Mij yllek Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25162012/why-daughter-of-wonderlic-test-creator-isnt-happy-with-the-nfl Some famous Bills on the list.
KD in CA Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 That analysis would have scored about a 9. Has anyone ever said that test was a predictor of how good someone can play football? And it's not very difficult to pick out a small selection of examples from a population of thousands to support your preordained conclusion.
ToGoGo Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 If they're going to give a personality test to predict future success, intelligence should only be 1 of many different testing variables. They need to test for persistence, determination, positive or negative attitudes, expectations of success or failure, confidence, decision making in stressful situations, desire to succeed, ambition, concentration, etc. No wonder there are so many busts. They could cut that number in half just by testing for the things I listed above. For example, will power is far more important than intelligence. Persistance and faith in your ability is nearly equally important to skill and intelligence.
Nick the Greek Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Fitzy.. good at Wonderlic.. Also good at throwing interceptions.
zonabb Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) First off, I didn't read the entire article but did check out the score. The intent of the Wonderlic is like every other measure or variable used by teams and more importantly was not nor should be consider alone. Great Wonderlics with poor athletic skills won't mean hall of famers. Poor Wonderlics with great skills don't mean super bowl winners. The intent is to measure cognition and the arguments that is biased against education is true, it measures how, in a simplistic manner, "smart" you are. Is that biased because the dumb ones underperform? Oh, you don't like that you don't do well when we test what you know or your ability to think? Here's where I think it matters and I am glad one player was shown on the QB list. I think it matters for QB for one reason. The job of a QB is purely one of cognition. A test that can measure that is a great assessment of a QB. I've made this point probably 5 times in threads on this forum. If you look at SB winning QBs, I believe Bradshaw is the only one who scored less than I think 22. Lost the file I had the data in. Bradshaw apparently was/is dyslexic or had a learning disability so he may have great cognition but poor reading skills, not the same thing. So here's my point about the Wonderlic... it's a good measure to add into the assessment but it's very interesting for QBs. You're about 99.9% assured of never winning a Super Bowl with a QB who scores less than 22. You are by no means guaranteed of winning one with a QB scoring above 22 or we'd have one already with Fitxpatrick. But if I am a GM, I would never, ever hitch my wagon to a QB who did poorly on this. Again, I'll be clear it's simply probability, which is basically you're 99% guaranteed (Bradshaw being the only reported exception) of never winning one with a moron under center. And testing for persistence (how?). determination (how?), or the other suggestions above are worse ideas than the Wonderlic. What do you mean by will power? How are will power, determination, and persistence different? Sounds like three synonyms. I'm determined in a lot of things, but not always. Give me a test on physics and I won't care, does that mean I'm not determined? Or persistent? Or have will power? Edited April 25, 2015 by zonabb
K-9 Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Bradshaw outscored Kelly? Does that mean we'd have to spot Kelly the C, A, and the T? GO BILLS!!!
Lurker Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 My take on the Wonderlic detractors is that they start from a straw man position--that it doesn't correlate with on-the-field performance. What they should be studying is how strongly it correlates with the ability to process written information--as in, how a player absorbs the playbook and weekly gameplans. This is a big part of being an NFL player. Can some guys overcome their cognative limitations and have HOF careers? Of course. There are tons of examples, beyond those in the article. But all things being equal, I think a team would prefer a player that has the ability to quickly absorb and comprehend information so that they don't have to have rep after rep after rep to get the "light bulb to go on." Imo
K-9 Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 My take on the Wonderlic detractors is that they start from a straw man position--that it doesn't correlate with on-the-field performance. What they should be studying is how strongly it correlates with the ability to process written information--as in, how a player absorbs the playbook and weekly gameplans. This is a big part of being an NFL player. Can some guys overcome their cognative limitations and have HOF careers? Of course. There are tons of examples, beyond those in the article. But all things being equal, I think a team would prefer a player that has the ability to quickly absorb and comprehend information so that they don't have to have rep after rep after rep to get the "light bulb to go on." Imo This is a fair assessment. Teams don't use it as the be all, end all indicator, but it does provide a glimpse into a player's ability to process information quickly. Teams ascribe more importance to higher scores depending on position groups. They would prefer QBs and OLmen, especially, to have better scores, while they place less importance on higher scores for CBs. GO BILLS!!!
ToGoGo Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 (edited) And testing for persistence (how?). determination (how?), or the other suggestions above are worse ideas than the Wonderlic. What do you mean by will power? How are will power, determination, and persistence different? Sounds like three synonyms. I'm determined in a lot of things, but not always. Give me a test on physics and I won't care, does that mean I'm not determined? Or persistent? Or have will power? Just be creative. Give them difficult computer games and see how long they keep trying compared to the average person. It's really not that difficult to come up with ideas. They have computer tests for ADD, so concentration tests would be easy to do. What's the pain in trying? The NBA is open-minded, why do we have to be stubborn about changing the tiniest things? You are arguing semantics. Of course, they are all related. I didn't exactly write out a thesis on this before writing my post, simply threw out important characteristics off the top of my head. Nobody is determined at everything, but an NFL football player needs to be determined to be a successful player in order to be successful, do you agree or disagree with that? If you were a physics major and were not determined to do well on a test, then I'm going to pass on you during the physics draft. You are also beginning to grasp that if you are not interested in something, you won't be determined. Testing their actual interest in having a successful career would be another solid characteristic to test. See we're getting somewhere. However, even if you did want to pass the physics test, but you were prone to play video games while you studied and make other poor choices, I would want a way to test that. To make it simpler, if you wanted to do something, I'd like a way to test how likely you are to achieve it, and how much adversity you are willing to go through to achieve it. I believe that's what separates the success stories in the NFL, from the busts. Just like it separates the success stories in every other field on Earth, to the other guys. How could we create a combine test to sniff out a Justin Blackmon type who screws up a bunch of times, gets repeatedly suspended, and then decides to just quit the NFL rather than work hard and try again? Does that sound like the kind of guy who quits after a lot of adversity? It does to me. What about a Derrick Rose type who keeps coming back from injury and not giving up mentally and still playing at a high level? Are these "worse ideas than the Wonderlic"? I really really really really really disagree with you on this being a bad idea. I just don't think you understand how important these characteristics are to a professional athlete. FAR more important than some tricky multiple choice logic puzzles. Not that the Wonderlic is useless, I just think the flaw is having that be the only mental test they give them (besides interview questions). When the NFL bust rate is as high as it is, it means there is something fundamentally missing in professional scouting. They have absolutely mastered watching film and physical measurements, but are absolutely clueless when deciding who will make it and who won't. What other industry has a bigger strike out rate than professional sports during the draft? Especially with the time and effort they put into it. There are major discoveries to be made here, and frankly we're arguing about some 50 question IQ test that is proven to tell us nothing but who's book smart and who's a little dumb at school. Why not test for everything we possibly can and then look back on the correlations? Add an extra day to the combine where they do nothing but different mental aptitude tests. One day we'll look back and start seeing patterns. Edited April 26, 2015 by musichunch
enlightener Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 Fitzy.. good at Wonderlic.. Also good at throwing interceptions. fitzy.. multi millionare, harvard graduate, 10 year pro, still starting for teams and winning games, while bills debate keeping manual or cassel after getting beat by fitz last year after an ej manual interception.
/dev/null Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 fitzy.. multi millionare, harvard graduate, 10 year pro, still starting for teams and winning games, while bills debate keeping manual or cassel after getting beat by fitz last year after an ej manual interception. leave him be. haters gonna hate
Rocky Landing Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 Probably a better test than the Wonderlic would be to build a giant maze, and put some cheese at the end of it.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 My take on the Wonderlic detractors is that they start from a straw man position--that it doesn't correlate with on-the-field performance. What they should be studying is how strongly it correlates with the ability to process written information--as in, how a player absorbs the playbook and weekly gameplans. This is a big part of being an NFL player. . . . Well, if the Wonderlic correlates with "the ability to process written information," but "it doesn't correlate with on-the-field performance," how big a part of being a [good] NFL player can the ability to process written information really be? Why should we care whether a player is good at absorbing the playbook and weekly game plans, if that ability doesn't translate to actually getting results on the field? I'm not at all convinced that there is no correlation between Wonderlic scores and on-the-field performance (at least for some positions), but I've never really looked at the data in anything close to a comprehensive way.
NoSaint Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 This is a fair assessment. Teams don't use it as the be all, end all indicator, but it does provide a glimpse into a player's ability to process information quickly. Teams ascribe more importance to higher scores depending on position groups. They would prefer QBs and OLmen, especially, to have better scores, while they place less importance on higher scores for CBs. GO BILLS!!! And with it being such basic stuff- there's an element of "does a guy prep and take seriously things we ask him to do" potentially. The number is just a starting point. If you see something way out of the ordinary it's an indicator that you may need to look a little deeper.
Lurker Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 Why should we care whether a player is good at absorbing the playbook and weekly game plans, if that ability doesn't translate to actually getting results on the field? Who says it doesn't? Why do some players struggle to learn their assignments and some have no problem with it? A guy with the ability to quickly understand what the coaching staff wants put it into practice can often beat out a "better athlete" who needs muliple reps or a lot of coaching. This seems particularly true of O-linemen, where many guys are able to overcome physical limitations with savvy and smarts.
Just Jack Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 Wonder what Terry Bradshaw scored. It's mentioned in the article.
KD in CA Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 Probably a better test than the Wonderlic would be to build a giant maze, and put some cheese at the end of it. Guy would probably have to step over Vince Young's corpse to get out.
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 Little known fact: Ryan Fitzpatrick actually went to Harvard.
metzelaars_lives Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 (edited) First off, I didn't read the entire article but did check out the score. The intent of the Wonderlic is like every other measure or variable used by teams and more importantly was not nor should be consider alone. Great Wonderlics with poor athletic skills won't mean hall of famers. Poor Wonderlics with great skills don't mean super bowl winners. The intent is to measure cognition and the arguments that is biased against education is true, it measures how, in a simplistic manner, "smart" you are. Is that biased because the dumb ones underperform? Oh, you don't like that you don't do well when we test what you know or your ability to think? Here's where I think it matters and I am glad one player was shown on the QB list. I think it matters for QB for one reason. The job of a QB is purely one of cognition. A test that can measure that is a great assessment of a QB. I've made this point probably 5 times in threads on this forum. If you look at SB winning QBs, I believe Bradshaw is the only one who scored less than I think 22. Lost the file I had the data in. Bradshaw apparently was/is dyslexic or had a learning disability so he may have great cognition but poor reading skills, not the same thing. So here's my point about the Wonderlic... it's a good measure to add into the assessment but it's very interesting for QBs. You're about 99.9% assured of never winning a Super Bowl with a QB who scores less than 22. You are by no means guaranteed of winning one with a QB scoring above 22 or we'd have one already with Fitxpatrick. But if I am a GM, I would never, ever hitch my wagon to a QB who did poorly on this. Again, I'll be clear it's simply probability, which is basically you're 99% guaranteed (Bradshaw being the only reported exception) of never winning one with a moron under center. And testing for persistence (how?). determination (how?), or the other suggestions above are worse ideas than the Wonderlic. What do you mean by will power? How are will power, determination, and persistence different? Sounds like three synonyms. I'm determined in a lot of things, but not always. Give me a test on physics and I won't care, does that mean I'm not determined? Or persistent? Or have will power? Really? If Norwood's kick is a few feet to he left, Kelly has one. If that dude on the Rams doesn't make that tackle, McNair has one. And that's just the guys whose scores we actually know of. I have a hard time believing that Ben freaking Roethlisberger scored higher than 22. Edited April 27, 2015 by metzelaars_lives
Recommended Posts