Are bigger players dumber?

Richmond Cowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,666
Reaction score
3,351
Before you pile on hear me out.

We always hear about so and so "has always been too small, too slow, etc but has overcome with heart and smarts". Does anybody think that subscribing to Parcells' "world's biggest" philosophy has led us to line up huge physically imposing players that are dumb? Are smaller players by virtue of the fact that they have had to compensate for their physical shortcomings by being heady more effective? The first thing that comes to mind in our offensive line. They should be able to manhandle most opponents particularly in the running game however they have been largely ineffective this season. In addition to perhaps not playing as "smart" do larger more physical players tend to go through the motions more so because they have always been able to dominate their opponents? Ofcourse there are exceptionson both ends but just something I've been thinking about...
 

Hypnotoad

Active Member
Messages
4,649
Reaction score
0
The Steelers are probably just as big as we are, yet their defense is labeled as one of the smartest, most reactive defenses. I don't see the correlation between size and smarts.

http://i330.***BLOCKED***/albums/l406/RealityTVLounge/sizeisbrains.gif

Had to pile on lol.
 

Monster Heel

Benched
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
0
We keep overrating our talent. It's nowhere near as true on offense as it on defense. I'm more and more convinced by the game that Ware and Ratliff are the only defensive players on our roster that we can say are at the top of the league. And even they aren't without flaws. Ratliff's size is a hindrance at times, but his athleticism makes him what he is. Ware makes plays in the run game, but I see him swallowed more than I'd like to. I could be wrong, but I don't think there's anything fancy about him as a pass rusher either. He's pure speed. If he had Ellis' technique, there'd be no stopping him.
 

Temo

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,946
Reaction score
362
Hypnotoad;2419128 said:
The Steelers are probably just as big as we are, yet their defense is labeled as one of the smartest, most reactive defenses. I don't see the correlation between size and smarts.

http://i330.***BLOCKED***/albums/l406/RealityTVLounge/sizeisbrains.gif

Had to pile on lol.

The hypnotoad is accurate.

On a mostly irrelevant small-sample size basis, Ray Lewis is one of the smarter guys in the NFL, and also one of the biggest MLBs. Also, he might have killed a dude. So obviously off-field intelligence doesn't translate into on-field football smarts.
 

zeroburrito

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,722
Reaction score
975
webby75216;2419172 said:
Wonderlic Test





This assessment roughly corresponds to examples from Paul Zimmerman's The New Thinking Man's Guide to Pro Football. According to Zimmerman, examples of average scores for each position are:

not to drop a bomb, but the top 5 positions are usually white aren't they? not saying whites are smarter or anything, just saying whats obvious. that list probably has more to do with upbringing than size.
 

goliadmike

reader of rue
Messages
995
Reaction score
0

AsthmaField

Outta bounds
Messages
26,338
Reaction score
44,012
Saaaayy... you might be on to something here. Einstien was pretty small and if you look at most scientists, they're not big guys either.

Not to mention that I knew this jockey once who was smart as a whip. His wife was bigger than he was and sure enough... she wasn't as smart as he was.

Add all that up and I'd say size is THE most accurate guage of IQ that anyone has ever come up with! Just brilliant.

Gary Coleman for head coach! :rolleyes:

I can't believe this was even made into a topic.
 

tunahelper

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,549
Reaction score
2,010
jackrussell;2419185 said:
That's because there's no such thing as a 'rocket scientist'.​

Tell that to the journal?

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/

or

Here is a real live one you can contact:
Richard O. (Rick) Ballard - Rick.Ballard (At) msfc.nasa.gov
Liquid Rocket Propulsion Engineer
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
Space Transportation Directorate
Engine Systems Engineering Group
SSME/Fastrac/XRS-2200/X-34/X-33/PTA1
 

AsthmaField

Outta bounds
Messages
26,338
Reaction score
44,012
tunahelper;2419248 said:
Tell that to the journal?

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/

or

Here is a real live one you can contact:
Richard O. (Rick) Ballard - Rick.Ballard (At) msfc.nasa.gov
Liquid Rocket Propulsion Engineer
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
Space Transportation Directorate
Engine Systems Engineering Group
SSME/Fastrac/XRS-2200/X-34/X-33/PTA1

Maybe he meant there was no such thing as a 'rocket surgeon'?
 

jackrussell

Last of the Duke Street Kings
Messages
4,165
Reaction score
1
tunahelper;2419248 said:
Tell that to the journal?

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/

or

Here is a real live one you can contact:
Richard O. (Rick) Ballard - Rick.Ballard (At) msfc.nasa.gov
Liquid Rocket Propulsion Engineer
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
Space Transportation Directorate
Engine Systems Engineering Group
SSME/Fastrac/XRS-2200/X-34/X-33/PTA1

Show me the 'rocket scientist'. Rick Ballard is an engineer. An engineer is not a scientist.

From NASA's Space Place:

But what IS rocket science? Have you ever met a rocket scientist? Seen one on TV? No? Well, there's a good reason.

There is no such thing as a rocket scientist!

People who work on rockets are engineers, not scientists. Engineers design the rockets, build the rockets (or watch technicians do it), test the rockets, and launch the rockets. It is the same with spacecraft. Engineers also design and build the scientific instruments that go on the spacecraft.

Rocket science is an informal term for aerospace engineering.
 

AsthmaField

Outta bounds
Messages
26,338
Reaction score
44,012
jackrussell;2419386 said:
Show me the 'rocket scientist'. Rick Ballard is an engineer. An engineer is not a scientist.

From NASA's Space Place:

But what IS rocket science? Have you ever met a rocket scientist? Seen one on TV? No? Well, there's a good reason.

There is no such thing as a rocket scientist!

People who work on rockets are engineers, not scientists. Engineers design the rockets, build the rockets (or watch technicians do it), test the rockets, and launch the rockets. It is the same with spacecraft. Engineers also design and build the scientific instruments that go on the spacecraft.

Well... there's no such thing as a 'rocket surgeon' either. :p:

errr... maybe transformers have changed that though. :D
 

jackrussell

Last of the Duke Street Kings
Messages
4,165
Reaction score
1
AsthmaField;2419390 said:
Well... there's no such thing as a 'rocket surgeon' either. :p:

errr... maybe transformers have changed that though. :D

You mean Transformers are...real?:eek:
 

tunahelper

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,549
Reaction score
2,010
jackrussell;2419386 said:
Show me the 'rocket scientist'. Rick Ballard is an engineer. An engineer is not a scientist.

From NASA's Space Place:

But what IS rocket science? Have you ever met a rocket scientist? Seen one on TV? No? Well, there's a good reason.

There is no such thing as a rocket scientist!

People who work on rockets are engineers, not scientists. Engineers design the rockets, build the rockets (or watch technicians do it), test the rockets, and launch the rockets. It is the same with spacecraft. Engineers also design and build the scientific instruments that go on the spacecraft.

Rocket science is an informal term for aerospace engineering.

Salary.com gives plenty of info about the job.

I wonder who these folks are working for if there is no such field?

http://www.salary.com/careers/layouthtmls/crel_display_Cat10_Ser184_Par283.html

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You Do Have to Be a Rocket Scientist[/FONT]
clear.gif
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Listening to a rocket scientist talk about work is impressive, but tough for the scientifically challenged. It's not unlike having a conversation in a foreign language you barely know. Talk of black holes and exploding suns switches to gyroscopes and accelerometers before you've processed what you think you heard, let alone understood. But then, as the cliché suggests, it is rocket science.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Keoki Jackson and Bob Polutchko knew they'd become rocket scientists from early on. "I was born on July 22nd, 1969," said Jackson. "Mom used to talk about watching the Apollo moon landing from the maternity ward with me in her arms. Maybe that gave space exploration added significance, but I clearly remember being very affected when I saw pictures of the first drop-test landing from Space Shuttle in the eighth grade."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The connection was even more direct for Polutchko. "My father was an engineer on the Mars Viking Lander mission, so aerospace engineering was always a consideration," he said. Both Polutchko and Jackson earned advanced degrees in aeronautics and astronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I conducted before-and-after studies of astronauts on Shuttle missions to research how humans interact with the space environment," Jackson said, "examining how people adapt to zero gravity, how the brain takes sensory information and puts it together. Now I'm with Lockheed working on unmanned spacecraft for communications and global navigation. Specifically we handle overall performance of the satellite bus for clients like NASA, or the United States Air Force as well as commercial corporations."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Polutchko researched cooperative control of two spacecraft on rendezvous in orbit for his master's thesis. "Usually one spacecraft is passive and chases the other down. The new idea suggests that you may want to have both vehicles maneuvering simultaneously," Polutchko said. He went on to work as a guidance, navigation and control engineer on the Space Shuttle. Now he manages the development of guidance systems at the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory in Massachusetts.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"We're creating first-of-a-kind miniature inertial navigation systems using micro-electro mechanical systems inertial instruments," Polutchko said. "The use of Draper gyroscopes and accelerators has allowed us to shrink a guidance system that used to be the size of a basketball down to the size of a coffee cup. In addition, these instruments are extremely robust. We have successfully guided an artillery shell shot out of a navy gun at 6,500 Gs. That's a very stressful environment - considering that 8 or 9 Gs would knock out a human pilot."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No doubt becoming a rocket scientist is the ultimate thrill for the mathematically and scientifically inclined, but getting there requires enormous focus and intellectual application. While rocket science used to be the preserve of white males, recent enrollment of women and minorities in the MIT aeronautics and astronautics program has shown steep increases.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The rewards of the career are great," said Jackson. "It's something everyone can immediately respond to, especially kids. You definitely make a contribution, working on programs often critical to national defense or NATO. It's work that attracts very dedicated, often patriotic people who really understand the wider implications of what they're doing," he said.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The day-to-day business of aeronautics and astronautics can involve a lot of drudgework - testing components, assemblies and so on. But maintaining focus and accuracy is critical. "The stress factor can be severe," said Jackson, "especially where the rubber hits the road. Like when you're launching a new satellite and something goes wrong. These things cost between $150 million and $1 billion, and you're sitting there looking at streaming data, a big flurry of activity around you, wondering, 'If the numbers were really right, then why is the satellite pointing the wrong way?' It all comes down to that moment, working on the fly, trying to save a mission that took years to design and test. And if it just floats away, that's devastating." Float away! Surely not set loose in space? "Certainly. You'd be amazed at how many stray satellites are out there," Jackson said, chuckling.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Considering the feverish rewards for software engineers in the dotcom world, some might think rocket science is relatively underpaid. Entry-level salaries start around $40,000, and many new recruits have at least a master's degree and often take time out for a doctorate. Salaries rise as you go up the ranks but stabilize around the $125,000 mark. According to Polutchko, it's not about money, "although that's a factor, of course. This is an endeavor that attracts true believers, people with serious, long-term scientific objectives. It's all about the intellectual allure of solving really hard problems. And hopefully, seeing what you've worked so hard on actually fly." [/FONT]
 
Top