PDA

View Full Version : Interesting SI piece on the rule of 26-27-60 for picking an NFL QB - Tebow mentioned


Hulamau
07-09-2010, 09:48 PM
Tebow may have been a little light on the Wonderlic at 22, but with his 42 starts and 67% completion average as well as his very big 'Tangible' of heart, moxie, work ethic and leadership, will likely more than compensate a few ticks on the Wonderlic in any event.

Plus, he's got at least a year under Josh to hone his craft and get the offense and reading NFL defenses down. That 67% completion average in the tough SEC while winning two championships and a Heisman doesn't hurt his chances.

And by the time he's ready to take over he'll have a stud BIG young and reasonably experienced offense line, some decent running backs and a first class young WR corp to work with. What with Thomas, Royal, Decker, Jabar, McKinley et al.

Not to mention high level coaching and a cooperative veteran QB in Orton his first year as a mentor as well. Pretty much an ideal situation being set up for about the time Tebow is ready to go balls to the wall! Should be fun to watch in any event.


Updated: Thursday July 8, 2010 2:06PM
The Rule of 26-27-60 helps predict NFL quarterback success or failure Story Highlights
John P. Lopez - INSIDE THE NFL

Rule: Get at least 26 on Wonderlic, start 27 games and complete 60% of passesPeyton Manning, Philip Rivers passed rule; JaMarcus Russell, David Carr did not

Wonderlic scores fall short for rookies Colt McCoy, Tim Tebow, Jimmy Clausen

Top pick Sam Bradford scored a 36 on the Wonderlic, started 31 games at Oklahoma and completed 67 percent of his passes.

Perhaps we should not be stunned by JaMarcus Russell's utter flop as an NFL quarterback -- low-lighted this week by his arrest for possession of a controlled substance in Alabama.

But could a simple formula have warned us of Russell's lack of NFL readiness? And Ryan Leaf's and David Carr's and other failed, high-pick quarterbacks?

Call it the Rule of 26-27-60.

Here is the gist of it: If an NFL prospect scores at least a 26 on the Wonderlic test, starts at least 27 games in his college career and completes at least 60 percent of his passes, there's a good chance he will succeed at the NFL level.

There are, of course, exceptions. If NFL general managers always could measure heart, determination and other intangibles, then Tom Brady would not have been drafted in the sixth round.

But short of breaking down tape, conducting personal interviews and analyzing every number and every snap of every game, remember the Rule of 26-27-60 the next time a hotshot prospect comes down the pike.

Since 1998, these are some of the NFL quarterbacks who aced all three parts of the Rule of 26-27-60: Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Tony Romo, Matt Schaub, Kyle Orton, Kevin Kolb, Matt Ryan, Ryan Fitzpatrick and Matt Stafford.


Name Wonderlic Starts Completion Percentage
Peyton Manning 28 45 63
Philip Rivers 30 49 64
Drew Brees 28 36 61
Tony Romo 37 35 62
Matt Schaub 31 36 67
Eli Manning 39 38 61
Kyle Orton 26 37 60
Kevin Kolb 28 47 62
Matt Ryan 32 28 60
Ryan Fitzpatrick 48 28 60

Meanwhile, among the once highly-touted prospects who failed at least one part of the formula: Ryan Leaf, Joey Harrington, Michael Vick, Akili Smith, Tim Couch, Daunte Culpepper, David Carr, Vince Young and JaMarcus Russell.


Player Wonderlic Starts Completion Percentage
Ryan Leaf 27 24 53
Joey Harrington 32 26 55
Michael Vick 20 21 56
Akili Smith 26 11 58
Tim Couch 22 27 67
Daunte Culpepper 18 43 64
David Carr 24 26 62
Vince Young 16 32 61
JaMarcus Russell 24 29 61

There are a few notable exceptions to the rule but only by slight margins. Two-time Super Bowl champ Ben Roethlisberger scored a 25 on the Wonderlic, just one point short of the standard of 26. Jay Cutler -- a mixed-bag thus far in the NFL -- scored exactly a 26 on his Wonderlic and had the starts, but completed 57 percent of his passes at Vanderbilt. Joe Flacco, who's been to the playoffs in each of his first two seasons, fell short in the starts category.


Player Wonderlic Starts Completion Percentage
Jay Cutler 26 43 57
Ben Roethlisberger 25 38 65
Joe Flacco 27 22 64

How about the quarterback class of 2010? Top pick Sam Bradford aces the rule easily, but the other three high-profile rookie QBs -- the Browns' Colt McCoy, the Broncos' Tim Tebow and the Panthers' Jimmy Clausen -- all fall short on the Wonderlic, although not by much.


Player Wonderlic Starts Completion Percentage
Sam Bradford 36 31 67
Colt McCoy 25 53 70
Tim Tebow 22 42 67
Jimmy Clausen 23 35 63

It stands to reason why the Rule of 26-27-60 makes the most sense as a quick guide to NFL quarterbacking success, too.

The 26 represents the minimum Wonderlic score required to score a passing grade. Consider some of the lower-scoring quarterbacks drafted since 1998 when it comes to the Wonderlic: Vick (who scored a 20), Akili Smith (26), Couch (22), Carr (24), Young (16, first reported as a six) and Russell (24). All of them have been considered at best under-achievers, at worst busts.

The most notable exceptions to the rule are Brett Favre, who scored a reported 22 on the Wonderlic, and Donovan McNabb, who scored a reported 14.

The 27 represents the minimum number of starts a quarterbacking draft prospect should have had in college to make the grade. Ask any NFL scout if he would rather have 12 games to grade or 27. Playing a lot of games means more opportunity to hone your craft in the heat of battle and gain confidence in your ability to perform under pressure. That translates well to the next level. Oregon's Akili Smith was drafted in 1999 after making just 11 collegiate starts. He ultimately made just 17 starts in Cincinnati.

And how many quarterbacks, like Leaf and Russell, have been drafted based on "upside." That is another way of saying a player couldn't complete 60-percent in college. Do you really think he can do it at the next level?

The exceptions are few. Finding NFL quarterbacks certainly is a science, but it's not rocket science. When in doubt, turn to the Rule of 26-27-60.


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/john_lopez/07/08/qb.rule/index.html#ixzz0tFZqzbCy

Killericon
07-09-2010, 10:27 PM
Meanwhile, among the once highly-touted prospects who failed at least one part of the formula: Ryan Leaf, Joey Harrington, Michael Vick, Akili Smith, Tim Couch, Daunte Culpepper, David Carr, Vince Young and JaMarcus Russell.Why do people count Mike Vick as a failure in the company of Carr, Harrington and Russell? He was a good player who had flashes of greatness and got his team to the NFC Championship Game(Admittedly, in a year where a team of 90 year old women could have won the NFC West). It was only his behaviour that led to his being a bust, not his play.

Having said that, this is very interesting stuff.

TheReverend
07-09-2010, 10:32 PM
Why do people count Mike Vick as a failure in the company of Carr, Harrington and Russell? He was a good player who had flashes of greatness and got his team to the NFC Championship Game(Admittedly, in a year where a team of 90 year old women could have won the NFC West). It was only his behaviour that led to his being a bust, not his play.

Having said that, this is very interesting stuff.

1. Lol @ Mike Vick being a good player.

2. What does the NFC West have to do with the Falcons?

2KBack
07-09-2010, 10:35 PM
michael vick is/was a unique athlete, but has ever been much of a QB.

TheReverend
07-09-2010, 10:36 PM
michael vick is/was a unique athlete, but has ever been much of a QB.

So was/is Matt Jones, brahhhhhhhhhhhhh

Ugly Duck
07-09-2010, 10:43 PM
Tim Tebow 22 42 67

Tim Tebow 22 42 67

TheReverend
07-09-2010, 10:47 PM
Tim Tebow 22 42 67

That's also how many times he'll beat Oakland in his first 11 years.

That One Guy
07-09-2010, 10:48 PM
michael vick is/was a unique athlete, but has ever been much of a QB.

Exactly. He had his best games when rushing and killing opposing teams on the ground. Rarely did it seem he carried his team to victory through his passes.

mwill07
07-09-2010, 11:01 PM
1. Lol @ Mike Vick being a good player.

2. What does the NFC West have to do with the Falcons?

1. he wasn't? He was a 3x pro-bowler, and QB'ed the first team to win a playoff game in GB. He took his team to the NFC CG 2x. I'd put any QB who is both a pro-bowler and playoff game winner in the "good QB" category.

Consider: the year before Vick (2000), the Falcons were 4-12. His first year starting (2002), they were 9-6-1. He gets hurt the following year, Falcons go 5-11. He comes back, they go 11-5, 8-8, 7-9. He goes to the slammer for a bit, and the Falcons are 4-12 again. It should be clear that his presence accounts for between 3 and 7 wins.

2. Falcons were in the NFCW up until 2001. Killericon was only off by a year.

This is far from a complete list of all QB's drafted over the past decade. We should note that the author has selectively cherry-picked data to support his hypothesis. Note the omission of Tom Brady and the inclusion of McNabb and Favre as footnotes, but not included in the lists.

I'd also mention that a screening tool is very good at looking what has happened, but cannot be relied on for predicting future performances.

TheReverend
07-09-2010, 11:14 PM
1. he wasn't? He was a 3x pro-bowler, and QB'ed the first team to win a playoff game in GB. He took his team to the NFC CG 2x. I'd put any QB who is both a pro-bowler and playoff game winner in the "good QB" category.

Consider: the year before Vick (2000), the Falcons were 4-12. His first year starting (2002), they were 9-6-1. He gets hurt the following year, Falcons go 5-11. He comes back, they go 11-5, 8-8, 7-9. He goes to the slammer for a bit, and the Falcons are 4-12 again. It should be clear that his presence accounts for between 3 and 7 wins.

1. Pro bowler by name, not by performance. He NEVER even managed to post a 3k yard season. Something that gets easily eclipsed by journeymen.

2. He absolutely did NOT get his team to the NFC CG 2x. They went once and lost to the Eagles in 2004. And if you recall Allan Rossum was the big playoff gamebreaker up to that point that POSTseason.

3. You're blatantly ignoring how snake-bitten that team was after the 98 superbowl where our Broncos demolished them before the world, including Chandlers injury in 2000 (the year you referenced) which put our beloved 3rd string back up Danny Kannell into the lineup.

4. As for the year he was hurt: They were 1-4 with Vick at the helm before he got hurt... soooooooooooooooo.... 4-7 to finish was actually an improvement.

2. Falcons were in the NFCW up until 2001. Killericon was only off by a year.

Exactly

Tombstone RJ
07-09-2010, 11:15 PM
What about Marino? How does Elway and Montana compare? What about Warren Moon or Boomer Eisiason(sp?). How does Tom Terrific score? This article is much ado about nothing...

TheReverend
07-09-2010, 11:31 PM
One last Mike Vick note:

As a "post season winner" starter in the playoffs he has a 71 QB rating and managed 3 total TDs in 4 games (includes 0 rushing).

Killericon
07-09-2010, 11:52 PM
1. Pro bowler by name, not by performance. He NEVER even managed to post a 3k yard season. Something that gets easily eclipsed by journeymen.

2. He absolutely did NOT get his team to the NFC CG 2x. They went once and lost to the Eagles in 2004. And if you recall Allan Rossum was the big playoff gamebreaker up to that point that POSTseason.

3. You're blatantly ignoring how snake-bitten that team was after the 98 superbowl where our Broncos demolished them before the world, including Chandlers injury in 2000 (the year you referenced) which put our beloved 3rd string back up Danny Kannell into the lineup.

4. As for the year he was hurt: They were 1-4 with Vick at the helm before he got hurt... soooooooooooooooo.... 4-7 to finish was actually an improvement.



Exactly

I was more commenting on the overall state of the NFC that year.

Also, fine, whatever, Vick wasn't 'good', nor did he earn his pro bowl nods. Can we at least agree that he doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as JaMarcus Russel?

BMarsh615
07-10-2010, 12:00 AM
Why did McDumbass draft Tebow when Kyle Orton met this criteria already?

STFU!

footstepsfrom#27
07-10-2010, 12:15 AM
What about Marino? How does Elway and Montana compare? What about Warren Moon or Boomer Eisiason(sp?). How does Tom Terrific score? This article is much ado about nothing...
Elway got a 30. Marino scored a 15, as did Jim Kelly, Randall Cunningham and Terry Bradshaw. That's a whole lot of success for guys who wouldn't have qualified under this goofy 26-27-60 rule and none were mentioned in the story.

Killericon
07-10-2010, 12:23 AM
Elway got a 30. Marino scored a 15, as did Jim Kelly, Randall Cunningham and Terry Bradshaw. That's a whole lot of success for guys who wouldn't have qualified under this goofy 26-27-60 rule and none were mentioned in the story.

But that wouldn't support the narrative...

mwill07
07-10-2010, 04:01 AM
1. Pro bowler by name, not by performance. He NEVER even managed to post a 3k yard season. Something that gets easily eclipsed by journeymen.

2. He absolutely did NOT get his team to the NFC CG 2x. They went once and lost to the Eagles in 2004. And if you recall Allan Rossum was the big playoff gamebreaker up to that point that POSTseason.

3. You're blatantly ignoring how snake-bitten that team was after the 98 superbowl where our Broncos demolished them before the world, including Chandlers injury in 2000 (the year you referenced) which put our beloved 3rd string back up Danny Kannell into the lineup.

4. As for the year he was hurt: They were 1-4 with Vick at the helm before he got hurt... soooooooooooooooo.... 4-7 to finish was actually an improvement.


1. Vick got things done in different ways than most QB's. He wasn't a great passer, but he was an explosive, game changing runner. There's more than way a cookie crumbles (or something like that).

2. my mistake. I was thinking the year they beat GB, they were there. They weren't.

3. Well, when ever a team builds around a QB, and then that QB is hurt, the team will be in trouble. Say what you will about Vick the player, but he was good enough that the Falcons built the team around him. And enjoyed some success doing so.

bro1ncos
07-10-2010, 04:58 AM
1. Pro bowler by name, not by performance. He NEVER even managed to post a 3k yard season. Something that gets easily eclipsed by journeymen.

2. He absolutely did NOT get his team to the NFC CG 2x. They went once and lost to the Eagles in 2004. And if you recall Allan Rossum was the big playoff gamebreaker up to that point that POSTseason.

3. You're blatantly ignoring how snake-bitten that team was after the 98 superbowl where our Broncos demolished them before the world, including Chandlers injury in 2000 (the year you referenced) which put our beloved 3rd string back up Danny Kannell into the lineup.

4. As for the year he was hurt: They were 1-4 with Vick at the helm before he got hurt... soooooooooooooooo.... 4-7 to finish was actually an improvement.



Exactly

This part is absolutely WRONG!!! Vick was hurt to begin the year and didn't start a game until December in 2003. The four games he played the Falcons went 3-1. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/game_query.cgi?qb=VickMi00&yr=2003

Vick is 38-28-1 in his career as a starter. I would say this qualifies as a "good" QB. 3000 yards passing seasons have little correlation with being a good QB. There is so much more to the game then just passing the ball.

TheReverend
07-10-2010, 08:17 AM
This part is absolutely WRONG!!! Vick was hurt to begin the year and didn't start a game until December in 2003. The four games he played the Falcons went 3-1. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/game_query.cgi?qb=VickMi00&yr=2003

Vick is 38-28-1 in his career as a starter. I would say this qualifies as a "good" QB. 3000 yards passing seasons have little correlation with being a good QB. There is so much more to the game then just passing the ball.

Nice catch man. I remembered it wrong (beginning of the year vs the end).

Thanks for the correction.

2KBack
07-10-2010, 08:45 AM
This part is absolutely WRONG!!! Vick was hurt to begin the year and didn't start a game until December in 2003. The four games he played the Falcons went 3-1. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/game_query.cgi?qb=VickMi00&yr=2003

Vick is 38-28-1 in his career as a starter. I would say this qualifies as a "good" QB. 3000 yards passing seasons have little correlation with being a good QB. There is so much more to the game then just passing the ball.

I'd be curious as to how you feel about Orton then. Seeing as how he has a similar winning percentage and much better passing statistics.

Cito Pelon
07-10-2010, 09:10 AM
1. Vick got things done in different ways than most QB's. He wasn't a great passer, but he was an explosive, game changing runner. There's more than way a cookie crumbles (or something like that).

2. my mistake. I was thinking the year they beat GB, they were there. They weren't.

3. Well, when ever a team builds around a QB, and then that QB is hurt, the team will be in trouble. Say what you will about Vick the player, but he was good enough that the Falcons built the team around him. And enjoyed some success doing so.

Yeah, there's more than one way to kill a dog.

bro1ncos
07-10-2010, 09:22 AM
I'd be curious as to how you feel about Orton then. Seeing as how he has a similar winning percentage and much better passing statistics.

I feel like Orton is like the majority of QB's in the league. He is a very serviceable QB that can't win a game singlehanded. If you surround him with solid talent then he will be a solid QB. If you surround him with great talent then he can help lead you great places. If you surround him with mediocre talent (like this season seems to be) he will most likely be a mediocre QB.

That was one thing about Vick, he COULD win a game singlehanded. He had extraordinary skills that were above most NFL players. On the other hand he could lose a game singlehanded too. The thing that separated him from some of the best QB's that had extraordinary skills is that he didn't always succeed at making others around him better. Players like Elway, Montana, Marino, Brady and Manning have extraordinary skills, but they also made players around them better. Good players turn into very good players and mediocre players turn into good players and very good players can perform as great players while they have a great QB. That IMO is what makes certain players great, they have great skill but they make their teammates better just by being around them.

Tombstone RJ
07-10-2010, 10:24 AM
If I was in the front office of a team and I had to make a decision between two QBs and both are highly rated for my offensive system then yah, maybe I apply the 26-27-60 rule and see who is better. I mean, it's another way to grade talent but it's certainly not the only way.

elsid13
07-10-2010, 10:57 AM
With the expanded use of the Spread, I would downgrade any QB that played in that style of system 5 to 10 points in their completion percentage.

oubronco
07-10-2010, 11:03 AM
Why do people count Mike Vick as a failure in the company of Carr, Harrington and Russell? He was a good player who had flashes of greatness and got his team to the NFC Championship Game(Admittedly, in a year where a team of 90 year old women could have won the NFC West). It was only his behaviour that led to his being a bust, not his play.

Having said that, this is very interesting stuff.

Vick couldn't hit the broad side of a barn

broncogary
07-10-2010, 11:09 AM
Vick couldn't hit the broad side of a barn

Except when he played Denver.

footstepsfrom#27
07-10-2010, 02:24 PM
I'd be curious as to how you feel about Orton then. Seeing as how he has a similar winning percentage and much better passing statistics.
One is a playmaker by himself and one isn't. I'll leave it to you to decide which is which.

Ugly Duck
07-10-2010, 02:36 PM
Jamarcus Russell 24

Tim Tebow22

Tombstone RJ
07-10-2010, 02:44 PM
Jamarcus Russell 24

Tim Tebow22

Yep, JaFatty sure out smarted the crypt keeper.

footstepsfrom#27
07-10-2010, 02:47 PM
The problem with the wonderlic is the same problem any IQ test has, it's a poor measuring stick of actual intellectual capacity since (among other things) it's a snapshot in time as opposed to a video. In other words, how one scores on ANY type of test at a given time is subject to all kinds of immediate influences ranging from how much sleep the test taker got the night before to what's going on in their household, their state of cognitive attention at that particular time...possibly even the environment of the room they're in and whether something is distracting, etc...other IQ tests like the Stanford Binet have been shown to be poor predictors of success in other fields as well as life in general. A study of university professors children that tracked the subjects over 25 years after they took the test found that 4 year olds who deferred gratification (getting 2 marshmellows instead of 1) for 15 minutes proved to be more reliable than the IQ test on a range of measurements ranging from financial success to marital longevity. In essense, the test was essentially meaningless as a predictive tool. I'd ascribe little value to the wonderlic as well but when you're spending millions on a guy the bean counters want they feel is more tangible to go by I guess. The Russel vs. Tebow thing is a prime example...anyone can see one is a moron and the other's pretty bright...you know which is which.

baja
07-10-2010, 02:54 PM
The problem with the wonderlic is the same problem any IQ test has, it's a poor measuring stick of actual intellectual capacity since (among other things) it's a snapshot in time as opposed to a video. In other words, how one scores on ANY type of test at a given time is subject to all kinds of immediate influences ranging from how much sleep the test taker got the night before to what's going on in their household, their state of cognitive attention at that particular time...possibly even the environment of the room they're in and whether something is distracting, etc...other IQ tests like the Stanford Binet have been shown to be poor predictors of success in other fields as well as life in general. A study of university professors children that tracked the subjects over 25 years after they took the test found that 4 year olds who deferred gratification (getting 2 marshmellows instead of 1) for 15 minutes proved to be more reliable than the IQ test on a range of measurements ranging from financial success to marital longevity. In essense, the test was essentially meaningless as a predictive tool. I'd ascribe little value to the wonderlic as well but when you're spending millions on a guy the bean counters want they feel is more tangible to go by I guess. The Russel vs. Tebow thing is a prime example...anyone can see one is a moron and the other's pretty bright...you know which is which.


Good post. Very low or very high wonderlic would not apply right?

footstepsfrom#27
07-10-2010, 03:50 PM
Good post. Very low or very high wonderlic would not apply right?
I think you can conclude if you scored a 6 or something that might be a problem... ;D The questions are pretty basic from what I've seen but some people freeze up on tests even with knowledge they really do have. It is what it is...whatever that is...obviously the Marino/Kelly/Bradshaw etc experience proves it's of questionable value when the talent is there. I'd look at character over this thing any day.

BroncoMan4ever
07-10-2010, 08:21 PM
Why do people count Mike Vick as a failure in the company of Carr, Harrington and Russell? He was a good player who had flashes of greatness and got his team to the NFC Championship Game(Admittedly, in a year where a team of 90 year old women could have won the NFC West). It was only his behaviour that led to his being a bust, not his play.

Having said that, this is very interesting stuff.

because technically as a good player he was never a truly good passer. he got the job done on the ground not through the air.

Tombstone RJ
07-10-2010, 10:27 PM
Tebow may have been a little light on the Wonderlic at 22, but with his 42 starts and 67% completion average as well as his very big 'Tangible' of heart, moxie, work ethic and leadership, will likely more than compensate a few ticks on the Wonderlic in any event.

Plus, he's got at least a year under Josh to hone his craft and get the offense and reading NFL defenses down. That 67% completion average in the tough SEC while winning two championships and a Heisman doesn't hurt his chances.

And by the time he's ready to take over he'll have a stud BIG young and reasonably experienced offense line, some decent running backs and a first class young WR corp to work with. What with Thomas, Royal, Decker, Jabar, McKinley et al.

Not to mention high level coaching and a cooperative veteran QB in Orton his first year as a mentor as well. Pretty much an ideal situation being set up for about the time Tebow is ready to go balls to the wall! Should be fun to watch in any event.


Updated: Thursday July 8, 2010 2:06PM
The Rule of 26-27-60 helps predict NFL quarterback success or failure Story Highlights
John P. Lopez - INSIDE THE NFL

Rule: Get at least 26 on Wonderlic, start 27 games and complete 60% of passesPeyton Manning, Philip Rivers passed rule; JaMarcus Russell, David Carr did not

Wonderlic scores fall short for rookies Colt McCoy, Tim Tebow, Jimmy Clausen

Top pick Sam Bradford scored a 36 on the Wonderlic, started 31 games at Oklahoma and completed 67 percent of his passes.

Perhaps we should not be stunned by JaMarcus Russell's utter flop as an NFL quarterback -- low-lighted this week by his arrest for possession of a controlled substance in Alabama.

But could a simple formula have warned us of Russell's lack of NFL readiness? And Ryan Leaf's and David Carr's and other failed, high-pick quarterbacks?

Call it the Rule of 26-27-60.

Here is the gist of it: If an NFL prospect scores at least a 26 on the Wonderlic test, starts at least 27 games in his college career and completes at least 60 percent of his passes, there's a good chance he will succeed at the NFL level.

There are, of course, exceptions. If NFL general managers always could measure heart, determination and other intangibles, then Tom Brady would not have been drafted in the sixth round.

But short of breaking down tape, conducting personal interviews and analyzing every number and every snap of every game, remember the Rule of 26-27-60 the next time a hotshot prospect comes down the pike.

Since 1998, these are some of the NFL quarterbacks who aced all three parts of the Rule of 26-27-60: Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Tony Romo, Matt Schaub, Kyle Orton, Kevin Kolb, Matt Ryan, Ryan Fitzpatrick and Matt Stafford.


Name Wonderlic Starts Completion Percentage
Peyton Manning 28 45 63
Philip Rivers 30 49 64
Drew Brees 28 36 61
Tony Romo 37 35 62
Matt Schaub 31 36 67
Eli Manning 39 38 61
Kyle Orton 26 37 60
Kevin Kolb 28 47 62
Matt Ryan 32 28 60
Ryan Fitzpatrick 48 28 60

Meanwhile, among the once highly-touted prospects who failed at least one part of the formula: Ryan Leaf, Joey Harrington, Michael Vick, Akili Smith, Tim Couch, Daunte Culpepper, David Carr, Vince Young and JaMarcus Russell.


Player Wonderlic Starts Completion Percentage
Ryan Leaf 27 24 53
Joey Harrington 32 26 55
Michael Vick 20 21 56
Akili Smith 26 11 58
Tim Couch 22 27 67
Daunte Culpepper 18 43 64
David Carr 24 26 62
Vince Young 16 32 61
JaMarcus Russell 24 29 61

There are a few notable exceptions to the rule but only by slight margins. Two-time Super Bowl champ Ben Roethlisberger scored a 25 on the Wonderlic, just one point short of the standard of 26. Jay Cutler -- a mixed-bag thus far in the NFL -- scored exactly a 26 on his Wonderlic and had the starts, but completed 57 percent of his passes at Vanderbilt. Joe Flacco, who's been to the playoffs in each of his first two seasons, fell short in the starts category.


Player Wonderlic Starts Completion Percentage
Jay Cutler 26 43 57
Ben Roethlisberger 25 38 65
Joe Flacco 27 22 64

How about the quarterback class of 2010? Top pick Sam Bradford aces the rule easily, but the other three high-profile rookie QBs -- the Browns' Colt McCoy, the Broncos' Tim Tebow and the Panthers' Jimmy Clausen -- all fall short on the Wonderlic, although not by much.


Player Wonderlic Starts Completion Percentage
Sam Bradford 36 31 67
Colt McCoy 25 53 70
Tim Tebow 22 42 67
Jimmy Clausen 23 35 63

It stands to reason why the Rule of 26-27-60 makes the most sense as a quick guide to NFL quarterbacking success, too.

The 26 represents the minimum Wonderlic score required to score a passing grade. Consider some of the lower-scoring quarterbacks drafted since 1998 when it comes to the Wonderlic: Vick (who scored a 20), Akili Smith (26), Couch (22), Carr (24), Young (16, first reported as a six) and Russell (24). All of them have been considered at best under-achievers, at worst busts.

The most notable exceptions to the rule are Brett Favre, who scored a reported 22 on the Wonderlic, and Donovan McNabb, who scored a reported 14.

The 27 represents the minimum number of starts a quarterbacking draft prospect should have had in college to make the grade. Ask any NFL scout if he would rather have 12 games to grade or 27. Playing a lot of games means more opportunity to hone your craft in the heat of battle and gain confidence in your ability to perform under pressure. That translates well to the next level. Oregon's Akili Smith was drafted in 1999 after making just 11 collegiate starts. He ultimately made just 17 starts in Cincinnati.

And how many quarterbacks, like Leaf and Russell, have been drafted based on "upside." That is another way of saying a player couldn't complete 60-percent in college. Do you really think he can do it at the next level?

The exceptions are few. Finding NFL quarterbacks certainly is a science, but it's not rocket science. When in doubt, turn to the Rule of 26-27-60.


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/john_lopez/07/08/qb.rule/index.html#ixzz0tFZqzbCy

26 + 27+ 60 = 113/3 = 38. So any college QB who averages 38 or better has a great chance at being a successful NFL QB?

Tebow's average is 22 + 42 + 67 = 131/3 = 44.

Tebow = winner

KipCorrington25
07-10-2010, 10:30 PM
Orton on the list that is awesome, I've seen him play he suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuks!

Tombstone RJ
07-10-2010, 10:34 PM
Vince Young averages 36 and Peyton Manning averages 45. Tebow is so much closer to Manning than to VY its scary. Scary in a good way :)

SonOfLe-loLang
07-10-2010, 11:23 PM
The problem with the wonderlic is the same problem any IQ test has, it's a poor measuring stick of actual intellectual capacity since (among other things) it's a snapshot in time as opposed to a video. In other words, how one scores on ANY type of test at a given time is subject to all kinds of immediate influences ranging from how much sleep the test taker got the night before to what's going on in their household, their state of cognitive attention at that particular time...possibly even the environment of the room they're in and whether something is distracting, etc...other IQ tests like the Stanford Binet have been shown to be poor predictors of success in other fields as well as life in general. A study of university professors children that tracked the subjects over 25 years after they took the test found that 4 year olds who deferred gratification (getting 2 marshmellows instead of 1) for 15 minutes proved to be more reliable than the IQ test on a range of measurements ranging from financial success to marital longevity. In essense, the test was essentially meaningless as a predictive tool. I'd ascribe little value to the wonderlic as well but when you're spending millions on a guy the bean counters want they feel is more tangible to go by I guess. The Russel vs. Tebow thing is a prime example...anyone can see one is a moron and the other's pretty bright...you know which is which.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Tim Tebow never particularly struck me as "bright." Polite and well mannered, sure...but none of his interviews suggested to me that he had any sort of superior intellect. Seems like a hard worker who obviously stays out of trouble and a really nice guy, but I never got the impression he was Einstein.