Poll: Newton vs. Stafford

[RobertBobson]

And you don't need to remind me that the bears traded a first for Mirer, I know that all to well.

[RobertBobson]

I will say this, criticizing cam's wonderlic score is a specific argument, but I just don't think the wonderlic measures anything useful to making football decisions. If they wanted to test something useful, they would create cogitation tests, not use general intelligence tests. They would test player's ability to recognize patterns, to make decisions quickly and accurately, measure the speed of information the players process. All of these things you could easily develop tests for. It's basically all research psychologists do is think up ways to measure different ways the brain processes information.


The way athletes can perform physical feats has been refined (somewhat). They measure your ability to jump, your lateral speed, your straight ahead speed, your agility, and on and on and on. All kinds of specific physical tasks. IF teams are going to measure players cognitive ability, I think there are much more useful, specific ways you can do it ( akin to the physical tests), that apply to the specific tasks of football. I have hard time giving much credence at all to the predicative ability of a test that isn't testing anything that relates to football in any specific way, so what Cam or any player scores on the Wonderlic doesn't mean much to me.

[Pullo Vision]

Edit- thoughts on Cam's potential rate of development and defenses rate of discovering weaknesses?

I think this is a difficult question to answer, because it's so abstract. Basically, it's like saying " gosh, defenses sure are swell these days. you just know they are going to find something on Cam. How do you think Cam is going to be able to fix that something?" I don't think that kind of speculation is useful. I'm much more interested in discovering what those somethings, those weaknesses in his game are. If he has some flaw as significant as not being able to throw to his left, that would be a legitimate concern, and worth talking about. But speculating on the rate of Cam's ability to fix hypothetical flaws, verses defenses ability to find them... I just don't know how to answer that in any meaningful way.

True, difficult questions to consider, especially since we don't know what the potential flaws might be. But to me, that gets to the heart of the issue- you know defenses will improve, but will (and how much) will Cam improve? How will he respond to defensive improvements- not just fixing (or attempting to fix) the flaws defenses expose? Will he fail to progress during the season, thinking the potential improvements he makes this offseason will be enough? Will be act like Mike Thomas, who reportedly shut things down when he got frustrated facing the CB1 every week? I have no clue- pure speculation. But,I will definitely keep an ear/eye out for that stuff.

I would be curious why his passing yards went down after that hot 4-game start, why his yards per carry in the first 8 games was 5.15 and 6.25 in the last 8, why pass attempts went down by 10 in that same 8/8 game split (35.87 first 8, 25.62 2nd 8). Calculating the losses as negative point differentials and the wins as positives, the average for the first 8 games- -1.315. For the last 8 games- 0.25. Interestingly, 6 of the first 8 games were decided by 7 points or less. The 2nd half of the season was dominated by blowouts, both wins and losses, as the average point differential (between winner and loser) was 17.1, while the point differential for the 1st half of the season was 6.875.

Just numbers right now, but it's interesting how the stats so neatly split along the week 9 bye week divide.

I thought it was particularly funny when Mirer said he likes to do things one at a time- "You finish one, then you jump into the next". Suggests a lack of intellectual capacity, to me. Oh, wait, never mind, he's white, that can't be the case.

Edit-

I will say this, criticizing cam's wonderlic score is a specific argument, but I just don't think the wonderlic measures anything useful to making football decisions. If they wanted to test something useful, they would create cogitation tests, not use general intelligence tests. They would test player's ability to recognize patterns, to make decisions quickly and accurately, measure the speed of information the players process. All of these things you could easily develop tests for. It's basically all research psychologists do is think up ways to measure different ways the brain processes information.


The way athletes can perform physical feats has been refined (somewhat). They measure your ability to jump, your lateral speed, your straight ahead speed, your agility, and on and on and on. All kinds of specific physical tasks. IF teams are going to measure players cognitive ability, I think there are much more useful, specific ways you can do it ( akin to the physical tests), that apply to the specific tasks of football. I have hard time giving much credence at all to the predicative ability of a test that isn't testing anything that relates to football in any specific way, so what Cam or any player scores on the Wonderlic doesn't mean much to me.

Precisely. The Wonderlic means nothing to me. That'd be like timing Nascar drivers in their ability to quilt a blanket and fastest quilter means fastest thinker, meaning best driver. Logic jumps all over the place starting from an unrelated point.

[49ersFaithful80]

But exactly one of them was a rookie.

I think we all understand and agree what Cam did as a rookie was something special. But the point that some members and myself are trying to make is that regardless if he was a rookie or not we should not expect these type of numbers going forward just because it happened once. I also feel because Cam was a rookie and defensive coordinators didn't have a lot of tape to use to prepare for him aided in his success.

I'll be the first to admit I was wrong about Newton. But my gut feeling says he will regress as opposing teams have enough tape on him now to game plan. Take a look at his last eight games, two games over 212 yards passing with three games under 200.

I don't expect Cam to bust, I simply expect him to regress where as I expect Stafford to hold steady...

I don't understand, I guess, why people think that Cam won't have a typical starting QB's arch of learning and improving. That somehow he got 4000 passing yards on being a gimmick and he'll never come close to that again once teams get a book on him. That he has no ability to learn and improve.

I think cam could regress this next season, certainly. But I just don't think it's possible that this is the most yards he'll ever pass for, that he will never improve as a passer. I don't think that is in anyway consistent with the career arcs of talented QB's.

See my whole point was that I'm not too worried about how many yards a QB throws for, I don't see that as a statistic for measuring a QB's abilities. If you throw the ball a lot, your gunna throw for a lot of yards. I'm much more concerned with TD-INT ratio, YPA, and completion percentage because these statistics actually measure a QB relative to how many attempts they're making. While Cam was certainly no slouch in any of these categories they paint the picture of a slightly above average passer. I'm simply opposed to the notion that Cam is some prolific passer, Cam put up elite numbers last year because he tacked RB1 numbers on top of his solid passing numbers. So fellow Cam supporters, stop saying it doesn't matter if he stops getting goal line carries or calling his rushing stats "a bonus", his status as an elite fantasy play is extremely dependent on his rushing abilities

[NJKV]

I will say this, criticizing cam's wonderlic score is a specific argument, but I just don't think the wonderlic measures anything useful to making football decisions. If they wanted to test something useful, they would create cogitation tests, not use general intelligence tests. They would test player's ability to recognize patterns, to make decisions quickly and accurately, measure the speed of information the players process. All of these things you could easily develop tests for. It's basically all research psychologists do is think up ways to measure different ways the brain processes information.


The way athletes can perform physical feats has been refined (somewhat). They measure your ability to jump, your lateral speed, your straight ahead speed, your agility, and on and on and on. All kinds of specific physical tasks. IF teams are going to measure players cognitive ability, I think there are much more useful, specific ways you can do it ( akin to the physical tests), that apply to the specific tasks of football. I have hard time giving much credence at all to the predicative ability of a test that isn't testing anything that relates to football in any specific way, so what Cam or any player scores on the Wonderlic doesn't mean much to me.

Now we are talking my field. IQ tests actually don't even correctly measure IQ. They give is us a general sense of your academic potential. Also, the tests are a bit biased.

I agree I would rather know his ability to retain memory which would translate into whether or not he can study a particular defense on film and be able to recognize it on the field Sunday.

Playing Devil's advocate, as for flaws I personally haven't watched enough of him play to see any but everybody has flaws it is just how you overcome them. Aaron Rodgers tends to hold the ball a little long which leads to him getting sacked more often and Brady is practically a statue. Though, this why watching and playing this game, FF, is interesting and fun we can kind of "scout" and see their career develop.

Random, here are some samples from the wonderlic:

When a rope is selling 20 cents per 2 feet, how many feet can you buy for for 30 dollars?
Which of numbers in this group represents the smallest amount? a) 0.3 b) 0.08 c) 1 d) 0.33

Keep in mind like most IQ tests you have no calculators and it is timed.

[bconnelly]

I'm going to make this as concise as possible, solely on the basis of using the wonderlic as a case for Stafford versus Cam:
1. when it comes to stats and predicting the future in NFL terms, having above 50% or 60% certainty is very strong. its saying that a prediction based on data is right more often that is not. what does 80% certainty mean then? 90%?
2. what i am claiming is that a wonderlic below 25 is an indication that there is a very good chance (not absolute, 100% chance) a particular QB will not be an elite passer.
2a. sampling the elite passers of the last 12 years you will find one 'elite' passer (favre) out of the entire polutation (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, Manning, Manning, BigBen, this is subjective, but let's define elite as 'good enough to have very high passing grades for 4+ years', i dont think anyone can take these guys out of this list).
3. Cam does not need to be an elite passer to be an amazing FF QB.
3a. Stafford DOES NEED to be an elite passer to be an amazing FF QB.
4. Elite passers last very long in the NFL, non-elite passers do not. Elite passers win games, win playoffs and win superbowls ensuring their continued existence in the NFL.
4a. a continued existence means more FF points in aggregate
5. Non-elite passers usually (not always) do not have a very long starting-QB career (i immediately think of McNabb and his 10 seasons starting).
6. I would rather have an elite passer or one that I would think is an elite passer because I know i would get 10+ years of serviceability.
7. I am only sampling the last 12 years of passers because I believe that the NFL has evolved and we are now at the pinnacle of the passing era. this evolution and peak is all over the media and talk is cheap but we are seeing this every weekend on sundays boys. this evolution happened right before our eyes.
7a. with the evolution of the passing game, the defensive schemes have become very adaptive and extreme. again, this evolution is well-publicized
7b. i would like to think that the NFL is "the same as it always was" because there are sentimental feelings about the good ole' ground and pound and tough-nosed games, but its not. the teams that evolved (GB, NE, NO, NYG, PITT, IND, SD) have elevated themselves beyond the old game and have had years of success now. the chase for the franchise QB has never been so desperate as it is now.
8. Stafford's wonderlic of 38 is no assurance that he will be an elite passer based on the aforementioned. It is also no assurance that he will not be an elite passer.
8a. Cam's wonderlic score of 22 is no assurance that he will be an elite passer based on the aforementioned. it also expresses SOME assurance that he will not be an elite passer.
8b. There is a chance that Cam will become an elite passer in the NFL and as a result, have a long and prosperous career. This chance is very low based based on the aforementioned wonderlic grades and the odds that are derived: 1 in 9 elite modern day passers have a wonderlic score of less than 25.
9. you can bash the wonderlic itself. is it fair? i dont know. i know that it appears to differentiate college prospects. i know that some do BETTER than others. I know that this indicates SOMETHING and it cannot mean NOTHING. just like a 40-time, all i can do is place a certain value on it as part of the overall process. i would like to think that a bad wonderlic score doesn't doom a QB for his career but you cannot deny a correlation between high wonderlic scores and eltie passing success

[bconnelly]

I'm going to make this as concise as possible, solely on the basis of using the wonderlic as a case for Stafford versus Cam:
1. when it comes to stats and predicting the future in NFL terms, having above 50% or 60% certainty is very strong. its saying that a prediction based on data is right more often that is not. what does 80% certainty mean then? 90%?
2. what i am claiming is that a wonderlic below 25 is an indication that there is a very good chance (not absolute, 100% chance) a particular QB will not be an elite passer.
2a. sampling the elite passers of the last 12 years you will find one 'elite' passer (favre) out of the entire polutation (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, Manning, Manning, BigBen, this is subjective, but let's define elite as 'good enough to have very high passing grades for 4+ years', i dont think anyone can take these guys out of this list).
3. Cam does not need to be an elite passer to be an amazing FF QB.
3a. Stafford DOES NEED to be an elite passer to be an amazing FF QB.
4. Elite passers last very long in the NFL, non-elite passers do not. Elite passers win games, win playoffs and win superbowls ensuring their continued existence in the NFL.
4a. a continued existence means more FF points in aggregate
5. Non-elite passers usually (not always) do not have a very long starting-QB career (i immediately think of McNabb and his 10 seasons starting).
6. I would rather have an elite passer or one that I would think is an elite passer because I know i would get 10+ years of serviceability.
7. I am only sampling the last 12 years of passers because I believe that the NFL has evolved and we are now at the pinnacle of the passing era. this evolution and peak is all over the media and talk is cheap but we are seeing this every weekend on sundays boys. this evolution happened right before our eyes.
7a. with the evolution of the passing game, the defensive schemes have become very adaptive and extreme. again, this evolution is well-publicized
7b. i would like to think that the NFL is "the same as it always was" because there are sentimental feelings about the good ole' ground and pound and tough-nosed games, but its not. the teams that evolved (GB, NE, NO, NYG, PITT, IND, SD) have elevated themselves beyond the old game and have had years of success now. the chase for the franchise QB has never been so desperate as it is now.
8. Stafford's wonderlic of 38 is no assurance that he will be an elite passer based on the aforementioned. It is also no assurance that he will not be an elite passer.
8a. Cam's wonderlic score of 22 is no assurance that he will be an elite passer based on the aforementioned. it also expresses SOME assurance that he will not be an elite passer.
8b. There is a chance that Cam will become an elite passer in the NFL and as a result, have a long and prosperous career. This chance is very low based based on the aforementioned wonderlic grades and the odds that are derived: 1 in 9 elite modern day passers have a wonderlic score of less than 25.
9. you can bash the wonderlic itself. is it fair? i dont know. i know that it appears to differentiate college prospects. i know that some do BETTER than others. I know that this indicates SOMETHING and it cannot mean NOTHING. just like a 40-time, all i can do is place a certain value on it as part of the overall process. i would like to think that a bad wonderlic score doesn't doom a QB for his career but you cannot deny a correlation between high wonderlic scores and eltie passing success

when i meant concise, i mean in point form, hopefully making it black and white

[reddaddy32]

Given the statistical analysis shown earlier in the thread, I dont know how one can agree with points 8 at all. I think I can agree with a lot of what you are saying, but it seems like you hinge everything on points 8, 8a, 8b, and I just dont think one can conclude that factually that is actually the case.

[RobertBobson]

I don't really have time to address that point by point right now, but one mistake I do think you're making, in using the Wonderlic, is confusing Correlation with causality. I'll give you an obvious example of how dangerous of an error that can be. Modern Era Quarterbacks possessing white skin correlates at a rate of 95.65%. Further, white skin color and super bowl winning quarterbacks correlate at a rate of 97.7%. That seems like overwhelming evidence that in order to be a hall of fame quarterback, or win the superbowl, you almost have to be white. If you equate causation and correlation, that is. I would argue there are many other reasons for that correlation, social issues and statistical variance being the primary arguments I would make. I would not use that information to argue that there is something inherently superior in white people that makes them better quarterbacks.

So yes, the wonderlic can mean nothing, and does not have to mean something. High wonderlic scores can correlate with good and great qb's without being causal, and I would argue that is likely to be the case since the wonderlic isn't measuring any particular or specific football skill.

[bconnelly]

I don't really have time to address that point by point right now, but one mistake I do think you're making, in using the Wonderlic, is confusing Correlation with causality. I'll give you an obvious example of how dangerous of an error that can be. Modern Era Quarterbacks possessing white skin correlates at a rate of 95.65%. Further, white skin color and super bowl winning quarterbacks correlate at a rate of 97.7%. That seems like overwhelming evidence that in order to be a hall of fame quarterback, or win the superbowl, you almost have to be white. If you equate causation and correlation, that is. I would argue there are many other reasons for that correlation, social issues and statistical variance being the primary arguments I would make. I would not use that information to argue that there is something inherently superior in white people that makes them better quarterbacks.

So yes, the wonderlic can mean nothing, and does not have to mean something. High wonderlic scores can correlate with good and great qb's without being causal, and I would argue that is likely to be the case since the wonderlic isn't measuring any particular or specific football skill.

the fact that you're bringing up the correlation vs casuality argument tells me that youre obviously well versed in statistical methods and I respect your opinion on this.

I hope you can respect that casuality can be interpreted from this, even if you do not necessarily agree with it.

Stripping casuality out of any of this data would be very difficult to do in a measureable way. When I see the passing elites in this league and how far above an beyond they are in the league, to me, I have to amount this to an intelligence attribute and I'll admit, too conveniently, there is correlation with the wonderlic.

I perhaps place too much faith in established practices ie the wonderlic and I don't see anything wrong with this. I would like to think that if the wonderlic is useless or irrelevant, it would be gone by now, and based on it's continued use I interpret this as if it's still meaningful to some people

[ekassor]

Cam should be a very strong QB, and the fact that most people prefer Stafford (including me) is in no way an indictment of Cam. You are comparing 2 very high end players here. I don't see Cam's career going south due to defense game planning either. Exactly how do you game plan successfully for a player with his skills? He obviously can throw with accuracy so even if you keep him in the pocket he will be successful. If you flush him, he's dangerous as dual threat. Most likely team will want to keep him in the pocket and put a spy on a lot. No matter what defenses do, he'll be difficult to defend. He may regress a little, and I think they will not use him as much at the goal line. It's crazy to subject your franchise QB to the risk of injury GL carries represent.

[RobertBobson]

I perhaps place too much faith in established practices ie the wonderlic and I don't see anything wrong with this. I would like to think that if the wonderlic is useless or irrelevant, it would be gone by now, and based on it's continued use I interpret this as if it's still meaningful to some people

You have far more faith than I in the ability of NFL teams to act rationally and faith in their propensity for change. As an example, almost every NFL team still has absolutely no idea when it is mathematically correct to go for it on 4th down, and punt a comically high percentage of the time, giving away possession. This is a major error, and almost every single team ( except basically the Patriots) makes this mistake, over and over, every single week. In fact, this error is so ingrained in the greater football culture, that when the Patriots actually do the mathematically correct play, they get nearly universally attacked by Fans and NFL media, who have no understanding at all of what the Pats were doing or why they did it.

[49ersFaithful80]

Ok, let me ask you guys something, have you ever looked at sample wonderlic questions?....these questions are EXTREMELY SIMPLE. I'm talking questions that I think most 8th graders could figure out. So what does it mean when someone has a low wonderlic score? One of two things, they are flat out dumb or they just happen to be awful test takers who draw a blank under pressure (I'm guessing bobson will proclaim Cam represents the 2nd group). What does this tell us? A lot of times you don't have to be smart to be good at football, the only position that I think this test is relevant is for the QB and even then natural ability usually overcomes it. It couldn't matter less that Morris Claiborne is dumb as a rock (LSU is one of the worst academic schools in the country).

What puzzles me is, how did a lot of these athletes not fail out of college?? obviously most D1 athletes are given an army of nerds to do their work.

Check out some of these sample questions...

http://walterfootball.com/draftwonderlic.php

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/closer/020228test.html

[RobertBobson]

Ok, let me ask you guys something, have you ever looked at sample wonderlic questions?....these questions are EXTREMELY SIMPLE. I'm talking questions that I think most 8th graders could figure out. So what does it mean when someone has a low wonderlic score? One of two things, they are flat out dumb or they just happen to be awful test takers who draw a blank under pressure (I'm guessing bobson will proclaim Cam represents the 2nd group). What does this tell us? A lot of times you don't have to be smart to be good at football, the only position that I think this test is relevant is for the QB and even then natural ability usually overcomes it. It couldn't matter less that Morris Claiborne is dumb as a rock (LSU is one of the worst academic schools in the country).

I don't know why Cam didn't score a 42 and not a 22 on the wonderlic score. Maybe he is dumb, in the limited way the wonderlic measures intelligence, maybe he doesn't test well, maybe he doesn't have a long history of studying for and taking standardized tests.. I just question how much that test has anything to do with the mental abilities and cognitive speed you need to have to play quarterback.

[bconnelly]

Ok, let me ask you guys something, have you ever looked at sample wonderlic questions?....these questions are EXTREMELY SIMPLE. I'm talking questions that I think most 8th graders could figure out. So what does it mean when someone has a low wonderlic score? One of two things, they are flat out dumb or they just happen to be awful test takers who draw a blank under pressure (I'm guessing bobson will proclaim Cam represents the 2nd group). What does this tell us? A lot of times you don't have to be smart to be good at football, the only position that I think this test is relevant is for the QB and even then natural ability usually overcomes it. It couldn't matter less that Morris Claiborne is dumb as a rock (LSU is one of the worst academic schools in the country).

I don't know why Cam didn't score a 42 and not a 22 on the wonderlic score. Maybe he is dumb, in the limited way the wonderlic measures intelligence, maybe he doesn't test well, maybe he doesn't have a long history of studying for and taking standardized tests.. I just question how much that test has anything to do with the mental abilities and cognitive speed you need to have to play quarterback.

to me the QB is like the lieutenant of a troop. needs to have all the physical tools, but also needs to have a head on his shoulders, analyze, plan and command the troop. if someone doesn't test well in general, you could say that if a coach was playing out defensive schemes and scenarios to a rookie QB in the film room, you could reasonably assume that such a QB would not analyze or respond appropraitely if asked what he sees and what he would do... and this is on paper/in the film room. what about a live action game?

i've never been a QB. but i know that QBs spend more time studying the game than literally playing the game or working out. if a QB spends 40 hrs a week studying, 20 hrs practicing, and 3 hrs a week playing, do you want a good student?