Quarterbacks and the Wonderlic - Page 2

JJJ888 · 03-03-2008, 10:29 AM

It will be just as difficult to come up with a statistical scale of how to rate quarterbacks (who's to say what's most important--ratings? TD passes? TD-INT ratio? Super Bowl Wins?). Coming up with a formula like that is just as subjective as grading players. What I hoped to do by posting this here was to get a significant number of knowledgeable responses that I could then compile into one grade for each player.

As for defining a scale, I would suggest the following:

A (90-100): Solid, long term franchise quarterback, with All Pro potential. Think Joe Montana, Brett Favre, etc.
B (80-89): Solid, reliable starter, may be a Pro-Bowler once or twice a year, but not a perennial all star by any means, but can at least lead a team. I'm thinking of a Brad Johnson/Trent Dilfer type here.
C (70-79): Marginal Starter/Above Average Backup. Think Josh McCown or possibly Jason Garrett here (more at the low end).
D (60-69): Questionable Bust--some success in league, but minimal success. More along the lines of a Quincy Carter than a Ryan Leaf.
F (50-59): Absolute Bust. Ryan Leaf. Akili Smith. Cade McNown.

Now an argument could be made that those guys who were high draft picks and earned very low grades (Leaf, Smith, etc.) had at least the potential to be graded in the 70s level, but never had to reach that level because they earned their one big contract and then gave up.

As for those of you who were wondering about the Wonderlic, yes I do already have scores, and according to my VERY preliminary analysis there is actually a NEGATIVE correlation between Wonderlic scores and QB performance. That may be subject to change with some changed grades and additional subjects, but for right now, it seems that the Wonderlic has absolutely no influence on a QBs performance, unless some other outside hypothesis (like that pocket QBs need higher scores) proves accurate.

I'm also planning on doing a similar analysis for running backs and 40 yard dash times...which may be more accurate and useful because I will be able to grade more running backs than those who are just starters.

ks_perfection · 03-03-2008, 10:45 AM

Could just use Passer Rating?

JJJ888 · 03-03-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ks_perfection

Could just use Passer Rating?

Passer rating alone may end up being the best solution, although it does not take into account certain factors, in my mind, that reflect on the overall success of a quarterback's career.

Jughead10 · 03-03-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoteLynnSwan

Fitzpatrick got a 38

He got a 48, and the got pissed off because he graduated from Harvard and thought he should have done better. So he took it again and got a 50.

marks01234 · 03-03-2008, 11:26 AM

What has Tony Romo done to merit being 7 points higher than Phillip Rivers?

Your entire system is flawed. The idea that you made personal accessments of a players career based on your opinion makes your study worthless.

Furthermore, there are way to many factors that are not held constant here. How would these QBs have done in different systems, with different players and different coaching and with different development plans.

Why don't you just go ahead and cure cancer while you are at it.

Paranoidmoonduck · 03-03-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoteLynnSwan

vague estimations like this have no place in real statistic analysis.

Oh come now. Unless you have access to the actual test each quarterback took, the final score is a vague estimation, espcially on a test like the wonderlic. A quarterback's success or value is not always decided by how many touchdowns he throws per season, and without a standard one would think that a basic 1-100 rating of his success is probably more useful, as long as the ratings are consistent.

Shane P. Hallam · 03-03-2008, 11:43 AM

Daunte Culpepper 80
Donovan McNabb 89
Aaron Brooks 68
Tom Brady 99
Marc Bulger 88
Michael Vick 85
Drew Brees 89
David Garrard 83
Carson Palmer 90
Tony Romo 88 (right now)
Eli Manning 90
Ben Roethlisberger 90
Phillip Rivers 86

Tim Couch 54
Akili Smith 50
Cade McNown 50
Quincy Carter 62
David Carr 69
Joey Harrington 67
Kyle Boller 65
Rex Grossman 72
Charlie Frye 61

Chad Pennington 75
Josh McCown 73
Byron Leftwich 75
Aaron Rodgers Who Knows
Jason Campbell 79
Kyle Orton 70
J. P. Losman 75
Matt Schaub 78
Alex Smith 79

Is that what you want?

NY+Giants=NYG · 03-03-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jughead10

He got a 48, and the got pissed off because he graduated from Harvard and thought he should have done better. So he took it again and got a 50.

I thought it looked kinda of low that number. I remember him being a harvard grad, and figured i remembered seeing his score being higher.

Paranoidmoonduck · 03-03-2008, 11:47 AM

JBond, based on that scale, Aaron Brooks is pretty low. Yes, he sucks, but he's had considerable success when measured against some of the people on this list (some of whom are rated ahead of him).

JJJ888 · 03-03-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marks01234

What has Tony Romo done to merit being 7 points higher than Phillip Rivers?

Your entire system is flawed. The idea that you made personal accessments of a players career based on your opinion makes your study worthless.

Furthermore, there are way to many factors that are not held constant here. How would these QBs have done in different systems, with different players and different coaching and with different development plans.

Why don't you just go ahead and cure cancer while you are at it.

As I've pointed out many times before this, assessing the validity of a large number of things requires making personal judgements and collecting opinions. This is not only the case for my study, but also for the widely accepted college rating systems put forth by the US News and World report, among others. Even any statistical analysis in this case requires a certain amount of subjectivity, which I have admitted to. There is absolutely no way that this will be a definitive study. This is a silly little project that I undertook at 12:00 last night while trolling through old draft information. Give me a break. I'm not trying to change the world or even the way the draft works. All I'm asking for is a little bit of everyone else's cooperation here in making this study more accurate. So get off my back and don't be so uptight about everything.

Jughead10 · 03-03-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shockey+Manning=Shocking

I thought it looked kinda of low that number. I remember him being a harvard grad, and figured i remembered seeing his score being higher.

Him doing that would have been enough to knock him off my draft board if I was a GM. Seemed a bit uneccessary to prove he was smarter than all the QBs because he went to Harvard.

JJJ888 · 03-03-2008, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBond93

Daunte Culpepper 80
Donovan McNabb 89
Aaron Brooks 68
Tom Brady 99
Marc Bulger 88
Michael Vick 85
Drew Brees 89
David Garrard 83
Carson Palmer 90
Tony Romo 88 (right now)
Eli Manning 90
Ben Roethlisberger 90
Phillip Rivers 86

Tim Couch 54
Akili Smith 50
Cade McNown 50
Quincy Carter 62
David Carr 69
Joey Harrington 67
Kyle Boller 65
Rex Grossman 72
Charlie Frye 61

Chad Pennington 75
Josh McCown 73
Byron Leftwich 75
Aaron Rodgers Who Knows
Jason Campbell 79
Kyle Orton 70
J. P. Losman 75
Matt Schaub 78
Alex Smith 79

Is that what you want?

That's perfect.

NY+Giants=NYG · 03-03-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jughead10

Him doing that would have been enough to knock him off my draft board if I was a GM. Seemed a bit uneccessary to prove he was smarter than all the QBs because he went to Harvard.

Yeah but other qbs get on their knees and see how far they throw the ball, to show how great of an arm they have. In this case he wanted to prove how smart he is. In order to really know, I would need to know his personality and if he is in fact arrogant. I don't mind having a guy do that, as long as he isn't openly putting other Qbs down for it.

Shane P. Hallam · 03-03-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck

JBond, based on that scale, Aaron Brooks is pretty low. Yes, he sucks, but he's had considerable success when measured against some of the people on this list (some of whom are rated ahead of him).

Brooks had one good year, I rate him right around Carr and Orton honestly.

Paranoidmoonduck · 03-03-2008, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBond93

Brooks had one good year, I rate him right around Carr and Orton honestly.

Four straight years with 20+ touchdowns, two of them with a QB rating over 80 gets him a rating below that of Josh McCown though?

For that matter, Byron Leftwich has never thrown more than 15 touchdowns in any given season. I think you're giving too much credit to younger quarterbacks.

JJJ888 · 03-03-2008, 12:02 PM

Just to note, JBond's grades also yielded if anything a slightly negative, although not very valid, correlation between QB grade and Wonderlic score. The overwhelming evidence provided to me thus far indicates that there is no correlation whatsoever.

awfullyquiet · 03-03-2008, 12:05 PM

Here.

Passer rating = x/158 (will give you a % of 100) * 60%, win/total percentage (of 100) * 40%, Factor of passer rating should give you a 'decent' idea of what

Shane P. Hallam · 03-03-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck

Four straight years with 20+ touchdowns, two of them with a QB rating over 80 gets him a rating below that of Josh McCown though?

For that matter, Byron Leftwich has never thrown more than 15 touchdowns in any given season. I think you're giving too much credit to younger quarterbacks.

Maybe I am, but even so, it isn't about exact numbers Paranoid, it's about generally the Wonderlic. It has little to no bearing. 'Nugh said.

Paranoidmoonduck · 03-03-2008, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBond93

Maybe I am, but even so, it isn't about exact numbers Paranoid, it's about generally the Wonderlic. It has little to no bearing. 'Nugh said.

Agreed. The wonderlic is a fairly awkwardly adapted test. It would do just about as good to give each quarterback an IQ test (only this would prove to be way more entertaining).

JJJ888 · 03-03-2008, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awfullyquiet

Here.

Passer rating = x/158 (will give you a % of 100) * 60%, win/total percentage (of 100) * 40%, Factor of passer rating should give you a 'decent' idea of what

That's just as subjective as grading each quarterback individually...

LonghornsLegend · 03-03-2008, 12:32 PM

Didnt Dan Marino get one of the lowest scores ever? So it had to be out back then in the early 80's, I still remember some people bringing that up as to why it doesnt mean all that much, guys with some of the highest scores never get off the bench.

VoteLynnSwan · 03-03-2008, 12:39 PM

i think when doing this you really need to only consider the guys in the first 3 rounds of the draft, because after that point, quarterbacks aren't really looked at to be starters. Talent is obviously a huge factor in this equation, i don't care how high your score is if you have no talent.

In theory, the QBs who go in the first three rounds have the most talent

zoinks · 03-03-2008, 12:47 PM

I believe both Dan Marino got a 13; Steve McNair got a 15, IIRC.

I've always thought of the Wonderlic for QB's as being similar to the 40 for other players. A player's performance in the 40 does little to indicate what kind of football player he'll be. It's not without merit, but it's greatly overrated, IMO. Same goes for the Wonderlic. It's nothing more than a small piece of the puzzle.

TimD · 03-03-2008, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJJ888

Chad Pennington 73

Really? I mean the guy is in the NFL because of his decision making and accuracy. He is known as an intelligent QB.

awfullyquiet · 03-03-2008, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJJ888

That's just as subjective as grading each quarterback individually...

sure. but you can tweak with said formula to basically put your list with quantitative results.