WONDERLIC SCORES
The Combine; players put through multiple tests involving their athletic skills (40 yard sprint, bench press, position drills etc), social skills (interviews and meetings) and mental skills (interviews and Wonderlic).
Every year the football community waits on those athletic results to be released (of which they are live on television) and then debates the merits of them endlessly and adjusts the stock of the prospect on how they performed. Team sources tell journalists how they feel certain prospects did in interviews. But the Wonderlic is not released to the public, it's held as a secret. We hear every detail imaginable about these future players; their measured accurate weight and height, their measured accurate speed, agility and strength, details of their past, their personal life story and upbringing, and then finally exactly how much money they're getting paid.
All these things are openly talked about and available. But the Wonderlic attempts to remain secret. We are encouraged to judge every aspect of their physical traits but must not know their mental ones. Of course in the Internet age secrets are harder to keep than ever before and most scores leak out. Contrary to almost every other bit of player information the Wonderlic is then often dismissed; “the Wonderlic is irrelevent, their's no evidence to support it predicts future performance”. Or something of the like. But is that really true? If so, why does the Combine continue to prescribe the test?
The Wonderlic seems to be most interesting and controversial around the Quarterback position. It's considered probably the hardest position to play in all professional sports. It requires many skills, both athletic and mental, to be successful. So I'm going to ask and attempt to answer the question that nobody wants to ask or attempt to answer; Are there trends from the QB Wonderlic scores?
What I've found tells me that yes, there is a correlation between Wonderlic scores and NFL Quarterback success in the recent history that I looked at.
Being that the Wonderlic seems to be a somewhat controversial issue and some people seem to just “know” that it's “irrelevant” and react dismissively or angrily towards it, I'd like to make this first point abundantly clear so please understand the what I'm trying to say here: I'm not saying that anyone who scores high on a Wonderlic will perform well as an NFL QB. What I'm saying is that it is definitely more likely that NFL QB's who are very successful in the New Millennium Era (year 2000 onwards) will have scored high on the Wonderlic skill test.
Please understand that paragraph before posting so the thread is not riddled with irrelevant posts like “but Alex Smith scored 40” or “but Drew Henson scored 42”. I'm not saying a certain type of intelligence is the only measure of success, quite obviously it's football, they also need to be athletic, tough, have a strong work ethic, can handle multiple pressure's both on and off field etc. What I am saying is that in the multitude of skills QB's need to be successful intelligence is absolutely one and an important one at that. While the Wonderlic might not be the perfect test it does seem to show some interesting results that can't just be dismissed.
Now to directly address another “Wonderlic irrelevent” comment. Many people use the “Dan Marino scored a 15 and Terry Bradshaw got a 15 so the Wonderlic's irrelevent” line but I don't think it holds up to scrutiny.
Marino did that in 1983 and Bradshaw in 1970. The game has progressed since then. It's like saying “John Hannah was an All-Pro Offensive Guard in 1985 at 6'2” 260 pounds and is in the Hall of Fame so today's preference for 300+ pounders is irrelevant”.
Times change. The QB position is substantially more complicated than it was 25 or 40 years ago. What I'm looking at here is what I'll call New Millennium QB's. That is guys who are successful in the year 2000 and beyond. You could also call this the Peyton Manning era because I think Peyton's approach (his endless calls and bluffs at the line in an attempt to outsmart the defense) and his prolific success from this has raised the standards of what is expected from QB's today and in the future (although looking briefly at the 90's data it's clear that the trend started before 2000 I just don't have the time to go through it all).
Before we start looking at the results here's an important refresher if you need it: the Wonderlic is an IQ type test out of 50 and the average score for all football players is 20. Separately the QB's average 24 and that is also the average of miscellaneous participants of various non-football professions as well.
Let's look at the statistically best QB's from last year:
#1 Phillip Rivers – 30.
#2 Chad Pennington – 25.
#3 Kurt Warner – ??
#4 Drew Brees – 28.
#5 Peyton Manning – 28.
#6 Aaron Rodgers – 35.
#7 Matt Schaub – 28.
#8 Tony Romo – 37.
#9 Jeff Garcia – 30.
#10 Matt Cassell – ??
#11 Matt Ryan – 32.
That's the statistical top third of NFL QB's from the 2008 season. All of them have solid to very good Wonderlic scores. 100% of the scores listed are well above the average football score of 20 and above the QB average score of 24. Together they average 30.3, well above both averages.
If the Wonderlic test score doesn't matter then why are the QB's who are over the average QB score dominating the league and the ones who are significantly under the average score and successful are, at least this year, non existent?
Just for fun let's look at new millennium Superbowl winning QB's. Again, some guys numbers couldn't be found, I'll list them but obviously will not include them in the statistical summary.
New Millennium Super Bowl Winners:
Kurt Warner – ??
Trent Dilfer – 22.
Tom Brady – 33.
Brad Johnson – ??
Tom Brady – 33.
Tom Brady – 33.
Ben Roethlisberger – 25.
Peyton Manning – 28.
Eli Manning – 39.
Ben Roethlisberger – 25.
So out of the 8 scores of new millennium Superbowl winners only 1 below average Wonderlic QB (Dilfer) has won a Superbowl and he had one of the greatest defenses of All-Time at his back.
88% of the winning Superbowl QB's have been above average on the Wonderlic and the average winning QB Wonderlic score is 29.8.
In fact all the multiple Superbowl winning Quarterbacks since 1990 have been well above the football average and clearly above the statistical average QB.
Troy Aikman, 3 Superbowls – 29.
Tom Brady, 3 Superbowls – 33.
John Elway, 2 Superbowls – 29.
Ben Roethlisberger, 2 Superbowls – 25.
Every single important statistical QB category I've looked at in recent history shows that the vast majority of successful Quarterbacks score well above the football average of 20 and also above the Quarterback average of 24. Again, if the Wonderlic test is meaningless then why is the list of successful NFL Quarterbacks in the new millennium era who scored low on the Wonderlic so very small. Where are the new millennium era low scoring Wonderlic Superbowl winning QB's? I can't find a single one of them.
Even if we take out all personal value judgments on a Quarterbacks play and just look at every NFL Quarterback who started the majority of the 2008 season, regardless of whether myself or anyone else thinks they're good, average or bad, the average Wonderlic score is well above the football average of 20 and above the QB average of 24.
#1 Phillip Rivers, 105.5 – 30.
#2 Chad Pennington, 97.4 – 25.
#3 Kurt Warner, 96.9 – ??
#4 Drew Brees, 96.2 – 28.
#5 Peyton Manning, 95.0 – 28.
#6 Aaron Rodgers, 93.8 – 35.
#7 Matt Schaub, 92.7 – 28.
#8 Tony Romo, 91.4 – 37.
#9 Jeff Garcia, 90.2 – 30.
#10 Matt Cassell, 89.4 – ??
#11 Matt Ryan, 87.7 – 32.
#12 Shaun Hill, 87.5 – 25.
#13 Seneca Wallace, 87.0 – 14.
#14 Eli Manning, 86.4 – 39.
#15 Donavon McNabb, 86.4 – 14.
#16 Jay Cutler, 86.0 – 26.
#17 Trent Edwards, 85.4 – 28.
#18 Jake Delhomme, 84.7 - ??
#19 Jason Campbell, 84.3 – 23.
#20 David Garrard, 81.7 – 14.
#21 Brett Farve, 81.0 – 22.
#22 Joe Flacco, 80.3 – 30.
#23 Kerry Collins, 80.2 – 30.
#24 Ben Roethlisberger 80.1 – 25.
#25 Kyle Orton 79.6 – 26.
#26 JaMarcus Russell 77.1 – 24.
#27 Tyler Thigpen 76.0 – 21.
#28 Gus Frerrotte 73.7 – ??
#29 Dan Orlovsky 72.6 – 26.
#30 Marc Bulger 71.4 – 29.
#31 Ryan Pitzpatrick 70.0 – 38.
#32 Derek Anderson 66.5 – 19.
The entire NFL starting QB average of 2008 was 26.6.
If there was evidence (and there might be I haven't looked it up) that, on average, every starting NFL RB (that is, a Runningback who's had success) on average timed faster than the average time of all college RB's (that is, Runningbacks who may or may not have had success) doing the 40 yard dash, most would say that's a clear indication that the speed measured by the Forty yard dash is a useful tool in measuring that important factor (a RB's speed) in relation to NFL success.
The NFL starting QB average of 26.6 is well above the football player average of 20 and above the QB average of 24. So the average of every starting NFL QB is a higher score than the average score of all college QB's taking the Wonderlic test. To me, that's a clear indication that the mental skill that the Wonderlic measures is a useful tool in measuring that important factor (a QB's intelligence or mental capacity) in relation to NFL success. When we're measuring the top tier of successful QB's in the league the correlation is even higher.
In conclusion; I'm not suggesting that a QB should be drafted solely on his Wonderlic score. The same way I wouldn't suggest drafting a RB solely on his Forty yard dash time. But measuring a RB's speed is very important as they make the jump from College to the much faster NFL game. In the same way, measuring a QB's mental skill is very important as they make the jump from College to the much more complicated, technical and challenging NFL game.
The Forty yard dash; not every Runningback who runs fast is going to be a success, but the most successful Runningback's are often the faster runners (2008 NFL Top 10 averages a very good Forty of 4.42).
A. Peterson 4.37, M. Turner 4.49, D. Williams 4.45, C. Portis 4.42, T. Jones 4.45, S. Slaton 4.45, M. Forte 4.44, C. Johnson 4.24, R. Grant 4.43, L. Tomlinson 4.46.
The Wonderic test; not every Quarterback who scores high on the Wonderlic is going to be a success, but the most successful Quarterback's often have the higher scores (2008 NFL Top 10 average a very good score of 30.1).
Phillip Rivers 30, Chad Pennington 25, Kurt Warner ??, Drew Brees 28, Peyton Manning 28, Aaron Rodgers 35, Matt Schaub 28, Tony Romo 37, Jeff Garcia 30, Matt Cassell ??
Do it yourselves in the thread; make a list of who you think are the Top 5 QB's currently in the NFL.
My Top 5 QB's would be;
Tom Brady – 33.
Peyton Manning – 28.
Drew Brees – 28.
Tony Romo – 37.
Phillip Rivers – 30.
They average a very high 31.2. Other people's lists may vary but I don't think anyones Top 5 will come in under the Quarterback average of 24.
It seems quite clear that the Wonderlic mental skill test is not at all irrelevant and in fact might be currently more prevalent than ever.
Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.
6 recs |
47 comments
Comments
Nice work
While I don’t think that the Wonderlic is a be-all-end-all test to determine if a QB will be successful, I agree that it is a helpful tool.
P.S. Was anybody else shocked by Eli Manning’s score of 39? Seriously, dumb face scored a 39?
"So you can’t stiff arm at all? What about the throat?"- Marion "Barbarian" Barber
by DC_fan on Mar 23, 2009 7:38 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It's only shocking if you can't get past the stereotypes
He looks and sounds like the classic goober. If you’ve ever listened when he speaks, you know he is a bright guy.
by StillHateTheGiants on Mar 23, 2009 8:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree that the game is substantially more complicated
today than it was 25 years ago, I don’t think thats true at all.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 23, 2009 7:40 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Sure it's more complicated.
It has to be. More advanced coverages. Schemes have developed both on offense and defense that just weren’t there when Terry Bradshaw played QB. I don’t know offhand but how many Tampa 2 or “46” defenses did Bradshaw play against?? Also, I’d say that QB’s throw it more often now than they used to on average. This is a passing league now. Romo averages over 33 passes per start. Bradshaw averaged less than 25.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 23, 2009 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tampa 2 and "46" defenses exsisted 25 years ago
Where do you think Dungy learned the Tampa 2 defense? Also, did you ever hear of the ‘85 Bears and Buddy Ryan, Rex Ryan’s dad? Yeah, the ’85 Bears made the “46” defense famous.
Also, don’t use Bradshaw as an example of throwing the ball less years ago, Steelers were always a running team first and foremost. Try looking at Air Coryell ( Chargers of ‘80s) and you’ll see Fouts threw the ball as much as any qb playing today.
Something tells me you’re not old enough to watch games played 25 years ago.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 23, 2009 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Something tells me that you must have thought I was criticizing Romo.
What does my age have to do with this?? I asked how many times did Bradshaw play against the “46” or Tampa 2. If the “46” was made famous by the ‘85 Bears and Bradshaw retired before that then he wouldn’t have played against it very often.
Where did Dungy learn the Tampa 2 from?? And how many times did the top QB’s of the day back then play against it?? Nothing changes the fact that this is more of a passing league than ever before and it’s more QB driven. As much as Dan Fouts threw the ball he still averaged less attempts per start than Romo has.
Anyway, I wasn’t arguing that the QB’s are necessarily smarter now than before. Simply that I believe the game is more complicated IMO for a QB.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 23, 2009 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't think that
I just simply disagree that the game is more complicated today. I’m assume you heard the saying, the more things change, the more they stay the same, well that applies to the NFL as well.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 23, 2009 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 23, 2009 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quarterbacks pre 1980s called their own plays -- all of them
well, all of them save Roger Staubach.
So today’s guys are really smarter?
by Rafael Vela on Mar 23, 2009 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
All of them save Roger Staubach and any Paul Brown QB
I should say.
by Rafael Vela on Mar 23, 2009 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's why QB development took so long
you were not put in the lineup until coaches were sure you could manage a game plan
on the fly and make adjustments yourself. Yeah, there’s more situational substitutions today and more personnel packages, but the QBs mental burden is a bit lighter. John Unitas had the playbook in his head and anybody who told him what to call got a killer glare and some choice words.
by Rafael Vela on Mar 23, 2009 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offenses were worse
You have to admit that having a complete understanding of the game plan in today’s NFL, which are much more complicated, is nearly impossible. Improvisation and recognition, especially with the much more complex defensive schemes, really is what differentiates today’s QB (and the evolution of the role) from the smashmouth days.
While not the end-all be-all, the Wonderlic shows the capacity of an individual to perform higher brain functions. Rarely does someone overcome this shortfall; usually through superior athletic talent (McNabb). Others will fail, even though scoring high, usually due to lack of toughness and fear (too many to count). You can be smart and still be a mental midget.
I’m not taking away from what Johnny U did. But he was the toughest SOB on the field and they ran the ball a lot more. What Peyton is doing is amazing, but he works harder than anyone in football.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 23, 2009 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Something I'd like to know
What were the size of the playbooks back in the ’70’s?? Were they comparable in size to today’s NFL offensive playbooks?? The playbooks are so big now that QB’s have to have hot plays written on a card on their arm.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 23, 2009 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Never said that they were smarter. I said that IMO the game is more complicated today.
I didn’t know guys like Greg Landry and Brian Sipe were calling their own plays. Really??
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 23, 2009 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, good post.
The only 2 QB’s on that list that I would say were good QB’s, that scored under the league average score, were Garrard and McNabb. They both scored a 14. Maybe they were cheating off each other?? LOL
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 23, 2009 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Luke, you're cherry picking, and deceptively so
You supply no context for your reasonings, and when you put them in context, they underwhelm.
Why didn’t you post Drew Henson’s score (42) or Quincy Carter’s score (30)? Why did they then fail? That’s been my point all along. QBs may have higher scores, but for every high scoring success you’ll find just as many high scoring busts. The Wonderlic is worthless at helping you week out one type from the other.
What’s more, the offensive skill positions average well under 20. Wide receivers average 17, as do fullbacks. Running backs average 16. So do defensive back seven players. Linebackers and safeties average 19. Corners average 18.
On the Wonderlic scale, this means they’re dummies. Entire classes of NFL players are dummies. And if the game is so much more complicated, then how can these sub-public-average dummies cope? If your point was correct, then scores would have risen over the years to match the increase in complexity. They have not, according to any data I’ve seen.
So what’s the predictive value? I stand by my point. The Wonderlic does not tell you who will be a good player and will be a poor one. You’ve offered nothing to dissuade me.
by Rafael Vela on Mar 23, 2009 11:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Didn't Dan Marino supposedly score......
a pretty low Wonderlic score? That pretty much says everything if you ask me
by texstar on Mar 23, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's how he chose his jersey number.
George Teague, Brock Marion, the Roy Williams-of-old: Where are you?
by Aaron Novinger on Mar 23, 2009 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is at the QB position
Athleticism can make up for a lot in the other skill positions but it can’t at quarterback or else you would see Troy Smith and Chris leak starting. The QB position has changed a lot in the past 25 years audibles are seen a lot more, and the dbs have become faster and stronger. Therefore Qbs need to lead throws and have a great knowledge of the playbook and where everyone is going to be.
by rioplayer7 on Mar 23, 2009 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rafael,
I don’t think you read the whole post.
I don’t know how I was cherry picking or deceptive. The list I used was every single qualifying starting QB from the 2008 season from NFL.com. I used the whole league. How’s that cherry picking and deceptive?
You ask why I didn’t mention Henson and Carter’s high scores and why did they fail but if you had read the post you would have noticed several times that I stated; "not every Quarterback who scores high on the Wonderlic is going to be a success, but the most successful Quarterback’s often have the higher scores". Again I stressed several times that the Wonderlic is not a sole judge of a QB’s ability (and I listed a bunch of other important traits that they need), but it seems to be a relevant judge of a particular part of an important ability. That’s why is the league dominated by QB’s who generally have higher scores.
"The Wonderlic does not tell you who will be a good player and will be a poor one. You’ve offered nothing to dissuade me."
Straw man Raf, I never said it did.
by Luke. on Mar 23, 2009 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Luke
I never read into your post that you were saying that the Wonderlic was a predictor of QB success. Only that there is a definite trend in the fact that most starting QB’s, especially the QB’s that we would consider “good”, have above average Wonderlic scores.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 23, 2009 7:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you missed the point of his post
He wasn’t saying theres an absolute causal relationship – that if a qb has a high wonderlic score, he’ll absolutely be successful. What he was saying is that statistics show that the qbs that have the most success passing the ball almost all have above average wonderlic scores. How many of the top 15 have below average wonderlic scores? 1 – McNabb. Who is more physically gifted than probably any qb on that list.
That list provides plenty of proof to me that while wonderlic scores do not determine success, to be a successful qb you need to be reasonably intelligent.
by foyesboys on Mar 25, 2009 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great post Luke
Thanks for doing all that research and sharing it with us. Excellent use of a FanPost.
by Dave Halprin on Mar 23, 2009 11:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Thank you Grizz,
I’m glad you and some others found it interesting.
by Luke. on Mar 23, 2009 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a complete list of QB Wonderlic Scores covering 1999 through 2006
http://www.unc.edu/~mirabile/Wonderlic.htm
Scroll through that and look at all the big time busts, the Cade McNowns, the Akili Smiths, the Patrick Ramseys, the J.T. Losmans, the Joey Harringtons, the Byron Leftwichs, the Kyle Bollers, the Rex Grossmans, the Charlie Fryes and the Matt Leinarts. Most of these guys are first round picks. All of them were 25 or over.
The point is about 75% of QB prospects score above 25. And if everybody scores high, what does the test tell you? It suggests you avoid guys with low scores, but hey, there are two very respectable guys with below average scores in Jason Campbell (23) and Derek Anderson (19).
The best QB drafted in that span, Donovan McNabb, scored a 14.
by Rafael Vela on Mar 23, 2009 11:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Derek Anderson respectable?
Did you see him play last year? His first year was a fluke for sure, maybe his wonderlic finally caught up to him…haha
by rioplayer7 on Mar 23, 2009 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's no reason
For those articles. Just list their names.
by brettgardner on Mar 23, 2009 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rafael,
Just naming a bunch of medium to high score busts proves nothing. I could list an equally big list of medium to low score busts too.
"The point is about 75% of QB prospects score above 25" – That is incorrect.
I looked at all 194 QB scores from 2006 to 1999 on the list you provided. The average Wonderlic score in that period was 25.4. That number simply supports what my Fanpost shows. Starting NFL QB’s on average score better than average on the Wonderlic.
"The best QB drafted in that span, Donovan McNabb, scored a 14" – That’s your opinion, personally I’d take Tom Brady (33).
Let’s take every incumbent QB starter from the 1999 to 2006 list you provided and look at their Wonderlic scores.
1999
Donovan McNabb – 14.
2000
Chad Pennington – 25.
Marc Bulger – 29.
Tom Brady – 33.
2001
Drew Brees – 28.
David Garrard – 14.
2003
Carson Palmer – 26.
Tony Romo – 37.
2004
Ben Roethlisberger – 25.
Philip Rivers – 30.
Eli Manning – 39.
2005
Jason Campbell – 23.
Aaron Rodgers – 35.
2006
Jay Cutler – 26.
From 2006 to 1999, out of the 14 QB’s who are their teams incumbent starter going into the 2009 season the average Wonderlic score is 29.2. Again this is much higher than the average and consistent with everything else I found in my original post.
by Luke. on Mar 23, 2009 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good job
Luke, sometimes I wonder if people read the entire article before they start posting their comments.
by DaBoys on Mar 23, 2009 2:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
lol
George Teague, Brock Marion, the Roy Williams-of-old: Where are you?
by Aaron Novinger on Mar 23, 2009 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+2
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 23, 2009 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+4
Very Fun post dont think it has a whole lot to do with how good qbs do but its real interesting to look at good post
by regaberto on Mar 23, 2009 8:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
excellent work....^5
This is what a fan post should look like.
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 23, 2009 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd like to proffer a different suggestion...
Perhaps a Wonderlic result has no bearing on how successful a QB will perform, but rather how well and quickly a QB can adapt to changing playbooks.
My speculation is just that, is it possible that a higher Wonderlic score allows players (QBs) to be more adaptable to a changing system. For example, in the comments above, it was referenced that Johnny Unitas knew the playbook cold and many QBs of the bygone era called their own plays. I have no evidence to suggest this (but I suspect that in the era of musical coaches, this is probably true), but is it likely that a higher Wonderlic score may allow QBs to have more success as new coaches are input and offensive playbooks not only expand, but change entirely.
After all, I believe there was probably a greater liklihood of head coaches having multiple starting QBs rather than QB having multiple head coaches.
by BVandy on Mar 23, 2009 9:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice post
I’ve never put that much thought into the Wonderlic, but it’s a compelling argument that it actually holds a great deal of weight in the NFL today. I’ve always been a fan of brain over brawn.
Also, I’ve heard Romo’s score was impressive, but of the list, I only saw two QBs that scored higher. Impressive indeed.
Epic Fail since 1985
by the red scare on Mar 24, 2009 1:28 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Two go in, one comes out
Anyone else read the back-and-forth between raf and luke and think “Thunderdome!”?
by Elberraco on Mar 24, 2009 2:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
LOL
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 24, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yo, the Wonderlic is hard!
There are some idiot proof questions, but there are some juggernauts too. I can see how a guy could spend 4 minutes on one question and end up getting an 11.
I gave up torture for Lent. Between now and Easter plagiarists will be humanely euthanized.
by Carl Shelton (GloryDayz88) on Mar 25, 2009 6:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Love your quotes...
and your new one does not disappoint.
by BVandy on Mar 26, 2009 12:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I took the Wonderlic
The toughest part is the amount of time you have compared with the length of some of the questions. The other part is how there are no topical breaks and you have to seamlessly transition from word definitions to geometry to reading comprehension back to algebra.
"Well, we didn't block real good but we made up for it by not tackling."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by 5Blings on Mar 27, 2009 11:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good article Luke
As much as the test is not the only evalution needed, it does give you more information to make an informed decision and the success shown is consistant.
by oldboysfan on Mar 30, 2009 4:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 




















