Colts sixth round selection: John Boyett, safety, Oregon.

[JWF]

Grigs doesn't draft for people to be backups, only starters. i think this guy can complete if his legs hold up in the rugged NFL.  He's not held together with rubber bands.  i like our chances

 

I agree. I think this guy could be a starter eventually from what im seeing and reading on a few sites.

 

I dont remember alot of specifics but I remember him standing out when I would watch Oregon games a while back.

 

From the videos he has excellent instincts as help over the top in coverage and seems to be a very good tackler in space as well.

 

Not saying he will turn out the same but I see alot of Antoine in him. Antoine always had excellent instincts in coverage and could play sideline to sideline. I see alot of those qualities in this kid.

[bahhummbug]

This is why I love the draft, everyone thinks they know more than the front office. Some guys will pan out, some won't. Including some of the ones people here have tents in their pants over and are PO'ed we passed up.

 

 

In Grigson we trust. BTM

I have no doubts Ryan Grigsons 15 years of evaluation of players along with his college and Professional days = more knowledge of where he wants the team headed =s any pick that I wanted.Sure we all have favorites like we have favorite college teams from all over.We all wanted our player to be drafted unfortunately we only had 7 picks and we have how many people on this forum?Total faith in Grigs decisions even if most well all but 1 guy I wanted wasnt drafted by us.Let us just get ready for the season without all this h8 and ridiculous whining of players we wanted.Iam all 179% behind and for the GM of the year.It is like the Superbowl champs .They are the champs til dethroned Grigs is GM of the year until he is beat out.

[Gavin]

Surgeries on both knees, missed most of last year because of it, he has skill no doubt, he can obviously hit but he is reckless.....We all know how this will go, Rootin for the guy though

[krunk]

“The way Ronnie Lott played the game defines the position,” said Boyett. “Just the way he played the game with a chip on his shoulder, I feel like that’s how everyone should play.”

Said Chuck Pagano, “He’s a buzz saw. He’s a downhill guy. He loves special teams. This guy blew us away in two minutes (in a combine interview). He’s very passionate about playing football. We feel good about John.”

http://www.colts.com/news/article-1/FIVE-MORE-BECOME-COLTS/ae40599d-49c3-4529-af52-3b17172784e4

I think this kid is going to be a force on special teams. If he stays healthy throughout training camp he may even be enough of a reason to release Lefeged. He's a better player than Lefeged. We'll see......

[unvrsty07]

No one said otherwise.

I was talking about "proof" in a legal sense though. As in "someone or something is writing this message, and the fact that you can read it is proof". What I mean is: As long as you define a measureable standard, test results (assuming proper test reliability) would consitute proof. Since there is no defined measureable standard, there can be no proof of said player's football IQ.

 

We sir/Ms. will have to agree to disagree I am afraid. One can not use the word "proof" in a legal sense to rationally explain oneself after having used it in a scientific way for their original argument. The word means two different things depending on the academic discipline.

 

Your original point is measuring Football IQ... Correct? However, simply saying, "there is no defined measurable standard" to define IQ is not acceptable for claiming "'Football IQ' is an inexact, unscientific measurement. It's purely fiction." Rather, to your knowledge, there is not an acceptable scientific way to measure football IQ. This is to my original point that measuring IQ is easily measurable and conducted quite often in both a scientific and professional manner. Sports science is a growing field, and as we both know as football fans following the NFL draft, so is the inexact science of football scouts.

 

As a social scientist I believe the field of sports science does have literature on athletic IQ and measures it appropriately, perhaps even to you and I's satisfaction. If I have enough time in the near future I will look into this specific methodological question and see if I can put both of our minds at ease. I make no promises since it is the end of a collegiate semester, but will put in an honest effort out of personal curiosity.

[CjMcGirt23]

[Hans Moleman]

Without being 100% recovered from his dual patella tendon surgery for partial tears (which he played on for all of 2011), he still busted off a 4.57 40, which is already a decent time for a safety. It's not a stretch to see him as a mid to high 4.4 guy once his leg strength completely comes back.

 

Basically, he's this year's version of Josh Chapman- an excellent prospect who only fell to us because of injuries. He's got starting ability so long as he rehabs back to 100%.

[SOMDColtsfan]

This guy looks like the kind of guy that nobody wants to get tackled by, flying all over the place

[needanoline63]

27 reps of 225?!?! That's scary for a safety

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

I could design a scientific test for football IQ, rather easily actually. Depends on the operationalization and conceptualization of the measurements. But it could easily be generalizable to all football players with external validity and comparability.

 

What you talkin about willis ?

[Gavin]

Only question I have about him is can he stay healthy, Its hard not to think Bob Sanders 2.0 is the likely road he will travel just from, I'd like to see alot more of those reckless hits and throwing his body around turned into tackles if he can do that and stay healthy he has a chance, will make a good special teams player with long term potential if he can stay healthy

[krunk]

There's an intensity and a passion that this guy plays with that is very unique. You don't see too many people do it like he does. This kid is an enforcer! How can you not love a kid who thinks that everybodys game should be modeled after Ronnie Lott? I don't think he'll get injured too much playing special teams. That should preserve him for a while.

He's one of those throwback players who will stay on the field with a busted nose dripping blood everywhere.

[House]

I could design a scientific test for football IQ, rather easily actually. Depends on the operationalization and conceptualization of the measurements. But it could easily be generalizable to all football players with external validity and comparability.

Lol no you couldn't.

Any test that would be/could be used would be off the charts subjective. If you used any type of projective test, you would instantly lose the majority of your reliability and validity.

There's a reason tests that measure such intangible qualities have very little reliability across broad sample sizes.

Every test taker is different, and every administer/interpreter of the results are different in the scenario you are trying to describe.

[House]

We sir/Ms. will have to agree to disagree I am afraid. One can not use the word "proof" in a legal sense to rationally explain oneself after having used it in a scientific way for their original argument. The word means two different things depending on the academic discipline.

Your original point is measuring Football IQ... Correct? However, simply saying, "there is no defined measurable standard" to define IQ is not acceptable for claiming "'Football IQ' is an inexact, unscientific measurement. It's purely fiction." Rather, to your knowledge, there is not an acceptable scientific way to measure football IQ. This is to my original point that measuring IQ is easily measurable and conducted quite often in both a scientific and professional manner. Sports science is a growing field, and as we both know as football fans following the NFL draft, so is the inexact science of football scouts.

As a social scientist I believe the field of sports science does have literature on athletic IQ and measures it appropriately, perhaps even to you and I's satisfaction. If I have enough time in the near future I will look into this specific methodological question and see if I can put both of our minds at ease. I make no promises since it is the end of a collegiate semester, but will put in an honest effort out of personal curiosity.

oh boy. If your planning on making your own psychological test better save that for your thesis. Not for some stranger on the Internet lol.

[House]

No one said otherwise.

I was talking about "proof" in a legal sense though. As in "someone or something is writing this message, and the fact that you can read it is proof". What I mean is: As long as you define a measureable standard, test results (assuming proper test reliability) would consitute proof. Since there is no defined measureable standard, there can be no proof of said player's football IQ.

You could measure intelligence, memory, mental capacity, all kinds of cognitive characteristics, but the notion you could put them all together and "easily" come up with an evaluation of "football IQ" is silly.

If it was that easy it would have been done by now.

[NewColtsFan]

If you get the chance,  look at his high-lite tape....   it's been posted in this thread...

 

It is one of the best high-lite tapes you will see from a safety....    he is a heat-seeking missile.   He is a collision looking for a place to happen.    This is a kid who loves contact.   He loves to mix it up and he does so at high speed.

 

Don't get me wrong...   he's not Ronnie Lott or Kenny Easley....     but this is no 6th round safety.   He only went this low because of his double-knee surgeries which are said to be rehabbing very, very well.

 

This is a kid it's hard not to love him....   I'm predicting he could become a Colts nation favorite very quickly.....

 

One of my favorite picks this draft...!      

[BleedBlu8792]

If you get the chance, look at his high-lite tape.... it's been posted in this thread...

It is one of the best high-lite tapes you will see from a safety.... he is a heat-seeking missile. He is a collision looking for a place to happen. This is a kid who loves contact. He loves to mix it up and he does so at high speed.

Don't get me wrong... he's not Ronnie Lott or Kenny Easley.... but this is no 6th round safety. He only went this low because of his double-knee surgeries which are said to be rehabbing very, very well.

This is a kid it's hard not to love him.... I'm predicting he could become a Colts nation favorite very quickly.....

One of my favorite picks this draft...!

You know, I'm not so sure that if Rambo were still on the board, that we still wouldn't have went with Boyett. He looks to me to be a better player. Even with the knee injuries and looking at him from 11', I still can't believe this guy fell in our lap. I honestly believe he is going to be our starting FS eventually.

And the references to Bob Sanders are unfair. I HIGHLY doubt Boyett will be used as our sole run stopper. Dungy and Polian didn't help Bob's injury problems at all. Grigson and Pagano are building a front 7 that can stop the run without NEEDING a safety in the box. Boyett can play center field and tee-off on WR's instead being beaten up on the front line.

I trust they'll use this guy right and help his career last for a while.

[Stealth2k]

I'm excited to see him healed and feeling good. He had good energy in Oregon and think will have a blast in Indy.

[RomanianColtsFan]

The more I watch video of Boyett the more excited I get. I'd be very surprised if this guys doesn't turn out to be the top 3 safety from this draft. He not only appears not to rarely makes mistakes but it feels like he is a heat guided missile on the field. I'll pray for him to stay healthy. From the workout video, even though impressive you can tell he is not full strength in his legs and I found myself cringing when he would occasionally trip after a sharp turn.

[unvrsty07]

Lol no you couldn't.

Any test that would be/could be used would be off the charts subjective. If you used any type of projective test, you would instantly lose the majority of your reliability and validity.

There's a reason tests that measure such intangible qualities have very little reliability across broad sample sizes.

Every test taker is different, and every administer/interpreter of the results are different in the scenario you are trying to describe.

 

It would not be subjective. Without considering the operationalization in great detail I would probably conduct an on the field experiment using game tape. A random sample of collegiate or professional players playing football in real time would not be subjective, nor would it lose reliability and validity.

 

oh boy. If your planning on making your own psychological test better save that for your thesis. Not for some stranger on the Internet lol.

 

First, I have already written a thesis. Second, I never said I was going to design or carry out a test, I have way more important things to do at the moment. I simply said I would look into the scientific literature.

 

You could measure intelligence, memory, mental capacity, all kinds of cognitive characteristics, but the notion you could put them all together and "easily" come up with an evaluation of "football IQ" is silly.

If it was that easy it would have been done by now.

 

Unless you are a sports scientist or studied the literature, how do you know it has not "been done by now?"

[TMPHBITEU]

You could measure intelligence, memory, mental capacity, all kinds of cognitive characteristics, but the notion you could put them all together and "easily" come up with an evaluation of "football IQ" is silly.

If it was that easy it would have been done by now.

 

Oh, I agree. Which is why I'm not a supporter of the term "football IQ".

[House]

It would not be subjective. Without considering the operationalization in great detail I would probably conduct an on the field experiment using game tape. A random sample of collegiate or professional players playing football in real time would not be subjective, nor would it lose reliability and validity.

First, I have already written a thesis. Second, I never said I was going to design or carry out a test, I have way more important things to do at the moment. I simply said I would look into the scientific literature.

Unless you are a sports scientist or studied the literature, how do you know it has not "been done by now?"

Where to begin....

If there is a reliable valid and consistent test, that could actually measure "football IQ" why do you think it isn't in use? There would be no point in taking the Wonderlic if that test was out there.

You could watch tape of players till your eyes bleed it won't tell you which players posses which characteristics combined with other characteristic that allows them to have high "football IQ."

The phrase "football IQ" in and of itself is subjective so to say you could design a test that is objective is funny to me. What is high football IQ for obe position may not be for another. Sure you could make a test and call it "The Football IQ Test", but its an intangible quality at its core. So in my opinion the odds of conducting a valid reliable objective test seems unlikely. Not saying it could never be done, but throwing around the word "easily" is hyperbole at its finest.

Besides what are the chances everyone who has "high football IQ" possess the same trait characteristics. They may posses a few of the same, but by the end of it your list of high IQ traits would be so long the test would tell you very little.

On a serious note. That's awesome that you got a thesis published. What was it over?

[House]

Oh, I agree. Which is why I'm not a supporter of the term "football IQ".

Yeah, I mean I get the context people use it, to describe someone who is very aware of the field and makes correct moves and plays, but at any given time someone could have good football IQ and quickly do something demonstrating bad football IQ.

Too subjective in my opinion.

[Carlos Danger]

good value in the 6th, IMO... very strong, stocky kid who would've gone much higher if health weren't a concern

 

Grigs must've really liked him to pass on some other Safeties available and overlook his injury history.... I dont usually have much faith that a 6th rounder will make the roster, but if Boyett can carve a niche on ST he has a real chance given our lack of depth at S....

[ColtsBlueFL]

The thing I find amusing about a lot of guys on here complaining about "we could've taken so and so!"... you do realize that anyone still on the board, has been passed on by EVERY team in EVERY round so far, right?

 

QFT!  It's is easy for us to not be able to scout and know every players strengths and weaknesses.  It is possible for a few organizations to miss on a few as well.  but it is telling when every single team, all of them, pass on a guy.

[unvrsty07]

Where to begin....

If there is a reliable valid and consistent test, that could actually measure "football IQ" why do you think it isn't in use? There would be no point in taking the Wonderlic if that test was out there.

You could watch tape of players till your eyes bleed it won't tell you which players posses which characteristics combined with other characteristic that allows them to have high "football IQ."

The phrase "football IQ" in and of itself is subjective so to say you could design a test that is objective is funny to me. What is high football IQ for obe position may not be for another. Sure you could make a test and call it "The Football IQ Test", but its an intangible quality at its core. So in my opinion the odds of conducting a valid reliable objective test seems unlikely. Not saying it could never be done, but throwing around the word "easily" is hyperbole at its finest.

Besides what are the chances everyone who has "high football IQ" possess the same trait characteristics. They may posses a few of the same, but by the end of it your list of high IQ traits would be so long the test would tell you very little.

On a serious note. That's awesome that you got a thesis published. What was it over

 

 

 

Punishing vs rewarding. A reduction in costs (rewarding) will lead to more desirable outcomes compared to coercive (punishing) techniques. Essentially, are you more likely to do what I want you to if I pay you or if I fine you? The economic literature treats both as being the same, according to what I have read. I think there are distinct differences between the two.

[House]

Punishing vs rewarding. A reduction in costs (rewarding) will lead to more desirable outcomes compared to coercive (punishing) techniques. Essentially, are you more likely to do what I want you to if I pay you or if I fine you? The economic literature treats both as being the same, according to what I have read. I think there are distinct differences between the two.

Very cool. And glad to see it was accepted. Always cool to get something published.

[unvrsty07]

Very cool. And glad to see it was accepted. Always cool to get something published.

 

Yes it is! I have one under review now and a second article I will be sending off by the end of next month, hopefully. So much hard work and dedication goes into it. What have you published about?

[dw49]

Only question I have about him is can he stay healthy, Its hard not to think Bob Sanders 2.0 is the likely road he will travel just from, I'd like to see alot more of those reckless hits and throwing his body around turned into tackles if he can do that and stay healthy he has a chance, will make a good special teams player with long term potential if he can stay healthy

 

 

 

Some players have injuries that are due to too much "body building." This guy does not look like he will just tear muscles like some players do at later stages of their careers. But yes , I hear you. Keeping him on the field  is my biggest concern with him also.

[dw49]

If you get the chance,  look at his high-lite tape....   it's been posted in this thread...

 

It is one of the best high-lite tapes you will see from a safety....    he is a heat-seeking missile.   He is a collision looking for a place to happen.    This is a kid who loves contact.   He loves to mix it up and he does so at high speed.

 

Don't get me wrong...   he's not Ronnie Lott or Kenny Easley....     but this is no 6th round safety.   He only went this low because of his double-knee surgeries which are said to be rehabbing very, very well.

 

This is a kid it's hard not to love him....   I'm predicting he could become a Colts nation favorite very quickly.....

 

One of my favorite picks this draft...!      

 

 

 

I love this pick also and I also like he RB in the 7th. Not trying to be a wise guy but really would like to know how you feel at this point about moving up into round 5. You kind of were kind of advocating the move ... I think anyway ... I didn't go back ad revisit.

 

So do you feel better about keeping the picks in round 6 and 7 after seeing the players we drafted ? I would guess the answer is yes but I don't think you like the playerf we took in the the 5th... correct ?

[GoColts8818]

Provides depth at the safety position we can only hope he works out as well as the safety we took in the sixth round. 

[weslo1812]

These are the type of guys Grigs loves. Ones who slide because of an injury or a bad 40 time. He loves to feast on these type of guys.

[NewColtsFan]

I love this pick also and I also like he RB in the 7th. Not trying to be a wise guy but really would like to know how you feel at this point about moving up into round 5. You kind of were kind of advocating the move ... I think anyway ... I didn't go back ad revisit.

 

So do you feel better about keeping the picks in round 6 and 7 after seeing the players we drafted ? I would guess the answer is yes but I don't think you like the playerf we took in the the 5th... correct ?

 

 

Honestly....  I still have some mixed emotions....    I love Boyett and Williams and they would not be Colts today in my scenario.  So,  clearly on that basis the deal worked to our advantage.

 

So,  my remaining concerns are...   can Hughes be what we hope he can be?   From what I've read,  I think Grigson and Pagano are madly in love with him, and were somewhat generous with their comments of Hughes.   They compared him favorably to Haloti Ntata!    That's very rare.    I don't get the sense that he dominated the competition on the lower level once he transferred to Tenn-Martin.    A guy as talented as he is,  should have.   (By the way, I agree with the poster who thinks he'll be more a DE than NT)

 

But, I think they're going by the old scouts axiom.... "gamble on greatness"....   and it cost us a #4 to do that.    OK.   Fair enough.

 

So,  my last thought will be this....   Next year...   I suspect we'll be drafting sexier names in R's 1, 2, 3.   Then, on that Friday night when we're all here and wondering about Day 3....  the drumbeat will start again....  we don't have a #4....  and look at all the good players that are available!    Should we trade a #3 in 2015 to get a #4 in 2014?    And will Grigson seriously consider doing that?    You know my answer to that....   No!     But I don't see Grigson sitting out a R4 with good players to be had.

 

Grigson is a fascinating guy to watch him maneuver...   and there's just no telling what he'll do....

 

I think the answer will be....   it depends on how the 2013 season goes....

[dw49]

Honestly....  I still have some mixed emotions....    I love Boyett and Williams and they would not be Colts today in my scenario.  So,  clearly on that basis the deal worked to our advantage.

 

So,  my remaining concerns are...   can Hughes be what we hope he can be?   From what I've read,  I think Grigson and Pagano are madly in love with him, and were somewhat generous with their comments of Hughes.   They compared him favorably to Haloti Ntata!    That's very rare.    I don't get the sense that he dominated the competition on the lower level once he transferred to Tenn-Martin.    A guy as talented as he is,  should have.   (By the way, I agree with the poster who thinks he'll be more a DE than NT)

 

But, I think they're going by the old scouts axiom.... "gamble on greatness"....   and it cost us a #4 to do that.    OK.   Fair enough.

 

So,  my last thought will be this....   Next year...   I suspect we'll be drafting sexier names in R's 1, 2, 3.   Then, on that Friday night when we're all here and wondering about Day 3....  the drumbeat will start again....  we don't have a #4....  and look at all the good players that are available!    Should we trade a #3 in 2015 to get a #4 in 2014?    And will Grigson seriously consider doing that?    You know my answer to that....   No!     But I don't see Grigson sitting out a R4 with good players to be had.

 

Grigson is a fascinating guy to watch him maneuver...   and there's just no telling what he'll do....

 

I think the answer will be....   it depends on how the 2013 season goes....

 

 

Honestly....  I still have some mixed emotions....    I love Boyett and Williams and they would not be Colts today in my scenario.  So,  clearly on that basis the deal worked to our advantage.

 

So,  my remaining concerns are...   can Hughes be what we hope he can be?   From what I've read,  I think Grigson and Pagano are madly in love with him, and were somewhat generous with their comments of Hughes.   They compared him favorably to Haloti Ntata!    That's very rare.    I don't get the sense that he dominated the competition on the lower level once he transferred to Tenn-Martin.    A guy as talented as he is,  should have.   (By the way, I agree with the poster who thinks he'll be more a DE than NT)

 

But, I think they're going by the old scouts axiom.... "gamble on greatness"....   and it cost us a #4 to do that.    OK.   Fair enough.

 

So,  my last thought will be this....   Next year...   I suspect we'll be drafting sexier names in R's 1, 2, 3.   Then, on that Friday night when we're all here and wondering about Day 3....  the drumbeat will start again....  we don't have a #4....  and look at all the good players that are available!    Should we trade a #3 in 2015 to get a #4 in 2014?    And will Grigson seriously consider doing that?    You know my answer to that....   No!     But I don't see Grigson sitting out a R4 with good players to be had.

 

Grigson is a fascinating guy to watch him maneuver...   and there's just no telling what he'll do....

 

I think the answer will be....   it depends on how the 2013 season goes....

 

 

 

I agree that Grigson could very well trade our 2015 #3 in 2014. He's not a very patient guy. If you look , I had made a topic similar to yours predicting he would move into round two or three. He did say he was tempted but somehow refrained. So , maybe every year he will recoup our pick by just shoving it a year deeper. Trouble is it turns into 3 , then a 2 then a 1. Just having a little fun with it, prob won't happen.

[NewColtsFan]

I agree that Grigson could very well trade our 2015 #3 in 2014. He's not a very patient guy. If you look , I had made a topic similar to yours predicting he would move into round two or three. He did say he was tempted but somehow refrained. So , maybe every year he will recoup our pick by just shoving it a year deeper. Trouble is it turns into 3 , then a 2 then a 1. Just having a little fun with it, prob won't happen.

 

Welcome to my nightmare!

 

At some point -- some year -- we're just going to have to bite the bullet and and sit out a round, as painful as that may be for some. 

 

But,  I'm over this....   if Hughes turns into anything close to Haloti Nnata,  he'll be hailed as a visionary genius!    And it comes at the risk of a #4.    I can live with that.     I don't love it,  but I can live with it.

[donkshow]

If not for the injury, he'd have gone much higher. Very solid value pick at a position we need depth at. 

 

Nice. 

[HtownColt]

He was medically cleared before he held his personal pro day even though he still has a month of rehab left at the time, his pro day was early this month so he should only have like a week or two left of rehab and should be good to go when camp opens

[dw49]

Welcome to my nightmare!

 

At some point -- some year -- we're just going to have to bite the bullet and and sit out a round, as painful as that may be for some. 

 

But,  I'm over this....   if Hughes turns into anything close to Haloti Nnata,  he'll be hailed as a visionary genius!    And it comes at the risk of a #4.    I can live with that.     I don't love it,  but I can live with it.

 

 

 

He did sit out the 2nd round and waited all the way to pick 24 in the 3rd. I was sure he would trade into the second and really pillage our 2014 draft and I'm happy he didn't. Anyway... we have already went through the agony of going through 2 rounds (63 spots) without making a pick so I guess we'll just have to do it again. Unless of coarse he does the "fall forward" scenario we talked about.

 

Here's another way of looking at this. We , IMO , did really well for picking 24th and missing picks in rounds 2 and 5. To do what we did and only purge next year's 4th is pretty darn good. Losing the 4th next year will be nothing like not having our 2nd and 5th this year. I , like you , hate losing picks in the 1st 5 rounds but I think we might have to get used to it as Grigson appears unfazed by trading draft picks if he thinks it will make us better right away.

[orbit639]

if he played in 2012 he would have been a 2nd day pick.  this guy played consistantly for 3 strait seasons.  hes football smart, a solid tackler and he made big plays in big games.  if ( it looks like a big if, considering his knees and size)  he stays healthy he can be a big contributer to the team.   

[AntonMcG]

Trying to beat me with fancy words, eh?

There are no measurements on football IQ, because it does not exist. It exists purely as fiction, as it's just another word for "smarts on the football field", which has a lot of variables.

Now, I'm not saying those variables cannot be studied (which is what all the scouting is for), but seeing as it's just a media-fuelled word, with a lot of different interpretations, it's impossible to tell for sure whether a player has a high football IQ or not.

It's the same as with "intelligence". What makes up intelligence? There are a lot of different variables used here. As a standard concept, we use "IQ" to measure logical intellect. However, this doesn't sum up a lot of things, that would constitute "intelligence" in a broader sense. As an example, it doesn't take memory into consideration. In this case, we can measure "IQ", which in some circles are used synonymously with "intelligence". It however doesn't tell the whole story, yet at least it's measureable.

"Football IQ" is made up of a whole lot of variables, including (in my own interpretation) IQ, muscle memory/instinct. However, in itself - seeing as it isn't defined, and the variables aren't either - it's unmeasureable, and thus cannot be proven.

 

Muscle memory could never be considered a component of Football IQ, it is repetitive motion, and is purely physical. You could literally take someones brain out and they could still develop muscle memory.

 

I don't see how Football IQ is so undefined, those who really know the game are pretty much unanimous in its interpretation.