Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Quarterbacks and the Wonderlic

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Quarterbacks and the Wonderlic

    I'm looking for a bit of help here. I recently became interested in the correlation between quarterback performance and their wonderlic score; in other words, do quarterbacks who get higher scores on their wonderlic perform better in the NFL?

    I've compiled the wonderlic scores of 32 quarterbacks drafted between the years of 1999 and 2005 who have, at some point in their careers, had the opportunity to be starting quarterbacks (the one exception, Aaron Rodgers, will probably be removed from final analysis). In order to plot quarterback's success rate vs. their wonderlic scores, I needed to grade each quarterback's career performance. This is where I need your help. I'm looking to assess the overall value of a quarterback's career, not just evaluate his present play. So, although Daunte Culpepper and Donovan McNabb may not get the highest marks for their more recent play, I would expect them to grade relatively high based on their ultimate career play. Younger quarterbacks I have, however, had to project how well they will do with the rest of their careers.

    I will post the grades that I have preliminarily given each player here (please note that any grades are subjective and tend to show some bias). Please try to be as objective as you can when you assess these grades and not post anything extreme (such as Rex Grossman = 0, a very likely possibility).

    Daunte Culpepper 85
    Donovan McNabb 92
    Aaron Brooks 80
    Tom Brady 100
    Marc Bulger 89
    Michael Vick 80
    Drew Brees 89
    David Garrard 85
    Carson Palmer 92
    Tony Romo 92
    Eli Manning 92
    Ben Roethlisberger 92
    Phillip Rivers 85

    Tim Couch 59
    Akili Smith 50
    Cade McNown 50
    Quincy Carter 62
    David Carr 62
    Joey Harrington 65
    Kyle Boller 60
    Rex Grossman 70
    Charlie Frye 60

    Chad Pennington 73
    Josh McCown 73
    Byron Leftwich 75
    Aaron Rodgers 74
    Jason Campbell 77
    Kyle Orton 71
    J. P. Losman 75
    Matt Schaub 77
    Alex Smith 75

  • #2
    just wondering, hopefully you know, when did they first to test guys using the wonderlic?



    Sig thanks to Bonekrusher

    Comment


    • #3
      Orton > Grossman? And I'd grade Carr higher than Harrington
      Josh McCown seems kinda high for his lack of burn.
      Bring Wesley Woodyard back home Tom.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by neko4 View Post
        just wondering, hopefully you know, when did they first to test guys using the wonderlic?
        I don't know that...the data I used only went back to 1999, although I know that the Wonderlic was used at least in 1998 and almost surely before then.

        Another interesting note: the average QB score for the wonderlic was 24, according to Wikipedia, while the highest average score for any position, Offensive tackle, was 26.

        Comment


        • #5
          don't doubt it, Orton is better then Grossman. he's may not be "sexy", but he isn't "bad rex" either

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by FizzyFalcons View Post
            Orton > Grossman? And I'd grade Carr higher than Harrington
            Josh McCown seems kinda high for his lack of burn.
            I originally divided the quarterbacks into 3 categories (indicated by the breaks in the text) of Hit, Miss, and Question Mark. Orton, due partially to my lack of watching him, and partially to the fact that he hasn't started that many games, ended up in the question mark category, as did McCown. Those guys may actually may be completely thrown out the window in final analysis, since they sort of break the continuum in terms of grades...we'll see.

            And just so you all know, I'd appreciate honest numerical grades if you can...I may end up compiling the responses you guys give me to calculate final grades.

            Comment


            • #7
              Just a question, how do you define the scale? It might be best to put a definition/description on the various ranges in the grading scale. (i.e. what does it mean to be graded at 92? How much of a difference is there between a 95 and an 85? An 85 and a 70? etc)

              Oldie but a goodie.

              Comment


              • #8
                where are wonder scores

                Comment


                • #9
                  here is a site with QB wonderlic scores
                  http://www.macmirabile.com/Wonderlic.htm
                  JORDYZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    wonderlic really IMO is worthless.
                    you don't need a study to know that. you just have to take it and then check out the football relevance to it..
                    http://i38.tinypic.com/2aj2s7t.jpg
                    For a good time call (303) 499-7111.whitspacsig by steel man

                    United: "I actually went to the college I root for"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      you should perhaps develop a points system for things to better help you determine the score that a quarterback receives... in other words, give a certain number of points for a superbowl win, for TD passes, yards, negative for interceptions ect...

                      I don't think it would be that difficult to do, and would definitely help you out as far as making these numbers less arbitrary. You would obviously have issues with the younger guys, but that is to be expected regardless.


                      Sig by me... Hold the applause.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Average season production wouldn't be a bad standard, but I don't really think that vague estimation is so bad for something like this. That said, I think you'll find that the wonderlic and success have little correlation.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Paranoidmoonduck View Post
                          Average season production wouldn't be a bad standard, but I don't really think that vague estimation is so bad for something like this. That said, I think you'll find that the wonderlic and success have little correlation.
                          getting an 8 on a wonderlic might mean your as dumb as a rock, but amazing at football.
                          http://i38.tinypic.com/2aj2s7t.jpg
                          For a good time call (303) 499-7111.whitspacsig by steel man

                          United: "I actually went to the college I root for"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Big ben and Eli Manning should be higher than Romo, they have both won a superbowl! Romo should be about 90 IMO.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              hahaha Chris Leak scored an 8,....no wonder he sucks..

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              Debug Information