News: Wonderlic Test: How Did The Cowboys’ Rookies Perform?

[CCBoy]

Wonderlic Test: How Did The Cowboys’ Rookies Perform?
https://insidethestar.com/wonderlic-test-cowboys-rookies-perform/



...So, how did the Cowboys’ rookies perform on the Wonderlic test?

Taco Charlton, the Cowboys first-round draft pick in 2017, reportedly scored a 22. For comparison sake, Myles Garrett, the first overall selection for the Cleveland Browns, scored a 31. I wouldn’t read too much into that though, because like I said, I don’t put too much credibility in this test. The Dallas Cowboys second round draft pick, Chidobe Awuzie, scored the second highest out of all of the 2017 Cowboys’ draft class, reportedly scoring a 35 on his Wonderlic test.

Unfortunately, the only other Cowboys’ rookie whose Wonderlic test score was available is Xavier Woods, the safety out of Louisiana Tech. Woods reportedly scored a 39, making him the highest scoring Cowboys’ rookie.
It is truly unfortunate the other Wonderlic test results aren’t available for the rest of the Cowboys’ 2017 draft class, but Charlton, Awuzie, and Woods are all expected to play significant roles in their first year in the NFL for Dallas. Maybe their test results will shine a little bit more light on why this test is still given to begin with.

Just in case you’re wondering, the Dallas Cowboys have had players perform pretty well on the Wonderlic test in the past. Ezekiel Elliott reportedly scored a 32 a year ago. Travis Frederick (34) and Byron Jones (33) also scored in the 30s on their Wonderlic tests. Some other notable scores from current Cowboys’ players: Zack Martin (27), Randy Gregory (28), and Dak Prescott (25). But, the recently retired Tony Romo supposedly has the highest Wonderlic test score among all former Dallas Cowboys with a 37, one point higher than head coach Jason Garrett...

 

[Bigdog]

Like you said you don't put too much emphasis on the test. I too don't put too much emphasis on the tests or tests in that matter that shows how smart you are. I know a lot of people who were in the top 1% of their graduating high school class with several Ivy League schools invites who never score higher than a 1000 on their SATs.

 

[AsthmaField]

I love all of these new DB's so much... well, Awuzie, Lewis and Woods. Not a real big fan of White but he certainly could prove me wrong. He's got the length you look for. If he plays smart he can be an asset eventually.

Awuzie, Lewis and Woods though... I think they'll help right away (starting or not). Physical skills and all the right intangibles. Smart, hard working, loves football, loves to compete. Other than sheer inexperience, I don't see any reason for any of the three to fail to help immediately. Football smarts is an enormous part of the equation... particularly at DB.

Finally the Cowboys are drafting the kind of players I've been begging them to draft for close to two decades. Nice to truly agree with most of their picks instead of being disappointed and then making excuses for why the player should succeed. Always hating the pick but hoping for the best.

Now I love the picks and expect the best (and usually get it).

My how times have changed.

 

[AsthmaField]

As for Woods: I see him in a rotation with Heath much like Church and Wilcox had going last year. I think Heath will start but Woods will give him breathers and play nearly as much as Jeff. Again, much like Church and JJ.

They'll figure out what Heath does best (they probably already know) and they'll determine what Woods does best and then they'll play them situationally.

I'm sure there will be packages where Jones, Heath, and Woods are in the game at the same time.

I have high hopes for a 6th round rookie.

 

[Silver Surfer]

Like you said you don't put too much emphasis on the test. I too don't put too much emphasis on the tests or tests in that matter that shows how smart you are. I know a lot of people who were in the top 1% of their graduating high school class with several Ivy League schools invites who never score higher than a 1000 on their SATs.

Scoring in the top 1% of your high school class is only an indication of your intelligence relative to the people you attended high school with, not the population at large. Standardized tests are intended to determine intelligence for a larger segment of the population. They may not be successful, or even good at it, but they're more informative than the top 1% of a high school class.

Ivy League schools use multiple criteria for choosing invitees. Based on personal experience, they've been using them for at least 40 years. I wouldn't consider an Ivy League invitation "proof" of intelligence.

 

[InDakWeTrust]

Scoring in the top 1% of your high school class is only an indication of your intelligence relative to the people you attended high school with, not the population at large. Standardized tests are intended to determine intelligence for a larger segment of the population. They may not be successful, or even good at it, but they're more informative than the top 1% of a high school class.

Ivy League schools use multiple criteria for choosing invitees. Based on personal experience, they've been using them for at least 40 years. I wouldn't consider an Ivy League invitation "proof" of intelligence.

Absolutely.
If any athlete in today's game can score 20+, it usually is a good indicator that they can absorb knowledge from someone teaching them, at least in my opinion. I've done a couple of the sample Wonderlics online and I got between 30 and 42. All it is, is a tool to show coaches if the kid is coachable.

 

[DFWJC]

Like you said you don't put too much emphasis on the test. I too don't put too much emphasis on the tests or tests in that matter that shows how smart you are. I know a lot of people who were in the top 1% of their graduating high school class with several Ivy League schools invites who never score higher than a 1000 on their SATs.

Yeah standardized scores--and especially the wonderlic--can be only marginally representative at times.

But that's interesting regarding your friend.. I know Harvard is the one Ivy that doesn't use the test, but the others do and the averages (and lowest score admitted) are still close to perfect scores.
Not to be a weenie, but from decades of experience, I can think of maybe two possible reasons a student in the top 1% student of their HS class but a 1000 SAT might get an Ivy offer.

One is that the school is very weak overall (there are schools with valedictorians that wouldn't be in top 50% on other schools). Not saying it was, but that's a possibility. The Ivies (and other top schools) know what HSs are good are not, so....

There is another very common reason. The most common actually. But I won't go there and have no idea if it even applies in your example case.

 

[Silver Surfer]

In my small high school class (<70), I had multiple people receive offers. Of the ones I knew personally, one had a perfect SAT score, one was a genius who won the state math contest (twice I believe), and one scored way below those (and me by the way). Draw your own conclusions.

 

[xwalker]

Yeah standardized scores--and especially the wonderlic--can be only marginally representative at times.

But that's interesting regarding your friend.. I know Harvard is the one Ivy that doesn't use the test, but the others do and the averages (and lowest score admitted) are still close to perfect scores.
Not to be a weenie, but from decades of experience, I can think of maybe two possible reasons a student in the top 1% student of their HS class but a 1000 SAT might get an Ivy offer.

One is that the school is very weak overall (there are schools with valedictorians that wouldn't be in top 50% on other schools). Not saying it was, but that's a possibility. The Ivies (and other top schools) know what HSs are good are not, so....

There is another very common reason. The most common actually. But I won't go there and have no idea if it even applies in your example case.

Time is a big factor in the Wonderlic test.

Some studies have had people take the test multiple times (different versions of the test) and their scores varied widely.

It would be interesting to see people take the test without a tight time limit. It's likely that some people would never have a high score regardless of time, while others would likely always have a near perfect score with enough time.

 

[GORICO]

Time is a big factor in the Wonderlic test.

Some studies have had people take the test multiple times (different versions of the test) and their scores varied widely.

It would be interesting to see people take the test without a tight time limit. It's likely that some people would never have a high score regardless of time, while others would likely always have a near perfect score with enough time.

Dang--- Look at that O Line shred Seattle?...and there is tony in the background smoking crack

 

[visionary]

As for Woods: I see him in a rotation with Heath much like Church and Wilcox had going last year. I think Heath will start but Woods will give him breathers and play nearly as much as Jeff. Again, much like Church and JJ.

They'll figure out what Heath does best (they probably already know) and they'll determine what Woods does best and then they'll play them situationally.

I'm sure there will be packages where Jones, Heath, and Woods are in the game at the same time.

I have high hopes for a 6th round rookie.

I just hope they out Woods at safety and Awuzie at CB and don't get cute trying to rotate Awuzie between safety and CB

 

[visionary]

Scoring in the top 1% of your high school class is only an indication of your intelligence relative to the people you attended high school with, not the population at large. Standardized tests are intended to determine intelligence for a larger segment of the population. They may not be successful, or even good at it, but they're more informative than the top 1% of a high school class.

Ivy League schools use multiple criteria for choosing invitees. Based on personal experience, they've been using them for at least 40 years. I wouldn't consider an Ivy League invitation "proof" of intelligence.

I'm sorry but 1000 is a really low score to begin with and a really really really low score for ANY Ivy League school so I sincerely doubt the veracity of this assertion by the poster

 

[visionary]

Time is a big factor in the Wonderlic test.

Some studies have had people take the test multiple times (different versions of the test) and their scores varied widely.

It would be interesting to see people take the test without a tight time limit. It's likely that some people would never have a high score regardless of time, while others would likely always have a near perfect score with enough time.

Time is critical to the "standardization " of the test and it would be fairly meaningless without that constraint

Standardized tests are very useful indicators of intelligence in the correct context and with other provisos and caveats

A standardized test is supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff so if someone scores in the top 5-10% it is very likely they are very smart. If someone scores in the bottom 10-20% ( e.g. Mo) it is likely they're not who you want in your program. The middle can be lumped together for the most part and will be separated by several personal characteristics depending on their field

 

[AsthmaField]

I just hope they out Woods at safety and Awuzie at CB and don't get cute trying to rotate Awuzie between safety and CB

I don't think they'll move Awuzie to safety unless they really need the bodies there. Really, I've only heard much of that from Broaddus who has a stick up his *** when it comes to Cheeto moving to safety. For some reason he has got that stuck in his head and keeps repeating it.

It isn't any inside info because he's quick to tell everyone when he's heard something from a coach or scout with the team and he hasn't hinted that he's in the know.

I do think he'd be good at Safety but the team has said they're playing him at corner to see what he does there... and I think he'll do good. Marinelli loves his corners to be good tacklers and that is what Awuzie is... a corner who can lower the boom. He also plays the ball very well when he's facing the QB and Rod likes to play his corners that way too (some zone).

I just think Chidobe is going to be a good corner and they'll leave it at that. That's just my guess.

 

[Biggems]

Didn't Quincy score a 420 on that test?

 

[ghst187]

Didn't Quincy score a 420 on that test?

I see what you did there.

Randy Gregory must've taken Quincys study guide

 

[Biggems]

I see what you did there.

Randy Gregory must've taken Quincys study guide

Yep, first he memorized it, then rolled it into a big Jamaican fatty.....then sat back and decided not to worry about a thing, cause every little thing gonna be alright

 

[JohnnyTheFox]

I thought I heard somewhere that Joe Mixon had one of the worst scores of all time.

 

[xwalker]

Like you said you don't put too much emphasis on the test. I too don't put too much emphasis on the tests or tests in that matter that shows how smart you are. I know a lot of people who were in the top 1% of their graduating high school class with several Ivy League schools invites who never score higher than a 1000 on their SATs.

You could give someone 3 versions of the Wonderlic and likely get significantly different results. It's as much about timing and quick thinking as actual intelligence.

It's almost like using a game show to grade intelligence. You get a general idea, but the difference between a 25 and a 35 could reverse if the players were given another version of the test.

 

[xwalker]

I thought I heard somewhere that Joe Mixon had one of the worst scores of all time.

You can't get worse than Claiborne unless you fail to put your name on the test.