I would factor two things when looking at historical examples for the grades. One is that preparation makes a ton of difference for tests like these. It's most definitely a test that given today's prospect training, overall scores should be higher. Also, defenses have gotten a lot more complicated over the years so reading defense may be more important these days.
Your "minimum" criteria is irrelevant and a complete arbitrary designation on your part. Since you've already said that I wasted my time with the first graph, I will do as you do and make blanket claims that you have no clue how to understand statistics and do nothing to back it up. 1. In the subset of QB's who currently have starting jobs in the NFL there is no correlation between performance and Wonderlic score. I didn't exclude anybody from this analysis. Everybody that was on the other poster's list is on mine. 2. The population we have left out of this analysis--NFL QB prospects who have taken the Wonderlic but proven not good enough to earn a starting QB job--is not the one YOU want to analyze, which are the QB's who scored less than a 20 on the Wonderlic and are not on my graph. This means nothing with respect to the overall question that I answered which was, "of current NFL QB's, does increasing Wonderlic score predict improved performance?" 3. In spite of all this you have pulled the magic number of 25 out of your hat as a way to prove your point of there being a minimum score necessary to be 'good enough' to play in the NFL. In that case the burden is on YOU to produce numbers backing it up. In the pool of all NFL prospects to have ever taken the Wonderlic, regardless of whether or not they are good enough to start on an NFL team, show me the distribution between people that got less than a 25 and those that got more. Then, perform a regression analysis on those two populations and look for covariance with people who are IN the NFL versus OUT of the NFL. Finally, taking the subset that are IN the NFL, show me that the ones with less than 25's did better than the ones with more than 25's. Oh wait, I already did that for you and there was no significance. Better yet, to increase your sample size, go back more years and then see if something becomes significant. I'm waiting.
I don't see how what you say and what he says can't be both correct. I'm sure if you graph the 40 times of WR/RB/DBs and their play in the NFL, it's probably also a scattered all around. But it's also true that if a prospect for one of those positions have a horrible 40 time combined with lack of size, you're guaranteed to suck at the next level. Just because there may not really be a difference between a 4.4 40-time vs. 4.5 40-time, doesn't mean you can run a 4.8 and still be a NFL WR. If you make the comparison to 40 time it would be like saying Bridgewater ran a 4.7 for a receiver. But supposedly have great hands and great route running skills. Yet such receivers have routinely have had trouble getting separation in the NFL due to their poor speed despite all the other intangibles. Perhaps the wonderlic is like that. You don't have to be great at it. But you can't suck at it. At the very least, I don't see how you can disprove this theory just because you keep saying how scoring 25 and 35 don't seem to make a difference.
Absolutely no one will waste their time doing that to win an internet argument. Even if 25 isn't a magic number it should be incredibly alarming that a quarterback whose primary attribute is his "intelligence" would be the dumbest starting quarterback in the NFL. If you're interested in cultish drumbeating for some random draft prospect from Louisville then fine, ignore his faults. If you're a Texans fan then you should be interested in giving honest evaluations of all players. It's possible that all successful pocket passing quarterbacks in the NFL have >=24 wonderlics through rainbow farts and random luck. It's also possible that not being a mouthbreathing dullard is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for being a successful pocket passing quarterback in today's NFL. You don't bet your franchise's future on the former.
Sure if we want to just throw theories out there without doing anything to back it up, then we can just stick to our positions and never make any meaningful conclusions. Kinda like politics (which is incidentally what any thread regarding Bridgewater is turning into; I wonder why that's the case). I'm sure there is some utility somewhere to the Wonderlic. But I just haven't seen any convincing arguments from this thread so far.
Why would non-starters be excluded from the analysis? There's no guarantee that any rookie QB drafted will become a starter, so perhaps the possibility of Wonderlic correlation to non-starter status should not be so readily discounted. Is the mean of the starting population really equal to the non-starting population? What about a correlation to total starts for a career? The arbitrary quarterback rating is a good way to make a plot into whatever you want. An objective analysis would look for correlation against all relevant QB stats. QBR might be one. TD/int ratio? Perhaps there's a correlation to variation instead of mean. There are numerous possibilities that it provides useful information in addition to the possibility that it's no more useful than random.
Isn't this what you're doing too? I can claim just as readily that nothing you've said means that a low wonderlic score ISN'T a detriment to a QB prospect's ability to succeed. Showing me success stories of QBs with wonderlic scores of 25 and failures with scores of 40 doesn't mean anything for a QB that scored 20.
Here it looks like someone did some homework for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderlic_Test#Predictor_of_success_in_the_NFL I'm done with all Wonderlic talk for the year.
Please, please, please. EVERYONE SHUT UP ABOUT THE WONDERLIC. It is such a ridiculous topic, and Teddy's score wasn't even that bad. Dumbest tangent this thread has taken.
Wow. You certainly made your case... if only the people who did these studies actually know anything about football that is. The 2005 study used rookie QB rating to measure "success" for the QB. Yes, you read that correctly. They defined success or failure of a QB by their QB rating in their rookie year. Wow! Such amazing depth of analysis. That certainly cleared things up. The 2009 study did not allow for free reading beyond the abstract. But it used 3 draft classes as sample size. For reference of what a 3-year sample size of QBs will net, 06-08 drafts netted Cutler, VY, Kolb, Flacco, Ryan, and Russell as players who would go on to at least start for a full season. Let's just say sample size may not be that big. If you're not going to do your own homework, have the decency to at least check what you post so it doesn't seem so stupid.
for the Texans purposes, you know that BO'B will have a complex offense, so you need a very smart QB. Do you think it was merely a coincidence that BO'B signed Ryan Fitzpatrick, who holds the highest wonderlic score in the NFL? Nope. Do you think BO'B would take a chance on a QB who scored a 20 on the Wonderlic? Hell no. next.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ng-why-teddy-bridgewater-is-a-top-qb-prospect Educate yourselves fellas
How about you read it Texxx instead of shooting off at the mouth at everything you disagree with. You might learn something
I didnt magically pull 25 to help support me...it's the midway point between being wrong on every question and being right on every question. And it's completely pointless to do anything you just mentioned because none of that matters at all. All that matters is the QBs in the NFL that actually start on NFL teams. Who cares what some prospect from South Dakota St. got on the wonderlic. If an NFL prospect wants to start for an NFL team, he needs to worry about those that are currently starting on NFL teams. You make this much more difficult than it needs to be. For the thousandth time...history has shown that there is a threshold level that should be reached to become an NFL starting QB. Yes, there are exceptions, just like with anything else in life. Yes, there is no correlation of success when you compare someone with a 40 to someone with a 30...because that threshold has been met for both parties. Again, show me, if the test is so random...why are there no starting QBs in the NFL that scored less than a 20 on the wonderlic? Why are there only 3 QBs that got less than half the questions right? It's not pure coincidence. Go ahead and keep wasting time making charts and graphs that only re-emphasize what others and I have been saying in this thread.
Texxx never actually eats crow. That's his M.O. He hides and then waits to snipe in with uneducated comments and then continues on until inevitably he gets beat down in the argument. When he owned he just doesn't respond anymore and crawls back into his nest. Rinse and repeat.
And just for the record, in case it was missed the first 100 times...I have no problem with Bridgewater on the Texans. Im not biased with any of the prospects and that's why I can criticize every one of them...none of these guys give me boners, so I have no need to make love to them every opportunity I get.
I agree. Anyone who thinks you can test athletes on anything that involves vocabulary and complex sentence construction is ridiculous. Teddy grew up in poverty. He had to sleep in the car at times. His Mom never talked to him using anything close to that vocabulary. I won't even say it is racially biased . What it is, is culturally biased. If you grew up in poverty, with uneducated parents or single parent that's struggling to survive than that test becomes a hell of a lot harder. It's not the reality of his world. It might be bigtexx's reality but not Teddy's. The thing is you can't even compare any quarterback and their score to TB. There is not 1 NFL starting QB that had the tough life and upbringing that TB went through. Already struggling and living at poverty level his Mom gets breast cancer while Teddy is a kid. No QB in the NFL had to come from such poverty and make it. Teddy is unique and it's stupid to think some test can define him. If you want to test his cognitive skills, give him an NFL playbook and quiz him. John Gruden said Teddy's football IQ is high... said TB knows all the concepts and terminology that he saw Bill walsh install in the 90's... said he manages a sophisticated running game... he's impressed with TB, he is a tough kid etc. To be honest I have dropped a little on my position on TB but what hasn't changed is the film and that where I look for intelligence. Not some stupid culturally biased wonderlic score. Because in spite of Bortles and Manziels great wonderlic scores they look stupid on film compared to Teddy Bridgewater.
