Page 1 of 1

The Pittsburgh Wide Receiver Track Record

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:38 am
by thunderspirit
Inspired by @RustinFields's post here, I did some research into the Steelers' history of drafting WRs over the past 12 years. (The rookie wage scale put in place for the 2011 NFL season is a pretty clear demarcation of eras, so that's where I went back to.)

Honestly, much of the Steelers' famed success at finding receivers predates 2011; Hines Ward (3rd round) in 1998, Antwaan Randle-el (2nd) in 2002, Mike Wallace (3rd) in 2009, Emmanuel Sanders (3rd) and Antonio Brown (6th) in 2010.

Since 2011, the Steelers have drafted 13 wide receivers and signed one significant UDFA contributor.
Image

A few things stand out here: first, the Steelers place an emphasis on return guys (in fact, if you're not from a Power Five school, you won't get a look from them if you don't return kicks), including every single Day 3 or UDFA selection. Second, there's a 9 inch hand size threshold. And third, 8 of 13 picks are Day 2 investments.

Moving on to athletic profile.
Image

The vertical and broad jumps are valued measurements (most above 33 inches and 10 feet, respectively), and most of the Day 2 guys ran 4.50 or lower in the 40. Both of the 4th round picks appear to be risk/reward dice rolls; Bryant was an athletic marvel with just one starting season (with mediocre production), while Austin has great speed and athletic ability but is tiny.

Lastly, production metrics.
Image

Markus Wheaton never panned out as much more than a decent NFL player, but his production showed promise and the athletic profile was there. Ditto James Washington, whom I was a big fan of back in the 2018 draft. (Whoops.) JuJu Smith-Schuster was undervalued due to injuries his last season at USC, and the Steelers took advantage. Might have done the same with George Pickens.

It's hard to draw a lot of conclusions from this subset. Drafting wide receivers every year is definitely a philosophy they embrace. Pittsburgh doesn't seem to have a particular physical profile beyond a 9 inch minimum hand size (unlike, say, the Packers' penchant for receivers over 6 ft and 200 pounds). They favor athletic guys on Day 2 (self-evident, really, being that they're Day 2 picks) and emphasize contributions as return men. But their recent track record doesn't really live up to their reputation.

Re: The Pittsburgh Wide Receiver Track Record

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:29 am
by Rusty Trombagent
It feels wrong to audit Colbert's WR draft history and leave Antonio Brown, Emmanuel Sanders and Santonio Holmes off the list!

Re: The Pittsburgh Wide Receiver Track Record

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:10 am
by thunderspirit
RustinFields wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:29 am It feels wrong to audit Colbert's WR draft history and leave Antonio Brown, Emmanuel Sanders and Santonio Holmes off the list!
Maybe. I'm not sure, though.

2011 was the introduction of the rookie wage scale, which yielded a fundamental shift in the value of draft selections — hitting on your draft picks became more valuable from 2011 on because of the advantage offered with the cap under that scale for a defined number of years. The Steelers' track record after that point isn't as good as their reputation suggests. You can acknowledge successes in a different era and still note shortcomings after that in a new one. (For instance, Ozzie Newsome is considered one of the best drafters for a span of a dozen and a half years or so — rightly, I might add — but his ROI on Day 1 and Day 2 picks in years 2015-2017 is, um, dicey. Both these things can be true.)

Re: The Pittsburgh Wide Receiver Track Record

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:19 am
by wulfy
Interesting thing about Claypool when he came out is that a lot of draft experts pegged him as a TE in the NFL due to his size and his plus blocking - until he busted out a 4.42/40 and a 40.5" vertical at the Combine at 238 pounds.

Re: The Pittsburgh Wide Receiver Track Record

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:51 am
by Moriarty
wulfy wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:19 am Interesting thing about Claypool when he came out is that a lot of draft experts pegged him as a TE in the NFL due to his size and his plus blocking - until he busted out a 4.42/40 and a 40.5" vertical at the Combine at 238 pounds.
Interesting, and maybe he still should be.
But, as we already have Kmet at that position and same place on their rookie contracts, that doesn't do us much good.

Re: The Pittsburgh Wide Receiver Track Record

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:04 pm
by wulfy
For the record, I'm still happy we acquired him - coming in halfway through the year with a broken passing offense is difficult. I'd like to see what this season looks like - talent wise, he's as good as any WR that will be available in the second round and better than any name currently (emphasis on currently) available in free agency. If Keenan Allen comes available, I'll retract that statement.

Re: The Pittsburgh Wide Receiver Track Record

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2023 9:25 am
by IE
I think if the Steelers have had a "type" in the last 15 years it was mostly about what they thought was best for Ben. I think that's the right approach - "what does our star QB need?"

On Claypool's position, I'd like to think a good OC doesn't care if a guy has a TE or WR label, and would use a guy for what he can do vs a label. I think Getsy already basically uses ESB as a TE in many cases. A lot of TEs in the league also line up and run routes like a WR at times (although not many like Kelce who has become almost positionless). Having Claypool and Kmet being a bit similar doesn't seem to be a problem. Ususally getting ONE guy who can block and be an effective WR/playmaker is the problem.

I think where that may matter is in what Getsy got out of Claypool with no off-season. OCs do alter their plans based on their weapons and that might just not be comething Getsy could accomplish during the season when he was focused on working with JF1.

From what we've seen Claypool do in the past it seems pretty clear to me that we'll see more out of Claypool once he gets an offseason under his belt and develop a rapport with JF1. It is much easier to perform well as a rookie with a HOF-level QB who can make you successful. I think that is the story with Claypool - he had Ben at his peak in terms of QB savvy and still enough juice in his arm for that one season. JF1 will be doing that later in his career, but for right now they just need to practice and get to know each other.

Re: The Pittsburgh Wide Receiver Track Record

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2023 10:37 am
by The Marshall Plan
Chase Claypool is going to be fine.

The problem is that Poles put the cart before the horse and traded for a WR while the OL was no good at pass pro.

Pretend for a minute that you HAD TO trade that 2nd rounder. Had to.

With how our team is currently built why wouldn't you trade to get the best OL over here instead?

A 2nd rounder isn't going to land you an elite LT, but I'm guessing you could get an RT out of it. Sure as heck a very good C.

What I think happened is that Poles saw the FA market for WRs this upcoming offseason and traded for Claypool.

Re: The Pittsburgh Wide Receiver Track Record

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2023 1:34 pm
by Ditka’s dictaphone
The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Feb 12, 2023 10:37 am Chase Claypool is going to be fine.

The problem is that Poles put the cart before the horse and traded for a WR while the OL was no good at pass pro.
Hey man we’ve got the #2 ranked OL at pass pro :lol:

Re: The Pittsburgh Wide Receiver Track Record

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2023 2:00 pm
by The Marshall Plan
Ditka’s dictaphone wrote: Sun Feb 12, 2023 1:34 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Feb 12, 2023 10:37 am Chase Claypool is going to be fine.

The problem is that Poles put the cart before the horse and traded for a WR while the OL was no good at pass pro.
Hey man we’ve got the #2 ranked OL at pass pro :lol:
How could I forget?

I just found out another statistic.

JF1 hasn't won a game on a Saturday since college. I think we should trade him.

Re: The Pittsburgh Wide Receiver Track Record

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2023 3:58 pm
by IE
The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Feb 12, 2023 10:37 am Chase Claypool is going to be fine.

The problem is that Poles put the cart before the horse and traded for a WR while the OL was no good at pass pro.

Pretend for a minute that you HAD TO trade that 2nd rounder. Had to.

With how our team is currently built why wouldn't you trade to get the best OL over here instead?

A 2nd rounder isn't going to land you an elite LT, but I'm guessing you could get an RT out of it. Sure as heck a very good C.

What I think happened is that Poles saw the FA market for WRs this upcoming offseason and traded for Claypool.
It just came down to supply and demand. Poles is pretty certain he can get OL this year in the draft or FA to help the the line. But surveying the landscape of FA and draft at WR and he concluded that was the move he had to make. So remember it wasn't just an objected question of what is more important - it was a function of supply.

It could turn out to be a massive overpay. Could look like a fine deal in the long run. But we don't know that yet. Guy is 24 with great measurables and showed he is capable of putting up numbers. He will in Chicago too.

Sort of funny that it might be even highly likely that the Bears basically get that top-4 second rounder back through trade-downs. If they did & drafted a WR would he be better than Claypool?

Re: The Pittsburgh Wide Receiver Track Record

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2023 4:49 pm
by The Marshall Plan
IE wrote: Sun Feb 12, 2023 3:58 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Feb 12, 2023 10:37 am Chase Claypool is going to be fine.

The problem is that Poles put the cart before the horse and traded for a WR while the OL was no good at pass pro.

Pretend for a minute that you HAD TO trade that 2nd rounder. Had to.

With how our team is currently built why wouldn't you trade to get the best OL over here instead?

A 2nd rounder isn't going to land you an elite LT, but I'm guessing you could get an RT out of it. Sure as heck a very good C.

What I think happened is that Poles saw the FA market for WRs this upcoming offseason and traded for Claypool.
It just came down to supply and demand. Poles is pretty certain he can get OL this year in the draft or FA to help the the line. But surveying the landscape of FA and draft at WR and he concluded that was the move he had to make. So remember it wasn't just an objected question of what is more important - it was a function of supply.

It could turn out to be a massive overpay. Could look like a fine deal in the long run. But we don't know that yet. Guy is 24 with great measurables and showed he is capable of putting up numbers. He will in Chicago too.

Sort of funny that it might be even highly likely that the Bears basically get that top-4 second rounder back through trade-downs. If they did & drafted a WR would he be better than Claypool?
Claypool would be the better player TODAY. Unless if some phenom just miraculously dropped in the draft.

But there's some other things to look at:

1) We shouldn't be drafting a WR unless if it's a slot guy.
2) That second rounder you referred to would be better served trading for somebody else's elite WR where that team has cap issues or just some personality issue with the guy.
3) Claypool's ceiling is our #2 WR. Which is fine.

But we need that elite guy.

Re: The Pittsburgh Wide Receiver Track Record

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2023 4:54 pm
by Ditka’s dictaphone
Such a shame we weren’t in for Amari Cooper last year.
The Browns got him for a friggin 5th