Wonderlic test

[Bill from NYC]

There is nothing unusual about a player in his first year being overwhelmed with the playbook and the adjustment to the pros. Some people simply can't process the complexity of the pro game at the rate that most other players can. With respect to Spiller I was disappointed with his rookie year struggles. Watching him you can tell that there was something wrong. It's now obvious that he simply wasn't sure of what his responsibilities were. Being hesitant is disasterous for any position but especially for a back who needs to act instinctly.

 

Everything I have read about him leads one to believe that he is a diligent person and is willing to put in the time and effort to be adequately prepared. I'm confident that this year with a season under his belt and an offseason of working with the coaching staff he will exhibit the special talent that he displayed in a sterling college career.

 

I have a lot of qualms with the leaking of the wonderlic scores. More often than not they are used to denigrate and unfairly label people. Spiller doesn't deserve that treatment, nobody does.

 

There are not many playmakers on the roster. He is one of them. Regardless what his wonderlic score is his play this year will speak for itself.

 

It would be great if Spiller could make plays, but he in fact has not. Are you calling him a playmaker, and a reasonable pick at #9 because he MIGHT make a play?

 

Also, I don't view the transition from college to pros at running back to be as difficult as QB, LB, and other positions. A person who has the talent to reach the NFL as a running back has been running his entire life. They all have their own style and a ton of ability. I have a problem with the premise that Spiller has to be taught how to run.

As for blocking, it really shouldn't be so hard to figure out who to block. This is why teams practice, no? I never though Thurman was much more than average in terms of intellect and he wasn't a big back, but he was a great blocker. Imo a player needs to have the physical ability and desire to block. It tends to be unsung, punishing work. Does Spiller have what it takes? I sure hope so but his start was less than stellar and his selection was off the charts stupid given our team needs.

[Mr. WEO]

 

Out of respect to both of you, because I know you are both smart, I try as hard as possible to extend the benefit of the doubt to both of you. Perhaps I've overestimated both of you..

 

I'll go ahead and defend myself against unprovoked attacks and criticism. You guys go ahead and do what you do.

 

Unprovoked attacks and criticism? Let your hem down, your paranoia is showing.

 

Perhaps you've overestimated the strength of the point you're trying to make.

 

I'm not sure where you addressed in your response that Buddy was the driving force behind Sd's success, yet he wasn't respected here enough in his first year back with the Bills to be in the draft room (for the Maybin pick). But a year later, he's GM.

[JohnC]

It would be great if Spiller could make plays, but he in fact has not. Are you calling him a playmaker, and a reasonable pick at #9 because he MIGHT make a play?

 

Also, I don't view the transition from college to pros at running back to be as difficult as QB, LB, and other positions. A person who has the talent to reach the NFL as a running back has been running his entire life. They all have their own style and a ton of ability. I have a problem with the premise that Spiller has to be taught how to run.

As for blocking, it really shouldn't be so hard to figure out who to block. This is why teams practice, no? I never though Thurman was much more than average in terms of intellect and he wasn't a big back, but he was a great blocker. Imo a player needs to have the physical ability and desire to block. It tends to be unsung, punishing work. Does Spiller have what it takes? I sure hope so but his start was less than stellar and his selection was off the charts stupid given our team needs.

 

Without a doubt Spiller's rookie year was a disappointment. I realize that. Was he the right pick? It doesn't matter because he was the pick. There is no going back. As I stated in my first post players coming out of college adjust to the game at different rates? Let's face the reality of Nix's first draft. Troup was not much of an impact player and neither was Carringtohn. Neither of these two players saw much playing time until the end of the season. Hopefully, you will see exponential improvement in their second season.

 

I have a problem with the premise that Spiller has to be taught how to run.

 

You missed my point (I wasn't clear) that no one has to teach Spiller how to run. First, he has to learn the plays and his responsibilities, which he struggled with. And then he, as a lot of rookie backs do, have to learn that you have to act decisively and hit the hole. In college he can freelance a run if there isn't much of a hole but in the pros you can't out run the defense. You need to hit the hole hard and take what you can get. It isn't a question of running style-it is an issue of adjusting from the college to the pro game.

 

I understand your lamentations over the Spiller pick. But if you can show a little more patience you will be rewarded with his big play potential. He may be slow to grasp some concepts. But that is okay with me because what I know about him is that he is a worker and has the character and determination to get better. He is more than what you think he is. Don't allow the depressing history of this sorry ass franchise to snuff out a morsel of optimism with this very talented back.

 

Trust me on this one player. I won't lead you astray. Now for my Newton promotion. LOL

[Bill from NYC]

Without a doubt Spiller's rookie year was a disappointment. I realize that. Was he the right pick? It doesn't matter because he was the pick. There is no going back. As I stated in my first post players coming out of college adjust to the game at different rates? Let's face the reality of Nix's first draft. Troup was not much of an impact player and neither was Carringtohn. Neither of these two players saw much playing time until the end of the season. Hopefully, you will see exponential improvement in their second season.

 

 

 

You missed my point (I wasn't clear) that no one has to teach Spiller how to run. First, he has to learn the plays and his responsibilities, which he struggled with. And then he, as a lot of rookie backs do, have to learn that you have to act decisively and hit the hole. In college he can freelance a run if there isn't much of a hole but in the pros you can't out run the defense. You need to hit the hole hard and take what you can get. It isn't a question of running style-it is an issue of adjusting from the college to the pro game.

 

I understand your lamentations over the Spiller pick. But if you can show a little more patience you will be rewarded with his big play potential. He may be slow to grasp some concepts. But that is okay with me because what I know about him is that he is a worker and has the character and determination to get better. He is more than what you think he is. Don't allow the depressing history of this sorry ass franchise to snuff out a morsel of optimism with this very talented back.

 

Trust me on this one player. I won't lead you astray. Now for my Newton promotion. LOL

 

I see your point and hope for the best. It's just that I don't view the transition to the pros at the rb position as something terribly hard to accomplish. I picture an apprentice ironworker learning how to walk on scaffolds in the wind, 40 stories above ground as a rough transition, even if the guy is handy with tools, etc. Again, Spiller can run and has been running his entire life.

And, the fact that he had a good GPA in school would lend itself to study. The Bills paid him a lot of money. Expecting him to study and learn the playbook seems pretty reasonable to me, unless he is incapable of doing so. But again, how did he get a 3.5 GPA?

 

Wrt to Troup and Carrington, they were from small schools. The difference between small school athletics and the NFL is huge. But, both of them are big guys and I expect production from both next year. But, not as much as I would want from a #9, ya know?

[JohnC]

It's laughable that in all the years I have been posting here, you had to go back like 6 years to find an incidence where I was clearly wrong. Something you are guilty of virtually every time you type in your truly idiotic ramblings.

 

 

Wow! It would only take a dullard an hour or so to point out my daily multiple mistakes.

[Bill from NYC]

Wow! It would only take a dullard an hour or so to point out my daily multiple mistakes.

 

That's OK. I thought that Rob Johnson and Trent Edwards would be very good NFL Quarterbacks.

[Turbosrrgood]

News flash RBs don't have to be geniuses. Almost no one on the field has to be. The top producing RBs past year scored about the same, Blount and Matthews.

 

What he said...This test mainly applies to QUARTERBACKS, since they have much more responsibility. They have to be able to read defenses, call audibles, read hot routes, scan 5+ recievers, recognize blitzers ect...and do it in a split second. The only other position the might even come CLOSE to requiring that level of intelligence is maybe a MLB

 

Just curious, what did McKelvin score? Have you listened to him talk? my guess is 1 or 0 ....

[Erik]

What he said...This test mainly applies to QUARTERBACKS, since they have much more responsibility. They have to be able to read defenses, call audibles, read hot routes, scan 5+ recievers, recognize blitzers ect...and do it in a split second. The only other position the might even come CLOSE to requiring that level of intelligence is maybe a MLB

 

Just curious, what did McKelvin score? Have you listened to him talk? my guess is 1 or 0 ....

 

Centers too but they are generally the smartest guys on the field anyway.

[JohnC]

That's OK. I thought that Rob Johnson and Trent Edwards would be very good NFL Quarterbacks.

 

Is exercising one's fifth amendment rights appropriate on a BB? LOL

 

The above mentioned qbs were insanely exasperating. I really believe that TE was brain damaged by the Jauron coaching mentality. It is crippling for a qb to have a mindset of being afraid to make a mistake. As it also is for a kicker. Do you know how many times I screamed at the TV for RJ to throw the dam ball away before he got sacked?

 

One area where I have to give credit to Chan Gailey is that he knows how to coach qbs and put them in position to succeed. If Fitz had the accuracy and tools to match his football intellect he would thrive under CG. He has gotten the most out of the qbs under him. When he is calling plays you get the sense that he is not merely calling a particular play but he is also setting up the next play. There is a depth to his offensive thinking that the very primitive offensive minded DJ could never attain or even dream of.

Edited February 22, 2011 by JohnC

[Dorkington]

I guess it's my turn to correct this myth.

 

Dorkington, at the time of Maybin's selection, Nix was the Bills' National Scout. His primary emphasis was in the southeast (SEC). From BuffaloBills.com:

 

Though his focus will remain in the Southeast, Nix will serve as a National Scout for Buffalo, which will require him to cover a lot of the major college programs in preparation for the NFL draft.

 

“The Southeast is what I’m most familiar with, but I think my title probably means I could go see top players in other areas if Tom Modrak decides that. And if that’s where I need to go that’s where I’ll go.”

 

 

Tom Modrak on the other hand, was and is, the Bills' Director of College Scouting. Even though it is strongly speculated that the Maybin selection was Dick Jauron's decision, you have to at least partially blame Modrak for not vehemently vetoing the draft pick.

 

Nix on the other hand was a scout who scouted an area that does not include Penn State or The Big Ten Conference. In fairness, you cannot lay the Maybin pick at the feet of Nix.

 

Here's another thing that's in my craw. If you or others insist on blaming Nix for drafting Maybin (even though Nix was not a decision maker), then you have to give him credit for the stellar drafts in San Diego.

 

You see, many naysayers on this board want to say that the San Diego drafts were all A.J. Smith and that Buddy Nix deserves no credit for them. However some of those same posters want to blame Buddy Nix for the Maybin selection even though Nix was only a scout.

 

Even for those here who insist on putting a negative spin on things, can we at least try to be fair? Thank you.

 

Ok, if not Nix, then the rest of the Front Office sucks. We underperform in the drafts consistently. Blame whomever you want, I'm tired of it. Lets get a success story for once with an early pick.

[Turbosrrgood]

BTW, I took the test myself because I was curious about the questions. They are mostly easy questions based on logic, simple math, and finding patterns. The difficulty in the test is finishing all 50 questions in 12 minutes. It requires very quick thinking and calculating, and after taking it I understand why it is used to judge football players and QB's in particular.

 

I've always been a good test taker and scored a 34. It makes you realize exactly how slow(mind wise) and dumb Vince Young is (who got a 6), and how quick thinking and smart Fitzpatrick must be (who got a 50). I would be curious to see what Newton scores...

 

They said the average score for football players is 21, I think the average score for everyone else is probably closer to 30 lol... EDIT: actually the average for "normal people" is 24

Edited February 22, 2011 by Turbosrrgood

[Dorkington]

Its amazing the lengths some people (who are obviously losers in life) will go to to denigrate a player because they are unhappy with his performance on the field.

 

Everything about Spiller last year was positive. Loads of talent, high character, spotless work ethic, intelligence. Yet the people here cling to a meaningless wonderlic score that they most likely wouldn't beat to trash a guy.

 

Bills have the best/most intelligent fans? Complete BS.

He may be talented, intelligent, the nicest person on the planet.

 

But if he sucks on the field, then why do I care?

[Ramius]

He may be talented, intelligent, the nicest person on the planet.

 

But if he sucks on the field, then why do I care?

 

I've got no problem with people bashing Spiller for his lack of production on the field. There needs to be (and i believe there will be) vast improvement in year 2.

 

What is disgusting is the people calling him a retard, learning disabled, shiftless, lazy, and a variety of things that are simply untrue, all because he didn't run for 1000 yards. This would be a non-topic if he had a good season, so its kinda sick that people will use this to go to such lengths to trash the kid even though it was nothing to do with his production on the field.

[Albany,n.y.]

BTW, I took the test myself because I was curious about the questions. They are mostly easy questions based on logic, simple math, and finding patterns. The difficulty in the test is finishing all 50 questions in 12 minutes. It requires very quick thinking and calculating, and after taking it I understand why it is used to judge football players and QB's in particular.

 

I've always been a good test taker and scored a 34. It makes you realize exactly how slow(mind wise) and dumb Vince Young is (who got a 6), and how quick thinking and smart Fitzpatrick must be (who got a 50). I would be curious to see what Newton scores...

 

They said the average score for football players is 21, I think the average score for everyone else is probably closer to 30 lol... EDIT: actually the average for "normal people" is 24

I took it & scored either a 42.5 or a 45, depending on how you count the pages in the debatable question which originally says 17. I put 20 & the explanation said 20 is acceptable.

Now I'm a great test taker when a test is heavily math or has sequence questions, but I can't see why a RB needs to have a high math aptitude. I'd rather have a guy who has great vision & agility than a guy who can figure out quickly how to convert letters into numbers and complete a sequence.

[Mr. WEO]

I took it & scored either a 42.5 or a 45, depending on how you count the pages in the debatable question which originally says 17. I put 20 & the explanation said 20 is acceptable.

Now I'm a great test taker when a test is heavily math or has sequence questions, but I can't see why a RB needs to have a high math aptitude. I'd rather have a guy who has great vision & agility than a guy who can figure out quickly how to convert letters into numbers and complete a sequence.

I think 20 was only acceptble if you were in the typsetting business! 17 was right.

 

Anyway, I'd rather have the guy you describe also, but there is no evidence he has any of those attriutes so far (his college success is meaningless). Other low scoring RBs (Peterson, Johnson, etc..) recently have had great rookie years. Spiller's own coach, an offensive mastermind, couldn't find anything for this kid to do in an offense starving to score points this year.

[yungmack]

Historically, offensive linemen score highest on the Wonderlic test, and RBs the lowest. I find it interesting that QBs are not at the top.

Edited February 22, 2011 by yungmack

[JohnC]

I think 20 was only acceptble if you were in the typsetting business! 17 was right.

 

Anyway, I'd rather have the guy you describe also, but there is no evidence he has any of those attriutes so far (his college success is meaningless). Other low scoring RBs (Peterson, Johnson, etc..) recently have had great rookie years. Spiller's own coach, an offensive mastermind, couldn't find anything for this kid to do in an offense starving to score points this year.

 

Are you going to write him off already? There's no doubt that Spiller struggled. But jumping to a conclusive judgment on a first year player makes no sense. You don't think that playing behind behind a very mediocre OL contributed to his ineffectiveness? I'm certainly not saying that he is better than Peterson and Johnson but both of those players played behind quality OLs.

 

I'll say to you what I have repeatedly said to Big Apple Bill- just be a tad more patient before drawing a conclusion on Spiller. Categorizing him as a failure or unworthy pick at this very early juncture is foolish. Maybe you didn't see much talent in his first year but I did. Those very short glimpses of ability can not be be seen with jaundiced eyes.

[Mr. WEO]

Are you going to write him off already? There's no doubt that Spiller struggled. But jumping to a conclusive judgment on a first year player makes no sense. You don't think that playing behind behind a very mediocre OL contributed to his ineffectiveness? I'm certainly not saying that he is better than Peterson and Johnson but both of those players played behind quality OLs.

 

I'll say to you what I have repeatedly said to Big Apple Bill- just be a tad more patient before drawing a conclusion on Spiller. Categorizing him as a failure or unworthy pick at this very early juncture is foolish. Maybe you didn't see much talent in his first year but I did. Those very short glimpses of ability can not be be seen with jaundiced eyes.

I' haven't written him off yet. Better RBs were available later, that's all. Thta's why bad teams should never draft RB in the first. And you're exaggerating a bit on the o-line problems. Most agree they improved over last year.

 

You must have seen a lot more talent this year in Spiller than Chan Gailey did.

[Turbosrrgood]

I' haven't written him off yet. Better RBs were available later, that's all. Thta's why bad teams should never draft RB in the first. And you're exaggerating a bit on the o-line problems. Most agree they improved over last year.

 

You must have seen a lot more talent this year in Spiller than Chan Gailey did.

 

+1

 

I know its always a lot easier to look back and say we should have done this or that...but can you imagine getting a guy like Blount (who is an every down back, highly unlikely spiller ever will be) later in the draft and spending that 1st pick on top level OT talent that was available? I am not writing him off yet, be did NOTHING to impress me last year. You would think he would have at least a FEW memorable highlights. At best he looks like a change of pace back, not CJ2K...

 

Please prove me wrong spiller...

Edited February 22, 2011 by Turbosrrgood

[JohnC]

I' haven't written him off yet. Better RBs were available later, that's all. Thta's why bad teams should never draft RB in the first. And you're exaggerating a bit on the o-line problems. Most agree they improved over last year.

 

You must have seen a lot more talent this year in Spiller than Chan Gailey did.

 

Improving from being an overmatched OL to being mediocre isn't much of a compliment.

 

In general, I agree with you that a bottom feeding team shouldn't draft RBs with a first round pick. But they did. Were dealing with a franchise not noted for its wisdom. This is a Ralph Wilson franchise. Do you need to be reminded? Quirky decisions are the norm for this very odd franchise.

 

Chan Gailey saw a struggling rookie on the field. He replaced him with a more effective player in Jackson. That doesn't mean that Spiller isn't going to be a superb player.

 

I will add you to my I Told You So list when Spiller starts exploding through the tight holes for his scintillating runs. You come right after Bill from NYC. LOL

Edited February 22, 2011 by JohnC