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.
UPDATE: This article has been updated to reflect Ohio State RB TreVeyon Henderson’s pre-draft visit with the Steelers.
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 whom 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 that this is not a big board or round projection view, rather, I am 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 running backs (RB) 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 at the position, and in the entire 2025 draft class is Ohio State’s TreVeyon Henderson (12.4). Pittsburgh’s final pre-draft visitor, after already having a highly attended pro day (HC Mike Tomlin, GM Omar Khan, OC Arthur Smith) including a dinner, and formal combine meeting. Squeaky clean interest marks. Eight athletic score, a smaller body type but checked all the boxes he participated in (no bench or shuttles).
Second in the entire 2025 class is another Buckeye, Ohio State’s Quinshon Judkins (12.1). Of course similar pro day marks, with a dinner and combine meeting too, and is strong across the board in the scores. Eight athletic score, barely missing in arm length (and no shuttle drills), but was one of two RBs to fit Kozora’s What The Steelers Look For Study (WTSLF). Fits the larger back mold Pittsburgh has leaned towards.
For context, Henderson’s 12.4 interest score is the absolute best in the four drafts I’ve done this series, and with Henderson and Judkins having the best scores among running backs in that span. Both are projected Day Two picks.
Third-best is North Carolina’s Omarion Hampton (9.9). Ten athletic score (no three cone), meeting Kozora’s WTSLF criteria. Body type, college performance, age (22), and multiple meetings (pre-draft visit, combine) check the boxes well. Lacking pro day attendance in comparison was the biggest difference. Would require an early-round investment.
Clemson’s Phil Mafah (9.8) had a highly attended pro day (Tomlin, Smith), including a dinner meeting. The Shrine Bowl player also has a good college performance, age (22), and experience. Lacked multiple meetings compared to the aforementioned RBs. Four athletic, only measuring in (and checking those boxes). Day Three/undrafted possibility.
Georgia’s Trevor Etienne (9.3) had a highly attended pro day (Tomlin, Smith), but no meetings might suggest that Pittsburgh was eying other talent. Other nice marks are his age (20), college performance, and being a Senior Bowl player. Eight athletic score, on a full workout, missing in arm length, bench, and three cone. Day Three projection.
Oklahoma State’s Ollie Gordon (9.0) had multiple meetings (pre-draft visit, combine). College performance, age (21), Senior Bowl checked the boxes well, but lacked pro day attendance and less experience than some peers. Eight athletic, missing in the bench, and two DNPs in the shuttles. Seemingly a Day Three prospect.
Three players land in the eight tier, starting with Boise State’s Ashton Jeanty (8.7). RBs coach Eddie Faulkner at his pro day, combine meeting, college performance, and age (21) are strong. Experience and level of competition were his lower marks. Three athletic, only measuring in, and missing the arm length threshold. Consensus first-rounder.
Jaydon Blue of Texas (8.5) had multiple meetings (pre-draft visit, combine). Age (21), college performance are positive. Shrine Bowl. Some pro day attendance, and experience his lower interest scores. Six athletic; missing in arm and hand size, and three DNPs (bench, shuttles). Day Three candidate.
Iowa’s Kaleb Johnson (8.1) was another at the position to have a pre-draft visit and combine meeting. College performance, age (21), and size fits recent RBs Pittsburgh has drafted. Lacked pro day attendance, and experience were lower marks. Six athletic, with five DNPs, checking the measurement and 40-time boxes. Day Two possibility.
Ten RBs land in the seven tier of interest scores:
Virginia Tech’s Bhayshul Tuten (7.8 interest, eight athletic), Tennessee’s Dylan Sampson (7.4, seven), Michigan’s Kalel Mullings (7.4, four), Michigan’s Donovan Edwards (7.3, six), Syracuse’s LeQuint Allen Jr. (7.3, six), Miami’s Damien Martinez (7.2, eight), USC’s Woody Marks (7.1, nine), Oregon’s Jordan James (7.1, eight), Kansas State’s DJ Giddens (7.0, nine), and Ulysses Bentley IV of Ole Miss (7.0, seven).
Of this group, four players met with Pittsburgh in various capacities: Tuten, Sampson, James, and Giddens. The latter had multiple meetings (pre-draft visit, combine). None had perfect athletic scores. Bentley’s pro day attendance deserves an asterisk with their slew of prospects Pittsburgh is likely eyeing more.
UCF’s RJ Harvey had a pre-draft visit late in the process (6.6 interest, nine athletic). Players with a lower interest score who had an informal combine meeting were Rutgers Kyle Monangai (6.7 interest, eight athletic). One had a perfect athletic score: Texas Tech’s Tahj Brooks (5.9 interest).
Clearly, running backs have garnered some of the highest interest from the Steelers positionally. Multiple players fit Pittsburgh like a glove, 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.
