowl some of his best marks. Age (24), and less pro day attendance are lower scores. Seven athletic with acceptable marks in the drills he did (no bench, broad, or shuttles). Mostly B gap, but a good rate in the A gap too. Late Day Two/Early Day Three.
Rounding out the tier is another Rebel, Walter Nolen of Ole Miss (8.1). Pro Day attendance (Weidl), performance, body type, age (21), and Senior Bowl top his interest scores. Experience and no meetings are the other side of the coin though. Five athletic, only weighing in and the short shuttle, meeting those thresholds. B gap primarily for the first-round talent.
Seven IDL land in the seven tier of interest scores:
Florida State’s Joshua Farmer (7.7, 9), Texas A&M’s Shemar Turner (7.6, 4), Iowa’s Yahya Black (7.3, 9), Florida’s Cam Jackson (7.3, 8), South Carolina’s T.J. Sanders (7.1, 10), Tennessee’s Omarr Norman-Lott (7.1, 8), and Kentucky’s Deone Walker (7.0, 8).
In this group, three players had meetings (in various capacities) with Pittsburgh: Farmer, Turner, and Black. None had perfect athletic scores or meet Kozora’s WTSLF criteria.
Players with lower interest scores with meetings were SMU’s Elijah Roberts (6.4 interest, 9 athletic), Indiana’s CJ West (6.3, 7), and another Mustang in SMU’s Jared Harrison-Hunte (6.1, 9).
Several had perfect athletic scores: Eric Gregory – Arkansas (6.5 interest), Sean Martin – West Virginia (6.5), Zeek Biggers – Georgia Tech (6.4), Cam Horsley – Boston College (6.3), and Junior Tafuna – Utah (6.0). Martin and Biggers made the WTSLF list.
Clearly a ton of interest at the position, expectedly.
Now for edge rushers (EDGE):
The top interest score is Georgia’s Mykel Williams (9.2). Highly attended pro day (Tomlin, Austin) including a dinner meeting. Performance and age (20) are also strong. Six athletic score, measuring in and running the 40, checking all those boxes. Outside the tackle snaps primarily in 2024, along with over the tackle alignment. First-round prospect.
For context, Steeler Nick Herbig had a 9.6 interest score and perfect 11 athletic score in the 2023 class.
Second in this class is Ohio State’s JT Tuimoloau (8.6). High pro day attendance (Tomlin, Kahn, Austin). Performance, age (21), and experience are other strengths. Lack of meetings is the clearest negative. Eight athletic, three DNPs (no 40, 10-split, or three-cone), meeting the criteria otherwise. Virtually all outside the tackle snaps. Day Two projection.
Third best is another Buckeye in Ohio State’s Jack Sawyer (8.5). The pro day attendance, performance, age (22), and experience are pluses. Lack of meetings a flipside to the coin. Five athletic score, measuring in and benching, checking those boxes. Also a vast majority of outside the tackle alignment and Day Two prospect.
Six EDGEs land in the seven tier of interest scores: Georgia’s Tyrion Ingram-Dawkins (7.9 interest, 11 athletic), Alabama’s Que Robinson (7.8, 4), Princely Umanmielen of Ole Miss (7.5, 10), Jared Ivey of Ole Miss (7.4, six), Oregon’s Jordan Burch (7.2, 6), and Texas A&M’s Shemar Stewart (7.0, 8).
Of this group, Burch and Stewart met with Pittsburgh. Ingram-Dawkins had the only perfect 11 athletic score. Heavy pro day attendance was a theme here, and for the top EDGE interest scores too, but deserve asterisks overall with greater positions of need and the slew of prospects at several of those schools.
Players with lower interest scores that met with Pittsburgh were Miami’s Tyler Baron (6.2 interest, 10 athletic), Syracuse’s Fadil Diggs (6.2, 10), Boise State’s Ahmed Hassanein (5.9, 9), and Virginia Tech’s Antwaun Powell-Ryland (5.7, 7). All were informal meetings at the combine.
The lowest EDGE interest score was Central Arkansas David Walker (3.2, ten), compared to 5.2 at IDL. At the top of each position, IDL also won out in interest at nearly one point higher than any EDGE in the 2025 class.
As you probably expected, Pittsburgh’s interest in IDL compared to EDGE is night and day. Suring up the interior defensive line is the clearer priority, appropriately, and how the Steelers approach the draft at the position will be fascinating to watch. 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.
