To be fair, we didnt know sharpies were flammable,.we.were.used to crayons…
You are one of the few people who should never repress what you’re thinking. Or if you are repressing, you’ve found the right balance…
Mmmmm…my Irishness is very much in line with Freud’s musings on my people, thusly the Tetris that is the maze for what drops into, what stays in for decades and what comes out of this receiver/obtuse analytic abacus /microphone of a mind shall stay…nebulously fluid…to me as well.
Very much akin to my style of basketball play…I’d tell my fellas…“Look, if I dont even know what Im going to do until I do it, even if Ive never done it before, then no one has a hope of guarding it, whatever it is”.
Just expect a few turnovers…all part of the show.
After playing 35 years with the same guys (or longer) you had to evolve…I’d like to think this is also indicative of a larger life lesson for anyone.
What was the topic again?..
1 Like
There is a distinct difference between having the ability to process information and having the game reps and experience to know what to do with that information. I have said it before but its something I will say again. Anthony Richardson is a strange prospect to evaluate. He’s not really “missing” anything about his game. He’s got everything you are looking for. The big question is if it can all come together consistently. His ability to process information quickly on the field is evident when watching him. Doing the wrong thing with that information is up to the coaches to decide if they can coach up or that he will gain with experience.
3 Likes
If the Lions happen to draft him, I would suggest that they sprinkle a few real plays into their offense for him during the first year in real parts of the game. Those plays should offer more than wildcat run threats and have real pass options.
While the first year is undoubtedly Goff’s year, those exposures are essential to hastening the learning curve the Lions or any other team will need to endure at some point with Richardson. Do it, Brad. Villains don’t fear failure.
Everything you ever wanted to know about the S2 Cognition Test but were afraid to ask:
Yeah, buyer beware. Again, tests like this love to make big claims. The wonderlick made some big claims early. But there is nobody but the company that is heading it, studying its results, other than for correlation and marketing purposes. Its easy to get wrapped up in their claims. Even when doing testing for pattern recognition, there tends to be bias built in. Cultures, languages, etc change the way we view and catergorize data. People learn and perceive differently, and doing so in one type of way, will get a higher score than another. But other than some basic level correlation, there is nothing to say that the 2nd, lower scoring type won’t be successful, or vice versa. They are constantly hyping brock Purdy and his score. He also happened to be a rookie that had a ton of experience at a big 10 college that ran a pro system. He was already setup for quicker success than most other prospects. And, for a young QB to have a small bit of success on a loaded team has happened before. He is being praised as a giant success, with this test as a huge indicator… yet he could easily be a backup again after this year. 7 seasons of QBs with only a handful of those prospects from each year even getting a true shot in the NFL… theres not a ton of correlation to be had…
Tools like this could be useful to help determine the best way someone might learn… which could be a great teaching tool… but for evaluation purposes… they are touting way more than it can actually say with any certainty whatsoever
1 Like
This is only true because it’s lining up so well with success. Thus far the highest scorers have succeeded in the league. Brock Purdy last year was a big win for the S2. There’s only been 6 or 7 years worth of data so the sample size is still relatively small, but the results are eye-opening.
Levis and Richardson scoring high will put the success rate to the test, so we’ll see what the future holds. But thus far the correlation is pretty undeniable.
The data isn’t just small, its miniscule. 7 drafts, how many players would someone even deem a “success?” And usually you need to revisit a draft after 3 years to truly evaluate. So really there are just a few draft classes with data. From that, maybe you have like 6-10 guys you deem a success? So now of those 6-10 we look at their scores… can a low score even rule someone out? Is there any real correlation to success? Have they posted any of this publicly? I can’t seem to find all of their results. Are there any players who are sitting around as free agents that had great scores?
The only results I can find are from marketing peices. They love to list Brock Purdy and Josh Allen, and Joe Burrow…
How did Zach Wilson score?
There are real debates about the value of things like personality tests in hiring, and other cognition tests. And some of these are ones that have been out for years, with people doing studies to look at thier bias and effectiveness. And overall, they are finding many of these to be mostly a placebo effect for companies that use them. People want them to make a difference so they rate new employees higher, for example.
1 Like
Cognition, learning, perception, etc are incredibly complicated human concepts. Trying to boil them down to simple tests is a very new thing that has not gone through much peer review. My overall point is that a lot of these companies are taking something that can’t stand up to scrutiny, and is not even really a science yet, and they don’t open anything up or publish anything in journals, and instead market themselves to companies and make advertisments, and sell themselves as these finished products tjat get results.
I can’t answer that. They don’t release it publicly, what we have are leaks.
But what we know are the highest scorers to date are Brock Purdy, Josh Allen, Joe Burrow, Justin Fields, Patrick Mahomes. Drew Brees also took it and scored predictably high.
This is from an article in the Athletic:
The company recently looked at 27 starting quarterbacks. (Some of the older veterans like Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers had entered the league before S2 began testing in 2015 and there are no scores for them; Brees took the test while already playing in the NFL.) Of that group, 13 had a career passer rating above 90. The average S2 score of those players was the 91st percentile. Those with passer ratings below 90 had much lower test results."
“Those 14 guys, the average score was in the low 60s,” Ally said.
Top-tier quarterbacks have the highest average scores, followed closely by safeties. That makes sense considering safeties are known as the “quarterback of the defense” and must keep an eye on multiple moving opponents.
“The average human being can keep track of about three and a half objects at a time,” Alley said. “The average safety in the NFL, it’s closer to six.”
Also the test was specifically designed as a response to all the biased tests. Its intent is to be utterly unbiased, but I’m sure they settle for unbiased as possible. Here’s a sample of some of the questions from the same article:
In one section of the exam, a series of diamonds flash on the screen for 16 milliseconds each. Every diamond is missing a point, and the test taker must determine — using left, right, up or down keys — which part is missing.
In another, the test seeks to find out how many objects an athlete can keep track of at the same time. In another, there are 22 figures on the screen and the athlete must locate a specific one as quickly as possible. The object might be a red triangle embedded in other shapes that are also red.
To me that is as unbiased as it gets. Shapes. Pattern recognition. Perhaps it discriminated the color blind or the outright blind, but then they’re unlikely to be making NFL rosters anyway.
Actually, sadly, this is something we’ve been trying to do for a very long time, from personality tests to IQ tests to the vaunted Wunderlich. Trying and failing, because quantifying the qualitative is a fool’s errand.
The S2 test to me is different because it’s not trying to tell us anything about the individual’s personality or ability to work with others, it’s answering one, simple question: how fast does the test-taker process information? That’s it. For all of the other stuff the FO has to go a different route.
And again, despite us not having the numbers ourselves, it’s very clear that despite the small sample size, the correlation between high scores and NFL success is there. Will it stay there is TBD but for now the excitement of FOs is understandable.
1 Like
27 starting QBs, and then we look at their scores… then we compare QB rating (which is also vary flawed) This is not a data set. And a film editor would ace that part of the test… but suck as a QB. ha
Pretty good interview with the creator of the test, clears up some misconceptions. Also makes it seem as though Stroud had a pretty good test too, in opposition to all the rumors about him.
1 Like
Is there any data on TE’s?
I ask as they have a longer learning curve due to many responsibilites from blocking/line calls to routes, etc etc.
None that he mentioned. He did say EDGE was the least correlative. Athleticism matters much more.
1 Like
It pays to have a singular focus while edging.
Wait…what?
Sneaky nugget here, and I’m glad we have John Fox on board, because with his level of experience, he’s seen it all, attacked it all, and can probably be that little voice in Glenn’s ear that can put this thing over the top. Looking forward to seeing what our defense can do on the attack this year 
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 240 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.