Beebe's Kid Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 While he may be just one of those "exception to the rule" players, I think I saw somewhere that Dan Marino got a 15 or 16 on the Wonderlic. That's on par with Leodis McKelvin's score! Apparently, you don't need to be a super genius to be a successful NFL quarterback. I guess that depends on your definition of success. I would rather have rings that records. Marino went to one SB early on, then was our B word for the rest of his career. If all you want is big numbers, Bledsoe was a "franchise" QB for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 While he may be just one of those "exception to the rule" players, I think I saw somewhere that Dan Marino got a 15 or 16 on the Wonderlic. That's on par with Leodis McKelvin's score! Apparently, you don't need to be a super genius to be a successful NFL quarterback. Mid 20s really isn't super genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Dalton fails the 26-27-60-Not_A_Creepy_Ginger rule, however. It's an extra variable that is very important. If you include his National Championship season last year in Junior college, Newton would have more than 26 college stsrts. I'm going out on a huge limb and saying that he'll score lower than a 26 on his Wonderlic, though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloATL Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I like this, at least as far as having hope for our QB situation should the Bills draft someone like Dalton, who I admittedly haven't seen much of. Worth noting that if Stanzi had like three more completions TOTAL for his career that he'd make the cut as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Andy Dalton is the guy I want if we are going to take a QB.......if for no other reason Fitz is a gutsy QB who takes chances running the ball....... If he goes down at this point....were dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddaryl Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) right on man. thanks for the props. If were going to gamble at #3 Gabbert might be the man. Ponder in the 2nd rd if we pass on Gabbert. Both Ponder and Gabbert hold high GPA's I would sign Fitz to an extension and bring Gabbert along slowly. I am startign to warm up to the idea of Gabbert in a Bills uni If only we could trade back a few picks and get that extra pick and still pick up a QB, but that's risky. Edited February 7, 2011 by ddaryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Doug Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Andy Dalton is the guy I want if we are going to take a QB.......if for no other reason Fitz is a gutsy QB who takes chances running the ball....... If he goes down at this point....were dead I just check this guy out and wonder why we don't hear his name more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloaggie Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Matt Leinart should have been an NFL success. 64.8 completion perectage, 35 on the wonderlic, 30+ college starts. Where does this writer mention him in the article? I wish it was this simple to predict NFL success or failure. Notable QB Wonderlic scores: Brett Favre - 22 Steve McNair - 15 Vinny Testaverde - 17 Jim Kelly - 15 Dan Marino - 15 Terry Bradshaw - 15 Wonderlic scores You can take statistics and twist them to make them say what you want for the most part. I'd say there's more to explain a successful NFL QB than these three categories. This writer had way too much time on his hands to come up with this theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) SI article This article was published last July but it's very interesting. The writer claims there is a combination of stats...Wonderlic score, games started in college and completion percentage...that reliably predicts a college QB's chance of success in the NFL. Even more interesting is that Fitz makes the cut. While Wonderlic tests have yet to be given for this year's crop of QB's, here are the starts and comp % numbers for this years prospects: Blaine Gabbert - 18 starts...58.3% FAIL/FAIL Cam Newton - 14 starts...65.4% FAIL/PASS Jake Locker - 28 starts...53.4% PASS/FAIL Ryan Mallett - 24 starts...52.6% FAIL/FAIL Christian Ponder - 23 starts...61.2% FAIL/PASS Colin Kaepernick - 37 games....55.6% PASS/FAIL Andy Dalton - 37 starts...60.2% PASS/PASS Rick Stanzi - 26 starts...57.1% FAIL(barely)/FAIL Greg McElroy - 22 games...62.0% FAIL/PASS So far only Andy Dalton meets the cutoff. And as the story points out there are exceptions. (Ben Rothlesberger a notable one) But we are always looking for a formula or predictor of success. Could this be the one? Thoughts? PTR I'd like to focus here on Christian Ponder. His one "fail" is the fact he didn't get to 27 starts. Edit: I just read Ramius's post. Ponder has over 30 starts, which means he makes the cutoff for number of starts. The minimum score required on the Wonderlic for this model is 26 out of 50. Ponder scored a 34; so you have to really like what he's done there. I'm also very impressed with what Ponder has done in college. In his first two-and-a-half years there, he completed his undergraduate degree in finance with a 3.73 GPA. Then, he figured that while he was there, he may as well get his MBA--which he proceeded to do. He's now working on another graduate degree--this one in sports management. He's done all this in only four years of college. And that's with devoting considerable time to college football. His 61.2 completion percentage is good. But it might have been even better had he not been playing hurt. He injured and re-injured his throwing elbow multiple times during his senior season, and that elbow's bursa sac had to be drained on three separate occasions. But neither that nor the other injuries he experienced during that season kept him off the field. All told, Ponder is a pass/pass/pass QB according to this model, so you have to take a much closer look at him. Edited February 7, 2011 by Edwards' Arm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Obviously there is something wrong with the CBS stat site so let's try this again with the site ddaryl provided me... They kinda omitted the 2010 season data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Hammersticks Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Matt Leinart should have been an NFL success. 64.8 completion perectage, 35 on the wonderlic, 30+ college starts. Where does this writer mention him in the article? I wish it was this simple to predict NFL success or failure. Notable QB Wonderlic scores: Brett Favre - 22 Steve McNair - 15 Vinny Testaverde - 17 Jim Kelly - 15 Dan Marino - 15 Terry Bradshaw - 15 Wonderlic scores You can take statistics and twist them to make them say what you want for the most part. I'd say there's more to explain a successful NFL QB than these three categories. This writer had way too much time on his hands to come up with this theory. A bit off topic, but... I just saw that Frank Gore scored a 6 on the Wonderlic! Is this guy a drooler of what?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Matt Leinart should have been an NFL success. 64.8 completion perectage, 35 on the wonderlic, 30+ college starts. Where does this writer mention him in the article? I wish it was this simple to predict NFL success or failure. Notable QB Wonderlic scores: Brett Favre - 22 Steve McNair - 15 Vinny Testaverde - 17 Jim Kelly - 15 Dan Marino - 15 Terry Bradshaw - 15 Wonderlic scores You can take statistics and twist them to make them say what you want for the most part. I'd say there's more to explain a successful NFL QB than these three categories. This writer had way too much time on his hands to come up with this theory. Jeeze - the GUIDELINE didn't turn out to be a rule. With stats you are trying to account for variability, and this guide seems to do it very well for 3 statistics. That's all the post was about. I'm sure you can name 5 failures that fit it just as easily. Doesn't make your post insightful. Ps- minus Bradshaw, how many superbowls did they combine for? Might I add he is the only qb who's score wouldnt be a bust in a game of blackjack to EVER win the big one. Edited February 7, 2011 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 While he may be just one of those "exception to the rule" players, I think I saw somewhere that Dan Marino got a 15 or 16 on the Wonderlic. That's on par with Leodis McKelvin's score! Apparently, you don't need to be a super genius to be a successful NFL quarterback. Or an NFL analyst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Hammersticks Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Jeeze - the GUIDELINE didn't turn out to be a rule. With stats you are trying to account for variability, and this guide seems to do it very well for 3 statistics. That's all the post was about. I'm sure you can name 5 failures that fit it just as easily. Doesn't make your post insightful. Ps- minus Bradshaw, how many superbowls did they combine for? Might I add he is the only qb who's score wouldnt be a bust in a game of blackjack to EVER win the big one. Soooo.....what your saying is that these QB's (Kelly, Marino) with lower than average Wonderlic scores are good enough for the hall of fame, but they don't necessarily have the aptitude to win the "big one?" I'm not following your logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Or an NFL analyst. The rule of thumb I hear is double the score and add 60 to get close to the IQ. That'd make a 20 roughly a 100 on an iq test. If I remember correctly every 10 pts off points you a standard deviation above or below the norm. Not having taken stats in awhile, so my numbers may be off but that would roughly put a 25 at an iq of 110, or 84th(?) percentile. It would put 15 at 90 and roughly 16th percentile. Obviously with a test this short, a few lucky guesses, or just some luck on content can make a big difference, and as you get out towards the ends of the spectrum I'd trust that conversion a little less and just take it as exceptionally high or low. That said, I do believe you can be dumb as rocks and just "get" the way football works. It would be tough to be a leader of men if you start getting into that range though. With 50 questions and 4 answers to choose from 12.5 is what you would expect if you were randomly guessing. At somepoint around 10 you have to start questioning if the person is illiterate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloaggie Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Jeeze - the GUIDELINE didn't turn out to be a rule. With stats you are trying to account for variability, and this guide seems to do it very well for 3 statistics. That's all the post was about. I'm sure you can name 5 failures that fit it just as easily. Doesn't make your post insightful. Ps- minus Bradshaw, how many superbowls did they combine for? Might I add he is the only qb who's score wouldnt be a bust in a game of blackjack to EVER win the big one. I'm just saying it's stupid to pull three numbers out and make it criteria for explaining success or failure in the NFL. This article just mentioned success in the NFL, not Super Bowl wins, so you are going to find plenty of exceptions either way to the 26-27-60 rule. Concerning your last comment, you're saying Jim Kelly or Dan Marino, with a better defense (or a better kicker) wouldn't have won a Super Bowl because a wonderlic score was too low? Luck can factor in and last I checked, football is a team game. Like I said, the writer is making more out of this theory than it's really worth. Slow news day back in July. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Soooo.....what your saying is that these QB's (Kelly, Marino) with lower than average Wonderlic scores are good enough for the hall of fame, but they don't necessarily have the aptitude to win the "big one?" I'm not following your logic. As Kelly just didn't seem to learn from his mistakes time after time, it may have hurt his odds. Am I saying it's impossible to win with a low score? Obviously not. Am I saying it is a huge challenge with below average iq? Yes. Especially when the stage is that much bigger. Is it a coincidence that no one under 22 has before? Just like being a slow runner or having a below average arm hurts. Not an insult, just common sense. Like I said, there is some luck on the test as it's pretty short. Give 3 different versions back to back to back and you will likely get 3 different scores. Also like I said, it wouldn't be unlikely to get a 15 if you answered B to every question. That kind of score is a red flag. I'm just saying it's stupid to pull three numbers out and make it criteria for explaining success or failure in the NFL. This article just mentioned success in the NFL, not Super Bowl wins, so you are going to find plenty of exceptions either way to the 26-27-60 rule. Concerning your last comment, you're saying Jim Kelly or Dan Marino, with a better defense (or a better kicker) wouldn't have won a Super Bowl because a wonderlic score was too low? Luck can factor in and last I checked, football is a team game. Like I said, the writer is making more out of this theory than it's really worth. Slow news day back in July. Clearly you still don't understand the concept of using statistics (mathematical study, not football accomplishments) accounting for variability. If you can find a set like this that accounts better - more power to you. All I am saying is that someone fitting this description is more likely to have success, and larger success- not that it's impossible to break this very loose guideline. You are as far off base as the person that said you can't win without a 22 because it hasn't happened. I'm just saying it's typically quicker to swim with the current, not against it. It's kind of like saying a more accurate kicker wouldve won the superbowl- truly Norwood could have made that kick where as someone with a higher percentage could have still missed. Statistics only start to account for variability, and this set of three does better then most out there. It's the more accurate kicker. Doesn't mean he makes them all but I'd rather put the ball on his foot, even if it could be blocked, blown by a gust of wind etc... Edited February 7, 2011 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog69 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Dalton fails the 26-27-60-Not_A_Creepy_Ginger rule, however. It's an extra variable that is very important. I'm going out on a huge limb and saying that he'll score lower than a 26 on his Wonderlic, though Based on what? I have no idea what he'll score and I think it's is interesting that you would just assume he will do poorly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LynchMob23 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Promo, Don't forget to add Newton's 11 games at Blinn, where he won the NC as well. I can't find his stats there other than start/wins but as soon as I do I'll post em. he'll be well over the limit as well for starts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Hammersticks Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 The rule of thumb I hear is double the score and add 60 to get close to the IQ. That'd make a 20 roughly a 100 on an iq test. If I remember correctly every 10 pts off points you a standard deviation above or below the norm. Not having taken stats in awhile, so my numbers may be off but that would roughly put a 25 at an iq of 110, or 84th(?) percentile. It would put 15 at 90 and roughly 16th percentile. Obviously with a test this short, a few lucky guesses, or just some luck on content can make a big difference, and as you get out towards the ends of the spectrum I'd trust that conversion a little less and just take it as exceptionally high or low. That said, I do believe you can be dumb as rocks and just "get" the way football works. It would be tough to be a leader of men if you start getting into that range though. With 50 questions and 4 answers to choose from 12.5 is what you would expect if you were randomly guessing. At somepoint around 10 you have to start questioning if the person is illiterate. Standard scores have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation, or meaningful difference, of 15 points (with the exception of the Stanford Binet scales that have a SD of 16 points). Approximately 68% of people who are administered an IQ test score within one standard deviation of the mean (85-115). I was forced to take a lot of stats and psychometrics classes in grad school Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts