For several years now, I have kept a personal running spreadsheet during the draft process. My goal was to learn about the players by gathering information. 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 types of players they look for, and the scores are meant to show 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 2026 Steelers’ selections, especially with a new coaching staff, I feel great about what the data points indicate and, of course, would love to hear feedback. Also, there is only so much time in the day, and there are additional things I’d like to measure, so I focus on the crucial and/or practical choices, in my opinion.
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, but rather trying to pinpoint names the Steelers may select, regardless of when they are drafted. After I gather a healthy pool of names I hear about or research, I begin 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? There will be two visuals: one for cornerbacks (CB) and one for safeties (S). There are some players whose pro positions are debatable, which I’ve accounted for, so fair warning. Here are the CBs that were combine invites:
NOTE: If you don’t see a name, please ask. I have compiled many more non-combine players, but I excluded them for a cleaner chart.
There is a tie for the top CB interest score at 9.9 – Washington’s Tacario Davis and Georgia’s Daylen Everette, tied for the third-best in the entire draft.
Some strong marks for Davis are a pre-draft visit, age, experience, pro day attendance, level of competition, and Senior Bowl. Though our Alex Kozora won’t be doing a new DB What The Steelers Look For (WTSLF) study this year, Davis qualified in his most recent study. Nine athletic score (two DNPs, agility tests). College performance was a lower mark for the otherwise clean box checker.
Everette had a formal combine meeting with Pittsburgh. Other strong marks are pro day attendance (including HC Mike McCarthy), age, experience, level of competition, Senior Bowl, and another WTSLF qualifier. College performance was a lower part of his interest score, too. Eight athletic score, with three DNPs (bench, agility).
Three more players in the nine-tier of athletic scores, starting with another husky and the third-best CB interest score: Washington’s Ephesians Prysock (9.8). Pre-draft visitor, WTSLF qualifier, with college performance, age, experience, pro day attendance level of competition, and Senior Bowl all above average interest marks or better. Ten athletic score, with a bench DNP.
Tennessee’s Colton Hood (9.3 interest score) had Pittsburgh defensive pass game coordinator/secondary coach Jason Simmons and Ike Taylor (former Steelers CB, now scout) at his pro day. The fourth player in a row at the top of the CB interest scores to meet the WTSLF criteria. Performance, age, formal combine meeting, level of competition, and Senior Bowl are also positives. Experience was a rare lower mark. Eight athletic score, with three DNPs (bench, agility).
Malik Muhammad of Texas (9.0 interest score) was a pre-draft visitor. Body type, college performance, age, experience, pro day attendance (scout), level of competition, and Senior Bowl were all above the line. Ten athletic score (bench DNP).
Four players in the eight-tier of interest scores. Arizona DB Treydan Stukes (8.7 interest score) was a pre-draft visitor. Another WTSLF box checker. Stronger marks are college performance, experience, level of competition, and Senior Bowl. Lack of pro day attendance and age were lower on the interest scale. Seven athletic score, with smaller hands than Pittsburgh’s draft history (848), and three DNPs (bench, agility).
Tennessee’s Jermod McCoy (8.5 interest score) also had a highly attended pro day with Hood (Simmons and Taylor, two Steelers defensive personnel members). Formal combine meeting, body type, age, experience, and level of competition are all strong. Missed the 2025 season (ACL tear), dinging his college performance mark (which looks at their final season only). Nine athletic score (agility DNPs).
Arizona State’s Keith Abney II (8.1 interest score) had a formal combine meeting with Pittsburgh. Other strong scores are college performance, body type, age, experience, pro day attendance, and level of competition. Eight athletic score, missing the mark in shuttle time (4.38), and two DNPs (jumps).
LSU’s Mansoor Delane (8.0 interest score) had a formal combine meeting with the Steelers. Solid box checker too, including college performance, age, experience, pro day attendance, and level of competition, all above average or better. Six athletic score due to DNPs (bench, jumps, agility).
Eight more with interest scores in the seven range: Ohio State’s Davison Igbinosun (7.9), Julian Neal of Arkansas (7.7)), San Diego State’s Chris Johnson (7.7), California’s Hezekiah Masses (7.5), Alabama’s Domani Jackson (7.3), Miami’s Keionte Scott (7.1), Clemson’s Avieon Terrell (7.1), and Iowa’s TJ Hall (7.0).
Igbinosun had strong pro day attendance (including assistant GM Andy Weidl). Johnson had a pre-draft visit, but lower level of competition and lacked pro day attendance. Neal is a WTSLF qualifier, with age a lower interest mark. Ike Taylor was also at Jackson and Scott’s pro day. The latter had an informal combine meeting with Pittsburgh, as did Masses.
Two players with lower interest scores met with Pittsburgh informally at the combine – South Carolina’s Brandon Cisse (6.7 interest score) and Indiana’s D’Angelo Ponds (6.6). Though no players with lower interest scores had perfect 11 athletic scores, two more met past WTSLF criteria – Stephen F. Austin’s Charles Demmings (5.7 interest score) and Houston’s Latrell McCutchin Sr.
So much interest in cornerbacks.
Now for the visual and breakdown of safeties:
The top interest score at safety (by far) is Miami’s Jakobe Thomas at 9.9, which also ties the top two CB scores (tied for third-best in the entire draft class). Pre-draft visit, Ike Taylor at his pro day, college performance, body type, age, experience, level of competition, and Senior Bowl checked the interest scores solidly across the board. Eight athletic score, missing the ten-split threshold (1.63), and two DNPs (bench, three-cone).
Three players in the eight-tier of athletic scores. First up is Toledo’s Emmanuel McNeil-Warren (8.5). Pre-draft visit, college performance, body type, age, experience, and Senior Bowl are positives. The level of competition was a lower interest score. Eight athletic score due to DNPs (bench, agility).
The third-best S interest score is Oregon’s Dillon Thieneman (8.2). Formal combine meeting, body type, college performance, age, experience, pro day attendance, and level of competition were all above average to great. Eight athletic score, missing in hand size (900), with agility DNPs.
Ohio State’s Caleb Downs (8.1 interest score) had strong pro day attendance (including assistant GM Andy Weidl). Body type, college performance, age, and experience all checked the interest boxes, but no meetings. Four athletic score, fitting Pittsburgh’s draft history in measurables, but no athletic testing.
Four more in the seven range of athletic scores: LSU’s A.J. Haulcy (7.4), Penn State’s Zakee Wheatley (7.1), and two Trojans – USC’s Bishop Fitzgerald (7.0) and Kamari Ramsey (7.0).
Haulcy, Wheatley, and Fitzgerald each had informal combine meetings with Pittsburgh. Age was a lower mark for Wheatley, while the other two were above the line across the interest scores. Ramsey fit that bill, too, aside from no meetings with the Steelers.
A few players with lower interest scores met with Pittsburgh at the combine: TCU’s Bud Clark (formal, 6.8 interest score), Arizona’s Genesis Smith (informal, 6.6 interest score), and South Carolina’s Jalon Kilgore (informal, 6.4 interest score). Two players with lower interest scores had perfect 11 athletic scores – Maryland’s Jalen Huskey (6.4 interest score) and Oklahoma’s Robert Spears-Jennings (5.1 interest score).
Clearly, Pittsburgh is interested in the DB position, especially at CB, and 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 (or more) of the names listed above? Who are some of your favorites? Thanks for reading, and let me know your thoughts in the comments.
Previous “Interest” Studies