Why would Jackson take the Wonderlic test and not - -

[Albwan]

On 3/29/2018 at 10:02 PM, Punt75 said:

- - - run the 40 yard dash at the NFL combine or at his recent Pro Day??? 

 

ALL the combine events are optional.  Why take a test that has been proven to be very culturally & racially biased based on an individuals education and life experiences at a young age?  All NFL executives know this but get a bit nervous picking a team leader (QB) with a low score.

 

Reading and paying attention at school and learning is racist now, too?

Edited March 31, 2018 by Albwan

[BringBackOrton]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I believe that would be a very hard contention to defend rationally .  How fast one can move 40 yards and how many times one can propel a given weight upward are about as objective as one can get.

 

Even if you are a staunch believer that intelligence and other standardized tests in general, and the Wonderlic i particular, are not culturally or racially biased, it seems to me it must logically be acknowledged that the questions used allow more potential for bias than a totally objective metric.

 

 

 

Just like the 40 and the bench press, the Wonderlic can be prepared for and conquered.

 

"Racial bias" is a BS excuse for a couple of players who didn't care enough to prepare.

[Lothar]

The Wonderlic remains a tool that garners more notoriety than it deserves since it doesn't really show a correlation between score and success.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-a-multiple-choice-test-became-a-fixture-of-the-nfl-draft/

When it comes to football, is the test a demonstrably reasonable measure of job performance? Because official NFL Wonderlic scores aren’t publicly available, it’s difficult to know for sure, but that hasn’t stopped researchers from attempting to find out. Brian D. Lyons, Brian J. Hoffman, and John W. Michel 8 co-authored a 2009 study examining the reported 9 Wonderlic scores of 762 NFL players from three draft classes. They found that there was little correlation between Wonderlic scores and on-field performance, except for two positions: Tight ends and defensive backs with low scores actually played better than those with high scores. The researchers surmised that this “could be explained by the notion that performance for these positions entails more of an emphasis on physical ability and instinct” than general mental ability.

[GoBills808]

13 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Long ago, when it snowed 3 feet every month and we all walked to school and back uphill both ways, young Hapless went away to a rather well known school in Beantown and struggled to pass Calculus, despite having actually taken Calculus at (what was then) State Teachers' College in Buffalo, and received an A.  Hapless had a fraternity Big Brother who was All World in Math and asked him for help.  "Those are differentials" said he.  "That's an integral.  What don't you understand?"

 

I tell this tale to make 2 points:

1) the quality of the instruction, expectations, and peer group have a huge impact on the quality of the education one receives.  Alert the media: the expectations and material covered in a calculus class taught at Buff State vs at some tech school where the average math SAT score is 790 differ.  The quality of the basic math curricula at different HS can vary just that much

2) People who have achieved a level of competency in a subject have a tendency, like Hapless' Math Genius "Big Brother", to lose the ability to perceive what the knowledge gaps that hinder others may be.

 

I could go through the online tests I took, which have "gimme" questions like Dingus posted, and which also have some questions I regard as rather obscure, and pull out the latter.

I could post links to articles questioning the job-relatedness and bias of the Wonderlic like this one:

 

"Like the Scholastic Assessment Test, which the NCAA uses to help determine freshman eligibility, the Wonderlic has been criticized for failing to accurately measure learning ability.

College entrance exams have been accused of cultural bias against minorities and women and thus misleading in predicting academic success.  According to data supplied by the testers, the median score in 1992 for all those between ages 16 and 72 was 21.58 out of 50. Whites' median was 22.76, African Americans' 16.20 and Hispanics' 17.26. The Wonderlic test has been rejected by the courts perhaps more than any other test as not being job related," said Richard Seymour of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a Washington-based advocacy group."

 

Now maybe that 6.5 average point differential between blacks and whites means the blacks are smarter.  Or maybe it means something else: different educational opportunities, or different cultural immersion, or different resources for test prep.

 

On Jackson's 13, I got nuttin - it seems to me a guy who can read and who prepares ought to be able to do better.  My score on my second test was 42.  See point 2) above.

But on the point that there may be racial bias in things like the chosen meanings of the word comparator pairs, and the type of math problems - yeah, it's an issue that will continue to haunt these kinds of tests.

 

The real question, IMO is captured in another quote from the same article I linked:

"Seymour said if the NFL wants to measure cognitive skills, it should give athletes a playbook and quiz them.

"But the idea that you can get a useful prediction of ability to learn plays by testing people on vocabulary, on complex sentence construction, it's not the real world," he said."

 

This is a very different argument, and one I happen to find a lot of agreement in, than 'standardized tests are racially biased'.

[BringBackOrton]

12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Long ago, when it snowed 3 feet every month and we all walked to school and back uphill both ways, young Hapless went away to a rather well known school in Beantown and struggled to pass Calculus, despite having actually taken Calculus at (what was then) State Teachers' College in Buffalo, and received an A.  Hapless had a fraternity Big Brother who was All World in Math and asked him for help.  "Those are differentials" said he.  "That's an integral.  What don't you understand?"

 

I tell this tale to make 2 points:

1) the quality of the instruction, expectations, and peer group have a huge impact on the quality of the education one receives.  Alert the media: the expectations and material covered in a calculus class taught at Buff State vs at some tech school where the average math SAT score is 790 differ.  The quality of the basic math curricula at different HS can vary just that much

2) People who have achieved a level of competency in a subject have a tendency, like Hapless' Math Genius "Big Brother", to lose the ability to perceive what the knowledge gaps that hinder others may be.

 

I could go through the online tests I took, which have "gimme" questions like Dingus posted, and which also have some questions I regard as rather obscure, and pull out the latter.

I could post links to articles questioning the job-relatedness and bias of the Wonderlic like this one:

 

"Like the Scholastic Assessment Test, which the NCAA uses to help determine freshman eligibility, the Wonderlic has been criticized for failing to accurately measure learning ability.

College entrance exams have been accused of cultural bias against minorities and women and thus misleading in predicting academic success.  According to data supplied by the testers, the median score in 1992 for all those between ages 16 and 72 was 21.58 out of 50. Whites' median was 22.76, African Americans' 16.20 and Hispanics' 17.26. The Wonderlic test has been rejected by the courts perhaps more than any other test as not being job related," said Richard Seymour of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a Washington-based advocacy group."

 

Now maybe that 6.5 average point differential between blacks and whites means the blacks are smarter.  Or maybe it means something else: different educational opportunities, or different cultural immersion, or different resources for test prep.

 

On Jackson's 13, I got nuttin - it seems to me a guy who can read and who prepares ought to be able to do better.  My score on my second test was 42.  See point 2) above.

But on the point that there may be racial bias in things like the chosen meanings of the word comparator pairs, and the type of math problems - yeah, it's an issue that will continue to haunt these kinds of tests.

 

The real question, IMO is captured in another quote from the same article I linked:

"Seymour said if the NFL wants to measure cognitive skills, it should give athletes a playbook and quiz them.

"But the idea that you can get a useful prediction of ability to learn plays by testing people on vocabulary, on complex sentence construction, it's not the real world," he said."

 

It's not about learning plays.  It's about adaptability, preparedness, how much you care to do well.

 

The evidence that the Wonderlic is racially biased is because some races don't do as well on it.  Is the 40 yard dash racially biased because Asian's aren't that good at it?

[GoBills808]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I believe that would be a very hard contention to defend rationally .  How fast one can move 40 yards and how many times one can propel a given weight upward are about as objective as one can get.

 

Even if you are a staunch believer that intelligence and other standardized tests in general, and the Wonderlic i particular, are not culturally or racially biased, it seems to me it must logically be acknowledged that the questions used allow more potential for bias than a totally objective metric.

 

 

 

I fail to see how mathematics and reading comprehension are less objective metrics than the 40 yard dash and bench press.

[BringBackOrton]

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I fail to see how mathematics and reading comprehension are less objective metrics than the 40 yard dash and bench press.

Math is super fluid man.  6 times 5 times 4 only equals 120 in Hispanic neighborhoods.

[PIZ]

I'm not defending the 13 score, BUT, there are several versions of the Wonderlic.  The one BigDingus references is obviously an easy version.  It is nothing like the version I use.  If Lamar Jackson got a 13 on the easy version, he would get a 0 on the one I use.  Couple questions I don't know the answers to:

 

1.  Do all draftees receive the same Wonderlic version?

 

2.  Do teams like the Bills test these guys themselves when they come in for a visit?

 

3.  If he had an agent, would the agent make sure he didn't get the most difficult version, and/or would the agent prep him for the test?

 

4.  Could someone be bribed into manipulating his score, so he drops in the draft?  How secure is the grading?

 

[Lothar]

1 minute ago, PIZ said:

I'm not defending the 13 score, BUT, there are several versions of the Wonderlic.  The one BigDingus references is obviously an easy version.  It is nothing like the version I use.  If Lamar Jackson got a 13 on the easy version, he would get a 0 on the one I use.  Couple questions I don't know the answers to:

 

1.  Do all draftees receive the same Wonderlic version?

 

2.  Do teams like the Bills test these guys themselves when they come in for a visit?

 

3.  If he had an agent, would the agent make sure he didn't get the most difficult version, and/or would the agent prep him for the test?

 

4.  Could someone be bribed into manipulating his score, so he drops in the draft?  How secure is the grading?

 

According to the article I referenced from 538 earlier, at least half of the leaked scores are fake. I'm not sure whether teams do so in an effort to get players to drop or agents do so to get players to rise but the bottom line is don't trust those numbers. And also because there is no correlation to success on the football field except for a negative one with tight ends and defensive backs.

[PIZ]

3 minutes ago, Lothar said:

According to the article I referenced from 538 earlier, at least half of the leaked scores are fake. I'm not sure whether teams do so in an effort to get players to drop or agents do so to get players to rise but the bottom line is don't trust those numbers. And also because there is no correlation to success on the football field except for a negative one with tight ends and defensive backs.

 

Thanks.  I'll check out the article.

[Rochesterfan]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

I could go through the online tests I took, which have "gimme" questions like Dingus posted, and which also have some questions I regard as rather obscure, and pull out the latter.

I could post links to articles questioning the job-relatedness and bias of the Wonderlic like this one:

 

"Like the Scholastic Assessment Test, which the NCAA uses to help determine freshman eligibility, the Wonderlic has been criticized for failing to accurately measure learning ability.

College entrance exams have been accused of cultural bias against minorities and women and thus misleading in predicting academic success.  According to data supplied by the testers, the median score in 1992 for all those between ages 16 and 72 was 21.58 out of 50. Whites' median was 22.76, African Americans' 16.20 and Hispanics' 17.26. The Wonderlic test has been rejected by the courts perhaps more than any other test as not being job related," said Richard Seymour of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a Washington-based advocacy group."

 

Now maybe that 6.5 average point differential between blacks and whites means the blacks are smarter.  Or maybe it means something else: different educational opportunities, or different cultural immersion, or different resources for test prep.

 

On Jackson's 13, I got nuttin - it seems to me a guy who can read and who prepares ought to be able to do better.  My score on my second test was 42.  See point 2) above.

But on the point that there may be racial bias in things like the chosen meanings of the word comparator pairs, and the type of math problems - yeah, it's an issue that will continue to haunt these kinds of tests.

 

 

 

 

This is is exactly what I was talking about and your whole post is correct, but I want to focus on the little bit I left in.

 

When reviewed by itself the overall results for most of these exams show definite racial and cultural bias. As you bring in socioeconomic comparators - the bias lessens when comparing across race and culture.  

 

I think that if everyone believes the NFL uses this as a measurement of intelligence - I think that is wrong.  I think they use it as a pressure gauge and a preparation monitor more now because so many rookies go through prep classes - it let’s you know if they are putting in the time.

 

A low score is still a flag for many of these guys, but not as much as years ago before everyone had prep access.

 

 

[Doc]

3 hours ago, Lothar said:

According to the article I referenced from 538 earlier, at least half of the leaked scores are fake. I'm not sure whether teams do so in an effort to get players to drop or agents do so to get players to rise but the bottom line is don't trust those numbers. And also because there is no correlation to success on the football field except for a negative one with tight ends and defensive backs.

 

There is no need for a team or teams to leak fake scores.  Every team gets the real scores. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

I fail to see how mathematics and reading comprehension are less objective metrics than the 40 yard dash and bench press.

 

Mathematics per se as in the answer to "if your dinner cost $19.53 and you pay $50.01, what is your change?" is objective.

 

The use of specifically chosen mathematics and word comparison or word rearrangement questions to measure intelligence -

 

you truly see no difference between using questions like "A lawyer owns 4 pairs of pants, 5 dress shirts and 6 ties. How many days can the lawyer go without wearing the same combination of three items?" "ROYGBIV stands for: the size of atoms the seasons the colors of the rainbow types of trees" and "Are the words

Aghast

Unsurprised contradictory, similar or not related?" as metrics of intelligence? and something like timing a 40 yd dash or observing bench press reps?

 

 

I got nothin'.

 

3 hours ago, Lothar said:

The Wonderlic remains a tool that garners more notoriety than it deserves since it doesn't really show a correlation between score and success.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-a-multiple-choice-test-became-a-fixture-of-the-nfl-draft/

 

Interesting article.  I absolutely disagree with this: “What we’re measuring is not what you know — that’s what’s being measured on the ACT or the SAT,” said Charles Wonderlic, president and CEO of Wonderlic Inc. “This is really saying, ‘How quickly does your brain gather and analyze information?’”

 

The tests available online, that I have taken, are ABSOLUTELY about what you know, from "can you do arithmetic without a calculator accurately" to "do you know how to translate word problems into algebra and solve algebra problems quickly?" to "do you know and are able to use less common definitions of words?" to "do you know the names of different types of triangles and other geometric shapes?".  If the online tests reflect the actual Wonderlic administered to NFL players, No way is that thing a measure of how quickly your brain gathers and analyzes information.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Mathematics per se as in the answer to "if your dinner cost $19.53 and you pay $50.01, what is your change?" is objective.

 

The use of specifically chosen mathematics and word comparison or word rearrangement questions to measure intelligence -

 

you truly see no difference between using questions like "A lawyer owns 4 pairs of pants, 5 dress shirts and 6 ties. How many days can the lawyer go without wearing the same combination of three items?" "ROYGBIV stands for: the size of atoms the seasons the colors of the rainbow types of trees" and "Are the words

Aghast

Unsurprised contradictory, similar or not related?" as metrics of intelligence? and something like timing a 40 yd dash or observing bench press reps?

 

 

I got nothin'.

I see no difference. Furthermore, those examples are as objective metrics of intelligence as the 40 yard dash and bench press are objective measures of athleticism imo.

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

I think that if everyone believes the NFL uses this as a measurement of intelligence - I think that is wrong.  I think they use it as a pressure gauge and a preparation monitor more now because so many rookies go through prep classes - it let’s you know if they are putting in the time.

 

A low score is still a flag for many of these guys, but not as much as years ago before everyone had prep access.

 

If the NFL is using the test as a preparation monitor, and prep access is now readily available, wouldn't a low score actually be more of a flag now-a-days?

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I see no difference. Furthermore, those examples are as objective metrics of intelligence as the 40 yard dash and bench press are objective measures of athleticism imo.

 

Then I got nothing to say.  It's amazing to me that someone could perceive a question such as whether "aghast" and "unsurprised" are synonyms, antonyms, or unrelated, as

1) an actual or reliable measure of someone's intelligence

2) objective in the same way a 40 yd dash time is

 

Good day to you!

Edited April 1, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

If the NFL is using the test as a preparation monitor, and prep access is now readily available, wouldn't a low score actually be more of a flag now-a-days?

 

Then I got nothing to say.  It's amazing to me that someone could perceive a question such as whether "aghast" and "unsurprised" are synonyms, antonyms, or unrelated, as

1) an actual or reliable measure of someone's intelligence

2) objective in the same way a 40 yd dash time is

 

Good day to you!

You'll note I never said your example was either an actual or reliable measure of someone's intelligence, only that it was as reliable a measurement of someone's intelligence as a 40 time or bench press would be a reliable measurement of someone's athleticism. Thus, objective.

 

How is understanding vocabulary and grammar 'subjective' to you? What's the difference between knowing the definition of 'aghast' and knowing how to calculate the circumference of a circle?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, jmc12290 said:

Math is super fluid man.  6 times 5 times 4 only equals 120 in Hispanic neighborhoods.

 

This illustrates exactly the difference I was trying to point out to GoBills.

 

6 times 5 times 4 equals 120 in all neighborhoods.

 

Knowing that the way to solve a problem like "how many different combinations of 6 slacks 5 shirts and 4 ties can you wear?" is to multiply 6 x 5 x 4, depends upon whether you've been taught and remember combinatorial mathematics.  Treating that as measure of innate intelligence is sketchy, and claiming it's just as objective as timing a 40 yd dash or the actual mathematical problem, is just weird.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

You'll note I never said your example was either an actual or reliable measure of someone's intelligence, only that it was as reliable a measurement of someone's intelligence as a 40 time or bench press would be a reliable measurement of someone's athleticism. Thus, objective.

 

How is understanding vocabulary and grammar 'subjective' to you? What's the difference between knowing the definition of 'aghast' and knowing how to calculate the circumference of a circle?

 

You started out with this statement: " I fail to see how mathematics and reading comprehension are less objective metrics than the 40 yard dash and bench press. "

There was nothing in there about the 40 yd dash and the bench press as measures of athleticism, but obviously for a certain type of athleticism they are correlated.  Leaving out the "measures of athleticism" bit, the point is that they are objectively measureable.

 

The difference between knowing how to calculate the circumference of a circle and answering a question comparing the meanings of "aghast" and "unsurprised", is that both words have several meanings, and there's a definite subjective component in how you interpret them.  For example, Merriam-Webster lists synonyms of "aghast" as "afraid, alarmed, fearful, frightened, horrified, horror-struck, hysterical (also hysteric), scared, scary, shocked, spooked, terrified, terrorized."  Except for possibly "shocked", one could arguably be all of those things and not particularly surprised.  So it's subjective, unlike the calculation of circumference which is straightforward and has one answer given a diameter and sig figures.

 

Then in the case of the Wonderlic, you have to take another step and claim that two questions assessing what you know are actually measuring your intelligence.

[BringBackOrton]

21 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This illustrates exactly the difference I was trying to point out to GoBills.

 

6 times 5 times 4 equals 120 in all neighborhoods.

 

Knowing that the way to solve a problem like "how many different combinations of 6 slacks 5 shirts and 4 ties can you wear?" is to multiply 6 x 5 x 4, depends upon whether you've been taught and remember combinatorial mathematics.  Treating that as measure of innate intelligence is sketchy, and claiming it's just as objective as timing a 40 yd dash or the actual mathematical problem, is just weird.

Knowing the exact way to start, position your hips, drive your first step on the 40 yard dash properly to maxmizie your speed depends on how you've been taught. Your argument is so faulty.

 

This isn't higher level mathematics either. Understanding math at the 8th grade level shouldn't be hard for sophomores and juniors in college who actually care about school.

Edited April 1, 2018 by jmc12290

[Buffaloflash]

On 3/29/2018 at 10:55 PM, mileena said:

 

It's absolutely not biased against young people. It is biased racially though.

How So?

On 3/29/2018 at 11:16 PM, BadLandsMeanie said:

I can address that for you a bit if you like.

 

College professors and the like make tests like the Wonderlic.  The object being to show how smart you are. Right?

 

What do you suppose the odds are that the professors would end up with a test that shows them to be morons?

 

 It is zero. There is no chance of that happening at all. 

 

So the tests will automatically wind up being measures of things that bookish introverts know. Everybody who has some life experience knows there are different ways of being smart. We even have the word "book smart" for somebody who knows a lot of facts, but maybe seems incapable in other more practical life skills. 

 

 

 

And the Racial aspect?

[Buffaloflash]

On 3/30/2018 at 1:49 AM, Lfod said:

The Wonderlic is more controversial than I thought around here. I can't comment because I actually have no idea what's in the test. Is it football questions or rocket science questions? If it's all football related then the score might matter to me. If it's not then I don't really care what the score is....

 

If the test isn't important why give it? Really not a place I can give an opinion. Educate me please.

Just Google the test and take it!

There's a 50 question and a 25.

I took the 50,didn't notice the timer until 3 mins.were left.

You'll probably score better by not dwelling on questions.

[Real McClappy]

His piss test came back positive for?????????

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 hours ago, jmc12290 said:

Knowing the exact way to start, position your hips, drive your first step on the 40 yard dash properly to maxmizie your speed depends on how you've been taught. Your argument is so faulty.

 

This isn't higher level mathematics either. Understanding math at the 8th grade level shouldn't be hard for sophomores and juniors in college who actually care about school.

 

*sigh*  I should probably have ducked out of here 3 posts ago.

 

The *timing* of the 40 yd dash is objective.  Using the 40 yd dash as a metric for innate athleticism may be biased because the time may be influenced by training, true, especially when one gets down to comparing hundredths or tenths of a second.  But when this discussion started, the "metric for athleticism" thing wasn't in play - the comparison was between timing a 40, vs measuring intelligence with a Wonderlic test, and the two simply aren't comparable in objectivity.

 

On the issue of "understanding math on the 8th grade level", I have nothing to say beyond my previous post in this thread in which young Hapless walks to school through 3 feet of snow, uphill both ways. 

 

 

[BringBackOrton]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

*sigh*  I should probably have ducked out of here 3 posts ago.

 

The *timing* of the 40 yd dash is objective.  Using the 40 yd dash as a metric for innate athleticism may be biased because the time may be influenced by training, true, especially when one gets down to comparing hundredths or tenths of a second.  But when this discussion started, the "metric for athleticism" thing wasn't in play - the comparison was between timing a 40, vs measuring intelligence with a Wonderlic test, and the two simply aren't comparable in objectivity.

 

On the issue of "understanding math on the 8th grade level", I have nothing to say beyond my previous post in this thread in which young Hapless walks to school through 3 feet of snow, uphill both ways. 

 

 

So then the math and language rules of the Wonderlic are objective.  But the use of the Wonderlic to measure intelligence may be biased.

 

So basically, it's just like the 40 and bench press.  An imperfect measure of something impossible to truly quanitfy.  Something we all knew.  But for whatever reason, everyone points at the Wonderlic and not every other potential bias in every other pre draft exercise.  I wonder why.

Edited April 1, 2018 by jmc12290

[Doc]

16 hours ago, PIZ said:

I'm not defending the 13 score, BUT, there are several versions of the Wonderlic.  The one BigDingus references is obviously an easy version.  It is nothing like the version I use.  If Lamar Jackson got a 13 on the easy version, he would get a 0 on the one I use.  Couple questions I don't know the answers to:

 

1.  Do all draftees receive the same Wonderlic version?

 

2.  Do teams like the Bills test these guys themselves when they come in for a visit?

 

3.  If he had an agent, would the agent make sure he didn't get the most difficult version, and/or would the agent prep him for the test?

 

4.  Could someone be bribed into manipulating his score, so he drops in the draft?  How secure is the grading?

 

 

1.  Yes they do.

 

2.  No idea, but I would think not.

 

3.  Agents definitely prep their clients for it. 

 

4.  Possibly, but it's highly unlikely. 

 

15 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

This is is exactly what I was talking about and your whole post is correct, but I want to focus on the little bit I left in.

 

When reviewed by itself the overall results for most of these exams show definite racial and cultural bias. As you bring in socioeconomic comparators - the bias lessens when comparing across race and culture.  

 

I think that if everyone believes the NFL uses this as a measurement of intelligence - I think that is wrong.  I think they use it as a pressure gauge and a preparation monitor more now because so many rookies go through prep classes - it let’s you know if they are putting in the time.

 

A low score is still a flag for many of these guys, but not as much as years ago before everyone had prep access.

 

They use it for intelligence to a degree, using low scores as a red flag.  Because as has been mentioned, the draftees can improve their scores by taking practice exams.  So a low score not only indicates lower intelligence, but poor prep (either by the draftee or the agent).

 

12 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

If the NFL is using the test as a preparation monitor, and prep access is now readily available, wouldn't a low score actually be more of a flag now-a-days?

 

Then I got nothing to say.  It's amazing to me that someone could perceive a question such as whether "aghast" and "unsurprised" are synonyms, antonyms, or unrelated, as

1) an actual or reliable measure of someone's intelligence

2) objective in the same way a 40 yd dash time is

 

Good day to you!

 

Definitely.  It's less of an issue in some positions, but at QB, you don't want a guy with a low Wonderlic. 

[Lothar]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Definitely.  It's less of an issue in some positions, but at QB, you don't want a guy with a low Wonderlic. 

 

I would have thought so too, Doc, except that the one study cited in the 538 article above showed no correlation between those test results and NFL performance, except for tight end and cornerback - where the correlation was negative.

[starrymessenger]

I like LJ. I think he has "football smarts" so I don't worry about the wonderlic. The cognitive aspect of playing the QB position is part reactive/intuitive and also physiological, a bit like hitting a baseball well. Big league hitters don't see an aspirin like most of us do, they see a grapefruit. That skill has nothing to do with intellectual capacity. So you don't actually need to be a Harvard graduate to play the position. Its not an "intellectual" endeavour imo (though being intelligent does'nt hurt). I have no doubt that in time LJ can master a complete NFL playbook.

OTOH not running the 40 and hiring mom as his agent to save money is entirely consistent with scoring 13 on the W. Its just not a good look and could affect the way some teams evaluate him.

[Doc]

5 minutes ago, Lothar said:

I would have thought so too, Doc, except that the one study cited in the 538 article above showed no correlation between those test results and NFL performance, except for tight end and cornerback - where the correlation was negative.

 

I didn't read the article, but I can't recall too many QB's in the past 20 years have succeeded with a Wonderlic in the teens.

1 minute ago, starrymessenger said:

I like LJ. I think he has "football smarts" so I don't worry about the wonderlic. The cognitive aspect of playing the QB position is part reactive/intuitive and also physiological, a bit like hitting a baseball well. Big league hitters don't see an aspirin like most of us do, they see a grapefruit. That skill has nothing to do with intellectual capacity. So you don't actually need to be a Harvard graduate to play the position. Its not an "intellectual" endeavour imo (though being intelligent does'nt hurt). I have no doubt that in time LJ can master a complete NFL playbook.

OTOH not running the 40 and hiring mom as his agent to save money is entirely consistent with scoring 13 on the W. Its just not a good look and could affect the way some teams evaluate him.

 

Word is (and again, this is hearsay), is that he didn't show well when being asked about QB'ing concepts by teams.  If so, taken with the Wonderlic, that's not a good sign.

[1billsfan]

50 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I didn't read the article, but I can't recall too many QB's in the past 20 years have succeeded with a Wonderlic in the teens.

 

Word is (and again, this is hearsay), is that he didn't show well when being asked about QB'ing concepts by teams.  If so, taken with the Wonderlic, that's not a good sign.

 

With your concerns being said, I still feel 100% that Jackson's going to be a hundred times better than either Allen or Rudolph, and that he'll have a much longer career than Rosen.

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by 1billsfan

[Doc]

Just now, 1billsfan said:

With your concerns being said, I still feel 100% that Jackson's going to be a hundred times better than either Aleen or Rudolph, and that he'll have a much longer career than Rosen.

 

That's entirely possible.  And that's what makes drafting QB's so frustrating.

[GoBills808]

16 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

You started out with this statement: " I fail to see how mathematics and reading comprehension are less objective metrics than the 40 yard dash and bench press. "

There was nothing in there about the 40 yd dash and the bench press as measures of athleticism, but obviously for a certain type of athleticism they are correlated.  Leaving out the "measures of athleticism" bit, the point is that they are objectively measureable.

 

The difference between knowing how to calculate the circumference of a circle and answering a question comparing the meanings of "aghast" and "unsurprised", is that both words have several meanings, and there's a definite subjective component in how you interpret them.  For example, Merriam-Webster lists synonyms of "aghast" as "afraid, alarmed, fearful, frightened, horrified, horror-struck, hysterical (also hysteric), scared, scary, shocked, spooked, terrified, terrorized."  Except for possibly "shocked", one could arguably be all of those things and not particularly surprised.  So it's subjective, unlike the calculation of circumference which is straightforward and has one answer given a diameter and sig figures.

 

Then in the case of the Wonderlic, you have to take another step and claim that two questions assessing what you know are actually measuring your intelligence.

Allow me to clarify. I was operating under the assumption that saying the Wonderlic measures a person's intelligence is the functional equivalent of saying that a 40 time or bench press measures a person's athleticism, in that neither are reliable indicators in and of themselves. Wonderlic score is to intelligence as 40 yard dash time is to athleticism. Their respective objectivity I referenced is a function only of the fact that they're both measurable, not that they have any real bearing on the individual's athleticism/intelligence they purport to quantify. 

 

If you go WAY back you'll notice I agreed with one of your earlier premises, which was (I took it this way, anyway) that the weight we give standardized tests such as the Wonderlic in society at large disproportionately affects certain minority groups, which IS a racial bias concerning these kinds of tests. What I dispute is the claim that the tests and questions themselves (except in very isolated instances) can be construed as biased by race, but I do certainly acknowledge the discrepancies in scores on standardized tests between races (and genders, and socioeconomic strata, etc) and how such testing can disadvantage particular groups of people when used to quantify intelligence in isolation.

 

And lastly, I don't agree AT ALL that a working knowledge of etymology in addition to geometry is somehow the purview of racial privilege, or that knowing how to calculate circumference is a universal concept but concepts of denotation versus connotation are somehow beyond the comprehension of minority groups. That's ridiculous and patronizing.

[NewEraBills]

According to Jordan Schultz of Yahoo Sports, Louisville QB Lamar Jackson's draft stock is trending "upward."
 

 

In fact, the consensus is that Jackson will go in the first round. Schultz mentioned the Cardinals, who pick at No. 15, as a potential fit for the former Heisman Trophy winner. Arizona signed Sam Bradford to a deal this offseason but the Cardinals likely view him as a stopgap rather than a long-term solution. Jackson has drawn criticism for his low completion percentage in college, though he's also been widely praised for his athleticism and elite playmaking ability. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

On 3/29/2018 at 10:02 PM, Punt75 said:

- - - run the 40 yard dash at the NFL combine or at his recent Pro Day??? 

 

ALL the combine events are optional.  Why take a test that has been proven to be very culturally & racially biased based on an individuals education and life experiences at a young age?  All NFL executives know this but get a bit nervous picking a team leader (QB) with a low score.

 

 

 

...just an unsubstantiated hunch but I think he may want to downplay his athleticism for those that advocate he should switch to WR.....super combine measurables would support those wanting him to transition....a good Wonderlic score may (?) in his view demonstrate his ability to succeed at the NFL QB level based on mental prowess (ie. speed and complexity of the game)............

[BringBackOrton]

20 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

You started out with this statement: " I fail to see how mathematics and reading comprehension are less objective metrics than the 40 yard dash and bench press. "

There was nothing in there about the 40 yd dash and the bench press as measures of athleticism, but obviously for a certain type of athleticism they are correlated.  Leaving out the "measures of athleticism" bit, the point is that they are objectively measureable.

 

The difference between knowing how to calculate the circumference of a circle and answering a question comparing the meanings of "aghast" and "unsurprised", is that both words have several meanings, and there's a definite subjective component in how you interpret them.  For example, Merriam-Webster lists synonyms of "aghast" as "afraid, alarmed, fearful, frightened, horrified, horror-struck, hysterical (also hysteric), scared, scary, shocked, spooked, terrified, terrorized."  Except for possibly "shocked", one could arguably be all of those things and not particularly surprised.  So it's subjective, unlike the calculation of circumference which is straightforward and has one answer given a diameter and sig figures.

 

Then in the case of the Wonderlic, you have to take another step and claim that two questions assessing what you know are actually measuring your intelligence.

Except for the one synonym that proves you wrong, you're right?

 

Do you know what "synonym" means?  Or do you spend as much time preparing for this debate as LJ did on the Wonderlic?

4 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Allow me to clarify. I was operating under the assumption that saying the Wonderlic measures a person's intelligence is the functional equivalent of saying that a 40 time or bench press measures a person's athleticism, in that neither are reliable indicators in and of themselves. Wonderlic score is to intelligence as 40 yard dash time is to athleticism. Their respective objectivity I referenced is a function only of the fact that they're both measurable, not that they have any real bearing on the individual's athleticism/intelligence they purport to quantify. 

 

If you go WAY back you'll notice I agreed with one of your earlier premises, which was (I took it this way, anyway) that the weight we give standardized tests such as the Wonderlic in society at large disproportionately affects certain minority groups, which IS a racial bias concerning these kinds of tests. What I dispute is the claim that the tests and questions themselves (except in very isolated instances) can be construed as biased by race, but I do certainly acknowledge the discrepancies in scores on standardized tests between races (and genders, and socioeconomic strata, etc) and how such testing can disadvantage particular groups of people when used to quantify intelligence in isolation.

 

And lastly, I don't agree AT ALL that a working knowledge of etymology in addition to geometry is somehow the purview of racial privilege, or that knowing how to calculate circumference is a universal concept but concepts of denotation versus connotation are somehow beyond the comprehension of minority groups. That's ridiculous and patronizing.

Verbal headshot.  Game over.

[BuffaninATL]

On 3/30/2018 at 7:49 AM, T-Bomb said:

 

Oh give me a break, culturally & racially biased???

 

Lamar just kinda seems stupid.  I mean, you could tell what his score was going to be from the way the dude talks...

 

No way he should be drafted as a QB.

 

I don't know you personally but I have to say your take is one of the most stupid and inflammatory I have seen in a long time. So let me ask you a question, Nostradamus (.....since you could tell what his score was going to be from the way he talks); at what position should he be drafted? Please consult with Bill Polian and let us know.

[Punt75]

I started this post only because I thought Lamar's attitude was a bit strange regarding the NFL draft in general.  He can move around in the pocket, run down the field and throw to open spaces to a receiver with the time that creates in COLLEGE FOOTBALL.   I think there are some cognitive limitations that are evident and no "proper" people will discuss them.  I hope the Bills stay clear of him as a high draft pick!

[T-Bomb]

9 hours ago, BuffaninATL said:

 

I don't know you personally but I have to say your take is one of the most stupid and inflammatory I have seen in a long time. So let me ask you a question, Nostradamus (.....since you could tell what his score was going to be from the way he talks); at what position should he be drafted? Please consult with Bill Polian and let us know.

 

The only thing I care about is that the Bills don't draft him as a QB, what other teams do with him, I don't give a ****.

 

The last thing this franchise needs is to miss out on a franchise QB AGAIN!  He's the least intelligent of the group, one of the least accurate. I don't give a **** that he can run, QB's need to be able to read defenses and consistently throw the ball accurately.

 

 

[alluro]

Dan Marino scored a 16 on the Wonderlic and Jim Kelly scored a 15. I believe Ryan Fitzpatrick and Blaine Gabbert have the highest scores ever. 

 

The test has no correlation between high scores and on-field production.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

15 hours ago, NewEraBills said:

According to Jordan Schultz of Yahoo Sports, Louisville QB Lamar Jackson's draft stock is trending "upward."
 

 

In fact, the consensus is that Jackson will go in the first round. Schultz mentioned the Cardinals, who pick at No. 15, as a potential fit for the former Heisman Trophy winner. Arizona signed Sam Bradford to a deal this offseason but the Cardinals likely view him as a stopgap rather than a long-term solution. Jackson has drawn criticism for his low completion percentage in college, though he's also been widely praised for his athleticism and elite playmaking ability. 

 

Let's hope that's where he ends up. Arizona.

 

[Doc]

55 minutes ago, alluro said:

Dan Marino scored a 16 on the Wonderlic and Jim Kelly scored a 15. I believe Ryan Fitzpatrick and Blaine Gabbert have the highest scores ever. 

 

The test has no correlation between high scores and on-field production.

 

Things have changed in the 20 years since those guys last stopped playing.  Name a QB within that timespan who had a Wonderlic in the teens and had more than one good season, much less was a franchise player?