I test VERY well. There is something about standardized tests that I just nail. I am smart, but I’m not a genius by any standards. I just don’t freak out, and I have a decent breadth of knowledge.

Then, there is my sister. She has been 1st chair violist at DU since her sophomore year. Her GPA is higher than mine. And she gets physically sick with tests like that. Her anxiety level sky-rockets, and it’s all my family can do to bring her back down.

I don’t think standardized tests are bad, but they are not the be-all and end-all of measuring intellect. I haven’t seen anything else to suggest that Clady is “stupid”, and most reports have his interviews as being very articulate. My guess (as of now) is that we can throw the Wonderlic scores out the window.

we’re in trouble, so naturally I’m hoping you’re not. :) The ability to read and react to what’s happening in split seconds is important to all positions, including LT, but I’m not sure the Wonderlic measures that. I don’t think any sitting-down test, in which things happen much more slowly even if they do have to think of answers quickly, is capable of doing that.

It’s not all just riddles; there are a wide variety of question types, but they all can be answered very quickly if you see the way to get the answer. Here’s a sample set of questions that will give you an idea of what the Wonderlic is like. The highest-scoring players are offensive linemen and quarterbacks, with the offensive tackles usually doing the best of all groups.

Usually, the Wonderlic is most important for evaluating the O-linemen and QBs. There is a surprising amount of quick thinking that O-linemen have to do immediately before, during and immediately after the snap. They have their assignments from the huddle, but they have to be able to adapt to the defensive package, change their assignments if necessary, and predict how the other O-linemen might change their assignments. Not only that, but the way they execute their assignment will change depending on how the defender is planning to attack (e.g. handling a bullrush is far different from handling an outside technique).

The key is that the Wonderlic is an indirect measure of the quick-thinking reflex. It doesn’t correlate 100% to the ability to think quickly on the field. For example, the Wonderlic is a test that involves reading and writing, but playing football involves neither at the moment of the snap. A correlation does exist between the Wonderlic and field thinking, however, and that’s why they keep it. The basic idea is this: if a player has the mental agility to work through a wide array of problems in a short timeframe on paper, he has a better chance of doing the same thing on the field. It’s not perfect, but it’s extremely difficult to measure mental performance by indirect means.

It’s kind of like the 40-yard times. The fastest 40 doesn’t mean the guy will outrun everybody on the field. There’s a lot of difference between running a straight line in shorts and a t-shirt and running a route in full gear – especially after he’s been hit a few times. But the general trend is there. Your 4.4 guys will run faster than your 4.9 guys unless they get an insatiable addiction to creme-filled pastries.

Hope that helps.

I don’t know if the test is about the ability to measure “quick thinking” skills or not. I never saw the test used in any of my careers (adolescent psych, education, coaching), so I have to confess that I’m ignorant about any aspect of the Wonderlic. However, I would point out two things on this subject and add to the great thoughts of Spock and Hooper.

One, I noticed that all of the example questions that Hooper linked to had mathematical bases, but more importantly, every question has a short cut that one can use so that the test taker doesn’t have to wear himself down with a lot of calculations. This may be a test (to some extent) of intelligence, since a high IQ person can look at problems and solve them quicker because thay figure out shorter ways. Since I don’t consider myself to be a genius, I have another theory. Persons who have taught 6th grade (like myself) would be excellent QBs and offensive linemen because we learn how to solve “math story” problems like these in order to teach them (even though we are just neanderthal coaches). LOL

On a more serious note, Claus is at once both correct and incorrect. Some positions might require a better ability to process information quickly than other positions. But there are NO positions in football (as played at the professional level) where a player can get away with not processing information at fantastic speeds. Consider…

OL – Must read the defense in the few seconds they have before the snap to interpret potential blitzes, rush threats, who will commit those, and from where. ZBs also have the added requirement to calculate how to cover their zone before they reach it at the same time they consider where their RB is on the field behind them. This must not only be calculated in seconds, it continues to be calculated in “real time” during the play when the player is under physical assault!

Big, stupid guys on the OL won’t work out well. That’s not to say that an OL will come across as “smart”. He may not be verbaly advanced, and he may not have the advantage of certain knowledge to carry on a meaningful converstation. But he would still have the intellect to process information quickly.

Here’s a quick lesson on the interrelationship between intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom:

IQ, or intelligence, is a trait you are born with. IQ can be tested at different ages with different tests, but your IQ doesn’t change as you grow older (unless it goes down due to injury or illness). You can’t increase it. IQ is the ability to learn, store, and process knowledge quickly and, more importantly, efficiently.

Look at intelligence as a glass.

Knowledge is what you know. It is the data you have built up in your head about things ranging from trivia, to how to brush your teeth, to information you use to know how to do your job. It has nothing to do with how intelligent you are.

Look at knowledge as water.

Let’s pause here and look at some examples of how these things relate to each other, and why they are important AND not important.

Mozart was great because of his IQ. He could write an entire work of music in his head and put it onto paper (without error) in minutes. Good for him. His music was genius and beautiful. Bach, on the other hand, did not share this ability. Bach labored over his music for a long time to create great works. His IQ was not as high as Mozart. However, Bach’s work was so intense and his end product so incredible (some of his cannons and fugues are so complex that composers have yet to match them in terms of mathematical depth and still produce beauty) that his lack of IQ relative to Mozart is insignificant.

The same with chess (this one is for you Claus). American Bobby Fischer had a great IQ. He could hear a conversation in a language he didn’t know, and repeat it word for word several years later to a native speaker to find out what it meant. He had to study the game, but it took little effort. Dane Bent Larson was also a grandmaster. While he didn’t share Fischer’s amazing IQ, he studied his butt off and produced some of the most lovely games that chess afficienados have ever seen.

Let’s say I’m a genius. Let’s say my IQ is better than yours, and we are both students. I don’t have to study as hard as you to learn the same things. My glass is better and bigger than yours. But you apply yourself very hard to the material. At the end of the day you may have as much knowledge (water) or even more in your glass. A lot of intelligent people don’t know much, but that is rare. It’s hard not to learn if you are intelligent. But a complete lack of application makes an intelligent person “stupid”. By the same token, the less IQ one has the more they struggle with learning new things.

Wisdom is what a person values in their knowledge.

Take Forrest Gump. Very low intelligence, but his travels gave him a lot of experiences (knowledge). He valued human realtionships and (despite a low IQ) was relatively very wise because of it.

I have encountered criminal personalities that run the gamut. Some have the intellect to be very cunning and manipulative. Some are knowledgable about things, but only if it concerns them. This self centerness leads to knowledge (street smarts) that they focus on, but not helpful knowledge (like education or job skills). But wisdom is the big hang up. They often don’t have the wisdom to realize that their behavior is the problem, and they blame others for everything that happens to them. A sense of responsibility is just one quality of wisdom.

Does all of this relate to football? Heck yeah! Here is a little saying I used all of the time with our teams:

“HARD WORK BEATS TALENT WHEN TALENT DOESN’T WORK HARD”.

The idea carries over to academics, as well as sports. Poor teams must realize that they must exert effort constantly to overcome their shortcomings, but they can still win if the other team loses focus. Good teams must realize that their talent doesn’t matter if the other team plays harder.

The same in education/psychology. The student that applies him/herself as hard as possible doesn’t need to worry about the class genius, even if the professor is grading on a curve.

Sorry about rambling there. I rarely get to write on something that spans over three of my careers.

So in sum, OLs still need to be smart, Forrest Gump – wise, Fischer defeated Larsen on his way to beating Spassky in what major city? Yes! Chess trivia! Fischer beat Larsen in the Candidates’ Chess Match series in DENVER COLORADO! And Bach is the best!

Peace out!