REPORT: Bryce Young scored 98 out of 99 on his S2 cognitive test

[KatsAzz]

16 hours ago, ForJimmy said:

Talk to me when he gets a 99.

The fact that Bryce Young scored 98 instead of  99 proves he is human and not perfect. LOL

[Mr. Scot]

 

[kungfoodude]

2 hours ago, panthers55 said:

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. 

Fair point but getting hundreds of thousands of NFL QB's would take several hundred years, so you have to keep in mind the data pool is always going to be relatively small in that regard. 

Without being able to peek behind the curtain and see everything, it's hard to make too much of a positive or negative judgment. 

However, a lot of this is certainly successful marketing by this company.

[panthers55]

34 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Fair point but getting hundreds of thousands of NFL QB's would take several hundred years, so you have to keep in mind the data pool is always going to be relatively small in that regard. 

Without being able to peek behind the curtain and see everything, it's hard to make too much of a positive or negative judgment. 

However, a lot of this is certainly successful marketing by this company.

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.

Edited April 21, 2023 by panthers55

[kungfoodude]

2 hours ago, panthers55 said:

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.

I am sure it ends up being a tool that largely confirms what is seen on film or shows something they can go back to the film to take a closer look at.

TBH, most of these metrics end up being that anyway. It's just putting a number to what you should be able to see by watching film.

[TheSpecialJuan]

 

[Tbe]

3 hours ago, panthers55 said:

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.

Sometimes systems and situations can hide major flaws. That’s why so many QBs are busts.  
 

Baker and Darnold looked great in college after all. 

It’s hard to know if a guy has ‘it’ or not. The IT we are basically looking for is (outside of arm strength and accuracy) is processing speed, object tracking (seeing the field), competitiveness, and desire to be great/get better.

S2 helps with a few of those things.

[amcoolio]

20 hours ago, TANTRIC-NINJA said:

Does Will Levis scoring high with a 93 invalidate this test or does it make Will Levis an All Pro? At least with Bryce he played with a high level of success most of his career.  

It's the S2 test (processing) along with the ability to make good decisions and ability throw the football. Bryce makes good decisions and can make all the throws. I'm sure there are average people walking around that can achieve 99% scores on this test, but they aren't NFL QB's.

Levis can be a great QB if he limits the bad decisions. He actually might go 4th ahead of Stroud, that's what the insiders are thinking.

[MHS831]

On 4/21/2023 at 1:12 AM, kungfoodude said:

In fairness, this has existed for 8 straight NFL drafts and has been used by the NFL. For whatever reason this just because a hot issue this NFL draft cycle.

My guess is that they have a large enough pool of players to make this a decent tool. It should get better with time.

Well said.  For some reason, we now live in a generation in which facts and data are challenged if they are not what the individual wants to hear.  The same thing about size--you present data, you give an example (Doug Flutie, 12 year NFL career--before they protected QBs like they do now--and he was 5'10" 180.) but they do not want to consider that.  They use their "common sense" to make decisions and then, even if they are wrong and proven to be so, fight tooth and nail to defend their faulty logic.  Why?  These people are not seeking truth or fairness-they are seeking to validate their biases.  True here, true in politics--closed minds are ignorant minds.  I wanted Stroud, but I made it known that I was going to "argue both sides"--I got accused of switching loyalties--("I thought you were a Stroud supporter--now you are posting good stuff about Young?"  It is amazing how loyalty is more of an issue than truth.  If I liked Stroud and found reasons to like Young more, I would never have acknowledged these facts and made the wisest decision--I would have started deleting the unfavorable articles--maybe even mocking them as being unreliable or propaganda.  However, this is not a new test, and it has been used for years. 

 

[Jackie Lee]

21 hours ago, panthers55 said:

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.

Yeah think of how many qb's that have taken this test have even had a chance to start for an NFL team with proper playbook time and game prep. So probably like 90% of the testers won't even make it onto an NFL with a full playbook and full legit game plan/practice time as the starter to even really be able to evaluate them post test

 

[panthers55]

21 hours ago, Tbe said:

Sometimes systems and situations can hide major flaws. That’s why so many QBs are busts.  
 

Baker and Darnold looked great in college after all. 

It’s hard to know if a guy has ‘it’ or not. The IT we are basically looking for is (outside of arm strength and accuracy) is processing speed, object tracking (seeing the field), competitiveness, and desire to be great/get better.

S2 helps with a few of those things.

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.

 

[Tbe]

7 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

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.

 

But obviously there are very real limitations to what you can ‘see on the field’. If that was a perfect tool, we wouldnt have as many busts as we do. 
 

Regardless of what you think, NFL GM’s and scouts are clearly aware of this and looking for new tools to help them. S2 is just one test they are using. Bryce said he was made to take several different tests outside of the S2. Probably personality tests etc. it’s not just the Panthers doing this btw.

Im glad we are looking at more data points because the eye test has failed so many times before. The tape can lie.

[panthers55]

4 hours ago, MHS831 said:

Well said.  For some reason, we now live in a generation in which facts and data are challenged if they are not what the individual wants to hear.  The same thing about size--you present data, you give an example (Doug Flutie, 12 year NFL career--before they protected QBs like they do now--and he was 5'10" 180.) but they do not want to consider that.  They use their "common sense" to make decisions and then, even if they are wrong and proven to be so, fight tooth and nail to defend their faulty logic.  Why?  These people are not seeking truth or fairness-they are seeking to validate their biases.  True here, true in politics--closed minds are ignorant minds.  I wanted Stroud, but I made it known that I was going to "argue both sides"--I got accused of switching loyalties--("I thought you were a Stroud supporter--now you are posting good stuff about Young?"  It is amazing how loyalty is more of an issue than truth.  If I liked Stroud and found reasons to like Young more, I would never have acknowledged these facts and made the wisest decision--I would have started deleting the unfavorable articles--maybe even mocking them as being unreliable or propaganda.  However, this is not a new test, and it has been used for years. 

 

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.

[panthers55]

14 minutes ago, Tbe said:

But obviously there are very real limitations to what you can ‘see on the field’. If that was a perfect tool, we wouldnt have as many busts as we do. 
 

Regardless of what you think, NFL GM’s and scouts are clearly aware of this and looking for new tools to help them. S2 is just one test they are using. Bryce said he was made to take several different tests outside of the S2. Probably personality tests etc. it’s not just the Panthers doing this btw.

Im glad we are looking at more data points because the eye test has failed so many times before. The tape can lie.

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.

Edited April 22, 2023 by panthers55