I LOVE Smarts QBs

[Flugel]

@oconrecon said:

All I know is smarter is better. Of all of the positions on the field, if I had the ability to place all of the intelligence in one spot, it would be quarterback.

ME TOO. That's why you see that in the title of this thread. Good point. Why don't I give you the BEST example of why I don't put too much stock in the Wonderlic? I am going to compare the Wonderlic genius passer to the hollow dome that flicks his wrist. This should prove once and for all how much the Wonderlic REALLY means to 2 YOUNG QBs literally and figuratively:

Steve Young's first 2 years in the NFL which started at age 24

Year Age Tm Pos No. G GS QBrec Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD Int

1985 24 TAM QB 8 5 5 1-4-0 72 138 52.2 935 3 8

1986 25 TAM QB 8 14 14 2-12-0 195 363 53.7 2282 8 13

Vince Young's first 2 years in the NFL which started at age 23

Year Age Tm Pos No. G GS QBrec Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD Int

2006 23 TEN QB 10 15 13 8-5-0 184 357 51.5 2199 12 13

2007 24 TEN QB 10 15 15 9-6-0 238 382 62.3 2546 9 17

Who had a better TD to INT ratio?

Steve Young 11 TDs to 21 INTs (-10)

Vince Young 21 TDs to 30 INTs (-9)

Uh-oh #1 gives the slight edge to the hollowdome with a doo-rag thinking cap

Who had a better average completion%?

Steve Young had 52.2% + 53.7% (avg 52.95%)

Vince Young had 51.5% + 62.3% (avg 56.90%)

Uh-oh #2 gives edge to the hollowdome

Who had the better combined record?

Steve Young was 3-16

Vince Young was 17-11

Uh-oh #3 gives HUGE edge to the hollowdome

Uh-oh #4 awards conference rookie of the year AND Pro Bowl honors to the hollowdome. I was hoping for Shep's case that Steve Young would have made it a little more competitive. Things got better when he turned about 28 or 29 years of age.

Summary: I think you sort of realize Steve Young's brains wouldn't have meant squat if he stayed in Tampa with a receiving corps that didn't include Jerry Rice. Vince Young won every single comparison so I can't wait for the spin on this one but I promise it's gonna be entertaining.

- Tom F. (Now THAT is a Wonderlic'n good comparison of the YOUNG QBs)

[Flugel]

@shepwrite said:

Alex Smith went undefeated his last year at Utah, Tom. You should be a huge fan.

Both guys have faced very tough times, as has Leinart. Tough to say any of the three didn't win in college. Tough to say any of the three haven't been disappointing so far as pros.

I will always bet on the smarter guys to get the most out of their talents at quarterback. Intelligence and work ethic. But that's me. I respect your right to prefer Young.

I just think you're nuts.

I think Leinart is going to have a very good career.

Alex Smith & Matt Leinart didn't WIN in the NFL Shep. Vince Young did consistently for a franchise that wore the impact of being capped out in 05. Now why don't you read the comparison I gave where Vince Young had a better first 2 years than Steve Young using passing stats, completion percentages, and winning percentages. Enjoy. Do ALL Wonderlic geniuses need to wait until they're 28 or 29 years old to GRASP the passing game? And doesn't that mean Steve Young went from 2nd year starter to the bench? Enlighten me. It's amazing what Jerry Rice meant to people.

The Wonderlic DUMB Dan Marino didn't need to wait until he was 28 or 29 to grasp the NFL passing game inspite of your assessment's warnings. But you're right that 5 guys in Dan's draft class had better Wonderlic scores and all those GMs are STILL thinking about what they could have done to extend their careers in NFL brasses.

- Tom F.

[ballpeen]

@oconrecon said:

All I know is smarter is better. Of all of the positions on the field, if I had the ability to place all of the intelligence in one spot, it would be quarterback.

That simply isn't true.

Smarter is preferred and desired.

Again...the Wonderlic isn't so much a test of intelligence as it is a test for how fast a person can process information.

No doubt quicker is better in some cases..as in a collapsing pocket....but that doesn't happen every time and in many cases the fractions of difference between player A and player B don't add up to any appreciable difference.

Simply saying a guy who scores a 30 on the test is going to be a better qb than a guy who scores a 19 just isn't true.

All it shows is the 30 might have a edge in that one phase.

[Thaak]

@shepwrite said:

Instincts are great. They don't replace intelligence.

Any GM will tell you that an NFL quarterback these days really needs to be smart. Intelligent. He needs to absorb and internalize tons of increasingly complex information so well that it's second nature to express it on the field.

It's unlike any other position in football. And that's why GMs really do care about the Wonderlic as it applies to QBs. And it's why the guys coming into the league these days are almost all getting scores between 27 and 39.

It isn't a brainiac test. It's a pretty basic timed aptitude test with a focus on logic and problem solving. The NFL likes it. Business like it. All kinds of organizations like it.

I sincerely don't think we're disagreeing so much as passing time -- as usual with you and me -- but I would close by saying that "intelligence" as we most commonly define it is very important for playing quarterback in today's very complex NFL. Not just instincts... intelligence. And the Wonderlic is a pretty damn good measure of that.

I think instinct is part of "football intelligence."

The intelligent part of instinct is when you let it take over instead of thinking about letting it take over.

Then you have your "football geniuses" who take instinct and smarts to a whole new level. No way in hell should Kosar have been remotely as successful as he was based purely on athletic ability. But the man was a "football genius." He let his instincts and genius lead his team to wins.

VY may not be classically smart, but he is "football smart." He makes things happen on instinct. True, his smarts are more pure instinct than otherwise, but that can still win you games, and a lot of them.

[Browns2405]

@thaak said:

I think instinct is part of "football intelligence."

The intelligent part of instinct is when you let it take over instead of thinking about letting it take over.

Then you have your "football geniuses" who take instinct and smarts to a whole new level. No way in hell should Kosar have been remotely as successful as he was based purely on athletic ability. But the man was a "football genius." He let his instincts and genius lead his team to wins.

VY may not be classically smart, but he is "football smart." He makes things happen on instinct. True, his smarts are more pure instinct than otherwise, but that can still win you games, and a lot of them.

With that said... part of his instincts is to run... I thought was a huge part of his Texas team beating USC for the Championship. Look at #1 option nothing there pull it down and go... Maybe I'm misinformed but I thought that's how he was used under Mack Brown aside for the designed run plays. If that's the case that won't help out any QB #'s. This may be off topic but wasn't he supposed to be one of the most accurate deep ball throwers in college?

[DieHardBrownsFan]

@shepwrite said:

Again, "instincts" aren't enough to be successful as a starting quarterback in the NFL, no matter how we try to define the word. You really do have to be old-fashioned smart to play the position these days. You have to be intelligent. You have to take in, understand, and internalize a lot of very complex information.

That is NOT debatable. Any GM will tell you that's true and that's a big part of why they especially value the Wonderlic for quarterbacks.

And it's why virtually every starting QB in the NFL scored between 25 and 39.

Let's move on. It is what it is, whether we like it or not.

Translation: Shep is always right, you are always wrong.

[mz.]

@shepwrite said:

Again, "instincts" aren't enough to be successful as a starting quarterback in the NFL, no matter how we try to define the word.

I just want to bring up the concept of emotional intelligence (EI) here.

We define EI as the capacity to reason about emotions, and of emotions to enhance thinking. It includes the abilities to accurately perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual growth.

Regarding the Intelligence vs. Instinct components of quarterbacking, I would suspect someone with low EI, someone who cannot adequately regulate their emotions, would make for a poor fit for an NFL QB. Right now, Vince Young is in that category for me. Out-of-control/unchecked emotions have clearly gotten in the way of his quarterbacking, which was really based on instincts and athleticism. It is in a case like this where something like the Wonderlic would have been a useful tool for the Titans...with such a low "intelligence" score (he got a 6 or something?), is it a surprise to anyone that when adversity hit, VY let his emotions get in the way of his instincts (his best tool)?

[Drunkandstoopid]

I just find it interesting that the guy who told us College passing efficiency rating is the best indicator of Pro success for 2 years is now tossing that out the window and pimping Wonderlich scores now that Young's been brought up.

[Flugel]

@shepwrite said:

Tom, there's nothing to enjoy -- both guys had horrible numbers. Young played for a horrible team in a horrible system. There is NOTHING to be learned about anything there.

That's EXACTLY want I wanted you to do. Pretend ONLY Steve Young was drafted by a bad NFL team. Tenn was in the process of losing 14 games in a row from 05 through week 5 of 06 so that partially explains why they drafted 3rd overall. Being capped out in 05 is another reason. I also provided the defensive rankings in the Wonderlic thread of 32 teams in 2006 with Tenn at #32 overall. When the QB wins with this caliber of defense - I don't need to tell you he can't make tackles too.

So what can we derive from VY replacing Kerry Collins in 06 and leading the SAME team that was dysfunctional into winning 8 of the final 11 games? How can a QB incapbale of making good split second decisions lead a BAD team to winning 8 of their final 11 games which erased 7 second half deficits if he's every bit as dumb as you WANT him to be? Earning Rookie of the Year honors isn't nearly as unsuccessful as you want it to be. He got HURT in 07 so he only followed a rookie 8-5 record with 9-6 in his second year. I'd say starting off 17-11 on a team horrible leading up to start #1 isn't nearly as unsuccessful as you want it to be. Not everyone has a Jerry Rice handy. If Tenn did, they wouldn't have drafted a WR first this year.

Anyway, you've been assuring everyone that people with Wonderlic brilliance showcase the ability to be immediately SMART and efficient passers. Then you say that's WHY they give the assessment. I show you Steve Young WITHOUT Jerry Rice in his first 2 seasons was LESS than VY and you're spinning and excusing. I think it's pretty well documented that Steve Young wasn't READY to start until he was 28 or 29 years of age inspite of a 33 on the Wonderlic. That means he went from a starter to the BENCH right? Just checking.

You've got double standards working all over the place when it comes to maturity. Speaking of benchings, Josh McDaniels' initial priority was to bring Matt Cassell over to be his starter which would have meant BENCHING Cutler. I see a HC that looked at film and wins and losses over a 3 year span. Next thing I know, I'm not exactly seeing Jay Cutler modeling maturity when he had the same negative feelings VY had to hearing someone else was #1 in his Head Coach's mind all of a sudden.

In the end, games are just played with 1 goal. WIN. VY is 17-11 and Jay Cutler is 17-21. Maybe that's why Denver now has a starting QB with a 21-12 record.

- Tom F. (Who wpoulda thunk Vince Young would have a betetr first 2 years in the NFL than some like Steve Young with a 33 Wonderlic score? The comparison is in this thread for all to see in life BEFORE Jerry Rice and age 29)

[Flugel]

@shepwrite said:

Why do you find the two discussions interesting?

And Vince Young was brought up... by me. Oops. The initial issue was DA's unusually low Wonderlic score. Which led to digging into QBs and Wonderlic scores and discussing what we found. And we found some very, VERY interesting things, like every starting quarterback but McNabb and maybe Garrard scored between 25 and 39. We've found that the top drafted guys the last few years are the ones with the higest scores and many of the fallers have low scores.

Now, let's stop and investigate your "interest." So if we first discuss Football Outsider's stats on numbers of starts and completion percentage... we should then never discuss Wonderlic scores? Anything else? What can we discuss after Football Outsiders, D&S? Can you make a list?

Are you suggesting that discussing more than one issue predictive of quarterback success or failure is wrong? That we should stick to the one and cover it over and over and over?

I find that interesting. And by interesting, I mean Retarded.

I think if you showed the entire list - you'd see HOW MANY guys that scored extremely well never panned out so you skewed the data like Zombo reminded you of in the Wonderlic thread. If that makes Zombo Retarded in your eyes - I disagree.

- Tom F.

[Thaak]

@shepwrite said:

Again, "instincts" aren't enough to be successful as a starting quarterback in the NFL, no matter how we try to define the word. You really do have to be old-fashioned smart to play the position these days. You have to be intelligent. You have to take in, understand, and internalize a lot of very complex information.

That is NOT debatable. Any GM will tell you that's true and that's a big part of why they especially value the Wonderlic for quarterbacks.

And it's why virtually every starting QB in the NFL scored between 25 and 39.

Let's move on. It is what it is, whether we like it or not.

I disagree whole-heartedly Shep.

There is a HUGE difference between "football smarts" and "classic IQ."

Granted, the ability to do puzzles (what half of a typical IQ test will have you do) is certainly an indication of the ability to analyze a defense quickly. But doing math problems quickly (the other half of a typical IQ test) does not necessarily correlate to the same. [Note: Yes I know there are also word associations in IQ tests, I lumped those with math problems.]

An analogy if you will:

Take the mechanic who cannot read. He can take an engine apart by pure instinct and natural talent. Put it back together again, and it will work better than before. He can do this to any machine, whether he's seen it or not. But he can't read. Even if he could read, he'd probably score fairly low on a Wonderlic test. But he is still an excellent mechanic.

The smarts a QB requires is different than classic intelligence. The ability to analyze a situation quickly and choose the right course of action for the better outcome for his team. You can do this without being able to do semi-difficult math equations quickly or word associations quickly.

Granted, the ability to do math and word association quickly usually translates into the ability to physically make quick analytical decisions. But not always. High Wonderlic scores does not translate directly into good QB's either.

It is a measuring stick, sure. But one that should be given the appropriate amount of weight and credibility. Just the same as a 40 yard dash, bench press, vertical leap, height, or weight.

Football smarts can be a god-given talent without having to be classically smart.

Instinct is part of football smarts.

Classically smart people can have zero instincts.

Andy

[Aloysius]

@shepwrite said:

NOBODY HAS SAID all smart quarterbacks will succeed regardless of other factors! The point is that intelligence is seen as a prerequisite to playing quarterback in today's NFL, and not having it is seen as a severe liability.

Exactly. And that's why all the talk in the other thread about Ryan Fitzpatrick made little sense.

Fitzpatrick went to Harvard because his first choice, Arizona State, didn't offer him a scholarship. And NFL teams weren't exactly enamored by his physical tools; he was taken five picks before Mr. Irrelevant in the '05 draft. But he's been able to find a series of backup jobs around the league, which makes him a pretty nice success story. Saying otherwise would be akin to calling Chris Pizzotti a failure if he makes the Jets but doesn't outplay Mark Sanchez. For some guys, just being in the league is a huge success.

[mz.]

It's shocking how few people are taking the psychology of playing (and excelling at playing) quarterback in the NFL into account.

Absolutely shocking.

Not every accountant has the physical/emotional/psychological makeup to excel as a CFO. Being "good with numbers" is only a part of the equation.

[Aloysius]

@jadbf said:

If you have the time to read the whole thing, this is very interesting.

http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/int...g-performance-a

If you're studying the relationship between Wonderlic scores and NFL performance, it doesn't make much sense to limit your research to players' rookie seasons. According to that rubric, Tim Couch (73.2 QBR) is just as good a QB as Peyton Manning (71.2 QBR). The point of focusing on QB intelligence isn't just to make sure a guy plays well early on; it's to be able to adjust and grow when the playbook's expanded and defenses try to take away the best parts of a guy's game.

It's interesting that Wonderlic scores don't correlate to college passer efficiency, but the article itself provides an explanation for that: colleges offenses are much simpler. And the observation that there isn't a statistically significant relationship between Wonderlic scores and draft status may no longer be accurate; the study's cutoff is 2004, and it's reasonable to suspect that it's changed since then. If not, it's likely that Vince Young's stuggles will.

[Aloysius]

Yeah, you're not going to be able to get them for guys who weren't invited to the Combine: Cassel, Warner, and (I think) Delhomme.

Here's what I found:

Edwards, Buf: 31

Pennington, Mia: 25

Brady, NE: 33

Clemens, NYJ: 35

Flacco, Bal: 27

Palmer, Cin: 26

Quinn, Cle: 29

Big Gay Ben, Pit: 25

Collins, Ten: 30

Schaub, Tex: 31

Manning, Ind: 28

Garard, Jax: 14

Orton, Den: 26

Cassel, KC: ?

Russell, Oak: 24

Rivers, SD: 30

Romo, Dal: 37

Manning, NYG: 39

McNabb, Phi: 14

Cambell, Was: 23

Cutler, Chi: 26

Culpepper, Det: 18

Rodgers, GB: 35

Favre, Min: 22

Ryan, Atl: 32

Delhomme, Car: ?

Brees, NO: 28

Leftwich, TB: 25

Bulger, STL: 29

Warner, Ari: ?

Hill, SF: 25

Hasslebeck, Sea: 29

(All but the most recent scores from here)

[Aloysius]

@jadbf said:

and actually one study shows that Wonderlic scores are a much beter predictor for how a QB will do EARLIER in thier career and that the numbers actually level out a bit as you look into quarterbacks who are able to be starters later in their careers but that those that score well still do better.. Their conclusion being that a good wonderlic score will allow a rookie QB to pick up the playbooks and read NFL defenses quicker, but that when you look at QBs over their whole careers, all the other factors that NFL GMs use including the wonderlic come into play, and the wonderlic is not as statistically significant.

I could see that being true. And it'd make Wonderlic scores all the more important in today's NFL, with out of control rookie contracts making it harder to be patient with young QB's.

My basic point is, people can use statistics to say anything. And no one here(well almost no one) is claiming that a better wonderlic score isn't one thing that can help determine the sucess of a QB. No one is saying that they wouldn't rather have a smarter QB than a dumber one.

Sure, everyone agrees in a general sense that intelligence matters. However, I think there is pretty sharp disagreement over how much value to place in these tests, as well as how much importance to place on intelligence & character come draft time. That's why we had some pretty intense discussions here about guys like Rey Maualuga, Andre Smith, and Percy Harvin. And it's why the discussion in the other thread got nasty so quickly.

[DTBH]

Instincts have got to be one of the most important things that go into Quarterbacking.

It would be nearly impossible to register where all 11 defensive players are on the field, and map out where they will be once you snap the ball. Especially on every play with so many different packages and whatnot.

A quarterback has to be able to "feel" the defense with his instincts. That might not make sense to some but I'm sure others know exactly what is meant by it.

[DTBH]

Of course you need a certain level of intelligence to memorize the playbook and whatnot, and of course being smart would help you lead your team.

But once you get past that level of intelligence, say 20-25 on the wonderlic, I think a lot of what happens on the field is instinctual. And I also think the Wonderlic scores reflect that. Some guys with great scores pan out and some don't. The only overwhelming theme is that you gotta be above about 20.

Instincts are just a different facet of the QB mind.

Roethlisberger has GREAT instincts. So does Favre. Neither scored magnificently on the 'Lic. I think instincts can go a long way.

[Thaak]

@shepwrite said:

Don't see how navigating the ever changing complexities of an NFL offense or defense can be "instinctive." Succeeding in a pickup game might be based on instincts, but playing quarterback in the NFL involves a TON of film study and book learnin'.

Knowing what you're doing can create a sort of "instinct." But a great athlete couldn't just show up and play quarterback because he's instinctive.

I think of "instinctive" applying better to running backs and linebackers, honestly.

That's where your wrong.

Instinct is essentially where you can react to something before you have to think about it.

1in·stinct Listen to the pronunciation of 1instinct

Pronunciation:

\ˈin-ˌstiŋ(k)t\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English, from Latin instinctus impulse, from instinguere to incite; akin to Latin instigare to instigate

Date:

15th century

1: a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>2 a: a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b: behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

— in·stinc·tu·al Listen to the pronunciation of instinctual \in-ˈstiŋ(k)-chə-wəl, -chəl, -shwəl, -chü-əl\ adjective

— in·stinc·tu·al·ly adverb

The more film study you do, the more you create a scenario where your instinct can kick in.

You find tendencies, most of the time at an unconscious level.

That's why some players have a tendency to "predict the future" or what's called "football IQ" by throwing the ball where the defender wasn't, or putting your body where the running back is supposed to run before the running back makes his cut.

The single most necessary talent is the ability to be instinctual given the right set of circumstances. And yes, even for a QB. Classically intelligent QB's don't necessarily have this instinct, and as such, fail more dismally than the classically athletic QBs. I.E. Ken Dorsey.

Wonderlic is a good tool. But classically smart does not the QB make.

[PlaygroundLegend]

Outside of interceptions and bonehead plays, the thing that pisses me off most about DA are some of the things he says. Does anyone remember this one?

"I dont know, I just play here"