NFL 2011-2012 Off-Season Pre-Draft Catch-All

The Wonderlic is a data point, not a predictor in and of itself.

Just as scouts don't use the broad jump results as the single indicator of athletic ability, nobody uses the Wonderlic as a singular indicator of intelligence.

The Wonderlic, as I understand it, is typically taken later in the day, after the athletes have spent all day doing the physical tests. It might be better thought of as an indicator of mental function when fatigued and stressed as opposed to a pure intelligence test.

If Morris Claiborne does indeed have dyslexia or a learning disability, it would be little surprise that he's less in control of his reading ability at the end of a day when he's been run ragged.

A Wonderlic score being really low isn't necessarily meaningful in and of itself. But when someone does score inexplicably low, it's something that you as a scout or personnel guy need to get to the bottom of. It's not a deal breaker, but you need to be able to explain it. Dyslexia doesn't mean the guy can't operate in an NFL environment, but it's something you need to know is there and be prepared to accommodate. Much like Claiborne did for himself to get through college, using tutors and all to help him with his challenges.

I don't know that scores that are anywhere in the meaty part of the bell curve are necessarily all that important in their differences. They may simply indicate the level to which a particular player has been test prepped. (Which would be one potential reason why professors can't find much of a link between scores and performance.) The only interesting results are ones exceedingly high or exceedingly low.

garion333 wrote:

Is there a firm correlation between a low Wonderlic and off the field incidents?

Or is that only a concern with black players?

I'm half kidding with that second question. I'm certainly not calling you, Jay, racist. I feel like there might be some racial overtones to this whole thing. Again, not coming from what you're writing, Jay, but from the whole topic and the way the internet et al has responded.

I can see that. I tried to find Ryan Leaf's score, hoping that would provide a balance, but he scored a 27, and was a still a total douche. Jeff George had a 10 and Janikowsi a 9. George was a coach killer, while Mr. Date Rape Drug Kicker thrived in Oakland.

I can see how this has a lot of racial overtones, though.

There are very few scores below 10. Frank Gore had a 6, and I would add him to my team.

As I said, it is just another data point.

Not to go all P&C, but there are racial overtones to lots of standardized tests, or socioeconomic overtones that bleed heavily into race.

That being said, the real problem here is Bus Cook is apparently an incompetent enough agent that he didn't sit his top-five draft pick down for 20 minutes to have him run through a Wonderlic or two, just to verify things.

I'll bring up Front Office Football again while we're discussing Wonderlic. There use to be an Avoid INT rating for QBs. Clearly, people would draft almost exclusively based on that rating. Now, the rating is hidden.

What the community has determined is that a QB who has low intelligence (which you are told by scouting them) and a high Wonderlic score has a high hidden Avoid INT rating. Basically, all of their intelligence (since they're stupid) went to football acumen, which is why they avoid throwing interceptions.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

That being said, the real problem here is Bus Cook is apparently an incompetent enough agent that he didn't sit his top-five draft pick down for 20 minutes to have him run through a Wonderlic or two, just to verify things.

Vince Young's agent, too.

Possibly one could replace the Wonderlic test with an, "Is your agent Bus Cook?" yes/no question.

Except he has dyslexia, so in his case at least, the test is very close to meaningless. I doubt that an inability to solve for x in a geometry word problem will translate to off the field problems.

Some people just aren't good test takers, especially with time pressure.

I guess my question would be if it is such an issue, how did he make it to the end of college? That may be another thread.

karmajay wrote:
Except he has dyslexia, so in his case at least, the test is very close to meaningless. I doubt that an inability to solve for x in a geometry word problem will translate to off the field problems.

Some people just aren't good test takers, especially with time pressure.

I guess my question would be if it is such an issue, how did he make it to the end of college? That may be another thread.

I think the common practice with dyslexics is to provide test readers and probably remove time restrictions on the exams.

karmajay wrote:
Except he has dyslexia, so in his case at least, the test is very close to meaningless. I doubt that an inability to solve for x in a geometry word problem will translate to off the field problems.

Some people just aren't good test takers, especially with time pressure.

I guess my question would be if it is such an issue, how did he make it to the end of college? That may be another thread.

He didn't make it through college, he's left early (junior). But your question still stands, of course.

I found this article on how dyslexia might be dealt with at the college level.

NSFW

Wow. I need a shower after listening to that.

I don't know how outside the norm that is but that guy should never coach again.

Sounds like my D-line coaches in high school and college.

bighoppa wrote:

Sounds like my D-line coaches in high school and college.

I'm curious; did they say "We're gonna go out there and hit them in the mouth and make them pay" or did they say "we're gonna blow out his ACL!" There seems to be a pretty big difference between the two.

Wow. So Williams wasn't just rewarding players after the fact for opportune knockout blows, he was *obsessed* with inflicting injury, so much so that he made it the dominant theme of his pre-game speeches. What with all the talk of his complex (Saints fans have often said overly complex) schemes, I'd have expected him to devote his pre-game speech to reinforcing key tactical details: coverages, packages, playcalls, things to watch out for, etc. That he was comparatively uninterested in these may help explain why the Saints defense was so inconsistent throughout his tenure.

In that speech, his constant, almost pleading attempts at psychologically manipulating the players into doing his bidding betray his awareness of his own sliminess. "You're here for a reason [...] We hope we picked the right person, that won't apologize [for what we do...] A mind troubled by doubt cannot focus on victory." Etc. His implications are that whoever doesn't inflict injury for Williams will disappoint the coaches' trust, and that anyone who harbors second thoughts endangers the success of the team. His methods are transparent and sad.

Hell yeah, the Ravens signed Ladarius Webb to a 6-year contract.

And Ed Reed's whining about making over $7 mil this year. Such a hard life.

Lobo wrote:

That he was comparatively uninterested in these may help explain why the Saints defense was so inconsistent throughout his tenure.

And Washington, and Buffalo, and Tennessee...

In 15 years as a defensive coordinator, he had 6 defenses rank in the top 10, and 6 more rank in the bottom 12.

His success as a defensive coordinator has always been short-term, briefly lived. He'll crank out a top 10 defense and then they'll plummet back down the following season.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
bighoppa wrote:

Sounds like my D-line coaches in high school and college.

I'm curious; did they say "We're gonna go out there and hit them in the mouth and make them pay" or did they say "we're gonna blow out his ACL!" There seems to be a pretty big difference between the two.

Nothing that specific, but 'Hit em in the mouth', 'leave em looking out their ear-hole', 'better carry them out on a stretcher', 'get him a body bag', and 'sweep the leg' were all popular. Okay, maybe not the last two, but there were other exhortations to cause injury.

I was never a part of a pep speech that involved causing concussions on purpose. Maybe my coaches were just too nice or something, but while there was definitely exaggerated language about hitting people and whatnot, they certainly never talked about hurting people in the way Gregg Williams did.

I'm expecting to see a lot of folks' who thought the league went too far to change their tune now. And I'd love to hear what any of y'all here are thinking right now.

I'm thinking his indefinite suspension should remain indefinite, and that Sean Payton should be laughed out of Goodell's office during the appeal. I reiterate my thought that Drew Brees looks like a disingenuous doofus now, and I hope he loses his position in the players' union.

Very on-point article on profootballtalk.nbcsports.com .

bighoppa wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
bighoppa wrote:

Sounds like my D-line coaches in high school and college.

I'm curious; did they say "We're gonna go out there and hit them in the mouth and make them pay" or did they say "we're gonna blow out his ACL!" There seems to be a pretty big difference between the two.

Nothing that specific, but 'Hit em in the mouth', 'leave em looking out their ear-hole', 'better carry them out on a stretcher', 'get him a body bag', and 'sweep the leg' were all popular. Okay, maybe not the last two, but there were other exhortations to cause injury.

I think there's a really specific difference between that sort of thing, which is really just various ways of saying "hit 'em hard", and specifically calling out a WRs ACL to be blown out and to target the head of the other team's RB. That difference in language is pretty huge to me.

I mean, this is a guy who's loudly advocating trying to cause significant, life-altering injuries to players. It's not just your usual "hit 'em hard". I can't imagine there are many coaches out there getting more specific than saying "hit the offensive player really hard" in a variety of inspiring ways. Williams was really, really specific, and that's what's so damn shocking here. I mean, he's calling out somebody's ACL. That's really disgustingly scummy.

I don't think there's a chance in hell any of the Saints' appeals work, and Payton's not getting his season back. I also wonder what this will do to the thinking of the membership of the NFLPA when it comes to player discipline. Chris Kluwe is just raging against Williams on Twitter; I wonder what significant number of players in the league share his level of annoyance.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I think there's a really specific difference between that sort of thing, which is really just various ways of saying "hit 'em hard", and specifically calling out a WRs ACL to be blown out and to target the head of the other team's RB. That difference in language is pretty huge to me.

Agreed with this. There's pumped-up machismo, and then there's rattling off a hit list by name, jersey number, and body part.

IMAGE(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s149/MilkmanDanimal/Nixon.jpg)

Fedaykin98 wrote:

I'm expecting to see a lot of folks' who thought the league went too far to change their tune now. And I'd love to hear what any of y'all here are thinking right now.

I'm thinking his indefinite suspension should remain indefinite, and that Sean Payton should be laughed out of Goodell's office during the appeal. I reiterate my thought that Drew Brees looks like a disingenuous doofus now, and I hope he loses his position in the players' union.

Very on-point article on profootballtalk.nbcsports.com .

A man encourages players of a violent sport to be violent. I am still of the opinions that the actions of the league are far more political than punitive, rooted in Goodell's vision of how the league should be viewed rather than fact.

I don't think what Williams did is what a man does. It's what a piece of s*** does.

Again, most of us here disagree with a lot of what Goodell has done. However, any good CEO doesn't, shouldn't, and with any practicality can't tolerate his subordinates deliberately trying to inflict career-ending injuries on other subordinates.

It's all in the intent. Play hard, play until the whistle, finish your tackles, that's all good. Try to inflict irreparable harm on another player ("player" as in "of a game"), you're the scum of the earth.

I'm with bighoppa, I didn't hear anything shocking in that. Calling out a dude's ACL is a little stout, but other than that it sounded like my high school DC before a big game. Maybe a little more extreme but not that over the top.

I get that the NFL cannot tolerate paying for taking out players but I don't know, hard for me to get outraged over that audio.

Calling out the ACL would be a little stout out of context. We had reports of players coming back from injury and we were always given that information. "77 just had his knee scoped. Be sure to check it for him." "QB is wearing rib pads after last game, make sure he gets good use out of em." Stuff like that. My father-in-law was a RB in HS back in the early 70s. His knees got targeted constantly, and eventually got blown out, costing him a scholarship chance.

My experiences were all back in the 80s and early 90s, though. Things have changed drastically since then - not only at the lower levels, but at the professional level also. What may have been ignored when we were playing ball is heavily frowned upon now. In a lot of ways, I'm glad. But part of me still misses the days of true smash-mouth football.

bighoppa wrote:

Calling out the ACL would be a little stout out of context. We had reports of players coming back from injury and we were always given that information. "77 just had his knee scoped. Be sure to check it for him." "QB is wearing rib pads after last game, make sure he gets good use out of em." Stuff like that. My father-in-law was a RB in HS back in the early 70s. His knees got targeted constantly, and eventually got blown out, costing him a scholarship chance.

My experiences were all back in the 80s and early 90s, though. Things have changed drastically since then - not only at the lower levels, but at the professional level also. What may have been ignored when we were playing ball is heavily frowned upon now. In a lot of ways, I'm glad. But part of me still misses the days of true smash-mouth football.

You are right about things changing. In the early-mid 80s when I played HS and college ball, head-to-head contact was not only encouraged but required. You hit the guy in the head. With your head. Why are you wearing a Riddell anyways?
Today football is safer but to my mind that is a misnomer, football was never meant to be safe.

Yikes Richardson's tweets today are definitely looking like he will be a buc especially since he was seen at lunch thus week with the new coach.

karmajay wrote:

Yikes Richardson's tweets today are definitely looking like he will be a buc especially since he was seen at lunch thus week with the new coach.

This seems to be one of this draft's foregone conclusions.

Even though he's at the devalued position of running back, some think he's the best talent in the entire draft.

And the new Bucs coach wasted zero time calling out Blount on his fumble fingers.

At this point, I'd be shocked if Richardson isn't the pick for the Bucs.

SHUT YOUR DIRTY WHORE MOUTHS. ALL OF YOU.

Elite corners are very hard to come by. Passable RBs are not. If Schiano's defensive philosophy is, in fact, to play a more attacking style of defense, that increases further the need for a corner to be able to help. Take the damn corner, pick up a back later. It's not that hard of a concept.

If they take Richardson, I will pee on my TV. I may travel to your homes and pee on your TVs.