The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:12 am**

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.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:13 am**

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.

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.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:43 am**

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.

Cease and Desist on the personal attacks noted.
I do, however, have to state that the second post now qualifies as the most ridiculous post of the year, even topping the first one.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:45 am**

Lol at Fios. Award winner!

John Manfreda wrote:He isn't quick enough mentally, u can tell by his wonderlic score.

Uh, he scored a 28 at the Combine. The average for QBs is a 26.

Yep, sure sounds like he's dumb.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:52 am**

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?

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:26 pm**

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.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:33 pm**

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.

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. Rocket scientists might ace the Wonderlic but they don't play professional football. Professional atheletes might not always be the sharpest tools, Bernie Kosar, Steve Young, and a few others excepted, but the necessary skills are entirely different. Reacting to answer a question in 14 seconds is not the same as reacting to a blitz in two seconds. If the QB had 14 seconds to react to a blitz ...

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:54 pm**

While I agree, they have nothing to do with football. As I said the questions get them to read, comprehend and respond. You say that's what you want him do on a blitz. So, I don't see the problem.

The questions are second nature to anyone with common sense.

Well, the plays and audibles you want him to use on the field should be second nature to him (by game day). You say he only has 2 seconds to react to a blitz, well if you are comparing to the questions, that would be like if he already knew the question and has to respond. Because by the time he snaps the ball he already knows his play. And should know his dump off man, or an audible before the snap if he reads blitz first.

No, Literally the questions have nothing to do with football, But your mind is working in similar ways to read, comprehend and respond.

That is what the test measures not if he knows his opposites or timelines.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:04 pm**

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.

Dude get over it. Campbell is the man and he will remain the starter. Ok So Collins did well for a few games how well will he do for a whole season?

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:11 pm**

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.

For the most part I agree with you. The test obviously isn't meant to be used as a tool to determine a player's football knowledge. All that the Wonderlic is is an intelligence test. However, I don't think that you can completely discount that test for quarterbacks. A QB has to spend a lot of time learning the play book, studying film, reading defenses, calling audibles, etc. So I would imagine that most teams want their QB to have at least average intelligence. A low score isn't a reason not to draft someone, but a smart team would probably do some additional research on a QB that totally bombed the Wonderlic the way that Vince Young did (he got a 6).

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:04 pm**

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.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:10 pm**

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.

Vince, you already took this once. You did better the first time. :lol:

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:10 pm**

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.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:28 pm**

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.

We're only discussing it at all because Manfred Mann or whatever his name was brought it up in reference to Jason Campbell, who I believe scored a 26. He was saying Campbell's Wonderlic score proved he wasn't very bright. I was saying that I'd rather have a QB read a blitz quickly than read a Wonderlic test quickly.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:01 pm**

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 don't. I see no correlation of Wunderlich score to football performance. While I wouldn't hire Campbell to redisign the space shuttle or perform neurosurgery, I WOULD hire him to play QB in the NFL.

Posted: **Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:59 am**

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.

Posted: **Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:06 am**

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.

Posted: **Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:13 am**

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.

I think I addressed this when I said:

Kaz wrote:I'm not arguing "for" this test so much as saying that I can see the point

Posted: **Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:25 am**

The overall point is.. this bandwagon sux.. can we just take it to the graveyard and forget it ever existed?

R.I.P. to this wack thread
:-({|=

Posted: **Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:36 pm**

Can I be the last person to post in the thread?

Posted: **Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:44 pm**

BnGhog wrote:Can I be the last person to post in the thread?

Yes!

Posted: **Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:12 am**

Dang Countertrey!

Now, Thats better.

Posted: **Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:54 am**

This thread is dead

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Bandwagon

Re: Bandwagon