Beach....we are having a discussion correct? In that discussion we are using facts and logic to try and win an "argument". You said that the wonderlick is a test that is "worthless". I said that the test was not worthless and I posted a very large list of good to best ever QB's who did well on the wonderlick. You inturn posted a list of good to great QB's that did not do well on the wonderlick. I then countered by posting x5 times as many good to best ever QB's who did do well on the wonderlick......so, it's safe to say that roughly x5 times more good to best ever QB's do well on the wonderlick than they do poorly on the test. This proves that the wonderlick is not a useless test, because out of the best QB's over the last 10-15 years (and beyond) about 75% of them did well to above average on the wonderlick. On that list is 5 of the greatest QB's to ever play football.
Further more, you are calling tests worthless that every NFL team requests and spends a ton of time and money on. They would not go if id did not help them.....it's as simple as that. If the 40 didn't matter then every coach and their brother would not be out there with a stopwatch, and the wonderlick would not be given to players.
I agree in part. I agree this is a discussion. I disagree that I am trying to "win" an argument. Maybe you are, but I'm just sharing my opinion. If you're trying to win an argument then you might get a little frustrated.
I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to whether 40 times and the Wonderlic are accurate predictors of football speed and performance. I happen to think they mean nothing. You think they're important. That's called a difference of opinion.
Regarding the 40, I base my opinion on having played and watched the game. I have seen guys with really fast 40 times who can't play. And rarely does a player sprint 40 years in a straight line on the field anyway, other than special teams. And they don't run in shorts during the game. That's why I'd place more stock on the shuttle times than the 40. I'd actually make them strap up and do drills.
Regarding the Wonderlic, as I said, there are great players with terrible scores and terrible players with great scores. I doubt coaches actually make draft day decisions based on the Wonderlic.
Did you read the article I posted? Here is an excerpt:
First-year New York Jets coach Eric Mangini, a former assistant under Bill Belichick in New England, believes the test results can be deceiving.
"I've been around players that have had low Wonderlic scores that have been some of the smartest players I ever coached," Mangini said. "And that's always the difficulty of looking at that score and trying to define a player by that score. I can think of 4-5 guys who had what would be considered extremely low scores.
"If you get to know them, you're thinking: How could he possibly grade out at this? He's so much smarter than his score indicates. Then you have dumb smart guys. They've got great scores but they can't figure it out. They would do great if they had to write a paper before each game. But to go execute the information, they just can't get it. As smart as they are and as good as they are in the classroom, they can't put it into action."
Buffalo coach Dick Jauron agreed.
"I've seen terrific players that had low scores," he said. "I've seen players that can't tie their cleats that have high scores. They can't play."
