I LOVE Smarts QBs

[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"

[Flugel]

Zombo said:

Shep, if scores are getting higher for QBs coming into the league, then perhaps agents are doing a better job of preparing them for the test.

Maybe when Kelly, Marino and McNabb took the test it wasn't as stressed.

Zombo

The purpose of the thread was to appreciate SMART QBs and look forward to us having one in the following year. That said, what I find disturbing about the Wonderlic is it provides the SAME false positives for clearcut conclusions as the QB workouts provide without pass rushers, time urgency, and corners present.

For instance, Donovan McNabb did every bit as horrible on that Wonderlic as Dan Marino. Could you find 2 Qbs that got off to better starts? If the Wonderlic is the tellall - these guys were supposed to take a LONG time to develop. They won instantly because in McNabb's second year he was knocking off the 13-3 Chicago Bears in the playoffs. Jim Kelley wasn't bad either as it's been said. I'll do us all a favor and drop VY from this discussion. You're welcome Shep - now don't make me sorry for letting your blood pressure return to normal.

And for Steve Young being so Wonderlicly gifted - it took him until he was about 28 or 29 years old and JERRY RICE present for him to LOOK like a starter in this league. That is exactly why I felt compelled to USE him in this thread because he was SLOW starting regardless of how he did on the Wonderlic. Football wise - he learned the hard way like MANY QBs have throughout the years.

The Wonderlic also hasn't been a GOOD predictor of WINNERS. I'm becoming increasingly more skeptical of Jay Cutler even though I think he has ALOT of talent. We've talked about emotional maturity and I think when Jay had an golden opportunity to put his team in the playoffs vrs the Buffalo Billls in their red zone for a potential game winning score - he threw an INT. It didn't remind me of Elway coming of age in the biggest of games whatsoever. Consequently, Jay now had to beat SD in a very important game WITHOUT Ed Hochuli the next week. No dice. I seriously think Josh McDaniel didn't question if Cutler had talent. I think he questioned if Jay was capable of using his talent toward WINNING consistently. That being the case, I thought I'd google up what Jay's career record is college and pro and came up with this result:

"Somewhere along the line Jay Cutler has decided that he has proven himself enough to warrant star treatment. His record as a starter in college and the pros is a whopping 28 wins against 54 losses."

Is there a better example of passer ratings not equating to victory? And then you get a Kyle Orton who actaully KEEPS his team in the game ALL first half so a record of 21-12 is achievable. Not a prototype but a WINNER that won't walk away from ann Indy combine with any MORE love than Tom Brady had. Oh wait, Orton was drafted in round 5 so he got a little more love than Tom Brady following the Indy criteria.

In closing, can you find a better version of DUMB Jock than Terry Bradshaw? He's got 4 Superbowl Ws to his name. Jim Kelley runs a close 2nd and he's participated in 4 Superbowls. Donovan McNabb has been in 5 conference Championships and 1 Superbowl, which means he's won rather consistently and taken a coupel league MVP honors. And when Kurt Warner wasn't QBing a few Superbowls - he was feeling good enough about his smarts to bag groceries. Sometimes guys are just born to LEAD and good leaders are NEVER stupid. We've longed for that since the days we were competing in Conference Championship Games.

- Tom F.

[Drunkandstoopid]

Zombo said:

Was he? What, is he too old to do it now at 24?

His stats were just fine in 2007, even toward the end of the season and the cold weather. He was still throwing for more TDS than we were used to out of the position.

In 2008 he played without Jurevisous, Winslow, Stallworth and Tucker ... you are aware of that, right? You know three of his top four receivers were injured and his fourth led the league in drops, right? I mean ... you have to know that!

And his replacements, including Quinn, put up ratings that were equal or worse than his ...

I mean, you know this, right?

So why the obsession with his passer rating last year?

Again ... Quinn just needs to be more accurate and consistent ... that is his opening .. that is Anderson's weakness ... everything else you put out there just smells like pure crap.

Zombo

No receivers, problems on the line, coming off a brain injury.... no biggie, it's all DA's wonderlich score coming to fruition.

[Drunkandstoopid]

@shepwrite said:

Is he? Or WAS he?

He was capable of being the worst QB in football last year.

Maybe he just does it when he feels it. And he hasn't felt it since week 8 of 2007. His passer rating in the 18 starts since is 68.

You know, Brady got that 104 against a team giving up an average rating in the 98s, still lost it. DA, coming off a concussion, his last five games went 3 and 2, averaging an 82 something (puts him back in the top 20 QB range, not spectacular) against the #1, #5 and #6 pass efficiency defenses in the NFL, along with two other teams with better pass efficiency defenses than Denver had... what does this mean??? Nothing but more questions. But considering he was playing on a team with numerous injuries at receiver and questions on the line, against top notch competition, he wasn't doing all that poorly before the demotion.

[Riffer X]

@drunkandstoopid said:

No receivers, problems on the line, coming off a brain injury.... no biggie, it's all DA's wonderlich score coming to fruition.

I love how this "brain injury" is popping up all of a sudden as a legit excuse, especially from those who poopooed a finger injury on the throwing hand.

If DA wasn't fully healthy from his concussion he flat out should not have started last year. It's either that or the prior regime were some serious freaking morons.

[ndneighbor]

@riffer-x said:

I love how this "brain injury" is popping up all of a sudden as a legit excuse, especially from those who poopooed a finger injury on the throwing hand.

If DA wasn't fully healthy from his concussion he flat out should not have started last year. It's either that or the prior regime were some serious freaking morons.

No doubt. There are no injuries ever to Browns' QBs. They only get "Owies" and "BooBoos".

And it doesn't matter if it might have affected any measurable performance aspect. The numbers stand regardless.

It was awful nice of someone in here to point out that's the way it is on this forum.

DA should've just stuck a band-aid on his forehead. Taken an aspirin. Shaken it off.

And then he should have gotten back on the field to continue showing us more of the same we saw in the legendary pro-bowl appearance.

Wow, look at the page views.

[Drunkandstoopid]

@riffer-x said:

I love how this "brain injury" is popping up all of a sudden as a legit excuse, especially from those who poopooed a finger injury on the throwing hand.

If DA wasn't fully healthy from his concussion he flat out should not have started last year. It's either that or the prior regime were some serious freaking morons.

I thought the moron factor was a given. You had a QB that was healthy and got starters reps and 2 full preseason games prior to the season, then you had a QB that missed 2 preseason games and 2-3 weeks of practice, who practiced all of 5-6 days inside before the opener because he had problems with sunlight sensitivity... and guess who they picked. There's no way DA should have started the season. To me it says a lot about the coaching staff or the alternative QB option... maybe both.

Speaking of hand injuries, wasn't there talk of DA dislocating a finger during one of the games this year and heading to the sideline and asking the coaches to pull it back into place? I don't know if it's true, but I do seem to recall it being brought up.

[cmac12]

Injuries mean nothing. QB has a 66.6 rating he should be out of here, oh wait that was BQ's rating last year. Shocking, neither QB did well with a subpar line and horrible receivers.

I would like to know if you are just looking at last season that BQ's "only healthy" start is all you can use but you use all of DA's season even when he was coming off of a head injury. Why can we not only use his healthy starts with starter reps?

Maybe we should just use DAs best game and stack it up against BQs best game. BQ torched the great Bronco defense with a 104 QB rating (mind you in 2 more games he lowered his overall to 66.6) while DA had a little bit better 121.3 rating, but it was against the lowly NY Giants. And if you look at the last 5 games before DA was benched he had a rating of around 85 (that is with the 57.9 rating against Washington). The 5 teams are Cincy, NYG, Wash, Jacksonville and baltimore.

So basically all I am saying is that if you take out the probable "injured" games that DA played in (god knows those should not count because they certainly don't for BQ) that he was really not that bad. And the Browns record was 3 and 2 in "healthy" games.

And yes I also believe that the coaching staff should not have started DA the first few games. He was not physically ready to perform. I think that the coaches did not like what they saw with BQ in the preseason and did not want him to open up his career against Dallas, Pittsburgh and at Baltimore. Not sure a QB rating of 50 would have been a confidence booster for him( and yes I think that would have been his rating).

Now with my defending of DA done I will say that the Browns will and should start BQ this year. If they do not then I think that says a whole lot more about BQ than it does about DA. BQ must have the entire season unless he is injured. You can't pull him after 3 games or even 8. Give him the year.

It will be fun to try and take apart his flaws and to applaud his success. And I agree with Zombo, stop with the Qb ratings. It is not like BQ tore it up. And if you are going to cherry pick games then I would have to say that DA did not have as bad a season last year as it appears either. Let BQ show why he should start with better accuracy and leadership. He will get his chance, now he just must take advantage of it.

[cmac12]

Shep, what do you disagree with that I said? Do you disagree that BQ should be the starter? Or maybe that BQ should get the whole season to show what he can do? Or maybe it is just how I came to that conclusion despite the fact that both QBs at Very Very similar points in their respective careers are almost the same stats wise (yes after 3 starts and similar age and conditions coming into a season). Or do you just disagree that it is ok to only take BQs healthy starts and not consider only DA's healthy starts?

Just curious on what you don't agree with? If your argument is that despite the fact that DA and BQ seemed to have mirrored each other stats wise in similar situations that BQ has a higher upside than DA because of XYZ then that is where you should post about scores.

If you want to say that I don't know if BQ is better than DA since he has not shown any indication that he is, but DA has proved he is not the answer in Cleveland so we just want to see if BQ is the answer. then I can agree with you.

I don't see what the big problem is with what I or Zombo posted. I also do not have a problem with somebody having the opinion that BQ is a smarter QB. I don't know if he is but it is not something I can argue one way or the other. I like reading peoples opinions on what they see and what they prefer at QB. I personally like the gunslinger, but that is what I like. Does not mean it is right in this offense or that it is what other people prefer. Only thing we can probably all agree on is that we all like WINS.

Can't wait for the season to start, I really miss football.

[Flugel]

Zombo said:

Is it?

Active passing leaders on the list:

1. Favre 65,127 ... 22

2. P. Manning 45,628 ... 28

3. K. Collins 34,393 ... 30

4. Donovan Mcnabb ... 29,320 ... 14

5. Kurt Warner ... 28,591 ... ??

6. Tom Brady ... 26,446 ... 33

So throw out Warner and the average score of a stud QB is 25.4.

Zombo

And Bradshaw got about a 2 while Kelly got about a 3 but that math isn't as good as this math:

4 Superbowls + 4 Superbowls = 8 Superbowls

The Wonderlic fans would have CUT Bradshaw, Kelly, Marino and McNabb plus there's prolly a reason they're leaving out Warner's score. Point IS - none of those guys are football DUMB and the Wonderlic conclusions say otherwise.

Many SMART people are good with a pencil and answering questions on paper; BUT I found enough very smart football guys that indicate that Wonderlic'n test just isn't the tellall. Those aren't just average performers either. They're in the Elite. Bradshaw, Kelly and Marino already made the Hall of Fame. And ever since Philly sucked badly enough to draft #2 overall behind an expansion team - McNabb has put that franchise into 5 conference Championships and 1 Superbowl. Plus has he 2 or 3 League MVPs. I'm guessing if Kurt Warner was good at multiplying, dividing, adding and subtracting we would have seen his Wonderlic Store and it wouldn't have added up to bagging groceries in the absence of football.

Aside from that, Marino wasn't drafted until the 23rd or 24th slot overall. For a guy that was labelled Summer School by that Wonderlic - he had about the BEST rookie year I've ever seen. DUMB people just don't get it that good that fast. Impossible.

I think Kenny Mayne said it best: "Football games aren't played on paper - they're played on TV."

- Tom F.