Bronco Billy Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Seriously, how does a NFL prospect not even know that he could have at least doubled his score by guessing on every answer? But to take that test and actually score a freakin' 4? Hmmmm, I wonder if there was some grade inflation going on at LSU? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolly Rodgers Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Go cover that guy. Doesn't take much brains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 3, 2012 Author Share Posted April 3, 2012 Normally I'd rebut a really obtuse statement like that, but then you'd probably call me a really nasty name in response and my feelings would get hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Plus I think they spot you 3 points just for writing down your name. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trojanmojo Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 How is this guy going to memorize a play book? To score 1/2 to 1/3 of what Vince Young scored is breathtaking. They'll have to have Dr Seuss come up with a special play book for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 3, 2012 Author Share Posted April 3, 2012 Look at the list of top 20 CBs right now - how many stupid guys are on it? Yet if a team is going to burn a top 10 pick - maybe even a top 5 pick - in the draft on a CB, they'll want a guy who will fit into that list somewhere. 2ven if he retakes the test, he may have cost himself millions with that score Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Very doubtful that this hurts his draft stock. He's the consensus top CB in the draft and it's always a position in high demand. Lots of skill position players scored poorly in the wonderlic and it had no correlation to how they fared in the NFL. This is a non-story IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I can score much higher but that don't mean I can cover Fitzgerald. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I can score much higher but that don't mean I can cover Fitzgerald. Who said he can cover Fitz, or Megatron or AJ or any other top WR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) Last year AJ Green and Patrick Peterson reportedly scored in the single-digits, and Julio only scored a 15, so.... I don't buy that much of a correlation between a timed-written test, and gametime decision-making. Many people just aren't good test-takers, especially when they're timed like the Wonderlic is... So I'd say that while a good wonderlic score may indicate strong cognitive ability, I wouldn't discount a premier talent too much just because their skills don't translate to timed test-taking. Edited April 3, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Last year AJ Green and Patrick Peterson reportedly scored in the single-digits, and Julio only scored a 15, so.... I don't buy that much of a correlation between a timed-written test, and gametime decision-making. Many people just aren't good test-takers, especially when they're timed like the Wonderlic is... So I'd say that while a good wonderlic score may indicate strong cognitive ability, I wouldn't discount a premier talent too much just because their skills don't translate to timed test-taking. Totally disagree, but it depends on position. cornerback is not a position that I worry about their wonderlic score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 3, 2012 Author Share Posted April 3, 2012 Just saw the report that he is learning disabled. That explains a lot. I still can't help but wonder about how low his capability is with that score, and how that might affect him in the pro game. Hey Ted, what's your 40 time and vertical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Totally disagree, but it depends on position. cornerback is not a position that I worry about their wonderlic score. I don't even know if it matters period. Ryan Leaf scored a 27, Dan Marino 15. Michael Vick scored a 20 and he's as dumb as a tree stump. QB would be the position where intelligence is most important, yet the scores are all over the map and don't correlate to on-field performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 ESPN's article references a study which states the lower the score for CB's, the better their performance has been historically (over the three years of the study). A 2009 study by professors from Fresno State University, the University of Georgia and Towson State found no connection between Wonderlic scores and performance during the first three years of a player's NFL career. The group studied 762 players from the 2002, 2003 and 2004 draft classes. John W. Michel, an assistant professor at Towson University who co-authored the study, told the Washington Post: "We found in no cases was cognitive ability related to (football) performance. We did find a negative relationship for tight ends and defensive backs. For defensive backs, it was the most pronounced; basically, the lower you scored on the Wonderlic, the better you performed." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 The lower the score the better the onfield performance? That is a spurrious correlation if I've ever heard of one. That's sorta like equating the movements of the stock market based on who wins the Super Bowl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Ray Lewis scored a 13. Donovan McNabb scored a 14. A shocker for McNabb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 When the sample test was posted here in the huddle, I remember thinking that it was no joke. And I'm a guy who did pretty well on those kinds of tests. My SAT and tests like that were the strongest part of my HS resume. Mind you, 4 is a bit amazing. But I do question the connection between a guy being able to do math problems reasonably quickly and recognizing a formation in a second. Seems like different skill sets. I can almost see how it would matter to a QB, but even barely so there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 The lower the score the better the onfield performance? That is a spurrious correlation if I've ever heard of one. That's sorta like equating the movements of the stock market based on who wins the Super Bowl. Only if you take it to mean that it's a good thing that they don't score well. It is, however, a fine way to dispel any notion that they have to score well in order to be good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 The lower the score the better the onfield performance? That is a spurrious correlation if I've ever heard of one. That's sorta like equating the movements of the stock market based on who wins the Super Bowl. I agree it looks to be a spurious relationship (though I don't think it's as irrelevant as a stock market/SB correlation, because it's conceivable that some may have athletic gifts rather than smarts), but it is certainly noteworthy that not only did they not find any positive correlation like you'd expect, they actually found the opposite in some cases. In other words, a seemingly spurious relationship still holds more weight than a lack of correlation for what you're trying to measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I think we all need to keep the main point in mind here, which is that Bronco Billy is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skilly Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 He's a cover corner. "Morris, go out and cover that guy all game long". "Ok coach". Problem solved. I agree that this is a non issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 The lower the score the better the onfield performance? That is a spurrious correlation if I've ever heard of one. That's sorta like equating the movements of the stock market based on who wins the Super Bowl. Perhaps, it is not so spurious. Perhaps, corners that are very athletic and react versus over thinking things and trying to anticipate the play actually are more successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Perhaps, it is not so spurious. Perhaps, corners that are very athletic and react versus over thinking things and trying to anticipate the play actually are more successful. Good post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 How is this guy going to memorize a play book? To score 1/2 to 1/3 of what Vince Young scored is breathtaking. They'll have to have Dr Seuss come up with a special play book for him. I've read that there is a correlation between lower wonderlic scores with higher production to certain positions. Corner is one of them. The further away you are from the ball the less important the test is. Frank Gore scored a 6 or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.