sherman smarter then andrew?

[Qwiz]

Maybe Luck wants to build his own stadium...

The House that Pey- er, Andrew Built.

[amfootball]

I don't know why Richard would puff-up his scores?

 

But his GPA coming out of HS was 3.9, at least that's what he reported.

 

And he didn't appear on several Pac-12 all academic teams and the ones he did, his GPA wasn't that high.

 

So, I don't know what to tell you....

 

There may be an innocent explanation for all this....   a misunderstanding of sorts...    I don't know....

 

But what is known doesn't add-up to a 4.2 HS gpa or a 3.9 at Stanford.

 

Believe me, I'm not at all happy about this......  but sometimes Richard is his own worst enemy.

 

Hey, if I'm wrong here, then I'm wrong......     but I'm going by what's been out there publicly....

 

One last thought.....   I'm not looking down my nose at Richard Sherman's academics.

 

He had a 3.9 in HS.      I sure didn't.    Not even a 2.9. 

 

And he got into Stanford.     I got into Cal State Northridge.

 

And he graduated Stanford, and there are no easy majors at Stanford.    So, I have great respect for Richard.

 

But his professed scores appear to be puffed-up a bit and I don't know why?

Do you have any links about what his GPA really was in high school?  Honestly I have never heard this before that his GPA may be puffed up.

[jvan1973]

Yeah that is basically what I was saying in my hypothetical post.

I'm not sure what is hypothetical about it. that's the companies definition of the test

[Superman]

To the bolded - exactly, hearsay. That is what I was calling him out on.

 

And again he believes Sherman is lying about his GPA so he is putting stock in his major and GPA relative to Luck. Again him not me.

 

You are welcome. I was never really a challenger anyways to your throne.

 

That's not what I think his argument is. He didn't say anything about Sherman's major, other than that there are no easy majors at Stanford. His comment about GPA wasn't "Sherman isn't as smart as you think; he's lying about his GPA." His comment about Sherman's GPA wasn't really related to how smart Sherman is. Again, that's my read on his comments.

[Qwiz]

I'm not sure what is hypothetical about it. that's the companies definition of the test

And it still isn't considered a test that accurately predicts intelligence even remotely. If it is then we don't ever hear about it in that fashion. I think we are going in circles at this point so again, agree to disagree.

[jvan1973]

And it still isn't considered a test that accurately predicts intelligence even remotely. If it is then we don't ever hear about it in that fashion. I think we are going in circles at this point so again, agree to disagree.

there is no test that can accurately test intelligence. Intelligence comes in many forms. The wonderlic is one of many intelligence tests that can be used

[SilentHill]

I is smart two

[Qwiz]

there is no test that can accurately test intelligence. Intelligence comes in many forms. The wonderlic is one of many intelligence tests that can be used

I'll believe it when I see an actual copy of the full Wonderlic taken by the players. Who knows when that'll be though ha.

[amfootball]

That's not what I think his argument is. He didn't say anything about Sherman's major, other than that there are no easy majors at Stanford. His comment about GPA wasn't "Sherman isn't as smart as you think; he's lying about his GPA." His comment about Sherman's GPA wasn't really related to how smart Sherman is. Again, that's my read on his comments.

Look at my post #162 which quotes him from today on this page 5. He thinks Sherman is lying about his GPA from high school and college.

[House]

" A score of 20 is intended to indicate average intelligence (corresponding to an intelligence quotient of 100).[3] Wonderlic, Inc. claims a score of at least 10 points suggests a person is literate.[7] A new version was released in January 2007 called the Wonderlic Contemporary Cognitive Ability Test (formerly known as the Wonderlic Personnel Test – Revised), containing questions more appropriate to the 21st century; it is available both online and in printed form, whereas the original test is only available on paper. The Wonderlic Test was based on another test called the Otis Self-Administering Test of Mental Ability."

That quote means nothing about the Wonderlic being an I.Q test.

You understand that a 20 is just the equivalent of having average intelligence right? Not that every numerical value correlates to a different IQ. Getting 20 isn't a remarkable task. You have to be trying very hard, or have no ability to read, to get lower than a 10 on the Wonderlic.

It's an aptitude test. I've taken and administered it. Even in your quote, and the wiki article you posted, it says how it test mental ability, not intelligence.

Getting a perfect score of 50 on the Wonderlic doesn't equate to having a genius level IQ. Thus, not an IQ test.

[jvan1973]

I'll believe it when I see an actual copy of the full Wonderlic taken by the players. Who knows when that'll be though ha.

they are out there

[jvan1973]

That quote means nothing about the Wonderlic being an I.Q test.

You understand that a 20 is just the equivalent of having average intelligence right? Not that every numerical value correlates to a different IQ. Getting 20 isn't a remarkable task. You have to be trying very hard, or have no ability to read, to get lower than a 10 on the Wonderlic.

It's an aptitude test. I've taken and administered it. Even in your quote, and the wiki article you posted, it says how it test mental ability, not intelligence.

Getting a perfect score of 50 on the Wonderlic doesn't equate to having a genius level IQ. Thus, not an IQ test.

It is a test of intelligence as well. It says such on their website. It isnt a comprehensive IQ test, i never said it was.

Also, Morris Claiborne got a 4

[Nadine]

.

It's an aptitude test. I've taken and administered it. Even in your quote, and the wiki article you posted, it says how it test mental ability, not intelligence.

.

aak, I didn't know there was a difference?

This thread is making me feel no so smart

What's the difference, is mental ability like 'aptitude'?

[Dustin]

You just spent all of your post singing the praises of Stanford and how athletes are treated the same as the general student population and then you say Luck is way smarter than Sherman and Sherman also went to Standford and had a higher GPA than Luck.

 

You think gpa measures intelligence? 

[Superman]

Look at my post #162 which quotes him from today on this page 5. He thinks Sherman is lying about his GPA from high school and college.

 

I don't think his point was "Sherman was lying about his GPA, that means he's not as smart as you think."

[NewColtsFan]

Do you have any links about what his GPA really was in high school?  Honestly I have never heard this before that his GPA may be puffed up.

 

I don't....   but I have a friend who makes note of the GPA and SAT numbers for all Stanford recruits....   this is info that recruits reveal to recruiting services.    So this info came from Sherman himself.    It's illegal to come from anywhere else.

 

Sherman was 3.9 and 1060.

 

And the best part of Sherman's story is this....

 

He went to Compton Dominguez high school....   from a very bad part of town.   Sherman said by the time he was a freshman at Stanford he had lost 8-9 friends to gang violence.   All killed.

 

Anyway....   the school district was so terrible,  it had actually lost it's accreditation,  which basically means the diploma isn't worth much because the education is so poor.     No kid from that school had ever been accepted to Stanford before as a Student-Athlete.     Richard had work to do when we first started recruiting him...  his SAT was sub-1000.     He had to raise it above 1000.    Sherman was being recruited by the local big-boys....   well, in an LA Times article before he was accepted to Stanford he announced all other schools could stop recruiting him right then and there because he was going to get the scores he needed to be admitted.     He did, and the rest is history.

 

Pretty ballsy....    endeared himself to many at Stanford because of that.  

 

Of course....    Stanford didn't get a future NFL star....    we got a kid who was OK...   he played two years of WR and was pretty good, but not special.  But those were very poor Stanford teams.  Then he got hurt early his 3rd year,  redshirted and converted to corner.    He had two years left to become a corner.     His first year as a corner he was very poor.    Got beaten like a rented mule.    Then he became pretty good in his 5th and final year.     Wasn't drafted until the 5th round.   Passed over by Jim Harbaugh and the 49ers many times.

 

And now look at what he is.....   one of the top corners in the NFL.    Stanford never enjoyed that guy.    Oh well.

 

But he was a good kid at Stanford......

 

In the grand scheme of things, I think he's still a good kid....   but not everyone would agree on that point.

[House]

It is a test of intelligence as well. It says such on their website. It isnt a comprehensive IQ test, i never said it was.

Also, Morris Claiborne got a 4

You're splitting hairs.

Would you call a math test an IQ test? If you would then yes the Wonderlic is an IQ test.

However, the vast majority wouldn't call every single test an intelligence test, even though they all test a level of your intellect.

The SAT is an aptitude test, because it is about using what you know practically, and problem solving. Like the Wonderlic. IQ tests are much different then either of the previously mentioned tests.

"In an article written in Psychological Reports T. Matthews and Kerry Lassiter report that the Wonderlic Test "was most strongly associated with overall intellectual functioning," which is what it is purported to measure.[55] However, Matthews and Lassiter did not find the Wonderlic to be a successful measure of fluid and crystallized intelligence, and they stated that "the Wonderlic test scores did not clearly show convergent or divergent validity evidence across these two broad domains of cognitive ability."[55] In academic testing, the Wonderlic Test has shown high correlations with aptitude tests such as the General Aptitude Test Battery."

I also see no where on their site that says it's an intelligence test, but tons of references to it being an aptitude test.

I'm extremely familiar with this test. You wouldn't ever use it's results to say subject A, is smarter than subject B, based on how well they did on the Wonderlic. It's not designed for comparisons of that nature.

You also said the Wonderlic isn't an aptitude test at all, and that's just plain wrong.

[House]

aak, I didn't know there was a difference?

This thread is making me feel no so smart

What's the difference, is mental ability like 'aptitude'?

It's similar to the SAT, though less demanding. It's all about problem solving, and actually applying what you know.

You could diagnose a young kid as having a genius level IQ, but he could easily perform poorly on the Wonderlic because he doesn't have exposure to many of the concepts on the test. It's all about testing what you know practically.

[NewColtsFan]

It is a test of intelligence as well. It says such on their website. It isnt a comprehensive IQ test, i never said it was.

Also, Morris Claiborne got a 4

 

Whenever I see a very low score like a 4 or 6 for Claiborne, or whatever the low score for Vince Young, or any other player,  I rarely, if ever, think the player is so stupid that can't spell "cat"....

 

I think the player thinks the test is stupid, and doesn't give a darn,  and doesn't try....

 

They believe they're so talented that the test score isn't going to impact where they are drafted. 

 

Sometimes they're right.    And sometimes they're wrong......

 

But I almost never take those low scores as a sign of low intelligence like a low score on an IQ test.....

[House]

Whenever I see a very low score like a 4 or 6 for Claiborne, or whatever the low score for Vince Young, or any other player, I rarely, if ever, think the player is so stupid that can't spell "cat"....

I think the player thinks the test is stupid, and doesn't give a darn, and doesn't try....

They believe they're so talented that the test score isn't going to impact where they are drafted.

Sometimes they're right. And sometimes they're wrong......

But I almost never take those low scores as a sign of low intelligence like a low score on an IQ test.....

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

[amfootball]

I don't....   but I have a friend who makes note of the GPA and SAT numbers for all Stanford recruits....   this is info that recruits reveal to recruiting services.    So this info came from Sherman himself.    It's illegal to come from anywhere else.

 

Sherman was 3.9 and 1060.

 

And the best part of Sherman's story is this....

 

He went to Compton Dominguez high school....   from a very bad part of town.   Sherman said by the time he was a freshman at Stanford he had lost 8-9 friends to gang violence.   All killed.

 

Anyway....   the school district was so terrible,  it had actually lost it's accreditation,  which basically means the diploma isn't worth much because the education is so poor.     No kid from that school had ever been accepted to Stanford before as a Student-Athlete.     Richard had work to do when we first started recruiting him...  his SAT was sub-1000.     He had to raise it above 1000.    Sherman was being recruited by the local big-boys....   well, in an LA Times article before he was accepted to Stanford he announced all other schools could stop recruiting him right then and there because he was going to get the scores he needed to be admitted.     He did, and the rest is history.

 

Pretty ballsy....    endeared himself to many at Stanford because of that.  

 

Of course....    Stanford didn't get a future NFL star....    we got a kid who was OK...   he played two years of WR and was pretty good, but not special.  But those were very poor Stanford teams.  Then he got hurt early his 3rd year,  redshirted and converted to corner.    He had two years left to become a corner.     His first year as a corner he was very poor.    Got beaten like a rented mule.    Then he became pretty good in his 5th and final year.     Wasn't drafted until the 5th round.   Passed over by Jim Harbaugh and the 49ers many times.

 

And now look at what he is.....   one of the top corners in the NFL.    Stanford never enjoyed that guy.    Oh well.

 

But he was a good kid at Stanford......

 

In the grand scheme of things, I think he's still a good kid....   but not everyone would agree on that point.

Wow. That is an incredible story if all true. Thanks for sharing. So let me ask you, why did you write in a previous post that Luck is way smarter than Sherman? If anything, after reading this, I have even more of an appreciation for Sherman and would say he is the smarter person - and not just with the books but at life.

[NewColtsFan]

Wow. That is an incredible story if all true. Thanks for sharing. So let me ask you, why did you write in a previous post that Luck is way smarter than Sherman? If anything, after reading this, I have even more of an appreciation for Sherman and would say he is the smarter person - and not just with the books but at life.

 

I think Sherman has tremendous survival skills....  tremendous determination.

 

But, I asked within the Stanford community.....   and Luck isn't compared to this football player or that football player.    He's compared not only to the best/smartest athletes of all kinds at Stanford,   but he's compared favorably to the general student body....   you know,  the people who invent things like Google, and Yahoo....    the brightest of the bright.

 

It's no disrespect at all to say Luck is smarter than Richard Sherman.   He's probably smarter than most every athlete on campus, and that's saying something....

 

But Sherman has a drive, a hunger to succeed, an inner self confidence that can't be copied.   You either have it, or you don't, and Richard has it.

 

All that bluster at the end of the NFC championship game....   that's an act....  a put-on, if you will.   Richard Sherman is a smart thoughtful guy, like most Stanford people. 

 

Chalk up the guy who woofs a lot and talks smack a lot and maybe puffs up his GPA to a bit of self-promotion....   it's Richard being Richard.....    that's my read of him....

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

Also better mathematically. But that doesn't measure intelligence in Texas i guess

You are so petty that it is hilarious.

[NewColtsFan]

Someone thinking out loud on the Stanford website offered this..........

 

HIs 3.9 might be his GPA for his Master's degree that he got in his 5th year at Stanford......

 

So.......  maybe?               

[CardiacColts]

Wow. That is an incredible story if all true. Thanks for sharing. So let me ask you, why did you write in a previous post that Luck is way smarter than Sherman? If anything, after reading this, I have even more of an appreciation for Sherman and would say he is the smarter person - and not just with the books but at life.

I would affirm that Andrew is quite smart at life as well. He just adheres to a much different strategy. Maintain anonymity, while strategically selecting endorsement deals and leading a happy, private life outside of his profession. I can't recal the name of the company, but he's endorsing a company that he now sits on the board of that is trying to develop safer football helmet technology.

I appreciate the way he seems to conduct himself as a consummate professional both on and off of the gridiron. Sherman takes a different tact by overtly maintaining his status in the media, and therefore public eye. It works for him, but I can't see how you could argue that this makes him smarter at life than Andrew. They are both due credit in their own ways. Needless to say, they are both very, very successful in their own ways. I hope that when I look back in 20 years, I can still say the same for both of them.

[Jules]

OMG I have a near headache after reading these last few pages.......

 

 

Ooookaaaaaaayyyyyyyy........

[NFLfan]

OMG I have a near headache after reading these last few pages.......

Ooookaaaaaaayyyyyyyy........

Me too. After this you may appreciate this thread in the Misc. section.

http://forums.colts.com/topic/29273-musical-mecca-has-arrived-again-sw1-critiques-the-2014-rock-roll-hof-inductees

[Nadine]

I removed some squabbling from this thread.  Thought about closing it because it seems to irritate some people to the point of poor posting choices.

Leaving it open for now but I think it has really run it's course

[amfootball]

I think Sherman has tremendous survival skills....  tremendous determination.

 

But, I asked within the Stanford community.....   and Luck isn't compared to this football player or that football player.    He's compared not only to the best/smartest athletes of all kinds at Stanford,   but he's compared favorably to the general student body....   you know,  the people who invent things like Google, and Yahoo....    the brightest of the bright.

 

It's no disrespect at all to say Luck is smarter than Richard Sherman.   He's probably smarter than most every athlete on campus, and that's saying something....

 

But Sherman has a drive, a hunger to succeed, an inner self confidence that can't be copied.   You either have it, or you don't, and Richard has it.

 

All that bluster at the end of the NFC championship game....   that's an act....  a put-on, if you will.   Richard Sherman is a smart thoughtful guy, like most Stanford people. 

 

Chalk up the guy who woofs a lot and talks smack a lot and maybe puffs up his GPA to a bit of self-promotion....   it's Richard being Richard.....    that's my read of him....

Great thoughts here. If what you say is true about Luck I am surprised he is playing football and not doing something else more academically related. Maybe after his playing days are over he will pursue something in architecture.

[amfootball]

I would affirm that Andrew is quite smart at life as well. He just adheres to a much different strategy. Maintain anonymity, while strategically selecting endorsement deals and leading a happy, private life outside of his profession. I can't recal the name of the company, but he's endorsing a company that he now sits on the board of that is trying to develop safer football helmet technology.

I appreciate the way he seems to conduct himself as a consummate professional both on and off of the gridiron. Sherman takes a different tact by overtly maintaining his status in the media, and therefore public eye. It works for him, but I can't see how you could argue that this makes him smarter at life than Andrew. They are both due credit in their own ways. Needless to say, they are both very, very successful in their own ways. I hope that when I look back in 20 years, I can still say the same for both of them.

I think both approaches have merit. If the league was made up of a bunch of Brady's, Manning's and Luck's it would get real boring real fast. You need the Sherman's and Kaepernick's to keep the spice. ;)

[NFLfan]

Great thoughts here. If what you say is true about Luck I am surprised he is playing football and not doing something else more academically related. Maybe after his playing days are over he will pursue something in architecture.

I too am a Stanford fan for the same reasons that NCF is. Superman made all the points I wanted to make in response to your posts; so, I did not bother to write anything yesterday.

Did you know that your team drafted a player from Stanford who wants to build jets after his playing days? Cam Fleming majored in aeronautics. I wanted my team to draft him but they drafted his teammate David Yankey, which pleased me. Any Stanford player is a good addition to a football team, JMO. Anyway, here is a video that you might appreciate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H41PllYuHtw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Here is an article about Cam (it is rather lengthy):

http://grantland.com/features/cameron-fleming-stanford-nf-draft/

[amfootball]

I too am a Stanford fan for the same reasons that NCF is. Superman made all the points I wanted to make in response to your posts; so, I did not bother to write anything yesterday.

Did you know that your team drafted a player from Stanford who wants to build jets after his playing days? Cam Fleming majored in aeronautics. I wanted my team to draft him but they drafted his teammate David Yankey, which pleased me. Any Stanford player is a good addition to a football team, JMO. Anyway, here is a video that you might appreciate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H41PllYuHtw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Here is an article about Cam (it is rather lengthy):

http://grantland.com/features/cameron-fleming-stanford-nf-draft/

Not sure what your issue is as Superman misunderstood my posts. I never once said that Stanford was not a great school. But honestly as a football fan, I want great football players on my team not a guy who can build Jets. And book smarts don't always translate to on the field play. I think that is obvious from watching a guy like Luck who still needs to improve his game a lot at the pro level just like every other third year player.

[BrentMc11]

Nadine....you feel smarter.....I feel 'dumber."     Or...more dumb....

 

I know one thing rings true.....I will never be taking the Wonderlic

 

The NFL Wonderlic has to have football IQ related questions...Right?

 

Example:  If a defense brings an all out blitz and the OL has 5 blockers and a TE, how many blitzers get blocked and what happens to the QB?  

 

Example 2:  How much wood would a wood chuck chuck....if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

 

OK...time to close the thread.....

[TonyBungee]

than*

 

Exactly.  I'd say they're both smart enough to know the difference between then & than.

[NFLfan]

Not sure what your issue is as Superman misunderstood my posts. I never once said that Stanford was not a great school. But honestly as a football fan, I want great football players on my team not a guy who can build Jets. And book smarts don't always translate to on the field play. I think that is obvious from watching a guy like Luck who still needs to improve his game a lot at the pro level just like every other third year player.

It is too bad that you cannot accept a comment just for what it is rather than reading more into it. Where did I say that you thought Stanford was not a good school? You did not say that anywhere. Did you think I was insinuating that because I gave you the links on Cam? I really don't get your response.

I was just stating my opinion when I wrote that smart players are good to have on a team. You do not have to agree with it. Obviously you do not and that is okay.

(Note: You probably would agree with me if I say that I think Tom Brady is one of the most intelligent players out there. I have always believed that. It is JUST MY OPINION.)

[amfootball]

It is too bad that you cannot accept a comment just for what it is rather than reading more into it. Where did I say that you thought Stanford was not a good school? You did not say that anywhere. Did you think I was insinuating that because I gave you the links on Cam? I really don't get your response.

I was just stating my opinion when I wrote that smart players are good to have on a team. You do not have to agree with it. Obviously you do not and that is okay.

(Note: You probably would agree with me if I say that I think Tom Brady is one of the most intelligent players out there. I have always believed that. It is JUST MY OPINION.)

I am not sure what you want my response to be when you say you agreed with another poster who was misinterpreting my posts. And then you went on to say how great Stanford is which seems to be the theme of this thread which is fine but there are smart people everywhere in all walks of life. So naturally, I inferred that you did not think I thought Stanford was a good school. My mistake and I apologize.

 

But I get what you saying. Smart are people are good to have in your life period. But I prefer to have the Pats made up of smart football players which does not always translate to the classroom.

 

It really does not matter to me what you think of Brady. This thread isn't about him.

[DougDew]

Oh well....since this thread is still here.......

 

Some of the comments, maybe even the topic in general, seems to want to make football players into super human beings....fast, strong, agile, a superior work ethic....and now smarter...then the rest of us human plebes.   I guess professional football players are almost god-like creatures these days.

 

I guess I still have that image of the "dumb jock" I grew up with. 

 

I didn't care what the stereotype was then...or what its trying to be made into today...I like to watch football either way.  

[NewColtsFan]

Great thoughts here. If what you say is true about Luck I am surprised he is playing football and not doing something else more academically related. Maybe after his playing days are over he will pursue something in architecture.

 

Fortunately for the Colts and for football fans,  around the time Luck was drafted he was interviewed and said the more he learns about football,   the more he realizes he loves football and wants to learn more and get better at it!    

 

He's an interesting kid....   wired completely differently than most other athletes I follow....

 

It's why he's my favorite athlete to follow...

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

I removed some squabbling from this thread.  Thought about closing it because it seems to irritate some people to the point of poor posting choices.

Leaving it open for now but I think it has really run it's course

Leave it up. Let the kiddies see how Foozball brings out the worst in people at times.

[HarryTheCat]

I would think a Communications degree would be the most functional for an NFL bound player.  It would serve them well in interacting with the media and managing thier own brand. Also some of these guys cash in big time as sports media types.So, I think it's a solid choice for a college player all around.

 

Architechture is not such a neat fit.  To me it just says that Andrew has a strong interest in it and the will and ability to make it happen.

Communications might be useful for an NFL-bound player, but 99.9% of college-bound players will never even make an NFL practice squad.  And 99.9% of NFL players will never make it to a broadcast career when their playing days are over. Sadly, many of these student athletes will never graduate.  They exit school when their four years of eligibility is used up, with a handful of completed credit hours and a 2.0 GPA in a major that has no employment potential.  Most of these kids are shunted off into a major where it's easier to keep up their academic eligibility to keep them on the field, with little or no concern that they're getting an education that will serve them well after college.