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 look for. 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: 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 safeties (SAF) 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 Notre Dame’s Xavier Watts (9.8), tied for 11th-best in the entire draft class. Highly attended pro day (HC Mike Tomlin, GM Omar Kahn, DC Teryl Austin), performance, experience, and a formal combine meeting his best interest scores. Age (23) is a lower mark. Six athletic score, three DNPs (bench, shuttles), missing in hand size and 10-yard split. Deep alignment primarily, substantial box reps, and slot too. Day Two projection.
For context, Steeler Ryan Watts was a 2024 selection with an 8.9 interest score, and perfect 11 athletically.
Second in this class is Ohio State’s Lathan Ransom (8.9). Heavy pro day attendance (Tomlin, Khan, Austin), but an asterisk considering lack of meetings than other positions. Performance, body type, age (22), experience, and Senior Bowl are strong marks. Nine athletic, missing in hand size, and DNP three-cone. Deep alignment most, and box most notably. Late Day Two/Day Three possibility.
Third best is Clemson’s R.J. Mickens (8.8). Pro day attendance (Tomlin, Austin), performance, experience, Shrine Bowl, and informal combine meeting are strongest points. Age (23) was a lower interest mark. Eight athletic, two DNPs (shuttles), and missed in hand size. Comparable deep and box alignments last season. Day Three seems most likely.
Georgia’s Malaki Starks (8.5) had heavy pro day attendance (Tomlin, Austin), with performance and age (21) other good marks. No meetings though, and less experience on the other side of the coin. Nine athletic (two DNPs), checking all the boxes he participated in. Alignment versatile, with deep snaps leading the way. First round consensus.
South Carolina’s Nick Emmanwori (8.5) had DBs coach Gerald Alexander at his pro day. Other quality scores were performance, body type, age (21), and the only safety pre-draft visit. Experience and no all-star game are weaker marks. Eight athletic score, two shuttle DNPs, and missing in hand size. Perfect 10.0 RAS on what he participated in, impressively. Box player primarily, with some deep and slot snaps too. Round One/Two player.
Another Buckeye in Ohio State’s Jordan Hancock (8.0). The pro day attendance (asterisk), performance, age (21), and experience were best marks. Having no meetings is clearly his worst mark, or all-star game. Eight athletic, two shuttle DNPs, and also missed in hand size. Slot corner primarily in 2024, along with 200 snaps at deep safety. Late to undrafted player.
Only two safeties land in the seven tier of interest scores: Alabama’s Malachi Moore (7.8 interest, 7 athletic) and Andrew Mukuba of Texas (7.0, 6). Moore had heavy pro day attendance (Tomlin, Kahn, Austin), and Mukuba had a pro day dinner.
Players with lower interest scores that met with Pittsburgh were Penn State’s Jaylen Reed (6.6 interest, 7 athletic), Iowa State’s Malik Verdon (5.8, 8), and Western Kentucky’s Upton Stout (4.3, 7). Reed’s was a formal combine meeting, while the others were informal.
Three players in this tier had perfect 11 athletic scores: Toledo’s Maxen Hook (6.3 interest), Iowa’s Sebastian Castro (5.4), and Nevada’s Kitan Crawford (4.2). The latter’s interest score was worst at the position though. No combine players at the position met Kozora’s What The Steelers Look For criteria.
Not the biggest position of need for Pittsburgh, but adding a depth piece at minimum would be desirable. It will be fascinating to watch 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.
