John Manfreda wrote:I thought on this board you weren't suppose to have personal attacks.
No one attacked you, they attacked your stupid post, which is within the rules.
GSPODS wrote:John Manfreda wrote:His name doesn't deserved to be spelled right. Why does he get all this baby time when past washington Qb's didn't. Ramsey looked a lot better than JC did his third year. JC has shown he doesn't have it, his decision making is a joke its wrose than Ramsey's. He isn't quick enough mentally, u can tell by his wonderlic score. I thought on this board you weren't suppose to have personal attacks.
Edited for language.
In what lifetime does anyone not deserve the respect of being called by their proper name? Even the Adolf Hitler's and Charles Manson's of the world are given that much respect as human beings.
So, Joan, care to post your Wonderlic score for all to admire? Your name must be Joan because you're certainly on a period about something.
Patrick Ramsey is long gone from the Washington Redskins. What he did or didn't do has no relevance.
Which "it" does Jason Campbell not have?
The Redskins Uniform?
The full faith and credit of the ownership and coaching staff?
The big arm and the big paycheck?
No, he has those.
It must be the healthy offensive line, the healthy wide receivers, the big possession receiver, the same offensive system and playbook from one year to the next, the play-calling "handcuffs" removed.
I'm not attacking you personally. I am attacking the content of your post.
Nobody with this many spelling and grammatical errors should be questioning anyone's intelligence.John Manfreda wrote:His name doesn't deserved to be spelled right. Why does he get all this baby time when past washington Qb's didn't. Ramsey looked a lot better than JC did his third year. JC has shown he doesn't have it, his decision making is a joke its wrose than Ramsey's. He isn't quick enough mentally, u can tell by his wonderlic score. I thought on this board you weren't suppose to have personal attacks.
Past tense used on "deserve", indicating that Jason Campbell's name did not deserve to be spelled correctly in the past, but it does deserve to be spelled correctly in the present.
Failure to capitalize "Washington", indicating you also have no respect for the proper name of what is supposedly your football organization.
Possessive form of "Qb's", indicating ownership of said past "QB's" by Washington. If the "QB's referenced (one, Patrick Ramsey, singular), are in the past (no longer possessive, as in of or belonging to the Washington Redskins), then the statement is out of time and tense.
Failure to use the possessive form of "it's", the contraction of "It is" to begin a sentence, thereby eliminating the required subject plus verb equals sentence structure required of the English language.
Failure to capitalize "Wonderlic", indicating you also have no respect for the individual who invented the test you seem so impressed with.
Use of the past tense "weren't" with the present tense "suppose", indicating you are living in the past.
And you have the nerve to question or challenge the mental quickness of anyone? I didn't even bother to address your spelling errors.
If you're as concerned about personal attacks as you would lead everyone to believe, why is it that you find it OK to personally attack Jason Campbell when he isn't here to defend himself, but get defensive about being attacked on your own lack of merit?
You'd fit right in with the Philadelpia Eagles fanbase. They're still jawing about how Ron Jaworski was so much better than Donovan McNabb is.
Fios wrote:OK, some of this does qualify as personal attacks, please address the post, not the post-er. That's both a specific and a general warning. Gracias.
GSPODS wrote:Let's all take the Wonderlic.
The following questions are similar, but not identical, to those presented on the actual WPT-R forms.
Question 1
Which of the following is the earliest date?
A) Jan. 16, 1898 B) Feb. 21, 1889 C) Feb. 2, 1898 D) Jan. 7, 1898 E) Jan. 30, 1889
Question 2
LOW is to HIGH as EASY is to______?
J) SUCCESSFUL K) PURE L) TALL M) INTERESTING N) DIFFICULT
Question 3
One word below appears in color. What is the OPPOSITE of that word?
She gave a complex answer to the question and we all agreed with her.
A) long B) better C) simple D) wrong E) kind
Not that these questions are difficult but let's be serious. How does any of this help a quarterback?
BnGhog wrote:GSPODS wrote:Let's all take the Wonderlic.
The following questions are similar, but not identical, to those presented on the actual WPT-R forms.
Question 1
Which of the following is the earliest date?
A) Jan. 16, 1898 B) Feb. 21, 1889 C) Feb. 2, 1898 D) Jan. 7, 1898 E) Jan. 30, 1889
Question 2
LOW is to HIGH as EASY is to______?
J) SUCCESSFUL K) PURE L) TALL M) INTERESTING N) DIFFICULT
Question 3
One word below appears in color. What is the OPPOSITE of that word?
She gave a complex answer to the question and we all agreed with her.
A) long B) better C) simple D) wrong E) kind
Not that these questions are difficult but let's be serious. How does any of this help a quarterback?
They are not made to be hard. They are questions to see how quick they read, comprehend and respond. If his score is 28. That means he had correct 28 questions in twelve minutes out of 50 questions. And I have also read that the questions are designed to get harder as you go. So in order to answer every question you could only spend 14 seconds on each one. Sure, the examples given are very easy, but they do get harder as you go.
John Manfreda wrote:Bench Campell and Start Collins bandwagon I am on it. I might be the only one, but I am on it.
Last year showed Campell doesn't have it, Collins accomplished more in 4 games than Campell did in 13. Ramsey looked better in his third year than Campell.
I understand the concept but I would rather have my quarterback able to quickly read, comprehend, and respond to a blitz with an audible than worry about him knowing his opposites or his timelines. I don't think there is any correlation between the two.
langleyparkjoe wrote:Question 1
Which of the following is the earliest date?
A) Jan. 16, 1898 B) Feb. 21, 1889 C) Feb. 2, 1898 D) Jan. 7, 1898 E) Jan. 30, 1889
Answer: D, because January 7th is before 1/16, 2/21, and 1/30..*duh*
Question 2
LOW is to HIGH as EASY is to______?
J) SUCCESSFUL K) PURE L) TALL M) INTERESTING N) DIFFICULT
Answer: L, because since low is to high, another word for high is tall. Yup.
Question 3
One word below appears in color. What is the OPPOSITE of that word?
She gave a complex answer to the question and we all agreed with her.
A) long B) better C) simple D) wrong E) kind
Answer: None of the above because the answer is "House", since complex refers to apartments.
gay4pacman wrote:i have seen copies of wonderlic tests. Each question is harder than the previous one and it continues all the way through 50. While the first question on the test might be similar to those you listed, they get increasingly more difficult. I see myself as a pretty smart individual and i took the timed test and scored a 29 out of 34. Honestly i expected to do better and anyone who gets higher than that within the time i respect pretty highly. I was going as fast as i could and still couldnt break 30.
The wonderlic is no "walk in the park" and i suspect this board would do a lot worse than most would think.
GSPODS wrote:Let's all take the Wonderlic.
The following questions are similar, but not identical, to those presented on the actual WPT-R forms.
Question 1
Which of the following is the earliest date?
A) Jan. 16, 1898 B) Feb. 21, 1889 C) Feb. 2, 1898 D) Jan. 7, 1898 E) Jan. 30, 1889
Question 2
LOW is to HIGH as EASY is to______?
J) SUCCESSFUL K) PURE L) TALL M) INTERESTING N) DIFFICULT
Question 3
One word below appears in color. What is the OPPOSITE of that word?
She gave a complex answer to the question and we all agreed with her.
A) long B) better C) simple D) wrong E) kind
Not that these questions are difficult but let's be serious. How does any of this help a quarterback?
KazooSkinsFan wrote:There is all sorts of criticism for the SATs for the same reason. But in the end the SATs have a better correlation with success in college then any other major criterion because it does in a standard way measure basic intelligence. In the NFL, QBs do need to have some intelligence. I'm not arguing "for" this test so much as saying that I can see the point.
GSPODS wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:There is all sorts of criticism for the SATs for the same reason. But in the end the SATs have a better correlation with success in college then any other major criterion because it does in a standard way measure basic intelligence. In the NFL, QBs do need to have some intelligence. I'm not arguing "for" this test so much as saying that I can see the point.
Wouldn't an IQ test, which measures the ability to learn, make more sense than any test which measures actual knowledge? The QB needs the ability to learn the playbook, the ability to learn defensive formations, the ability to learn audibles, etc.
I don't see why a QB needs to know which date comes first or synonyms and antonyms.
Kaz wrote:I'm not arguing "for" this test so much as saying that I can see the point