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 have fared well in who Pittsburgh has ultimately drafted.
While there is no perfect way to predict the 2024 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 of 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 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 linebackers (LB) 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 is Ohio State’s Cody Simon (9.3), tied for 19th in the entire draft. Highly attended pro day (HC Mike Tomlin, GM Omar Khan, DC Teryl Austin), but an asterisk with several prospects Pittsburgh is eying. No pro day dinner like other Buckeyes, but an informal combine meeting. Nice age (20), performance, experience, and ten athletic score. Met Kozora’s What The Steelers Look For criteria. No all-star game. Day Three prospect.
For context, Pittsburgh drafted Payton Wilson last season, who had an 8.0 interest score and a nine athletic score. Steeler Nick Herbig, who had a 9.6 interest score and a perfect 11 athletic score, was viewed by many as an off-ball linebacker over an NFL EDGE in the 2022 pre-draft process.
Second in this class is Alabama’s Jihaad Campbell (9.1). He had high pro day attendance (Tomlin, Khan, Austin), including a dinner meeting. Body type, performance, and age (21) also strong marks. Experience and lacking multiple meetings were lower. Seven athletic score (four DNPs), checking the boxes he participated in—first round consensus.
Third best is Georgia’s Smael Mondon Jr. (8.3). Tomlin and Austin were at his pro day. Performance, body type, age (22), experience, and Senior Bowl checked the boxes well. Lack of meetings was clearly his lowest mark. Seven athletic score, due to four DNPs. Day Three possibility.
Notre Dame’s Jack Kiser (8.1) also had high pro day attendance (Tomlin, Khan, Austin), but lacked meetings. Performance, body type, experience, and Senior Bowl are positive. Age (24) is the least ideal of the group so far. Ten athletic score, only missing in hand size. Day Three projection.
Another Bulldog in Georgia’s Jalon Walker (8.0). The pro day, along with body type, performance, and age (21) were his best box checks. Experience and lack of meetings land on the other side of the coin. Four athletic score, only measuring in, and met those thresholds—first-round prospect.
Only two LBs land in the seven tier of interest scores: Minnesota’s Cody Lindenberg (7.3 interest, ten athletic) and Clemson’s Barrett Carter (7.2, ten). Lindenberg (Day Three) was the second LB to qualify in Kozora’s WTSLF study and had an informal combine meeting, while Carter (Day Two) had a highly attended pro day (Tomlin, Austin).
Players with lower interest scores that Pittsburgh met with: Oregon’s Jeffrey Bassa (6.8), Washington’s Carson Bruener (6.3), Chris Paul Jr. of Ole Miss (5.9), and Oklahoma’s Danny Stutsman (5.3). All of them were combine meetings, and informal except for Stutsman.
Three players had perfect 11 athletic scores: South Carolina’s Demetrius Knight Jr. (5.9 interest), California’s Teddye Buchanan (5.8), and Miami’s Francisco Mauigoa (5.8). Buchanan was also the third and final LB to qualify in our WTSLF criteria.
The linebacker position is far from the greatest need, and the interest scores bear that out. If Pittsburgh selects one, a late-round option seems most likely. 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.
