If true this means Cutler is gonna go #1 with us moving into the top spot to select him. I think Mangini has his heart set on Cutler and will move up to get him if need be.
the last thing the NFL wants is for one of their top three picks this year to be perceived as a dummy...... do not be surprised that they get creative with this thing and he re-takes it or it is labelled void. it is an absolute embarrasment to pro-sports and academia to have these guys making mucho bucks that cannot tell you july is the 7th month in any given year.... jil
That's so meaningless. I can find you a lot of successful QBs that scored well, and a lot of busts that tested terribly. Cherry-picking scores to prove a point is worthless.
Gore has a known, diagnosed learning disabilty. The kid had to bust his butt to graduate, and he's damn proud of the fact that he did it. I take it this was directed at AL?
http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm COMBINE OFFICIAL SCREWED UP VINCE'S WONDERLIC A league source tells us that Texas quarterback Vince Young indeed scored a six on the Wonderlic test on Saturday -- but that the guy who graded the test screwed the thing up when totaling the number of right answers. Combine officials, we're told, have re-scored the Young's test and the test of all other players who took it in his group. NFL teams will get the official Wonderlic results for all players later in the week. On Saturday, there was widespread chatter at the combine that Young got only six out of 50 questions right on the standard test used by the NFL to gauge player intelligence. The Nashville Tennessean corroborated the reports of the low score in its Sunday edition. Whether the actual number was 6 or 50 or something in between remains to be seen. It's a major embarrassment, in our view, for the folks who put on the combine. Because it's inevitable that this information will get out (indeed, Pro Football Weekly got their mitts on the full Wonderlic results from the 2005 combine), it's critical that the folks charged with grading the tests get it right. It's even more important that the scores are right before the information is leaked. We have a feeling that this one could get interesting. Stay tuned.
JABBA now the news is saying thaperson screwed up on grading YOUNG's test! That is why I refuse to jump on the anti-Young bandwagon. Lets wait for all the facts to come out!
Except his point was there is no correlation, so he proved the point by showing a distribution of scores. So let me get this straight, rather than prove a point with research, you would rather we just...what...use escalating size of text? Angrier words? Insults? I'm sorry to dissappoint you, most of us here are more mature than that and would rather have intelligent discussions.
How is that contributing to an intelligent discussion? Showing that there are guys who have been successful QBs while bombing the Wonderlic doesn't prove there isn't a correlation. You call that research? I call that cherry-picking stats and obscuring any point he possibly could have had. Did anyone say no one has ever scored poorly and been a good QB? Did anyone say all smart people are good QBs? Honestly.
Er, how do you not see it? He showed a range of QBs with high scores that didn't go on to become great QBs, and several QBs with low scores that went on to become great QBs, and basically everything in the middle. He didn't "cherry-pick" so much as select a cross-representation of the sample data. He then linked you to the entire database for you to check the scores yourself. The lack of correlation is in the range. Honestly, it looks like you're purposely refusing to understand this.
Well, if someone was real bored, they could research all of the QB's who's ever taken the Wonderlic test and find out their scores, then somehow quantify their NFL success, and then plot the two on a scatterplot and we can actually see how strongly the two are correlated and put an end to this argument. However, I don't think anyone is ever gonna be that bored so why don't we all just agree that there is probably some correlation but that exceptions are not uncommon.
Actually, he did cherry-pick. He found lousy QBs who scored well on the Wonderlic, and good QBs who bombed. You want me to show good QBs who scored well and lousy QBs who scored poorly? Will that "prove" there is a correlation?
I was actually thinking their may have been a correlation that scrambling QBs mostly don't score well, but however the reason I picked those players was to prove that QBs with bad results can produce very well and that QBs with great results can turn out to be lousy, because pointing out that some QBs that are great QBs that score well and vice-versa should have been assumed, however I did note that most of the highest scorers were all just QBs were mainly flops from the smarter schools. And yes I would have been too lazy to look for everyone, especially since it is a pain in the ass to find that data.
If Young falls down low in the draft its because people start realizing he is a top 5 athlete not a top 5 QB
