Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Great White North eh!!!
    Posts
    21,371

    wonderlic scores....

    Claiborne scored a 4 which if true makes him about as bright as a rock....

    anyways...he won't be there when we select but these guys possibly could be there....



    DT Michael Brockers, LSU: When I asked Brockers' questions during the Combine, he repeatedly provided answers that didn't match up, indicating that he didn't understand the initial question. Considering LSU's less than sterling track record, don't be surprised if another Tiger underclassmen performed poorly on the exam.

    OLB Zach Brown, North Carolina: While many were touting Brown's athleticism throughout the 2011 season, I've preached caution due to his lack of physicality and questionable instincts. The lack of recognition skills aren't just based off tape...

    ILB Mychal Kendricks, Cal: Of the six players listed in this report, if Kendricks scores as poorly on the Wonderlic as I've been told scouts expect based on his struggles on the white board during team interviews, his stock could drop significantly. Teams hold inside linebackers to a higher standard than many other positions when it comes to intelligence.

    RB Lamar Miller, Miami: Scouts will tell you that Miller could slip on draft day because he's only started at Miami for one season. Another reason is because some worry that he'll struggle to handle a complicated playbook.

    WR Kendall Wright, Baylor: I worry about natural IQ levels less at wide receiver (and cornerback) than at any other positions so I don't worry that a poor showing in this test could push Wright (or Claiborne, for that matter) down the board. Like Brockers, Wright struggled with some multi-tiered questions at the Combine and didn't help his cause during interviews.
    The Leafies are Scumbags.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    College Station, Texas
    Posts
    8,592
    I take it this is the report you were talking about since no link:

    http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/b...-also-struggle

    When are the results released. Disappointed if Kendricks' intelligence is low end, need to have the intelligence to read, react and make calls at ILB more than alot of other positions.
    "Once I start, they'll be no stopping me."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bend Oregon
    Posts
    1,206
    looking at this link, the conclusion I would come to is that the Wonderlic test provides very little insight into how well a college player will do in the pros. It's nice to be smart but the bottom line is these guys are good football players because of their size and athleticism not because of their intelligence.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mul...ontent.19.html

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    2,896
    I agree to a point, Muddler. We don't know how each team drafts due to the Wonderlic. It does seem antiquated and a little weird, but it is what it is. All the explanations above seem legit to me when considering intelligence for each position. You can be dumb and run great routes or simply out run a CB. Or you can be dumb at CB and simply react to plays. But can you understand a hot read or when to blitz in the 3-4?

    Some people just test poorly, but I would be very hesitant if someone is just ridiculously bad. Or like, I think Dan Patrick was saying this morning, when will players just say they won't take it? They won't run the 40 or other things at the combine, why take the test? I can't imagine it's mandatory to be drafted.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wash. DC
    Posts
    4,670
    I wonder if anyone has analyzed in-league performance to Wonderlic scores at the Combine. How many "high scorers" vs. "low scorers" made the Pro Bowl? How many of each finished in the top 10 at their position in various statistics? How many of each had careers of 10+ years in the league? I'm sure such an analysis is possible, although what conclusions could be reached is up for debate.

    The best performers on the field are the ones who have trained themselves to the instinctual level. They perform well without having to think about it. However, as mentioned above, intelligence is still useful for learning and retaining playbooks, comprehending one's role in a scheme, determining how to best emphasize strengths and shore up weaknesses, avoiding boneheaded situations off the field (although even some smart players give in to temptations), etc. And, as mentioned above, some positions require more intelligence than other positions.

    A good Wonderlic score is a positive thing & a low Wonderlic score *can* be a bad thing, but the Wonderlic score somewhere down the list of priorities for scouts when evaluating talent, in my estimation. No matter whether a player is smart or dumb (however you define those terms), a good coaching staff can maximize on-field production from that player. A smarter player might not need to be led by the hand as much as a dumber player, which I'm sure many coaching staffs value. But looking at game tape likely means loads more to teams than a psychological test given in Indianapolis.
    "Dying is easy; comedy is hard." - Edmund Kean

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    College Station, Texas
    Posts
    8,592
    It is only one piece of the whole equation of course. I look more at it when it comes to key positions such as QB, OL, ILB. Positions known more to be making the calls at the break of a huddle, that show the ability to think quick on their feet and have to read and react and make sure everyone else is on the same page. Sure the wonderlic doesn't have highly significant meaning but to a team that and the interview process put together can give a decent measuring stick as to a players football smarts.
    "Once I start, they'll be no stopping me."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,583
    Quote Originally Posted by SteelNutDave View Post
    I wonder if anyone has analyzed in-league performance to Wonderlic scores at the Combine. How many "high scorers" vs. "low scorers" made the Pro Bowl? How many of each finished in the top 10 at their position in various statistics? How many of each had careers of 10+ years in the league? I'm sure such an analysis is possible, although what conclusions could be reached is up for debate.
    No idea what the criteria was for one of them, but I recall at least a couple studies being done, within the past 10 years, that both pretty much proved that there was no significant correlation between Wonderlic scores and future NFL success.

    One of the studies, done by three eggheads from Cal, UGA and Towson State, basically set out to answer three things: 1. Whether or not NFL teams used GMA(general mental aptitude, which the Wonderlic measures) to significantly determine their decisions in the draft, 2. The relationship of GMA and future NFL performance, across and within positions, and 3. Is GMA related in any way to number of NFL games played? Pretty much in all three cases, they found that it didn't make a significant difference.

    Interestingly, the study found that for a few positions a higher score on the Wonderlic was actually more likely to indicate poor performance(CB and TE were the two with the "most significant" inverse performance relationship), and they postulate a few reasons why they think that may be(the primary one being that higher scores may indicate a player that thinks too much before they react in some cases, which in an athletic/physical endeavor could be the difference between taking one second to process and three....and in the NFL that difference in time is huge).

    To see if NFL teams heavily utilize the Wonderlic to sway their decision making on draft day, they tracked a few complete drafts and then broke down the data from those classes, I believe, 5-6 years afterwards(they did the study in '09 and used the '03-'05 drafts as the control group). The study pretty much showed no significant indication that the Wonderlic affected draft position at all.

    Anyway, the Lyon study is online here: It's an interesting read, but it's completely "long-hair and boring", in case you aren't into that. Jump to page 21 if you just wanted to peruse the "findings in English" from the study. It's from about p21-24. After that it's about 5-6 pages of them questioning the veracity of the Wonderlic test itself as a predictor of performance for NFL hopefuls, and then the appendices of all the tables and such.
    "I'm like a hungry piranha with a capybara on it's period in the water..."

    - westcoast

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,583
    Quote Originally Posted by AZSTEELER View Post
    Or like, I think Dan Patrick was saying this morning, when will players just say they won't take it? They won't run the 40 or other things at the combine, why take the test? I can't imagine it's mandatory to be drafted.
    I think if NFL agents truly believed that the Wonderlic was being used as the final arbiter on whether or not to draft a kid we'd have probably already seen this happen. I think we can all agree that douchehorses like Drew Rosenhaus or the Poston brothers wouldn't be above something like that if they thought it would gain them a single, extra nickle.

    The fact we haven't yet makes me think that, while you certainly don't want to see guys getting a 4 or a 6 on this thing, NFL teams realize that the most important thing for any prospect is his game tape. If the tape does/does not bear out a players productivity(or lack thereof), that's the most significant predictor of success/failure at the pro level.
    "I'm like a hungry piranha with a capybara on it's period in the water..."

    - westcoast

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wash. DC
    Posts
    4,670
    Good stuff, ThinMan. thanks for sharing.

    It just proves once again that any idea I get for something to study academically has already been done, thus my decision not to pursue a Ph.D. ;)
    "Dying is easy; comedy is hard." - Edmund Kean

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,583
    "There is nothing new under the sun", right? :)

    I wonder how those three guys talked their way into the grant for that study? Unless it was the Kennedy Grant....and then all they probably had to do was get a few people drunk.
    "I'm like a hungry piranha with a capybara on it's period in the water..."

    - westcoast

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lurking in the corner of some forum
    Posts
    969
    How hard could it have been to get government money to study something comletely useless? The government has funded studies on the flow rate of ketchup.
    Nappy time.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.