There was a study in 2009 that looked at 762 players and their Wonderlic scores and found no positive correlation between intelligence as measured on the Wonderlic scale and future NFL succcess. Their poster boys were Donovan McNabb and the 5 QB's taken in the 1st round in 1999. McNabb scored a 14 on the Wonderlic, the lowest score among the QB's involved and he had the longest most successful career. Daunte Culpepper scored an 18 and was second in line. 2010 Wonderlic scores of starting QB's in the NFL. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/sports/wonderlic-scores-of-2010-nfl-starting-quarterbacks/nL5Ky/ Find me a correlation between high score and success in that list or a negative impact between low score and failure.
You are absolutely correct. Intelligence is just a factor in success while talent and skill can trump that in football. I think they still give it to see which players might take longer in learning something, like the playbook for example. However, if you look at most upper tier QBs in todays NFL , Rogers, Manning, Wilson, Br*dy they probably have at least average IQ
I think it's a mix of a lot of different things and it's hard to correlate any of them individually. From a performance standpoint any of them could be the key factor but it's how they all mesh that makes the difference between greatness and mediocrity. Eli Manning scored a 39 on the Wonderlic. His closest comp in terms of performance at this stage of his career according to Pro.football.reference's similarity scores is Donovan McNabb who scored a 14.
Brandt thought Tebow was going to be a great NFL QB. Jimmy Johnson picked Troy Aikman and Norv Turner coached him up. Everybody has blind spots. Brandt could easily be a great personnel man who doesn't have a clue about QB's.
Aikman was the pick no matter who was deciding. but my point was the difference of opinion between this board and people who have held jobs in the league. I find it fascinating.
Yeah, but the notion that people in chatrooms who have, well, ZERO experience being more expert than someone who has actually held a job in the NFL seems ridiculous. Moreover, I think people in chatrooms discount how interdependent the QB position is. A QB could have exceptional skills but not have the personnel around him to allow those skills to be exhibited. And a QB could be "ok" in many areas but have the coaching, the continuity, the personnel around him to have his mediocre skills get greater results. A QB is one of eleven players, most of which need to play well for the QB to play well. It's not like basketball where one guy can take over a game solely through his own prowess.
Can you find me examples where Gil Brandt came out and said "You know QB X? He's dogs--t. Whatever you do, don't let him on your team"? Or is he like Gruden, where every player in the league is a "potential all-pro blue-chipper"? You know who I know doesn't think Geno is a likely pro-bowler? Every single front office in the league two years ago ... because every single front office in the league two years ago passed on him in the first round when they had an opportunity to draft him. And nobody in the NFL passes on someone they think is a likely pro-bowl QB.
As for whether the Jets had a great off season, it says here if Smith is the starter on Day one, the answer is no.
so every pick made after the first round is just a team taking a flier with no expectations of the player because he was passed over once?
Nope, just quarterbacks. A likely pro-bowl QB is worth 5 likely pro-bowlers at any other position. If a team thinks a QB prospect is a likely pro-bowler, they draft him at their earliest opportunity ... and it doesnt matter if they already have Joe Montana and Johnny Unitas and Peyton Manning already on the roster. In this instance? Everyone passed. EDIT: My point is ... if nobody thought he was a likely pro-bowler when he was drafted ... and nothing he has done since he has entered the league has suggested he is a likely pro-bowler ... why must we pretend he's a good prospect?
My point is he was a 3 year project coming out and there are still plenty of people who have scouted for a living that are still high on him. its interesting how they could have such an opinion and yet the majority of the board thinks he is done.
Every pick made after the first round is a guy who nobody was sure could play QB in the NFL. If a guy can clearly start at QB in the NFL he never gets out of the 1st round. Somebody needs a guy who can clearly start at QB in the NFL.
Okay, quick question: If Geno flames out this year and clearly and demonstrates he's not an NFL QB (just like the last two years), you'll have no problem declaring that I know more about NFL QB prospects than Gil Brandt (and "plenty of people who have scouted for a living"), right?
get a job with an nfl team and that wins 2 sb's while you are there and than i will weight your opinion over gil brandts deal?
Gil brandt and anybody else involved in scouting decisions are capable of making mistakes. I am not aware of anyone in the NFL who hits on every pick. So what is with these logical fallacies of appeals to authority? If all we're going to do here is say "Your opinion is wrong because some mucky muck on this or that team has a different opinion than yours" than I am not sure what the point is of having a message board like this. At least you should try and make the argument that IN THIS CASE so and so is right because, rather than just citing some opinion by someone who is hardly right all the time.
No thanks. I'm perfectly happy with my current job. Rich Kotite was an NFL head coach and he was a buffoon. Likewise Herm Edwards. Paul Hackett was the worst OC in the NFL and he served in that position for several teams. Some people work in an industry, yet suck at their jobs and really don't know what they are talking about. And some people know a ton about industries where they've never held a job. I judge people based on their assertions and track record, not on how good they were at politicking their way into a job. Gil Brandt says Geno is swell. I say Geno sucks on rocks (and have said that for 2 years). We should both be judged on our assertions.
I am judging on assertions and track records. i think thats obvious. like i said earlier. The gap in opinions is fascinating. i wonder why
Okay, what's Brandt's track record? He was a scout on two Super Bowl teams? That's terrific; he was in the league for 30 F-ing years and now has been OUT of the league for 25 years. Here's some other super-geniuses with multiple Super Bowl rings: Josh McDaniels Eric Mangini Charlie Weis Gary Kubiak Mike Heimerdinger Greg Robinson My point? Lots of idiots ride coattails. Even to championships. My secondary point? Lots of great NFL staff members (front office, coaching, scouting) eventually can no longer keep up with the changing times and rules of the league. Primary example? Jimmy Johnson. Built the best team of my lifetime in Dallas; couldn't get anything accomplished in Miami because of the salary cap and new free agency rules. My third point? Lots of people that work for the league and for league-associates (like ESPN) say every player (in every draft) has "potential" and is someone they "really like" and could "see as a starter/pro-bowler/champion" one day. Every player. This is because it's a lot easier to praise everyone than levy actual criticism or provide negative comments and watch your access to future players and college teams dry up immediately. Primary example? Gruden - who has managed to label every player who has been in the draft in the last 3 years a "potential pro-bowler". Secondary example? Joe Theismann - who, before Gruden, labeled every player who ever played on Monday Night Football "one of the best players in the league at his position". In fact, Theismann was so bad that he became the first sports broadcaster I ever had to turn the sound off on and listen to the radio instead. No, I don't deify people that work (or have worked) in the NFL. Plenty of them are imbeciles, just like every other industry in the world.
