Seanbillsfan2206 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 1 hour ago, horned dogs said: How come we have no score for Rudolph? Anyone? Because he sucks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prissythecat Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 2 hours ago, Pasaluki said: Imo with the wonderlich anything above 10 is fine. Some people don't test well. But below 10 ehh it may be a minor concern. The average score on Wonderlic is 20. 10 means that the person meets minimum literacy standard iirc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Mo Clairborne scored a 4 and was selected 6th. I would never draft a player that scored a 4, especially at 6th overall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, kdiggz said: Some of these kids from the South have a much harder time because the schools down there are so bad. It's not unheard of for kids to graduate who can barely read. That's so their state stays red.... Edited March 30, 2018 by Reed83HOF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMDman Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 5 hours ago, Cruiserplayer said: Tyrod scored a 15. Bobbie Dixon a 25. Boobie’s actually a pretty smart guy, he’s taking online courses back at Mississippi state and he always post his physics grades on his IG story and they’re pretty good 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 6 hours ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said: I've watched a lot of Josh Allen but I'm going to rewatch a ton of his games this week to see if I'm missing something. Everyone has him as the top pick right now, maybe his attributes project better at the pro level. You didn't miss anything. Did you know Fitz went to Harvard and had an almost perfect Wonderlich score? It means ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 16 hours ago, K-9 said: I don't mean to single out Kelly and Marino, but they are two HOFers often mentioned in the low wonderlic discussions. And yeah, nobody ever confused them with keen intellects so I don't think much was expected in that department, lol. But they could break down a defense and expound on various defensive concepts and why certain offensive schemes may work against them during the interview process in their draft years. That's all that matters to teams and I'm concerned about the reports of Jackson's poor performance along those lines in his various interviews so far. A couple of things - football scheming (offense and defense) is a lot more complex now than in 1984, and more is asked of qbs than ever (that is, it's more of a passing league than a running league now than it was then). Secondly, people of privilege -- and in this i include ALL draftable qbs who play at big time schools and get invited to the combine -- get far more prep on this sort of thing than in the past. I really don't think people took these sorts of tests as seriously in the early 1980s as they do now. Hence I don't think invoking marino/kelly tells us anything about about the present. That's why such a low score scares me. (And for the record, kelly was a great player, but he ran a really simple scheme that relied heavily on talent (great o-line, receivers, and rb). Bottom line: it's less easy to get through life in the nfl as a meathead qb than it was 30-40 years ago. I firmly believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 6 hours ago, LeGOATski said: You didn't miss anything. Did you know Fitz went to Harvard and had an almost perfect Wonderlich score? It means ****. Did Fitz fail because of his brain or his Pennington 5000 hanging from his right shoulder? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 1 minute ago, dave mcbride said: A couple of things - football scheming (offense and defense) is a lot more complex now than in 1984, and more is asked of qbs than ever (that is, it's more of a passing league than a running league now than it was then). Secondly, people of privilege -- and in this i include ALL draftable qbs who play at big time schools and get invited to the combine -- get far more prep on this sort of thing than in the past. I really don't think people took these sorts of tests as seriously in the early 1980s as they do now. Hence I don't think invoking marino/kelly tells us anything about about the present. That's why such a low score scares me. (And for the record, kelly was a great player, but he ran a really simple scheme that relied heavily on talent (great o-line, receivers, and rb). Bottom line: it's less easy to get through life in the nfl as a meathead qb than it was 30-40 years ago. I firmly believe that. I don’t disagree with anything here, especially about the added complexity of today’s schemes; on both sides of the ball. I only cite Kelly and Marino as they were mentioned as examples of guys who scored low and still succeeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, Commonsense said: Did Fitz fail because of his brain or his Pennington 5000 hanging from his right shoulder? He also made terrible decisions. Allen is also very inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 I don't care about these test results. I always found the NFL's reliance on this antiquated test to be peculiar. I'd hope the teams would develop their own tests to gauge how *well* and how *fast* a QB can read a defense and make adjustments. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokinES3 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 7 hours ago, WMDman said: Boobie’s actually a pretty smart guy, he’s taking online courses back at Mississippi state and he always post his physics grades on his IG story and they’re pretty good Yeah I've seen some of that. He's above average intelligence to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalobloodfloridahome Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 On 3/21/2018 at 9:18 PM, prissythecat said: You miss the point of the test. They aren’t looking for a research scientist . What they. don’t want is dolts like Vince Young and his 6. Most successful QBs score above the average which is 20 I believe ? 25 is the bar with a few exceptions. Tyrods big time 15 says allot about his inability to see the field. Cam Newton had a 21 and Derek Carr a 20 but for the most part successful QBs are at 25 or more and anything more than 25 really didn't make them any better or any worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) I wonder how all the Journalists would fair on the average score? Sully Hmmmmm! Edited March 30, 2018 by horned dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Doug Marrone=12, Hue Jackson=11 Edited March 30, 2018 by horned dogs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2014/04/wondering-about-the-wonderlic-does-it-predict-quarterback-performance/ To determine whether the Wonderlic has any effect on QB performance, we examined the test results and NFL performance of 50 quarterbacks dating back to 2007. We included different measures of quarterback efficiency including QBR, Sack Percentage, Adjusted Net Yards Per Attempt, Passer Rating, and Interception Rate Per Attempt. From the various tests we ran, we found a negligible correlation between all the variables and Wonderlic scores of quarterbacks. Not a single variable tested had a correlation above .2 (or below -.2), suggesting a minimal or very weak correlation between quarterbacks’ Wonderlic scores and the other variables at best. Furthermore, the results of the regressions we ran tell a similar story. After individually regressing QBR, Sack Percentage, Adjusted Net Yards Per Attempt, Passer Rating, and Interception Rate Per Attempt on the corresponding Wonderlic scores, we did not find a single relationship that proved to be statistically significant at the 5% level, and most are not even close. That is, a quarterback’s score on the Wonderlic Test does not serve as a significant predictor for any of the metrics we analyzed. It’s unclear whether intellectual proficiency isn’t as important for quarterback as we might think, or that the Wonderlic isn’t very good at measuring it; regardless, it’s very clear that the Wonderlic isn’t, and shouldn’t be considered, a good predictor of quarterback performance. At the end of the day, scouts are better off watching tape, pro days, and the combine rather than reading test scores. Something to think about before you give the wonderlic any weight. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, HappyDays said: http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2014/04/wondering-about-the-wonderlic-does-it-predict-quarterback-performance/ Something to think about before you give the wonderlic any weight. Love that blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) I bet some teams have metrics that take all the different results(combine, college stats erc.) from all the categories and they spill out pretty decent correlations in totality. Smart analysts won't include data that has no impact. This test is still in because it is a remnant of the past...hey we've always done it this way. And, there are still a few old relics that like it, as there are some of this board. End of the day if you believe someone is not smart and they score a 13 you get confirmation. Edited March 30, 2018 by horned dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts