QB Wonderlic scores

[kungfoodude]

6 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Nor does success in school correlate with success in the workplace.

However, the Wonderlic is not more than a piece of the puzzle. 

If pre-assessments could predict success, the NFL draft would have higher success rates.  However, there are certain cognitive skills that matter--it could measure the ability of the player to learn the system in the manner it is to be coached or taught--or indicate how the content should be taught/coached. 

Valid, however I don't think scoring poorly on that test is necessarily a predictor of NFL failure. I haven't seen any data to support it either way. That would be an interesting study to run.

[MHS831]

11 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Valid, however I don't think scoring poorly on that test is necessarily a predictor of NFL failure. I haven't seen any data to support it either way. That would be an interesting study to run.

No, I do not either.  I think it might suggest (as an educator, this is how I would use it) which kinds of cognitive challenges are the most demanding for the player.  It could mean how the playbook is designed/laid out for the player if they are visual learners, where they sit at meetings if they are auditory learners, etc.

I once proposed this idea (I was a professor near Charlotte at the time) to Richardson about 10 years ago--he forwarded the proposal to Morrison, who sent me a response--expressing interest.  I wanted to assess learning styles, emotional intelligence, etc in each player, and then do a workshop with the coaching staff to help them understand the learning styles and emotional intelligence of each player.  The objective was to shorten the learning curve and get them producing on the field at a high level sooner. 

We were going to do the research and publish the results.  Morrison loved the idea-sent it to Marty Hurney.  Hurney never responded.  Morrison even contacted me to tell me that he was going to approach Marty again about it--he wanted some basic facts.  Even asked me if I could come present the concept to the Panther brass.  Marty never responded.

He was fired soon after that.  I switched universities and let it go.

 

[kungfoodude]

6 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

No, I do not either.  I think it might suggest (as an educator, this is how I would use it) which kinds of cognitive challenges are the most demanding for the player.  It could mean how the playbook is designed/laid out for the player if they are visual learners, where they sit at meetings if they are auditory learners, etc.

I once proposed this idea (I was a professor near Charlotte at the time) to Richardson about 10 years ago--he forwarded the proposal to Morrison, who sent me a response--expressing interest.  I wanted to assess learning styles, emotional intelligence, etc in each player, and then do a workshop with the coaching staff to help them understand the learning styles and emotional intelligence of each player.  The objective was to shorten the learning curve and get them producing on the field at a high level sooner. 

We were going to do the research and publish the results.  Morrison loved the idea-sent it to Marty Hurney.  Hurney never responded.  Morrison even contacted me to tell me that he was going to approach Marty again about it--he wanted some basic facts.  Even asked me if I could come present the concept to the Panther brass.  Marty never responded.

He was fired soon after that.  I switched universities and let it go.

 

Well you know Marty is a gut feeling kind of guy.

[Call Me James]

4 hours ago, panthers55 said:

Actually it isn't meaningless. It measures processing speed and problem solving. Things that can make a difference at QB. But clearly it doesn't predict who is going to be a good or bad quarterback so it shouldn't be a deal breaker by any means. It's use in the combine is like many of the tests and driills. They are good information and useful more often when a person does very well versus being a huge factor if they underperform. And no other thing should trump the film and interviews in importance.

If it doesn't predict who will br good or bad quarterbacks it's damn near meaningless like i said. 

[Call Me James]

5 hours ago, MHS831 said:

So what you are saying is, they do it for no reason?  There is no correlation between learning ability and performance?  So when a player is confused or unsure of an assignment, they play with the same speed as one who is sure of his assignment?

Interesting theory--and the points you present are indisputable.

Based on player performance it's damn near meaningless. 

 

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, Call Me James said:

If it doesn't predict who will br good or bad quarterbacks it's damn near meaningless like i said. 

It is meaningless as a predictive tool in general but helpful if you stay within the limits of the test. If it measures speed of mental processing and problem-solving skills and that is what you need in a quarterback based on your scheme then it is very useful in helping you pick who you want. If his score isn't that high it might be irrelevant to a coach who values athleticism and arm strength more than mental capacities. You can adapt an offense to your quarterbacks strengths and have great success.  But if your offense is complex and there are many variables to manage very quickly, then you might need a guy with at least average or above ability all things being equal. Again no test is perfect and everything at the combine needs to be viewed in combination not isolation. 

[jfra78]

If a team liked the guy before they found out the wonderlic score, they probably feel the same afterwards no matter what.  Its the same if they didnt like a guy.  

[bigdavis]

1 hour ago, panthers55 said:

It is meaningless as a predictive tool in general but helpful if you stay within the limits of the test. If it measures speed of mental processing and problem-solving skills and that is what you need in a quarterback based on your scheme then it is very useful in helping you pick who you want. If his score isn't that high it might be irrelevant to a coach who values athleticism and arm strength more than mental capacities. You can adapt an offense to your quarterbacks strengths and have great success.  But if your offense is complex and there are many variables to manage very quickly, then you might need a guy with at least average or above ability all things being equal. Again no test is perfect and everything at the combine needs to be viewed in combination not isolation. 

That's it.

The biggest correlation would apply to reading defenses -- surely an extreme high, or an extreme low, score would directly relate to how quickly a QB could diagnose changes in the defensive sets he's facing.

Other than that, it has no valid application in the selection process.

And for positions other than the QB, it's not important.

[LxDunn]

10 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

Not really. Even if he was just of average intelligence he was in Alabama for about 3 years. That is probably an average loss of 10-15 IQ points per year based on Time Weighted Average exposure to dumb. 

He can probably recover most of that by some therapy to flush the dumb out of his system.

Damn lol

[panthers55]

9 minutes ago, bigdavis said:

That's it.

The biggest correlation would apply to reading defenses -- surely an extreme high, or an extreme low, score would directly relate to how quickly a QB could diagnose changes in the defensive sets he's facing.

Other than that, it has no valid application in the selection process.

And for positions other than the QB, it's not important.

Like I said earlier, any individual measure has to be taken into consideration in the context of the totality of skills needed. I. Some cases it might matter and in others not so much.

[stirs]

Have not read the entire thread, but didn't Chris Gamble score in single digits?

He was a decent player for us.

[stirs]

Found it, yep, a 9.

Manning, Eli Mississippi 39
Rivers, Philip North Carolina State 30
Roberson, Ell Kansas State 11
Roethlisberger, Ben Miami (Ohio) 25
Symons, B.J. Texas Tech 22
Clarett, Maurice Ohio State 20
Jackson, Steven Oregon State 28
Jones, Kevin Virginia Tech 15
Perry, Chris Michigan 20
Winslow, Kellen Miami (Fla.) 12
Fitzgerald, Larry Pittsburgh 18
Williams, Roy Texas 17
Gallery, Robert Iowa 23
Taylor, Sean Miami (Fla.) 10
Gamble, Chris Ohio State 9
Hall, Deangelo Virginia Tech 23

[kungfoodude]

1 hour ago, stirs said:

 

 

Manning, Eli Mississippi 39 - The Best Average QB in NFL History
Rivers, Philip North Carolina State 30 - HOFer
Roberson, Ell Kansas State 11 - Who?
Roethlisberger, Ben Miami (Ohio) 25 - HOFer
Symons, B.J. Texas Tech 22 - Who?
Clarett, Maurice Ohio State 20 - LOL
Jackson, Steven Oregon State 28 - Who?
Jones, Kevin Virginia Tech 15 - Who?
Perry, Chris Michigan 20 - Who?
Winslow, Kellen Miami (Fla.) 12 - The score fits his behavior. 
Fitzgerald, Larry Pittsburgh 18 - HOFer
Williams, Roy Texas 17 - Bust.
Gallery, Robert Iowa 23 - Bust.
Taylor, Sean Miami (Fla.) 10 - Elite. A likely HOFer had his life not ended tragically. 
Gamble, Chris Ohio State 9 - Very good player. 
Hall, Deangelo Virginia Tech 23 - Very good player(for some of his career, anyway). 

[Call Me James]

1 hour ago, bigdavis said:

That's it.

The biggest correlation would apply to reading defenses -- surely an extreme high, or an extreme low, score would directly relate to how quickly a QB could diagnose changes in the defensive sets he's facing.

Other than that, it has no valid application in the selection process.

And for positions other than the QB, it's not important.

The only reason people bring this up is to perpetuate the false narrative that QBs are somehow more cerebral than other positions. 

Film study, understanding football concepts, physical tools and composure all matter more than general IQ.