Wonderlic Scores Are Out

[Bangarang]

QBs prepped more in this era. McElroy 43, Gabbert 42, Ponder 35, Stanzi 30, Dalton 29, Mallett 26, Newton 21, Locker 20. What does it mean?

about 1 hour ago via TweetDeck

 

 

Mallett did better than a lot of people gave him credit for. Ponder did well. He's still my guy with our 2nd round pick.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Bangarang

[CosmicBills]

 

Mallett did better than a lot of people gave him credit for. Ponder did well. He's still my guy with our 2nd round pick.

So did Newton. I'm thinking he'll go 1 now.

Edited March 17, 2011 by tgreg99

[K-9]

Can anyone find out how Kaepernick did?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Bangarang]

So did Newton. I'm thinking he'll go 1 now.

 

I'm hoping he goes #1. Are we that lucky though?

[prissythecat]

So did Newton. I'm thinking he'll go 1 now.

 

 

Is 21 a good score for a QB? I thought QBs should score in the high 20s at least.

[billsfaninvgs]

Anyone notice how well Gabbert did....... Not saying he is the pick or that I want him to be. Just saying he scored pretty high.....

[Rumblinstumblin]

The wonderlic is overrated

[CosmicBills]

Is 21 a good score for a QB? I thought QBs should score in the high 20s at least.

When some on this board (and in the media) were expecting him to be in the low teens or even single digits like Young, then yes, it is.

 

Gabbert's score was phenomenal. Considering McElroy's score was almost perfect, Gabbert looks pretty brainy.

[Albany,n.y.]

So did Newton. I'm thinking he'll go 1 now.

I think any team that would move a guy up or down based on a Wonderlic score has very poor player evaluation. Years ago I used to look at all the Wonderlic scores & I came to the conclusion that there are too many other variables these days that make the score virtually meaningless. In the late 1990s the Jets drafted a tackle in the 1st round with a small Wonderlic score. I remember being at Shea stadium talking about him with a Jets fan & the guy said that the player blew off the test and had graduated with over a 3 gpa. It turned out he had a good NFL career. McNabb & Marino scored in the teens. Remember JP going from the teens to the 30s between his 1st & 2nd attempt? Agents coach these guys up & there's no way I'd upgrade a guy based on an acceptable Wonderlic. A team is much better off looking at tapes of the guy on the field, live workouts and then interviewing the guy in person. An interview with the guy & how he answers football & career related questions says a lot more than a Wonderlic score. About the only value Wonderlics have these days are that we can laugh at the really dumb guys who score in the single digits.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Albany,n.y.

[CosmicBills]

I think any team that would move a guy up or down based on a Wonderlic score has very poor player evaluation. Years ago I used to look at all the Wonderlic scores & I came to the conclusion that there are too many other variables these days that make the score virtually meaningless. Remember JP going from the teens to the 30s between his 1st & 2nd attempt? Agents coach these guys up & there's no way I'd upgrade a guy based on an acceptable Wonderlic. A team is much better off looking at tapes of the guy on the field, live workouts and then interviewing the guy in person. An interview with the guy & how he answers football & career related questions says a lot more than a Wonderlic score. About the only value Wonderlics have these days are that we can laugh at the really dumb guys who score in the single digits.

Sorry, let me clarify. I don't think the Wonderlic makes or breaks anyone. But for the fans that aren't sitting in these interviews and doing background checks (ugh), it's one of our windows into the process. A QB who scores a 9 on a Wonderlic probably isn't giving the most compelling interviews and thus probably isn't thought of as highly as someone who scores in the 40s. At least that's the assumption I'm making.

 

It's all a guess though. No one but the people doing the work really know how highly a guy is thought of. But I'd assume with his physical talent and a decent Wonderlic, Cam is probably doing pretty well during the interviews (breaking down football stuff) and thus is probably a legit possibility for Carolina.

Edited March 17, 2011 by tgreg99

[jumbalaya]

Cam's score means he has the ability to learn the complexities of a playbook, read complex defenses and process that into action. It means if he dedicates himself tot he game he has the ability to succeed from a mental standpoint. It also means those who believe that a black QB is not able grasp the complexities of the NFL game are what they are, racists.

[EldaBillsFan]

whats a poor score, average score and a great score?

[DrDawkinstein]

whats a poor score, average score and a great score?

 

Perfect score is 50. McElroy and Gabbart both had very good scores. No prospect listed had a "poor" score which would be single digits. Anything in the 20s or more is decent.

 

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/wonderlic-scores-of-2010-nfl-starting-quarterbacks-and-339905.html

Other Wonderlic scores of note:

 

Brian Griese 39

 

Drew Bledsoe 36

 

Steve Young 33

 

John Elway 29

 

Chad Pennington 25

 

JaMarcus Russell 24

 

Mark Brunell 22

 

Trent Dilfer 22

 

Michael Vick 20

 

Daunte Culpepper 18

 

Dan Marino 15

 

Randall Cunningham 15

 

Jim Kelly 15

 

Terry Bradshaw 15

 

Edited March 17, 2011 by DrDankenstein

[symbiant]

This pretty much guarantees that Gabbert will not fall past Carolina, Buffalo AND Arizona.

And this kind of means we won't be selecting Cam Newton at 3. I seem to recall Nix liking high Wonderlic scores for early QB's.

[Mr. ChumChums]

Perfect score is 50. McElroy and Gabbart both had very good scores. No prospect listed had a "poor" score which would be single digits. Anything in the 20s or more is decent.

 

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/wonderlic-scores-of-2010-nfl-starting-quarterbacks-and-339905.html

 

 

Also worth noting is that our very own Ryan Fitzpatrick owns the record for any active player (48) - tied with Ben Watson.

[DrDawkinstein]

This pretty much guarantees that Gabbert will not fall past Carolina, Buffalo AND Arizona.

And this kind of means we won't be selecting Cam Newton at 3. I seem to recall Nix liking high Wonderlic scores for early QB's.

 

I think based on 21 being much higher than people thought he could do, most folks would agree this keeps Cam in the running for an early pick.

[symbiant]

I think based on 21 being much higher than people thought he could do, most folks would agree this keeps Cam in the running for an early pick.

 

I'm betting we pass. Just my opinion.

Maybe our standards are different, but with all that extra preparation and attention, I don't think 21 is a great score for a #3 overall pick QB.

I think Newton falls to 5-10 now.

 

And I don't think you can compare scores from Marino/Kelly's era... that was so long ago.

That's like comparing SAT scores from the 1990's to the inflated scores nowadays.

[Beerball]

I'm betting we pass. Just my opinion.

Maybe our standards are different, but with all that extra preparation and attention, I don't think 21 is a great score for a #3 overall pick QB.

I think Newton falls to 5-10 now.

 

And I don't think you can compare scores from Marino/Kelly's era... that was so long ago.That's like comparing SAT scores from the 1990's to the inflated scores nowadays.

Of course you don't think comparisons can be made, they go against your argument.

 

Anyone notice how well Gabbert did....... Not saying he is the pick or that I want him to be. Just saying he scored pretty high.....

IIRC his pro day is today so we should be getting plenty of Gabbert news later in the day.

[2003Contenders]

So did Newton. I'm thinking he'll go 1 now.

 

Agreed. This should alleviate all those Vince Young comparisons.

[papazoid]

Props to Newton.....he did way better than i thought he would......still hope we don't pick him.

[symbiant]

Of course you don't think comparisons can be made, they go against your argument.

 

Can we get some numbers to chart QB wonderlic scores over time. My bet is that they've been rising. Very few top prospects have low scores. Hmm

 

Or maybe it has to do with:

1) The fact that a 1600 SAT score in the 1990's was actually a perfect score... whereas now you can get a 1600 on the SAT and get many, many questions wrong. (Score inflation in Wonderlic also?)

2) There are free Wonderlic sample tests on the web so people are more prepared.

3) The Wonderlic score's importance has risen in the past decade or so.

Edited March 17, 2011 by symbiant

[Acantha]

This pretty much guarantees that Gabbert will not fall past Carolina, Buffalo AND Arizona.

And this kind of means we won't be selecting Cam Newton at 3. I seem to recall Nix liking high Wonderlic scores for early QB's.

You seem to recall from where?

[voodoo poonani]

 

Mallett did better than a lot of people gave him credit for. Ponder did well. He's still my guy with our 2nd round pick.

 

 

Locker got a 20? Wow. I took it in ten minutes and managed to get a 50. He'll get millions of dollars to do something I'd love to do, while I'll be pinching pennies.

[symbiant]

You seem to recall from where?

 

How about San Diego's recent drafting history?

Charlie Whitehurst 33 Round 3

Eli Manning 39 Round 1

Phillip Rivers 40 Round 1

Drew Brees 28 Round 2

 

Dream on with Cam. If it's a QB, it will be Gabbert in Round 1.

The problem isn't actually Cam's scores, but more the fact that the 2nd tier QB's all scored VERY well... which lessens the need to reach for Cam in 1.

Edited March 17, 2011 by symbiant

[NoSaint]

I'm betting we pass. Just my opinion.

Maybe our standards are different, but with all that extra preparation and attention, I don't think 21 is a great score for a #3 overall pick QB.

I think Newton falls to 5-10 now.

 

And I don't think you can compare scores from Marino/Kelly's era... that was so long ago.

That's like comparing SAT scores from the 1990's to the inflated scores nowadays.

 

You do realize the "inflated scores" are because there's a third section and it's scored out of 2400 now right?

 

As for the wonderlic - 20 equates to 100iq which equates to average. 5 pts equate to about a standard deviation high or low. As you get away from the middle that's less of a hard rule.

 

Food for thought, Bradshaw is the only qb to score under a 24(?) and win the superbowl. Clearly not saying cam can't, just giving some wonderlic facts/trivia and perspective.

[ajzepp]

I think any team that would move a guy up or down based on a Wonderlic score has very poor player evaluation. Years ago I used to look at all the Wonderlic scores & I came to the conclusion that there are too many other variables these days that make the score virtually meaningless. In the late 1990s the Jets drafted a tackle in the 1st round with a small Wonderlic score. I remember being at Shea stadium talking about him with a Jets fan & the guy said that the player blew off the test and had graduated with over a 3 gpa. It turned out he had a good NFL career. McNabb & Marino scored in the teens. Remember JP going from the teens to the 30s between his 1st & 2nd attempt? Agents coach these guys up & there's no way I'd upgrade a guy based on an acceptable Wonderlic. A team is much better off looking at tapes of the guy on the field, live workouts and then interviewing the guy in person. An interview with the guy & how he answers football & career related questions says a lot more than a Wonderlic score. About the only value Wonderlics have these days are that we can laugh at the really dumb guys who score in the single digits.

 

That's how I feel about these "pro day" things. You've got film of however many games, yet I'm always hearing how this guy or that guy looked AMAZING at their pro day. So because someone looks good throwing the football to receivers they are familiar with, with no pass rush, with the receivers completely uncovered, all of a sudden you want to move them higher on the draft board? I don't get it. What matters most is what they have done on the field during live action, particularly in big games. All these crazy things that happen in February and March that makes people think players are completely different than they were before is asinine.

[symbiant]

You do realize the "inflated scores" are because there's a third section and it's scored out of 2400 now right?

 

You do realize that around ~1994... to get an 800 on the math, you had to get 0-1 wrong.

After ~1994 you could get about 5-10 answers wrong (uncertain how many) but still get an 800.

 

To tie this back to football, I would be shocked if the Wonderlic didn't have similar inflation/scoring "adjustments".

Edited March 17, 2011 by symbiant

[NoSaint]

You do realize that around ~1994... to get an 800 on the math, you had to get 0-1 wrong.

After ~1994 you could get about 5-10 answers wrong (uncertain how many) but still get an 800.

 

To tie this back to football, I would be shocked if the Wonderlic didn't have similar inflation.

 

yes, there was a recentering to get the average score back to about 500. the wonderlic didnt have a similar recenter, although i suppose the difficulty may have changed to maintain the average. i havent heard that but its possible. i just dont think there was a sudden influx of low scores like the sats saw in the mid 90s. i think the demographics on the wonderlic have remained pretty consistent.

[turftoe]

Can anyone find out how Kaepernick did?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Kaepernick scored a 38

[symbiant]

yes, there was a recentering to get the average score back to about 500. the wonderlic didnt have a similar recenter, although i suppose the difficulty may have changed to maintain the average. i havent heard that but its possible. i just dont think there was a sudden influx of low scores like the sats saw in the mid 90s. i think the demographics on the wonderlic have remained pretty consistent.

 

Logically if there were MULTIPLE resets of a MAJOR standardized test, it would be pretty unusual for the Wonderlic to not undergo a scoring reset as well over the past 15 years.

 

Especially if low scorers can improve their scores so easily:

- Losman improved from 14 to 31

- Vince Young improved from 6 to 16

 

So I stand by my statements

- 21 is not that good of a score for Cam Newton, especially when he's projected as a top 5-10 pick. It's another Con which increases his risk. Especially with the 2nd tier prospects all hitting Home Runs with their scores.

- A wonderlic score of 20 isn't the same as a score of 20 fifteen years ago.

Edited March 17, 2011 by symbiant

[DrDawkinstein]

Logically if there were MULTIPLE resets of a MAJOR standardized test, it would be pretty unusual for the Wonderlic to not undergo a scoring reset as well over the past 15 years.

 

Especially if low scorers can improve their scores so easily:

- Losman improved from 14 to 31

- Vince Young improved from 6 to 16

 

So I stand by my statements

- 21 is not that good of a score for Cam Newton, especially when he's projected as a top 5-10 pick. It's another Con which increases his risk. Especially with the 2nd tier prospects all hitting Home Runs with their scores.

- A wonderlic score of 20 isn't the same as a score of 20 fifteen years ago.

 

 

I watched Ponder's pro day and thought "Wow, Trent Edwards Jr". And now I find out Trent scored a 34 on his wonderlic, yet could never grasp the offense or the ability to see the play unfold in his mind and throw the ball to a spot.

 

You can keep your "2nd tier" prospects. Theyre "2nd tier" for a reason.

[Acantha]

How about San Diego's recent drafting history?

Charlie Whitehurst 33 Round 3

Eli Manning 39 Round 1

Phillip Rivers 40 Round 1

Drew Brees 28 Round 2

 

Dream on with Cam. If it's a QB, it will be Gabbert in Round 1.

The problem isn't actually Cam's scores, but more the fact that the 2nd tier QB's all scored VERY well... which lessens the need to reach for Cam in 1.

I don't want Cam and I'm not trying to make an argument for him. But I don't think there is ANY evidence of Nix's opinion on wonderlic scores in relation to draft position. Besides the fact that Nix wasn't the GM at SD so wasn't making the decisions, there's no evidence any of those picks had anything to do with wonderlic scores.

 

Kaepernick scored a 38

I don't know anything about Kaepernick other than what I've read recently, but given how much Gailey and Nix have talked about Fitz's intelligence, I could see that score having an impact if they do in fact decide to take a QB outside of the first round. Given that talent level wouldn't be the overriding factor at that point (nobody outside of the first few picks would be taken because their talent is so high it trumps all other considerations) having QB with the brains to overcome other deficiencies seems to be a logical way to go.

 

Of course the wonderlic doesn't automatically translate to on the field intelligence, but I've always assumed teams have tests to help them gauge such things during their interviews with these players.

[ajzepp]

Kaepernick scored a 38

 

It's getting difficult finding things to not like about this kid.

[DDD]

Can anyone find out how Kaepernick did?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Because his wonderlic score will have a huge impact on where he is drafted and whether or not he will succeed at the next level.

[BEAST MODE BABY!]

Can anyone find out how Kaepernick did?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

37 according to Rotoworld.

 

Kaepernick scored a 38

 

Technically, that was at his junior day a year ago.

[NoSaint]

Logically if there were MULTIPLE resets of a MAJOR standardized test, it would be pretty unusual for the Wonderlic to not undergo a scoring reset as well over the past 15 years.

 

Especially if low scorers can improve their scores so easily:

- Losman improved from 14 to 31

- Vince Young improved from 6 to 16

 

So I stand by my statements

- 21 is not that good of a score for Cam Newton, especially when he's projected as a top 5-10 pick. It's another Con which increases his risk. Especially with the 2nd tier prospects all hitting Home Runs with their scores.

- A wonderlic score of 20 isn't the same as a score of 20 fifteen years ago.

 

The fact that you can improve your score by actually learning strategy and such isn't a knock in the test, it's a knock on those guys for being unprepared/unfocused.

 

Also with a test that short, knowing 2-3 extra questions and getting 2-3 guesses can swing a score a lot as well.

 

The SAT reset was because the early 90s saw many underachieving schools implement the test as a benchmark, and it brought the average score down so they had to pull that 50th percentile back to 500. To my knowledge the wonderlic didn't see that influx. It's generally held it's demographics steady.

 

All that said, I'm basically saying unless you are an extreme outlier (say under 15ish or over 30/35ish, I don't think it says a lot. It's like a RB being clocked at 4.4 vs 4.45 - marginal difference even if it's not based on track conditions, slight misstep etc (lucky guesses or content) it's the 4.25 and 4.6 that really can help or hurt and likely say something at the next level.

 

Cams score doesn't put him in the wow factor either way. His "true" value could be high teens or mid 20s honestly, and much like the 40 not being football speed, this isn't football processing under a pass rush... Just part of the package to take into account.

Edited March 17, 2011 by NoSaint

[Johnny Hammersticks]

Logically if there were MULTIPLE resets of a MAJOR standardized test, it would be pretty unusual for the Wonderlic to not undergo a scoring reset as well over the past 15 years.

 

Especially if low scorers can improve their scores so easily:

- Losman improved from 14 to 31

- Vince Young improved from 6 to 16

 

So I stand by my statements

- 21 is not that good of a score for Cam Newton, especially when he's projected as a top 5-10 pick. It's another Con which increases his risk. Especially with the 2nd tier prospects all hitting Home Runs with their scores.

- A wonderlic score of 20 isn't the same as a score of 20 fifteen years ago.

 

Standardized cognitive instruments are re-normed periodically because, essentially, the nature of the population by which the test was previously normed has changed to some degree. A person's performance on a cognitive test, such as the Wonderlic, is compared to the performance of the normative sample (thousands of people who take the test prior to it being published). As a general trend, longitudinal research demonstrates that IQ scores have risen over time. As theorized, this phenomenon is due to multiple contributing factors (i.e., education, health care, nutrition, etc...). So, a Wonderlic score of 20 does mean the same thing as a Wonderlic score of 20 fifteen years ago. It means that you attained an average score, as compared to the normative sample.

 

Players such as Losman and Vince Young are able to improve their scores dramatically due to practice effects. Essentially, when the test is re-administered, they are better able to respond to the nature of the tasks presented to them. Quite possibly, their improved score is more representative of their actual aptitude in a given area (in this case fluid reasoning abilities). In other words, we are not interested in what these players know, but rather, how quickly and efficiently they can process information.

[symbiant]

Cams score doesn't put him in the wow factor either way. His "true" value could be high teens or mid 20s honestly, and much like the 40 not being football speed, this isn't football processing under a pass rush... Just part of the package to take into account.

 

That's pretty much what I'm saying.

Let's be real here. For the all the people that think this score doesn't matter...

If Cam Newton scored a 40 on the Wonderlic, he would have been guaranteed as the #1 overall pick.

 

Instead he did ok... maybe even slightly better than anticipated.

Unfortunately, MOST of the 2nd tier quarterbacks ROCKED the test.

 

This starts to seed doubt whether or not to invest such a high draft pick in Cam Newton, if there are possible reasonable alternatives in round 2 with quick decision making skills.

 

Personally, I now believe the Bills will NOT take him at 3 and go defense... especially with the QB options in round 2/3 looking better on paper.

[Tcali]

You do realize the "inflated scores" are because there's a third section and it's scored out of 2400 now right?

 

As for the wonderlic - 20 equates to 100iq which equates to average. 5 pts equate to about a standard deviation high or low. As you get away from the middle that's less of a hard rule.

 

Food for thought, Bradshaw is the only qb to score under a 24(?) and win the superbowl. Clearly not saying cam can't, just giving some wonderlic facts/trivia and perspective.

 

so kelly and marino have IQs around 95.

[purple haze]

Agreed. This should alleviate all those Vince Young comparisons.

 

Shouldn't be any comparisons between them anyway. NOT the same player/leader. And the wonderlic

is pretty meaningless anyway. High scores don't mean a QB will be successful any more than a lower

score indicates that they won't be. Vince Young got a 9, has maturity issues, not a great leader and

STILL has a winning record as a starting QB in the NFL. Fitz scored 48 and doesn't have a winning

record as a starter on any team he's been on.

 

Chad Pennington scored 25? He was a finalist for the Rhodes Scholarship. Wonderlic is a bunch of

random information. Change the info and people who didn't do as well could do better or vice versa.

Edited March 17, 2011 by purple haze