Reggie Nelson scores a 12 on Wonderlic Test

[Da Hammer]

the wonderlic means very little to a sport like football. All i care about is the player being able to react quickly and for them to be confident and trust their instincts

 

[AbeBeta]

I don't put much stock in the Wonderlic.

you should put stock in it like any of the measures taken at the combine. it is one measure - it is all about context. if QB plays in a simple offense and the Wonderlic shows he's slow then it is a concern. if he played at USC in a pro style O -- then you've got a better measure of his smarts there.

I don't know a ton about Nelson but if he showed he could get guys in the right position in college then the Wonderlic doesn't matter -- if that wasn't among his responsibilities -- then I'd be worried

 

[AbeBeta]

the wonderlic means very little to a sport like football. All i care about is the player being able to react quickly and for them to be confident and trust their instincts

hmm. NFL teams obviously value the test. It isn't all about "instincts" -- isn't that why Derek Ross isn't in the league any more?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

hmm. NFL teams obviously value the test. It isn't all about "instincts" -- isn't that why Derek Ross isn't in the league any more?

Ross isnt in the NFL becuase he wouldnt listen to coaching. Attitude issues are apples and oranges to this.

 

[TOOMBS]

Most well-educated people know that a low score on an IQ test is not an accurate indicator of a person's intelligence.

 

[Hostile]

you should put stock in it like any of the measures taken at the combine. it is one measure - it is all about context. if QB plays in a simple offense and the Wonderlic shows he's slow then it is a concern. if he played at USC in a pro style O -- then you've got a better measure of his smarts there.

I won't change my mind on this. I put no stock in it at all. Not only has it never been an accurate predictor of NFL success I put the same doubts on all standardized tests that supposedly measure a level of intelligence. They are worthless.

When we were kids our school gave us IQ tests. My brother scored well above genius levels and was the highest scoring student in our school. I'm sorry, I love my brother, but he is nowhere near a genius. In fact, he's an idiot. I am not saying that to be hateful to him. If you were to ask him, he'd tell you the same thing.

I don't know a ton about Nelson but if he showed he could get guys in the right position in college then the Wonderlic doesn't matter -- if that wasn't among his responsibilities -- then I'd be worried

Like I agreed in response to Fuzzy, when you look at the films this kid is in position to make plays.

 

[kevwun]

There is no misconception created by Longhorn fans. Do a google search. You will see that he ended up with a 16. Someone leaked that he scored a 6 and everyone ran with it and it turned out to not be true.

 

[AbeBeta]

Most well-educated people know that a low score on an IQ test is not an accurate indicator of a person's intelligence.

If so, then those individuals know NOTHING about intelligence testing. Good intelligence tests are both reliable and valid indicators of what they are measuring.

 

[AbeBeta]

I won't change my mind on this. I put no stock in it at all. Not only has it never been an accurate predictor of NFL success I put the same doubts on all standardized tests that supposedly measure a level of intelligence. They are worthless.

Accurate does not mean "applies to every single person" or "you can't find a counter example" - these tests do better than simply guessing - and that is "accurate"

When we were kids our school gave us IQ tests. My brother scored well above genius levels and was the highest scoring student in our school. I'm sorry, I love my brother, but he is nowhere near a genius. In fact, he's an idiot. I am not saying that to be hateful to him. If you were to ask him, he'd tell you the same thing.

Again, you can't invalidate a test b/c ONE person doesn't score where you think they should. They aren't going to be exactly right for every single person -- but if you examine how they perform over EVERYONE measured, you'd find they are very accurate.

Also, i think you confuse "IQ" with other forms of intelligence -- some intelligence tests focus on issues like abstract reasoning -- that's a great measure of .... abstract reasoning but shouldn't be taken to reflect intelligence in any other area. The tests aren't bad - interpretations of the tests are often made by unqualified individuals who don't recognize the limitations of the measures.

 

[TOOMBS]

If so, then those individuals know NOTHING about intelligence testing. Good intelligence tests are both reliable and valid indicators of what they are measuring.

Wow, how wrong could one person be?

There are factors, such as; Education, Culture, Learning Disabilities *hint* Dislexia will cause a much lower test score no matter how intelligent the person.

Example: You could be the smartest person in the history of humanity but still do poorly on an intelligence test if your education was lacking........as in: You can't read, you read poorly, you have never taken an IQ test before *it is proven that practice with taking IQ tests result in better scores*, learning disabilities, the way the brain hemispheres interact *as in, an autistic person is a genius in one area and idiotic in others..... Rainman*. There are varying degrees of autism and the lesser forms are undiagnosed.

You are very wrong and should be beaten for being so ignorant.

 

[Hostile]

Accurate does not mean "applies to every single person" or "you can't find a counter example" - these tests do better than simply guessing - and that is "accurate"

I don't agree. You cannot show me where players with higher scores have fared better in the NFL than guys with lower scores. The only thing these tests show is that some guys are better at tests. It has nothing whatsoever to do with football.

Again, you can't invalidate a test b/c ONE person doesn't score where you think they should. They aren't going to be exactly right for every single person -- but if you examine how they perform over EVERYONE measured, you'd find they are very accurate.

That isn't why I'm invalidating anything. It's a thin ledge that you are clinging to in an effort to justify something you like. Nothing wrong with that.

Also, i think you confuse "IQ" with other forms of intelligence -- some intelligence tests focus on issues like abstract reasoning -- that's a great measure of .... abstract reasoning but shouldn't be taken to reflect intelligence in any other area. The tests aren't bad - interpretations of the tests are often made by unqualified individuals who don't recognize the limitations of the measures.

No, if you bother to read, I said ALL standardized tests that are used to measure intelligence. I simply used IQ test as an example.

 

[Rockytop6]

Just an FYI if anyone cares.

Just think. If he had only scored half of that, the Titans would draft him and make a QB out of him, or maybe if their QB had scored twice what he did they would make a S out of him.

For my money I would be happy with VY and with Nelson both. The question is "Can they play NFL football at a high level and I know they both can?"

 

[AbeBeta]

I don't agree. You cannot show me where players with higher scores have fared better in the NFL than guys with lower scores. The only thing these tests show is that some guys are better at tests. It has nothing whatsoever to do with football.

That isn't why I'm invalidating anything. It's a thin ledge that you are clinging to in an effort to justify something you like. Nothing wrong with that.

No, if you bother to read, I said ALL standardized tests that are used to measure intelligence. I simply used IQ test as an example.

I don't "like" the wonderlic -- but I do think it is a good rough measure -- I don't agree that it hasn't predicted football performance -- if that was the case then NFL personnel would simply ignore the test. I think however it is the media who put the real value on this test - why? b/c it makes a good story (e.g., "you can take the test yourself at ....")

Let me ask -- if a standardized test was developed that measured on the field football decision making, would you not like that test as well?

 

[Hostile]

I don't "like" the wonderlic -- but I do think it is a good rough measure -- I don't agree that it hasn't predicted football performance -- if that was the case then NFL personnel would simply ignore the test. I think however it is the media who put the real value on this test - why? b/c it makes a good story (e.g., "you can take the test yourself at ....")

I don't know how you can say it hasn't. Joe Montana should be the highest scoring QB ever and Ryan Leaf or someone of that ilk an all time low score. Same with other positions. It shows that some players can pass a standardized test. That's all.

Some teams put stock in that. So do some fans. Fine. For many years scientists also put stock in many false theories. It doesn't make those theories any more valid.

I believe at some point the Wonderlic will be discounted as vital by a majority of the teams as they realize it doesn't have much validity. I just prefer to be ahead of the curve.

Let me ask -- if a standardized test was developed that measured on the field football decision making, would you not like that test as well?

You're asking me to speculate on something that hasn't even happened and doesn't currently exist. How can I even give you an answer you would give a crap about? If I say yes, what does that mean? That I could embrace a standardized test? If I say no what does that mean? That I'm a stubborn jerk?

Why not ask me if a video game could be produced that helped players learn game instincts like Nascar drivers supposedly learn about the tracks they race on from a game?

 

[YoungBuck]

Reggie Nelson signed with Florida out of highschool but didn't meet academic requirements to enroll. He spent his first two years at Coffeyville (Kansas) Community College and transfered to Florida in 2005. I didn't need this test to tell me he's stupid, just look at his history.

 

[AbeBeta]

I don't know how you can say it hasn't. Joe Montana should be the highest scoring QB ever and Ryan Leaf or someone of that ilk an all time low score. Same with other positions. It shows that some players can pass a standardized test. That's all.

What do "does not apply to every single person" mean?

The criteria you are using is that a test has to perfectly predict performance -- that may sound nice but it is plain impossible. Right more often than wrong is a realistic criteria for something as gross as the Wonderlic measure. Keep in mind it is a test of general intelligence -- it isn't a test of how good a player someone is -- it is more about how easily someone can digest a playbook and make correct judgements -- it doesn't however take into account other important playbook digesting information -- e.g., how much time does the player devote to study.

The doesn't take tests well thing does fly - that would be legit if players had no opportunity to prepare -- just come in and take it cold -- practice on tests like this completely nullifies the "I don't test well" issue. When a player doesn't do well, it says to me either a) he's stupid or b) he didn't prepare (and may be lazy), or c) his agent is stupid.

 

[TOOMBS]

What do "does not apply to every single person" mean?


The doesn't take tests well thing does fly - that would be legit if players had no opportunity to prepare -- just come in and take it cold -- practice on tests like this completely nullifies the "I don't test well" issue. When a player doesn't do well, it says to me either a) he's stupid or b) he didn't prepare (and may be lazy), or c) his agent is stupid.

Please stop talking. Everyone in the psychology field KNOWS that IQ tests are not indicitive of actual intelligence........... just zip it. It's painfully obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Hostile]

What do "does not apply to every single person" mean?

The criteria you are using is that a test has to perfectly predict performance -- that may sound nice but it is plain impossible. Right more often than wrong is a realistic criteria for something as gross as the Wonderlic measure. Keep in mind it is a test of general intelligence -- it isn't a test of how good a player someone is -- it is more about how easily someone can digest a playbook and make correct judgements -- it doesn't however take into account other important playbook digesting information -- e.g., how much time does the player devote to study.

The doesn't take tests well thing does fly - that would be legit if players had no opportunity to prepare -- just come in and take it cold -- practice on tests like this completely nullifies the "I don't test well" issue. When a player doesn't do well, it says to me either a) he's stupid or b) he didn't prepare (and may be lazy), or c) his agent is stupid.

Exactly Ab. That is why I said I don't put much stock in it.

 

[Achozen]

Reggie Nelson signed with Florida out of highschool but didn't meet academic requirements to enroll. He spent his first two years at Coffeyville (Kansas) Community College and transfered to Florida in 2005. I didn't need this test to tell me he's stupid, just look at his history.

Ouch.

 

[AbeBeta]

Please stop talking. Everyone in the psychology field KNOWS that IQ tests are not indicitive of actual intelligence........... just zip it. It's painfully obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Actually TOOMBS, I am in the Psychology field and have a considerable background in testing -- so please don't tell me I have no clue about what I'm talking about. It just shows how ignorant you are.