View Single Post
Old 04-19-2013   #26
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
 
The Pencil Neck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Age: 52
Posts: 17,985
Rep Power: 253530 The Pencil Neck is a quality contributor and well respectedThe Pencil Neck is a quality contributor and well respectedThe Pencil Neck is a quality contributor and well respectedThe Pencil Neck is a quality contributor and well respectedThe Pencil Neck is a quality contributor and well respectedThe Pencil Neck is a quality contributor and well respectedThe Pencil Neck is a quality contributor and well respectedThe Pencil Neck is a quality contributor and well respectedThe Pencil Neck is a quality contributor and well respectedThe Pencil Neck is a quality contributor and well respectedThe Pencil Neck is a quality contributor and well respected
Default Re: The Wonder(lic) of top WR prospects and other pass catcher tidbits

Quote:
Originally Posted by mussop View Post
The wonder lick is a wast of time when it comes to the NFL.

Dr. Brian Hoffman co-authored a 2009 study with Brian D. Lyons in collaboration with California State University (Fresno) and Towson University. The Lyons Study was presented at the 20th and 21st annual Meetings of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. This 43-page study of 762 NFL players over three draft classes comes to two distinct conclusions:

1) NFL performance on the football field was only found to have a statistically significant correlation with Wonderlic scores among two positions: Tight end and defensive back. Correlations were statistically negligible across all other positions. (Yes, even QB.) In other words, with the exception of TEs and DBs, a player's Wonderlic score (high or low) gave no predictable projection for their eventual productivity as an NFL player. It was worthless.

2)Tight ends and defensive backs showed a (significant) negative correlation.
Interesting but that doesn't totally repudiate what I said, though.

If you're looking for a pure correlation between the score and the performance, then you're expecting higher scores to out-perform lower scores. And that's not what I said.

There should be a lower limit beneath which performance should tail off. Over that limit and I'd expect performance to flat line as other factors came into play and that's not really at-odds with what that article said. AND I'd expect different teams approaches/systems to prefer smarter players while some teams approaches/systems would prefer more instinctive players.

Use some other attribute as an example: 40 time. Everybody pretty much agrees that the 40 time is bad indicator of a good football player. You can be the fastest guy in the world but if you can't catch, you're not going to be a very good receiver. You can be the fastest guy in the world, but if you can't tackle, you're not going to be a very good linebacker.

But there's a lower limit. If you're too slow, it doesn't matter how good your hands are. If you're too slow, it doesn't matter if you're a great tackler. Because once you're below that speed limit, you're useless. If your speed is just above that limit, however, and you're good to go.

It's the same with intelligence. If you're just too damned stupid, you're performace is going to tail off. But as long as your intellect is above a certain point, you're good to go and other attributes become your limiting factor.
__________________
Adoptee: #55 - Chris Myers.
The Pencil Neck is offline   Reply With Quote