Guest mz. Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I took the Wonderlic scores from Alo's list (and added VY, Alex Smith and Vick...three guys we talk about a lot here) and ran the data. According to my calculations on Excel, the correlation was under .2, which is very weak. But that's just correlating it with passer rating. One could run Wonderlic vs. YPA, win %, passing yards, etc., but I need to run for now. If anyone wants to do this, I'll email them the Excel sheet as a good template...just let me know. I know I really should use every NFL starter's score since the inception of the test and run that, but that's a lot of work. And if I screwed up the calculation, please let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I'm confused... the average Wonderlic score of the top 12 passers with over 300 attempts was a bulging 31.9. All the top passers got high Wonderlic scores. But then again... all the STARTING passers got pretty damn good scores. From my list, which starts Sanchez and Stafford, I'm betting the average of the 32 starters was about 26. But that takes us back to: 15 is really bad. Did he not take it again and get a 23? Do you know if Quinn took it before? Do you know anyone on the planet that thinks Eli Manning is a smarter quarterback than Peyton Manning? One person? Eli scored 11 points higher than Peyton. Quinn scored 6 points higher than Anderson. How you can use this information to definitively say that Quinn is smarter than Anderson is beyond me. One day he took a human resources test and he scored higher than Anderson on the same test. That's what we know. We also know that one day Eli took said test and scored much higher than Peyton. Conclusion: It's a human resources test. Scouts find it helpful. To use the reported scores as the end-all of a QB's football intelligence, and therefore his definitive prognosis for success n the NFL ... is phucking absurd. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipitkthx Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Did he not take it again and get a 23? Do you know if Quinn took it before? Do you know anyone on the planet that thinks Eli Manning is a smarter quarterback than Peyton Manning? One person? Eli scored 11 points higher than Peyton. Quinn scored 6 points higher than Anderson. How you can use this information to definitively say that Quinn is smarter than Anderson is beyond me. One day he took a human resources test and he scored higher than Anderson on the same test. That's what we know. We also know that one day Eli took said test and scored much higher than Peyton. Conclusion: It's a human resources test. Scouts find it helpful. To use the reported scores as the end-all of a QB's football intelligence, and therefore his definitive prognosis for success n the NFL ... is phucking absurd. Zombo Because the questions on this test are easy as hell...and the fact that you have to take this test is public knowledge. You can look it up and learn the format...scoring that low is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Yeah, the problem is that almost all of those starting quarterbacks got good Wonderlic scores. The Top 12 passers last year were well above the overall average. We'd obviously need to expand the study bigtime, but I figured I'd report my meager results anyhow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 We'd obviously need to expand the study bigtime, but I figured I'd report my meager results anyhow... These researchers from the University of Louisville did.... http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol10Iss1/TestingSuccess.htm Nice job mz the pussy...really, you put in a lot of effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Good find. I'm glad those researchers supported my hypothesis. But I don't think anyone was really thinking intelligence correlated negatively with performance, was there?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Shep your crusade to denigrate DA and support your position that BQ is going to be that much better is tiring. Any timed test that measures intelligence will always have people who score lower than what they could if it was not timed. The wonderlic like other IQ tests will support a specific sample and hurt others. It does not mean they sample that score lower are stupid it just means this sort of medium does not play to there strengths. You keep talking about the "it" factor..... that is a quotient that can not be tested for yet you argue about the wonderlic as a solid platform that somehow equates to NFL success. Does DA seem slower to me? yes but I have met many people who are quite intelligent that use a different methodology on how they come to conclusions that have similar personas like DA. Einstein failed mathematics..... I am sure his failing grade was not a measure of his future success. Trying to fit future potential by trying to test intelligence and specific aptitudes is a slippery slope. Bill Gates and many like him never graduated college yet they are seen as "brilliant" because of their obvious successful careers. BQ's 40 something qb rating in his last game was just a number that was obviously affected by other variables and not a good way to measure his future success. Yet his starting debut he was rated over 100.... different days different results because of other variables... neither can be used one way or the other to predict his future. SAT/ACT scores are definately another controversial testing methodology that people can vastly change their results from one attempt or another. Shep there is NO bottom line to your findings just you trying to shape this argument to fit your position. testing scores mean very little for predicting future success, it just means some people test well on certain days and others dont. Trying to use these IQ aptitude scores as a crystal ball for future NFL success is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Trying to use these IQ aptitude scores as a crystal ball for future NFL success is silly. Then why measure QB arm strength, leadership skills, accuracy or pocket presence? Intelligence is just as important as these characteristics, each of which I'm guessing you'd deem important to quarterbacking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffer X Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Trying to use these IQ aptitude scores as a crystal ball for future NFL success is silly. Ah Sev, you so silly. Try reading some threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 What is the premise in disputing this? That intelligence doesn't matter... or that the Wonderlic is somehow broken? I think everyone understands that intelligence matters and that the wonderlic is a helpful scouting tool. The problem is ... that you are trying to paint Derek Anderson as dumb. And you are using the wonderlic as the end-all meter of football intelligence for QBs to support your premise. I don't know about everyone else, but my problem is that you won't get off Brady Quinn's dick long enough for him to go out and win the job like a man. I don't want the job handed to someone because 1) it's his turn 2) he was drafted in the first round 3) he wants it badly 4) his wonderlic score is higher 5) he has local roots or 6) he's cuter. I want someone to take the job. I want someone to earn the job. I want Brady Quinn to show me, you, Mangini, and the world that he is a better QB than Derek Anderson. We are talking about over a month of training camp and four football games. That is plenty of time for the stronger dog to emerge. I think if Quinn goes out and beats Anderson ... it's better for Quinn, it's better for Anderson, it's better for the team, it's better for Mangini, it's better for Browns fans. You keep telling us all these qualities about Brady Quinn that make him a better QB than Derek Anderson, but everytime I say... 1.) OK then let them battle it out and best man wins or 2.) OK then Quinn better produce like Anderson did in 07 ... you back down. You want the job handed to him and you want him to get two or three years to get comfortable. Screw that. I'm not waiting. He's in his third year. He started for four years in Div. 1 and will have three NFL training camps in his pocket: Go out and do it, Brady Quinn. Beat Derek Anderson out. Claim your team. And win. Beat the motherphucking Steelers for the love of gawd and all that is holy. I'm right behind you. I think you can do it. But it's not getting handed to you .. prove you are the man for the job. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gips Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 It doesnt take a wonderlic test to see with your eyes that DA has sub par intellect and PR skills for a qb and BQ while being smart PR wise doesnt strike me as having but about average intellegent for a qb... All it really means to me is what i already know and that is that bq is likely to make faster and "maybe" better decisions than DA on the field under pressure... Both of these guys carry a hardnosed blue collar get er done work ethic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Some people are a genius in one area and a moron in another. Taking a written test is different than making judgements on the field. On the field, the action is quick and there are many different moving parts. You are actively observing, thinking, and processing information. Completely different than being locked in some room taking a test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 On the field, the action is quick and there are many different moving parts. You are actively observing, thinking, and processing information. Completely different than being locked in some room taking a test. How is what you described any different from a high-pressure, timed test? Succeeding at both requires the same exact mental skill set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 not buying it. You are in two totally different environments. Think about visual learners. If you ask them to spell something they might need to write it down first. They are better at seeing and acting than they are at processing information based on memories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegasdogg Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Any timed test that measures intelligence will always have people who score lower than what they could if it was not timed. The wonderlic like other IQ tests will support a specific sample and hurt others. NEWS FLASH: The NFL has a timed test - it's called a play clock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Read the research study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 [/size]ROFLMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Any timed test that measures intelligence will always have people who score lower than what they could if it was not timed. Very true, indeed. Those people are called everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flugel Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Good find. I'm glad those researchers supported my hypothesis. But I don't think anyone was really thinking intelligence correlated negatively with performance, was there?? No, inspite of some very creative efforts stating otherwise. THAT is the point. I'm hoping nobody wants to see us starting a DUMB QB besides the Steelheads and Loverboy. Thanks for your research mz the pussy. - Tom F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Thats fine I notice no one decided to refute my examples of other testing methodologies like the SAT/ACT in measuring future aptitude and success.... Harvard and tons of other university presidents now are all critical of these tests and dont believe they are accurate predictors of future academic success. Future success that can be accurately identified by a specific test is like the search for the holy grail. My problem with your position shep is not about which qb you are backing rather fundamentally pointing to some IQ test as some sort of future talent identifier is dubious. IE Jeff Maas:43/Drew Henson 42/bruce Eugene 41/Darrel Hackney 40 Donovan Mcnabb 14 Daunte Culpepper 18 Terry Bradshaw 15 Dan Marino 15 Jim Kelly 15 Randal Cunningham 15 Vinny Testerverde 17 Steve Mcnair 15 Those examples are obviously on both extreme ends of the spectrum but it shows you enough samples both ways that the conclusion that this is somehow an accurate prediction model is dubious. Those scores must have precluded some of those Hall of famers and future ones and the other scores in the 40's for players mostly never heard of must be some sort of mistake. Iq Aptitude tests that somehow define future success does not exist.... just like the movement away From SAT/ACT as quality predictors of future success (those tests at least are all academic without the physical/adrenaline response/fight or flight variable) IF BQ does not win the Job outright after 3 camps and preseason/2 coaching staffs than he is not what you think he is and all fans hope he might be. I still think he is the starter this year but if DA does win the job than it is pretty clear that BQ does not have what it takes or DA is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffer X Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 For shits and giggles looked up Dildofer's......he got a 22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 How about this shep, I agree that the game is changing and a higher I.Q. aptitude because of the game preparation and shemes is definately more beneficial and statistically for a GM to invest money you want to feel the player has the mental chops. I just dont agree that some sort of timed Iq test gives a good cross section for NFL analysis because some guys dont test well, some guys have a different sort of intelligence that when under physical pressure they have more of a pure "football" intelligence. I do think BQ is (obvious a ND grad) is probably going to test better andl probably in general much more analytic and quick than DA. Some guys like DA however by his genetic gifts can override or equate to more or an analytic skill on the playing field. I wish these two were morphed into one really. I think like the SAT/ACT debate the wonderlic because its lack of overall ability to accuratly predict future success it is only a small and fairly unimportant factor... unless you score a sub 10.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BillyJack Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Does anyone know what Rottenburger scored on his wonderdick test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Does anyone know what Rottenburger scored on his wonderdick test? Do people around here refuse to READ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.