Brainiac21 Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 (edited) they're probably right... not sure it has relevance in learning a playbook. maybe for a QB. it doesn't seem to have much effect on decision making either. many low-scorers haven't got into a lick of trouble.. Gore... McKelvin... while guys who did a little better like Marshawn and Maurice Clarett were train wrecks. those interviews must count 100x more than that test... at least. Edited April 18, 2013 by Brainiac21
DC Tom Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 Yea, anything even bordering on single digits amounts to filling random bubbles on the sheet. Sadly, those are not uncommon scores. "For the third time, the POINTY END is for writing. The red, chewy end is for 'un-writing'!"
Ramius Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 The wonderlic tells nothing more or less than a player's ability to take the wonderlic. Attempting to relate it to anything in the real world is the definition of stupidity.
NoSaint Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 The wonderlic tells nothing more or less than a player's ability to take the wonderlic. Attempting to relate it to anything in the real world is the definition of stupidity. They say it standardizes to iq atleast decently. 20 equates to about 100 iq with basic deviations off that. A dumb guy can be a genius on the field, some guys blow it off but all things equal (which never exists) higher iq is probably generally better
BillsBytheBay Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 I have taken the wonderlic. I took it for a job, and scored rather well. This test doesn't test literacy. Trust me. Its more like a resoning and association test.
KOKBILLS Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 Some guys did terrible. My favorite Robert Woods looks good. According to the score, Tavon Austin is illiterate. These scores probably don't mean as much for WRs as it does for QBs but its still fun to see how these guys do. https://mobile.twitt...910201012645888 7 for Austin? A 7? How is that even possible? I mean...I know WR intelligence is not as important as QB...But a 7? Good grief...
NoSaint Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 I have taken the wonderlic. I took it for a job, and scored rather well. This test doesn't test literacy. Trust me. Its more like a resoning and association test. Right, but if you score single digits that's lower than guessing should average. Very possibly meaning you can't read. On some level every written test will test literacy.
WellDressed Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 These are meaningless, Morris Claiborne got a 4 last year and now he's one of the best young corners in the league. Also we had the guy who had the highest score ever for a QB (Fitz) and look how he turned out. Morris says, he'll keep climbin' and climbin' and climbin'.....
3rdand12 Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 I have taken the wonderlic. I took it for a job, and scored rather well. This test doesn't test literacy. Trust me. Its more like a resoning and association test. you spelled reasoning incorrectly, I kid i kid. Listen to Spiller . Who is a great kid and not dumb but he gets nervous. Man can he play football. just took more time to bring him along.
Lurker Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 They say it standardizes to iq atleast decently. IMO, the only thing standardized about the Wonderlic is that players/posters who get a high score say it's important...and those that score low say it's not.
NoSaint Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 IMO, the only thing standardized about the Wonderlic is that players/posters who get a high score say it's important...and those that score low say it's not. I think the accepted bar napkin conversion is Score X 2 + 60 So 20 on the wonderlic matches up to about 100 on the iq. I'd assume the further out to the extremes you get the less accurate that gets - and obviously anyone doodling on the test instead of taking it would be a different story (though you could argue that's pretty low iq to do!). Even if that holds true as a rule of thumb, no ones ever argued its the end all be all evaluation.
BillsBytheBay Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 you spelled reasoning incorrectly, I kid i kid. Listen to Spiller . Who is a great kid and not dumb but he gets nervous. Man can he play football. just took more time to bring him along. I think the more reactionary the position is, the less it matters how well you know or learn the playbook.(within reason) remember it was a combination of Fred's great year, and spiller's lack of pass protection knowledge that kept him off the field.
Jkgobills Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 I found a sample Wonderlic Test online....took it using my mobile phone, while drinking my third beer, and scored a 24.....and my sample test only had 25 questions. These guys aren't that bright, but I guarantee they are all better football players than I ever was.
BuffaloBill Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 I think it's a big deal. to me, a low score is a good indicator as to someone who is more likely to make costly mental mistakes on the field. This is more critical in read and run situations players are asked to manage today.
Formerly Allan in MD Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 Some guys did terrible. My favorite Robert Woods looks good. According to the score, Tavon Austin is illiterate. These scores probably don't mean as much for WRs as it does for QBs but its still fun to see how these guys do. https://mobile.twitt...910201012645888 Patterson's not much better.
benderbender Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 Mario Manningham got a 6 and I remember all of those clamoring for us to sign him not too long ago. Marshawn Lynch scored 4 times that and can't stop getting into trouble. Not sure how smart it is to base all personnel decisions on the one score of one test.
NoSaint Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 Mario Manningham got a 6 and I remember all of those clamoring for us to sign him not too long ago. Marshawn Lynch scored 4 times that and can't stop getting into trouble. Not sure how smart it is to base all personnel decisions on the one score of one test. i dont think anyones ever advocated that seriously.
BillsBytheBay Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 they're probably right... not sure it has relevance in learning a playbook. maybe for a QB. it doesn't seem to have much effect on decision making either. many low-scorers haven't got into a lick of trouble.. Gore... McKelvin... while guys who did a little better like Marshawn and Maurice Clarett were train wrecks. those interviews must count 100x more than that test... at least. I would agree, interviews and backround checks. I bet that DB from LSU ain't gonna get drafted.
3rdand12 Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 (edited) I think the more reactionary the position is, the less it matters how well you know or learn the playbook.(within reason) remember it was a combination of Fred's great year, and spiller's lack of pass protection knowledge that kept him off the field. I think you are correct but marrone /Hackett have a fast paced playbook and probably more wrinkles than Gailey had.I also think that they will need smart guys on both sides of the ball. relatively speaking Edited April 19, 2013 by 3rdand12
Recommended Posts