Eckert’s Examinations: 2023 College LB Coverage Study – Payton Wilson

Continuing our post-draft series, I wanted to move to the linebacker position where Pittsburgh was able to select Payton Wilson in the third round, 98th overall. Today’s goal is to look at and provide stat context for the position using Sports Info Solutions (SIS). The data in this study looks at their final college season in 2023, focusing on the players who heard their names called in the draft. The goal is to see how Wilson stacked up among his peers.

First, let’s look at opportunities with coverage snaps and targets:

Wilson was in situations often compared to his peers in 2023, with 308 coverage snaps, seventh-most out of 18 qualifying linebackers. Considering he played more varied roles for the NC State Wolfpack compared to several other linebackers, including 173 snaps as an edge rusher, his volume in coverage ranked higher than I expected.

Also notable was being targeted 20 times, tied for second-most out of the 2024 drafted linebackers. So, Wilson was in coverage situations regularly, and quarterbacks targeted him frequently. This is an extremely important factor to recall as we dive deeper.

Now let’s begin to examine the quality of play further with completion percentage and deserved catch percentage, which is the number of completions and drops divided by the number of catchable targets and passes defensed:

In these terms, Wilson landed at the mean with an 81.3 deserved catch percentage, which ranked ninth. This number layers more context than his completion rate allowed, which was pale in comparison at 65-percent (15th). On the 20 passes targeted at Wilson, 16 of those where catchable, 13 were completed, and provided a pass defensed.

I was also curious to see the type of coverage schemes Wilson was in, obviously another important piece of the puzzle. Wilson did spend more time in zone than in man coverage, so some of the completions rates can be attributed to that, and will add even more context shortly.

Next, let’s look at the depth of targets with yards per attempt and yards per coverage snap:

Not great for Wilson, landing well below average in the yardage data points. Some of that is the recent point of zone coverage, but that of course is common at the linebacker position. His 6.0 yards per attempt ranked 13th, while his 0.4 yards per coverage snap tied for second-worst at 16th. The latter does make sense, seeing Wilson have to clean up several big plays with excellent pursuit that often weren’t his fault.

Here are linebacker’s QB Rating Against, along with Points Saved Per Play (PSPP), which is the total of a player’s EPA responsibility while in coverage using the Total Points system that distributes credit among all players on the field for a given play (with positive numbers being good).

Totals are scaled up to map to the average points scored or allowed on a team level, with the player’s snap count determining how much to adjust. For pass defenders, this includes accounting for pass rush, broken tackles, dropped interceptions, turnovers, and turnover returns. Values are modulated using a quality-of-competition multiplier based on each opponent’s previous year of performance:

This is where we see Wilson’s coverage value really emerge, with the top-ranked points saved per play out of all 2024 drafted linebackers. Factored into that number were impactful plays, including three interceptions and no touchdowns allowed. Recalling 16 of Wilson’s 20 targets were catchable, it’s quite impressive to have that many picks, and nearly had a fourth on the aforementioned pass defensed as well.

It’s great to see Pittsburgh prioritize ball production once again, which reaped rewards last season prior to the room being decimated by injury. Medical worries are a well-documented concern with Wilson, allowing his talents to be available for the Steelers in the third round. Knock on wood he puts that narrative to bed with a healthy rookie year.

Paired with this was a 60.4 QBR Against, ranking seventh. With all the other stats in the article, this number makes sense given the high-end plays he provided, but other elements of his coverage in 2023 landing him closer to average in this regard.

To close, let’s look at boom and bust percentages from SIS to see how the players performed on extreme end of the spectrum plays:

• Boom % = The percentage of dropbacks that resulted in an Expected Points Added (EPA) of 1 or more (a very successful play for the offense)
• Bust % = The percentage of dropbacks that resulted in an EPA of -1 or less (a very unsuccessful play for the offense)

Following the previous view and takeaways, it makes sense to see Wilson above the mean in bust rate, at 20-percent, which tied for fourth-best. Where he lacked was a 30-percent boom rate, which was second-worst among 2024 drafted linebackers.

The latter was a particularly surprising result, starting with no touchdowns allowed, but we did see Wilson having to clean up big plays on film. On one hand, some of those situations highlighted his impressive athleticism, but would obviously rather see that on display more often in downhill playmaking.

So, the data emphasizes clear strengths and weaknesses in Wilson’s play in coverage in 2023. Where he fared best was a top-ranked points saved per play, factoring in several things including impact plays (notably three interceptions, no TDs allowed) and team value, which was very encouraging to learn.

Wilson also tied for the second-most targeted, which makes his strong marks all the more impressive, and important context to the other side of the coin as well. Another top five result for Wilson was bust rate, tying for fourth-best among his peers, encouragingly.

Another above average result was coverage snaps (seventh), along with a matching rank in QBR Against that landed at the mean among his drafted peers. He was also right at the average among the group in deserved catch rate (ninth).

Where Wilson lacked, and will hopefully improve as he starts his journey with the black and gold include: yards per attempt (13th), completion rate (15th), yards per coverage snap (T-16th), and boom rate (T-16th). As I highlighted throughout the article, several factors play into the stats, such as zone coverage effecting yardage results for example.

Overall, I’m very excited to see how Wilson fares in these terms in the NFL. His athleticism helps in an optimistic projection for success, with evidence of ball production in college one of the other elements I’m most hopeful will translate in a Steelers uniform.

Throughout the rest of the offseason, I will dive deeper into the data as we continue to learn about the newest Pittsburgh Steelers.