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 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 tight ends (TE) 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 Pittsburgh’s Gavin Bartholomew (8.8), tied for 34th in the entire draft class. Pro day attendance (Assistant GM Andy Weidl, TE coach Alfredo Roberts), age (21), experience, combine meeting, and Senior Bowl are strengths. 2024 performance and body type were lower. Nine athletic, missing the weight and arm length thresholds, true for several in this TE class. Plenty inline snaps, and some slot last year. Day Three projection.
For context, Steelers TE Darnell Washington was selected in the 2023 draft, and had a 9.6 interest (T-15th in that entire class) and ten athletic score.
Second in this draft is Notre Dame’s Mitchell Evans (8.7). High pro day attendance (HC Mike Tomlin, GM Omar Kahn, OC Arthur Smith), but several prospects Pittsburgh was likely eying. Size, age (22), experience, informal combine meeting with Roberts, and Shrine Bowl are his best scores. Performance was a low mark. Ten athletic, missing in arm length. Inline, slot, and a bit of backfield alignment. Day Three prospect.
Third best is Clemson’s Jake Briningstool (8.1). Pro day attendance also (Tomlin, Smith), but lacked a dinner meeting that some teammates had. Age (22), experience, informal combine meeting, and Senior Bowl are strengths. Performance and body type are lower scores. Five athletic, missing in weight, arm length, hand size, and three DNPs (bench, shuttles). Comparable slot/inline snaps, slightly more of the former. Another Day Three guy.
Penn State’s Tyler Warren (8.0) lacked pro day attendance (scout) compared to the list so far. Performance, body type, experience, and formal combine meeting. Three athletic only measured in, checking the height, weight, and hand size thresholds, but missing arm length. Primarily inline, with slot, and notable backfield snaps too—consensus first-rounder.
Only one TE landed in the seven-tier of interest scores: Alabama’s CJ Dippre (7.9). Pro day attendance (Tomlin, Kahn), size, age (21), experience, and Senior Bowl are positives. Performance and lack of meetings on the other side of the coin. Nine athletic, missing the arm length, and three-cone boxes. Primarily, inline snaps. Day Three possibility.
Players with lower interest scores that met with Pittsburgh were North Carolina’s Bryson Nesbit (5.2 interest, eight athletic) and Texas Tech’s Jalin Conyers (4.7, nine). Both were informal combine meetings with Roberts. Likely late-round/undrafted candidates, emphasizing less interest and need for the Steelers at the position.
Clearly, the TE position is sured up more than other spots on Pittsburgh’s roster. The Steelers’ offense and OC Arthur Smith value the position. If they do select one, the clues point to a late-round player, likely one that Smith and/or Roberts were involved with. One thing’s for sure: I can’t wait to see how it all 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.
