The Steelers picked up Roman Wilson in the second half of the third round, and that looks like an excellent value to me. Four receivers were selected in the second round, and another four were picked in the final 10 picks of the first, and Wilson may wind up being better than all of them.
Wilson didn’t post big numbers at Michigan, but I think that speaks more to how he was used rather than a lack of ability. I think he holds up just fine against the three receivers I looked at closely earlier in the week (Ricky Pearsall, Xavier Worthy and Keon Coleman).
Combined, those three other pass catches caught 68 balls where they were behind the line of scrimmage. On the vast majority of those plays, those are gimme catches, with the player doing little more than turning to face the quarterback, with the ball arriving long before a defensive back shows up – those plays involved no route running.
Wilson, on the other hand, caught only one of those quick passes outside all year. I’m sure if Michigan had chosen to throw him 25 of those passes, he would have caught about 23 or 24 of them. But who cares?
On the more impactful, downfield passes, Wilson was more effective than any of those three previous receivers. On plays where he caught the ball between 10 and 19 yards downfield, he caught 18 of the 19 passes thrown his way, including 5 TDs. That’s insane efficiency, considering the increased degree of difficulty on routes of that depth.
And Wilson was by far the most effective on deep passes (which I’m defining as catching the ball at least 20 yards downfield). He caught 10 of 15 passes thrown his way such plays, with another 4 TDs.
If we set aside catches under 10 yards, Wilson caught 82 percent of the passes thrown his way, way better than those other three receivers I just graded. Coleman and Worthy both caught fewer than half of such passes thrown they’re way (Coleman was down at 32 percent).
| RECEPTIONS 10-PLUS YARDS DOWNFIELD | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player | Tgt | No | Yds | Avg | TD | Pct |
| Pearsall | 45 | 29 | 692 | 23.9 | 4 | 64% |
| Wilson | 34 | 28 | 565 | 20.2 | 9 | 82% |
| Worthy | 46 | 22 | 544 | 24.7 | 3 | 48% |
| Coleman | 50 | 16 | 394 | 24.6 | 8 | 32% |
Wilson finished the season with only 2 catches on balls behind the line of scrimmage (one was a gimme, one with a little degree of difficulty), but I don’t care so much about those plays.
| RECEPTIONS BEHIND LINE OF SCRIMMAGE | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player | Tgt | No | Yds | Avg | TD |
| Worthy | 30 | 28 | 210 | 7.5 | 1 |
| Pearsall | 25 | 21 | 141 | 6.7 | 0 |
| Coleman | 20 | 19 | 108 | 5.7 | 1 |
| Wilson | 2 | 2 | 14 | 7.0 | 0 |
As I worked my way through all of Wilson’s targets, what impressed me most was how many came after plays had broken down. Half of his 12 touchdowns came on plays where J.J. McCarthy bailed on the initial play and started scrambling, with Wilson having to abandon the designed route, calculate where McCarthy might be headed, and get himself in a position where he was a friendly target. That’s a valuable skill for a pass catcher – to be a trusted, reliable decision maker in the clutch.
On this front, note that Russell Wilson has long been a quarterback who tends to pull the ball down and start scrambling around, with receivers then having to re-work the play on the fly. He’s not as good today in that regard as he’s been in the past, but there should be an above-average number of those plays in Pittsburgh.
Roman Wilson isn’t quite as big as you’d like (5-11, 185), but he’s tough. I saw him take a monster hit against Maryland (he left the game with a concussion and the DB was ejected for targeting) but nonetheless hang onto the ball. While I don’t see him as a notable contested-ball catcher, that was one hard-to-believe leaping 31-yard touchdown at Nebraska, with him wrapping around a defensive back, pinning the ball to the back of the player’s helmet – one of the top few catches of last year’s college season.
His hands look reliable. I read that he dropped one pass last year, but I didn’t see it any blatant drops when I was going through his plays. I flagged him for one that he maybe should have caught, but I wasn’t sure it should be categorized as a drop. He looks like a pro to me.
I’ve got his breakdown as follows (with BLOS being balls caught behind the line of scrimmage, short = 0-9 yards, medium = 10-19 yards and long behind 20-plus at the point of reception). These are all unofficial numbers off the TV broadcasts, and it looks like I’m 2 catches and 51 yards short – but good enough to paint a picture what his game is about.
| ROMAN WILSON RECEIVING BREAKDOWN | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range | Tgt | No | Yds | Avg | TD | YAC |
| BLOS | 2 | 2 | 14 | 7.0 | 0 | 18 |
| short | 19 | 16 | 159 | 9.9 | 3 | 162 |
| medium | 19 | 18 | 308 | 17.1 | 5 | 81 |
| long | 15 | 10 | 257 | 25.7 | 4 | 36 |
| Total | 55 | 46 | 738 | 16.0 | 12 | 297 |
| Official | -- | 48 | 789 | 16.4 | 12 | -- |
Whether some of these other receivers – Worthy, Pearsall, Coleman – could have made a Wilson-type impact for Michigan, I can’t say. All of these guys are playing in different offenses and with different quarterbacks. But I like the look of this prospect. It doesn’t seem to make any sense to me that there were seven wide receivers picked between 23rd and 37th, while Wilson lasted until 84th. Seems like he should be been a top-40 pick.
The Steelers have a bunch of modest veterans, including Van Jefferson and Quez Watkins, but I expect Wilson will be starting ahead of those guys in Week 1. I just wish the Steelers could be counted on to pass a bit more. (With Arthur Smith as their offensive coordinator, I’m expecting a run-oriented offense.)
Wilson’s plays from 2023 appear below. On plays of special significance, I have them tagged with black dots.
| ROMAN WILSON'S 2023 PLAYS | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G | Opp. | Tgt | No | Yds | Range | Comment | YAC |
| 1 | E. Carolina | 1 | 1 | 17 | medium | out route, DB is nearby | 1 |
| 1 | E. Carolina | 1 | 1 | 14 | medium | • scramble drill, goes to end zone, TD | 0 |
| 1 | E. Carolina | 1 | 1 | 11 | short | open, underneath ball outside | 2 |
| 1 | E. Carolina | 1 | 0 | 0 | long | covered on 32 att, possibly pass int | |
| 1 | E. Carolina | 1 | 1 | 10 | medium | • scramble drill, 10 TD | 0 |
| 1 | E. Carolina | 1 | 1 | 12 | medium | finds spot in middle of field | 0 |
| 1 | E. Carolina | 1 | 1 | 15 | medium | open, out route for TD | 0 |
| 2 | UNLV | 1 | 1 | 16 | medium | open in middle of the field | 0 |
| 2 | UNLV | 1 | 1 | 24 | long | open near sideline, DB on his back | 0 |
| 2 | UNLV | 1 | 1 | 13 | short | middle of field for 7 plus 6 YAC for TD | 6 |
| 2 | UNLV | 1 | 1 | 14 | medium | crossing route, 33 YAC for TD | 33 |
| 3 | Bowling Green | 1 | 1 | 9 | short | out route, open at the sticks | 0 |
| 3 | Bowling Green | 1 | 1 | 33 | long | open, post route for TD | 2 |
| 4 | Rutgers | 1 | 1 | 22 | medium | open, crossing route plus 11 YAC | 11 |
| 4 | Rutgers | 1 | 1 | 15 | medium | open, middle of the field | 1 |
| 4 | Rutgers | 1 | 1 | 10 | short | open, 3 yd crossing route plus 7 YAC | 7 |
| 5 | at Nebraska | 1 | 1 | 31 | long | • scramble drill TD, contested catch | 0 |
| 5 | at Nebraska | 1 | 1 | 5 | short | catches on sideline late in play | 0 |
| 5 | at Nebraska | 1 | 1 | 16 | long | • scramble drill TD, back of end zone | 0 |
| 5 | at Nebraska | 1 | 0 | 0 | medium | fails to hold 18 ydr going to ground | |
| 5 | at Nebraska | 1 | 1 | 8 | BLOS | misdirection play-action, open | 9 |
| 6 | at Minnesota | 1 | 1 | 5 | short | open underneath | 1 |
| 6 | at Minnesota | 1 | 1 | 17 | medium | open, middle of the field | 4 |
| 6 | at Minnesota | 1 | 1 | 34 | long | wide open for 24, room to run | 14 |
| 7 | Indiana | 1 | 1 | 0 | long | covered, ball knocked away | |
| 7 | Indiana | 1 | 1 | 2 | short | play action, wide open for TD | 0 |
| 7 | Indiana | 1 | 1 | 6 | short | posts up for 5, 1 YAC | 1 |
| 8 | at Mich. St. | 1 | 0 | 0 | long | contested 28 yd att, broken up | |
| 8 | at Mich. St. | 1 | 1 | 25 | short | 5 yd crossing route plus 20 YAC | 20 |
| 8 | at Mich. St. | 1 | 1 | 25 | long | • scramble drill TD, adjusts route | 0 |
| 8 | Purdue | 1 | 1 | 21 | medium | open in middle of field, 4 YAC | 4 |
| 8 | Purdue | 1 | 1 | 20 | medium | wide open off play action, 2 YAC | 2 |
| 8 | Purdue | 1 | 1 | 8 | short | out route for 8, no YAC | 0 |
| 8 | Purdue | 1 | 1 | 15 | medium | out route from slot, 1 YAC | 1 |
| 8 | Purdue | 1 | 1 | 11 | short | pivot route from slot, 10 YAC | 10 |
| 8 | Purdue | 1 | 1 | 18 | medium | late in play, wide open for 18 | 0 |
| 8 | Purdue | 1 | 1 | 35 | long | open down sideline for 30, 5 YAC | 5 |
| 9 | Purdue | 1 | 1 | 11 | medium | settles in middle of field for 11 | 0 |
| 10 | at Maryland | 1 | 1 | 23 | long | • hangs on despite targeting hit | 0 |
| 11 | Ohio State | 1 | 1 | 9 | short | out route for 1, 8 YAC | 8 |
| 11 | Ohio State | 1 | 0 | 0 | long | covered on 22 TD att, no chance at rec | |
| 11 | Ohio State | 1 | 1 | 22 | medium | • runs across field for 17 plus 5 YAC, TD | 5 |
| 11 | Ohio State | 1 | 0 | 0 | short | catch at sticks ruled OOB | |
| 11 | Ohio State | 1 | 1 | 5 | short | sprints outside from slot, 3 YAC | 3 |
| 12 | v. Iowa | 1 | 0 | 0 | long | covered on 28 yd att, no chance at rec | |
| 12 | v. Iowa | 1 | 1 | 14 | short | out route for 9, plus 6 YAC | 5 |
| 12 | v. Iowa | 1 | 0 | 0 | long | • scramble drill, can't hold 20 yd att | |
| 13 | v. Alabama | 1 | 0 | 0 | short | covered on short out route | |
| 13 | v. Alabama | 1 | 1 | 4 | short | misdirection play-action, open for TD | 4 |
| 13 | v. Alabama | 1 | 1 | 20 | medium | wide open on gadget play | 3 |
| 13 | v. Alabama | 1 | 1 | 21 | short | wide open underneath, 16ish YAC | 16 |
| 13 | v. Alabama | 1 | 1 | 29 | medium | open for 15 plus 14 YAC | 14 |
| 14 | v. Washington | 1 | 1 | 37 | long | catches in stride for 22, 15 YAC | 15 |
| 14 | v. Washington | 1 | 0 | 0 | short | covered on 4th-and-3 out route | |
| 14 | v. Washington | 1 | 1 | 6 | BLOS | quick toss outside, 9 YAC | 9 |
| 14 | v. Washington | 1 | 1 | 11 | short | misdirection play-action, open | 11 |
—Ian Allan