I'm down to two quarterbacks. Mallet and Stanzi. Thoughts?

Discussion in 'NFL Draft' started by Tennessy XO, Apr 17, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Soxcat

    Soxcat Starter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,485
    Not sure what you are trying to say here. 21 is sure a heck of a lot closer to a 25 and Newton did it on his first try. VY got an 8 on his first try. I seriously doubt it is intelligent to not consider a specific QB over 4 points on the Wonderlick. Now if a guy gets an 8 he is in the moron category and shouldn't be allowed on the field as anything more than a DL guy.
    #91
  2. Gut

    Gut Starter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,782
    Um...

    What I was trying to say is exactly what I said. In response to someone saying his wonderlic was fine, I was pointing out that it is not fine - it IS below the benchmark set for franchise NFL QB's.

    But to your point, VY's first try was actually his first try. VY did not make a good choice in who should lead him through the process and it almost cost him with a ridiculous 8 since he never prepared for it. Newton, with his team of experts, surely was prepared (took practice tests) so his first 'official' try was far from his first ever attempt (as it was for VY).

    But that is neither here nor there. There is only one QB who has been successful the last decade who's scored about or below Newton's mark. As I've said before, the test has only one purpose - to weed out busts (for franchise QB's). If you want to take a gamble on the 80-90% bust rate of projected franchise QB's, that's your perogative. But it's a long shot. And considering Newton needs a lot of work in a lot of areas, it is just another flag saying this player carries a big risk! Should he not be considered? I didn't say that. As for any player you have to look at all the available evidence and make a judgement. I don't grade any QB solely based on their wonderlic.

    It is interesting to see people equate the score to intelligence since it doesn't measure intelligence.

    If your son got a bad grade on a math test because he was careless and was fooled by the questions and had not seen that format, does that mean he's bad at math? The FACT that VY doubled his scored after preparing for the test shows you can not equate the score to intelligence unless VY somehow drastically improved his intelligence in a few days.

    Gut
    #92
  3. Soxcat

    Soxcat Starter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,485
    You still aren't making any sense. I agree Newton was probably more prepared to take the test than VY was but trying to say a 21 automatically means he is not smart enough because he didn't get the additional 4 points to make him a viable QB is foolish. The test isn't that precise of an indicator. You basically state that as well and admit the test doesn't measure intelligence. So when analyzing Newton's score the test infallibly tells us Newton isn't smart enough but when analyzing it for another person it really isn't a good indicator?

    I'm not going to disagree that I would have liked for Newton to score a 25 or more and also have concerns he didn't score well since he had to know his test score would be scrutinized closely. Locker is in the same boat. But at the same time I don't see the test as being a rock solid method to predict failure especially when we are talking about a 4 point difference. Are you really saying two QBs taking this test and one getting a 25 and another a 21 are that much different in their ability to play in the NFL. Again I say that is foolish.
    #93
  4. Gut

    Gut Starter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,782
    Well...

    I'm the one who said the test does NOT measure intelligence. I NEVER said Newton wasn't SMART enough (even though you said I said that).

    I'll give you an analogy. The SAT asks questions about Math, Reading, Writing, ect, but it also is NOT an intelligence test. It's not a Math test nor an English test nor a reading and writing test. The only reason they give the SAT is to determine the likelikhood of a person graduating from college in 4 years. We don't equate a 1600 with someone's intelligence or IQ so making some statement as such for either the SAT or the Wonderlic is silly.

    The Wonderlic is a test they have determined correlates to one thing. QB busts and it does it quite well. Just as an SAT score is no guarantee of something, nor does a score below gurantee you can't play QB in the NFL. McNabb has not only started, but taken his team the the NFC championship game a bunch of times and even to a Super Bowl. He's gone to the Pro Bowl. So obviously a wonderlic below 25 is not the only criteria, but it is a gigantic red flag.

    It's funny, you say it's only 4 points and the difference is not so big...so why do YOU want Newton to have score a mere 4 points higher?

    When I went to school, failing was a 64 and below and 65 was a D. A point difference between passing and not. And that's out of 100. That 4 point difference is really an 8% difference out of 100%. So it's not JUST 4 points.

    More importantly, they found a number that is 'passing' and 25 is it. Newton didn't pass. If you think 8% below passing is negligible, that's your perogative. I give it more relevance just as I would if my son came home and said he failed but he was ONLY 1 point below passing. He still failed and that's only a 1 point difference.

    But I think we both agree you have to look at all the facts. Maybe he's the next McNabb and can be an excellent QB despite his wonderlic. Maybe he becomes just another cautionary tale...

    Gut
    #94
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.