panthers55

Did he play during the year and practice every day. Then he contributed. Was he a senior and expected to start or did he sit behind Mac Jones as an underclassman? I guess being on such a good team you have to wait your turn is now a bad thing. Did Maye sit behind Howell last year.?

All I said was Young was a finished product and Maye wasn't experienced enough to consider and the UNC fans all came out of the woodwork. Maye might be the greatest guy ever but not yet. If you compare them, Young is much better and it isn't close. If Maye came out this year they would be putting him no higher than the fifth best quarterback. Who knows next year he could be 1 or 2. Wasn't that the question?

Your point?

And the best indicator of the future is the past. Of course , the NFL is littered with great college qbs who couldn't replicate their success in the NFL. That includes Cam who almost won a Superbowl. So the best way to find a great NFL quarterback is watch the successful college ones and see if their skill sets match up with the system you are running. People erroneously think that if they aren't as good in the NFL they are underachieving when often it is bad marriage between the system and QB or other factors like revolving coaches and coordinators.

But in this case Young did carry that team and brought out the best in everyone. Just because other folks with credentials fail doesn't mean credentials mean nothing or are useless. And iin Young's case it was an indication of his talent which overshadowed his height or build.

You know who else won a national championship, won the Heisman, played in the SEC and went number 1 in the draft? Yeah, Cam Newton and he is on Youngs side. Maye isn't even a consideration at this point.

It is the experience of playing at the highest level and winning the game. How many players get to do that in their college career. It is a big deal.

Young because he won a national championship, played in the toughest division and is a great skilled player. Maye can only claim the third thing - he is a great skilled player. Let's see how he plays next year...

Won't do that in the second round. Guard isn't a highly valued position and you can find good guys throughout the draft. Free agents aren't that expensive either compared to tackle.

Given his size and athleticism I think Washington could quickly develop into a force. I would consider him as early as the second round although I doubt we we value any tight end over edge rusher or CB.

With coaches tape in hand and having the ability to ask the candidate what was he thinking, what was the call, take me through your progressions, etc. What exactly can't you see or know? And again if the S2 were not overvalued than why did Stroud just take a nose dive based in the results. If we saw good results on the field and a poor test score why should we believe a test over what we see. If the test were used like the wonderlic as a very small factor it is one thing. But when the developers say no one who scores low is successful it seems more than just one factor and way over blown. As someone who administers tests like these I have real problems when tests are purported to do more than they do. They become more counterproductive than helpful when it could help you make the wrong decision because you thought the results are ironclad and highly.ptedictive and they werent. And the reason so many bust is because there are so many factors which influence success or can derail it. Should you gather as much info as possible ? Sure as long as you know how important each factor is. And you don't let one factor or test determine your decision.

Did you see what the total N on the analysis used to determine the cutoff of 80? 27 quarterbacks over 8 years and a few others that took it voluntarily like Brees. In testing terms if a test is new or old but was normed with thousands of subjects it is obviously more useful to make conclusions. And if you are trying to predict something you need data backward and forward to make comparisons. Let's be clear I am behind Young 100% if he is our choice. I didn't say anything the test because Stroud tested poorly. In fact I am looking forward to seeing how they do over the next several years. It is a great comparison because their scores were on the extremes. I think the concept behind the test is solid. I am sure processing speed and spatial visualization among others is necessary to be a qb at this level. I think the hype is overblown with the designer over stating their results based on very few comparisons. So in testing terms it has not been around long and the results since they take years to assess are enough to say things like nobody who has scored low have been successful. As if you score low you won't be successful and this test is a big factor which 100% can predict that according to the test designers.

Actually it just confirms what you see on the field. Which is what is interesting with Stroud. He demonstrated good processing on the field and not the test. And the S2 doesnt measure competitiveness or desire to be great. So what do you believe? What you see on the field in real time against opponents. Or a computer test you take for one hour purporting to measure the things on the field you just witnessed he could do. Seems results on the field far outweigh a test supposedly able to tell these things which is new and largely untested. They used a pool of 117 quarterbacks which they narrowed down to 27 starting qbs and did their analysis with those 27. And you wonder why I say the test is useless until you get more data since it takes years after a qb actually plays to be able to analyze the data. And 27 qb comparisons is a way too small sample to make definitive decisions. Again the test may prove great but until it is valid and reliable it causes more harm than good if people take it too seriously and think it does something it doesnt.

Again it should factor little to nothing. Certainly not as much as it is garnering until there is more data. If we use it to sway us to Young it better be right or it did more harm than good if Stroud ends up the better QB in a few years.

Not being hostile simply pointing out obvious flaws in placing much stock in this test at this point. The problem is not in using it as one factor among a number of things in evaluating a QB, but like in the case of Stroud it is saying based on this research he stands little chance to be successful given his low score despite film of games showing the opposite. As someone who administered cognitive and performance related tests for 30 years I know the limits of what they actually measure versus what they claim. And issues like attention span for example have significant impact for example on continuous performance tests.

So that means that there is a positive correlation between high processing speed and success in physical activities like quarterbacking. But given their data on quarterbacks upon which they decided that an 80 was a cutoff score was 117 quarterbacks over 8 years which they culled done to 27 starting quarterbacks and did their analysis. They are suggesting from that they can predict with 100% that a really low score means you won't be successful. No outliers so far because your N is so low which makes it very limited to use for prediction until much more data has been captured. And if the adage is not judging rookies until year 3 why are they using 2021 data? You wanted questions. I got em... https://www.google.com/amp/s/theathletic.com/4430449/2023/04/20/panthers-nfl-draft-bryce-young-s2-test/%3famp=1

That is my point. We have never had a qb with a low score be successful? Lots of hype there. Makes people sway toward making it mean more than it should. If you want to see how fast he processes watch film and see him do it. Put him through all kinds of drills if you want. I readily admit that fast processing speed is a plus but doubt any of the guys get to this level and don't have good processing speed. It has to be a matter of degrees.

The issue isn't whether the test measures what is supposed to or even if a person over time scores similarly without significant practice effect. It is whether small differences in processing speed, visual field, spatial visualization, roblem solving which are actually measured by many nonverbal IQ tests to differing extents, is predictive of success in the NFl. To say no one who ever scored low actually suceeded suggests no outliers at all which I suggest is because the N is too low. Beyond that though is the other end of the spectrum. How many scored high and didn't succeed. You need to know that to decide what to think of Young. Was a difference of 10 points predictive of success or failure or was it only at the extremes which would be predictable. What if a really low score is a big reg flag but small differences in scores don't really mean much about success.

This is great. If CJ really scored that low and Young scored so high then watching to see how they do will go a long way toward showing how valid this test really is. Since apparently no one who scored a low score has even suceeded.

Widely used norm based tests have hundreds of thousands of subjects collected over decades. That is why they are valid for ongoing use. This test is less than 8 years old and has less than a 1000 quarterbacks evaluated. What I have seen were cherry picked players and how they performed versus how they scored. And since this test is supposed to be predictive of success it takes years of actually playing to see if who had high or low scores failed or succeeded. So that 1000 quarterbacks is now cut by a third. And then the folks who were tested but didn't make it to the actual NFL reduce it more. So how many folks are we talking about? Truth is the information touted as proof is more anecdotal than well researched and valid. There're a number of performance based tests to detect ADHD for example that are purported to be effective and have decades of use that really aren't nearly as useful as they would want you to believe.

Most cognitive tests are based on a score of 100 as the 50th percentile and it goes up or down from there. These are norm based tests whose scores are uaed to compare one against the other. Clearly this is different with a top score of 99 and you receive a score based on how well you perform against a standard typically known as a criterion referenced test. The problem is that it is hard to decide how much weight to give a factor which doesn't have much longevity or a large pool of testers to compare and make meaningful conclusions. And if you put weight on a test with little validity it is worse than ignoring it completely

Of course it is one test battery which is likely heavily nonverbal with timed tests and tasks. But if it isn't reliable and valid for predicting future qb success then it is worse than useless and actually counterproductive since you are using the results to make decisions putting weigh on factors which are not positively correlated with actual success.

Two questions. How big a difference is a 98 versus an 89 in processing speed? Milliseconds, seconds? And since it has been around for 7 or 8 years how reliable and valid can it predict NFL success? Does a 94 mean they will be a probowler but not win the Superbowl versus an 89 who will be a bust. This will be interesting to track over time..

Actually it would have. Grass is more of a cushion than turf and even cold dirt is much softer than concrete

Young will be the pick. He has the personality, drive, and attitude to be the best in the league although he would say he just wants to be the best version of himself. He was a psych major and had great teachers and mentors along the way. I am not as worried as I was about injuries when he said he was always smaller than everyone else and just takes that as a given. So he knows how to avoid contact and not take full body assaults. He really seems special. I honestly have changed my mind and readily see what the coaches see in Young. I like everyone will be rooting for good health.