52520Andrew
Pro Bowler
No doubt, progression in players implies work ethic and/or coachability which are always big
-
Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
Welcome to the Ravens, Hayden Hurst and Lamar Jackson
- Thread starter RaineV1
- Start date
SepticeyePoe
Hall of Famer
Have you looked at the actual questions? Here's a sample question:
"Taylor is going on a road trip that is 600 miles long. Her friend recommends that she buy engine oil A because it will save her 60 cents in gas for every 20 miles of the trip. Oil A, however, will cost $35. Is it worthwhile for Taylor to buy the oil if she has a coupon for $10 off the price?"
Tell me how being able to answer questions like that in 12 minutes translates to success on the football field.
cdp
Ravens Ring of Honor
You'll suck in this test if you aren't prepared. Once you get a feeling for these test they're not as hard anymore.
The wonderlic basically shows if you put in some time to learn for it. Of course there are other things like how fast you can identify the right numbers and so on. But you don't have to be a numbers/mental math guy to succeed in the NFL.
Tank
Hall of Famer
It doesn’t. But most QBs that can’t have not fared well in the NFL.
Inqui
Pro Bowler
Correlation does not imply causation. Intelligence comes in all kinds of forms, which is why you have people with PhDs struggle with their tax returns or musical geniuses who struggle with maths. The Wonderlic, according to your own article, is just a measure of how good someone is academically. The article itself says the only value of the Wonderlic is that it's a standard test so everyone can have a common baseline (and yes, I think the significance of the combine is highly overrated too), which doesn't mean anything if that common baseline doesn't have anything to do with making pre-snap adjustments and having the spatial awareness to see what a defender's going to do.
No control has been made for the general upbringing of most QBs including which high schools they went to and other factors that affect their academic performance but not necessarily how good they are as a QB (and there are an awful lot of Stanfords, USCs and Cals on that list) so if most QBs score high but also tend to be in better-off families and go to better schools than those in other positions, that'll skew the Wonderlic scores of the position. Just because there isn't a big body of evidence of QBs with low scores (which seems to be the main thrust of your argument and the literature you cite) doesn't mean a low score translates to poor NFL play.
I said on the first page that there's a huge bust potential, but if he does bust it won't be anything to do with the Wonderlic. But I'll bear in mind his Wonderlic score next time he has a few seconds to calculate how far a train can travel in 4 seconds.
but its no better indicator of success or failure in the nfl than virtually any other measure - you could find a statistic that groups together qbs that are good at that specific thing and bad at that specific thing and in most cases the qbs that were better in that statistic are more likely to be the ones that succeed
the problem isnt that the wonderlic shouldnt count its that its not the be all end all of evaluating a player or qb no matter the correlation - it would provide a fraction of the overall analytics that would create a statistical picture of lamar and his potential to convert to the NFL
so when i say the wonderlic score is not a big deal - i mean it in the sense that it is a small part of a whole and is not in and of itself an absolute and definitive statistic
every statistic needs context and it needs to be taken with proportion - if wonderlic scores extrapolated into pure nfl qb quality then you'd see qbs come off the board in order based on those scores alone if it was that strong of an indicator but they dont - there's a vague correlation given certain context and no correlation given certain other contexts
that to me says that there's very little to suggest that the wonderlic score is a big issue (or any issue) at all
Cville-Raven
MVP
Also high scores don’t translate to the field at all. Blaine Gabbert scored a 42 and more recently Josh Allen out scored the other 1st round QBs with a 37, and his play would tell you otherwise. I think the reality is the position is saturated with players who scored higher when compared to the other positions. So when the player pool is mostly if not entirely filled with higher wonderlic scores, of course the SB winners will consistently be high scorers.
yeah i dont want to be hasty etc. but it does seem to be a case of confirmation bias with the benefit of hindsight
allblackraven
Hall of Famer
It is a fact as much as conclusions drawn on wonderlic scores.
Tank
Hall of Famer
I never implied anything about the validity of the test or that high scores predict success at playing QB in the NFL, only that the pattern exists. And I totally agree with the point that the interpretation of the statistics presented does not provide for a purely scientific conclusion. But regardless of the possible effects of any unaccounted for factors, socio-economic or other, the pattern of the scores exists. That’s not to say that Lamar’s low score will cause him to fail, only that regardless of the reason(s) most all others before him that have succeeded scored much higher on the test.
Inqui
Pro Bowler
No-one's arguing that Lamar's score is lower than average for the position, we're just arguing that the score doesn't mean anything. The only thing a Wonderlic score shows is how likely players are to become engineers once they're done in the NFL. It only captures one type of intelligence and there are all kinds of reasons the position might be saturated with high-scoring players that have literally nothing to do with aptitude for the position, including socioeconomics (ie, I'd be willing to bet money QBs are notably more likely to be rich kids who have other factors going for them that also translates to doing well in standard academic tests - like the Wonderlic).
You said yourself that having a high score doesn't mean anything, so why does the QB position having a higher overall score than DT mean anything? And why does it mean anything that Lamar's is lower than other QBs?
Tank
Hall of Famer
It means something because for whatever the reason, the long standing pattern is that almost all successful NFL QBs have scored higher than average on the test. Offensive tackles and centers score higher on average than QBs. Is there a socio-economic connection there as well? Are their scores higher because they were rich kids? IDK
ThatsMyJoeTerback
Ravens Ring of Honor
I can't be the only one worried about the wobbly throws coming out of Lamar's hands in those videos.
Inqui
Pro Bowler
Again that's because, as @Cville-Raven pointed out, it's a position where scores tend to be higher than average so of course the successful ones will have high scores. Like I said the thrust of your argument seems to be that there's only a small body of evidence of QBs with low scores, but all that means is that Lamar's less likely than other QBs to cure cancer when he's done in the NFL. But there only being few QBs in the league with low scores doesn't mean that QBs with low scores will bust. That's called a spurious relationship.
Tank
Hall of Famer
That’s a pretty “compelling” analogy. lol but hardly comparable. You’re reaching for cause/effect and all I’m saying there is a firm historical pattern of higher scores and QB success.Again that's because, as @Cville-Raven pointed out, it's a position where scores tend to be higher than average so of course the successful ones will have high scores. Like I said the thrust of your argument seems to be that there's only a small body of evidence of QBs with low scores, but all that means is that Lamar's less likely than other QBs to cure cancer when he's done in the NFL. But there only being few QBs in the league with low scores doesn't mean that QBs with low scores will bust. That's called a spurious relationship.
So yes, the scores tend to be higher than average at the position. Firm evidence notwithstanding, couldn’t one draw the conclusion that the more intelligent players are drawn to and tend to perform better at those positions?
The wonderlic doesn't actually measure intelligence, but it does measure preparation and strategy. It's not as easy as "do a ton of practice questions and then you'll get the hang of it."
There's certain techniques that have been developed by agents/trainers to effectively "beat" the test, such as telling players to focus on certain question types that they are good at or teaching them strategies for each individual question type.
Idk what kind of prep Lamar's mother made him do. I'd assume that he would have been taught the Wonderlic stuff at whatever training facility he did his combine prep at (if he even did combine prep- he didnt do any athletic testing if i recall correctly) There were a lot of questionable decisions made during the predraft process imo and contract negotiations could get difficult.
There's certain techniques that have been developed by agents/trainers to effectively "beat" the test, such as telling players to focus on certain question types that they are good at or teaching them strategies for each individual question type.
Idk what kind of prep Lamar's mother made him do. I'd assume that he would have been taught the Wonderlic stuff at whatever training facility he did his combine prep at (if he even did combine prep- he didnt do any athletic testing if i recall correctly) There were a lot of questionable decisions made during the predraft process imo and contract negotiations could get difficult.
Inqui
Pro Bowler
They could draw that conclusion but again it'd be a dubious one at best. Better musicians also tend to be more intelligent people, but a Wonderlic score won't capture how good at music they are because it's a different type of intelligence to what the Wonderlic shows. The kind of intelligence a QB needs is also different to what a Wonderlic captures, and you still haven't explained why it's important that he needs to be able to calculate oil mileage or the distance a train travels in 3 seconds. Your own articles say that a Wonderlic's only value is as a common baseline, but it's only a baseline for how they'd be expected to perform academically.
It's spurious to say that recent successful QBs have high scores and therefore you cannot be successful without a high score. The only firm evidence you've provided is that QB scores tend to be high. What might convince me is if you found the people with low scores who'd been drafted high in the past decade and then breaking down how they performed in the pros like I did with their college accuracies (at least that's comparing like for like). That's when you can draw the conclusion that "a low score has historically spelled failure".
Inqui
Pro Bowler
This is why I'm not crazy about Combine stuff in general. It's all one big exercise in how much the prospects can game the tests with a few months' preparation. Players end up in a slightly different shape to how they are during the season because they're more interested in being able to run a straight-line 40 or have a good bench press and those aren't the same as being in the best shape for playing four quarters' worth of snaps (with pads). But I digress.
Tank
Hall of Famer
Again, you are digging way deep and all I’m trying to point out is the distinct pattern that has developed in the 40 some years the test has been used in the NFL. A high score doesn’t spell success, just as a low score doesn’t guarantee failure. But the historical data says that almost all NFL QBs that have had successful careers have scored higher than average.
Just for informational purposes here’s a link to a short history of the use of the test in the NFL.
http://nflwonderlictestscores.com/how-the-wonderlic-test-became-part-of-the-nfl-draft/
Last edited: