With the Steelers’ 2025 NFL Draft now in the rearview mirror, I wanted to look at how the data from the series held up and provide some takeaways as well. Here is a quick review of what the scores measure and the links by position if you’d like to check those out:
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.
Here are links to the positional articles I do pre-draft:
Defensive Line + EDGE Rusher
Running Backs
Quarterbacks
Linebackers
Cornerbacks
Wide Receivers
Tight Ends
Offensive Line
Safeties
This was Omar Khan’s third draft as the Steelers GM, which is nice to get a larger sample size of his tendencies. Let’s see how the scores fared with the 2025 Steelers Draft class:
A couple of things stand out overall compared to past drafts. There is less correlation with athletic scores this year. For context, 6-of-7 Steelers selections in the last two drafts had above-the-mean athletic scores, compared to just 3-of-7 in this 2025 class. The three players were later picks on Day Three, to boot. Less pre-draft testing with every passing year is a factor, but it is a notable shift that will be interesting to monitor moving forward.
The average interest score landed a tick below seven among 2025 draft picks and held truer, with 5-of-7 Pittsburgh selections in that camp. It was 6-of-7 in 2023 and 2024, while 2022 (the first year I did these studies) had only 3-of-7 above the mean. The Steelers eyed Ohio State players extensively and double-dipped from that school, along with another school in Iowa.
Hawkeye players lacked pro day attendance but met with Pittsburgh before the draft. Six of the seven newest Steelers also met with the team in some capacity before the draft. The exception was their final selection. This is the second year in a row that HC Mike Tomlin and GM Omar Khan weren’t at their first-rounders’ pro day, with pre-draft visits having the clearer standing track record in recent years.
Many tendencies remained for the Pittsburgh Steelers, but we see some shifts with Khan at the helm. Let’s get into the individuals.
In the first round, Pittsburgh selected Oregon DL Derrick Harmon. His 9.1 interest score tied for seventh at the position, which the Steelers eyed thoroughly—had multiple meetings (pre-draft, combine). Performance, body type, and age (21) were other strong marks. Experience, and especially less pro day attendance (scout) were two lower scores. Six athletic, checking the measurement and 40-time boxes, with five DNPs.
Medical concerns cropped up late in the process, but Pittsburgh’s doctors cleared him at his pre-draft visit, thankfully adding comfort to pounce on the opportunity to add him later than some expected. The Steelers continued their track record of taking on potential injury risk for hopeful reward with talented players.
The Steelers got value at several draft slots, including Iowa RB Kaleb Johnson in round three, projected by many in the second. 8.1 interest score ranked ninth among 2025 RBs. Also had a pre-draft and combine meeting. College performance, age (21), and size fit recent Pittsburgh picks at the position. Lacked pro day attendance, and experience were lower scores. Six athletic (five DNPs), checking the measurement, and 40 boxes just like Harmon.
EDGE wasn’t high on the position needs list, but the Steelers seized the fourth-round opportunity to add Ohio State’s Jack Sawyer (projected Day Two player) to the room. We didn’t have a record of a pro day dinner, which DC Teryl Austin noted in his post-pick interview.
That bumps Sawyer’s interest score up to 9.5, which is the best of 2025 EDGEs. Pro day attendance (HC Mike Tomlin, GM Omar Khan, and Austin), performance, age (22), and experience are pluses. Lacked other meetings, though. Five athletic, checking the bench and measurement boxes, with six DNPs.
Pittsburgh traded down in the fifth round, picking up an additional seventh rounder in the process.
Thankfully resulted in a double dip on the defensive interior with Iowa’s Yahya Black. 7.3 interest mark (T-21st) in a stacked IDL class. Pre-draft visitor, size, performance, experience, and Senior Bowl were strong marks. Lack of pro day attendance and age (23) were on the flipside. Nine athletic: a bench DNP, and set a new 40-time precedent (5.39). Former Steeler Dan McCullers (2014 pick), another large human, held that previously (5.3).
Surprisingly, Ohio State QB Will Howard fell to Pittsburgh in round six. 11.3 interest score: best among Steelers draft picks, 2025 QBs, and T-third in the entire draft class. Only two prospects had better interest marks, fellow Buckeye RBs TreVeyon Henderson and Quinshon Judkins. Both went early in the second round, so we unfortunately will never know if they would have been the pick over Johnson in the third round.
Howard had the pro day attendance (Tomlin, Khan, OC Arthur Smith), dinner, and combine meeting. Performance, body type, and Senior Bowl were strengths, with age (23) the lowest. Seven athletic: three DNPs (40-times, bench). Set a new three-cone precedent (7.13), barely behind 2013 pick Landry Jones (7.12).
With their added seventh rounder, the Steelers went bloodlines with Washington LB Carson Bruener, son of former Steelers TE and team scout Mark Bruener. Obviously know him well, paying him less attention with a 6.3 interest score (ninth among LBs). The positives were the pro-day attendance (Bruener), informal combine meeting, size, experience, and Shrine Bowl. Age (23) a lower score. Ten athletic, due to a DNP on the bench.
A few picks later, Pittsburgh selected Central Michigan CB/PR Donte Kent 229th overall. The only non-combine player of the class was a surprise to most, garnering the second-lowest 5.6 interest score of Pittsburgh’s selections in the four years I’ve done the series (2022 QB Chris Oladokun, 4.0).
Kent’s size and experience fit, while the lack of meetings, performance, age (23), level of competition, and no all-star game are negatives. Eight athletic in a full workout, setting new thresholds in hand size (8 1/2”), shuttle (4.38), and three-cone (7.15). Previously, those numbers were 8 7/8”, 4.33, and 7.09, respectively.
Reiterates the notable shift in athletic testing, which will be adjusted moving forward. No selections had perfect 11 athletic scores (four in 2024), or made our Alex Kozora’s What The Steelers Look For studies either (three each in 2023 and 2024). One year isn’t a trend, but I find this notable.
Aside from Pittsburgh’s final pick, the level of competition and meetings was a theme in this draft. Tomlin/Khan were 3-of-7 at all-star games, compared to all seven 2024 selections. For the second year in a row, Tomlin/Khan weren’t at a first-rounder’s pro day, one of the biggest draft tendencies that has shifted under Khan.
Where Pittsburgh stayed most true were past size thresholds (all seven picks), bloodlines, age (particularly youth at the top of the draft), experience, meetings (6-of-7), and 5-of-7 selections with pro day attendance. While the latter has shifted away from first-rounders, it’s still very important in the interest scores for players who have worn the Black and Gold.
It is not the strongest draft in terms of my interest/athletic scores, but Pittsburgh found great value in several spots to make their 2025 roster better on paper. I can’t wait to see the rookies in action and how the scores fare in the future. I hope you enjoyed the festivities as much as the Steelers Depot team.
What are your thoughts on Pittsburgh’s 2025 draft class? What about the interest and athletic scores? Thanks for reading, and let me know your thoughts in the comments.
