kearly
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 15,975
- Reaction score
- 0
I do not think the wonderlic is a completely worthless test. It reveals how hard working a player is, because those that prepare well for the test and paid attention in classes are very likely to avoid ultra low scores. I could care less if a QB scores a 21 on the wonderlic or a 49. But if a QB scores a 7, then I wonder just a little about how committed he is during the most important offseason of his life. Wonderlic isn't really useful as a measurement, but it can be useful to spotlight players with certain attitude issues if the scores are extremely low. I'm in the minority though, many people put very real stock in the wonderlic test, as though it matters if a guy scores 35 instead of 25. One famous and popular QB formula even distinguishes between a guy who scores a 25 or a 26 on the test.
In the same sense, I think we put too much into bench press. If you look at the all time combine leaderboard at bench press, most of the best performers never even made a 53 man roster, and most of the remaining ones never made a pro-bowl.
The strongest player I have seen in years, Red Bryant, managed only 20 reps on the bench press. How could Bryant be so strong with such a low bench? Because- especially in the trenches- most power is generated from the hamstrings, gluts, and core muscles; things NFL teams do not test for at the combine. Pectoral and arm strength might partially dictate the success of a swim move, but it will have very little to do with a drive block or anchoring.
Additionally, I believe just as there is a difference between track speed and field speed, there is a difference between gym strength and playing strength. And of course arm length impacts bench press efficiency, though that is generally accounted for already.
Point being, I think if a guy looks really strong on tape but doesn't rock the bench press, I would trust the tape, unless he was playing for Division II or something. I would only heed the bench press if it is excessively low, and even then, I would make sure the participant wasn't hurt or sick when testing.
In the same sense, I think we put too much into bench press. If you look at the all time combine leaderboard at bench press, most of the best performers never even made a 53 man roster, and most of the remaining ones never made a pro-bowl.
The strongest player I have seen in years, Red Bryant, managed only 20 reps on the bench press. How could Bryant be so strong with such a low bench? Because- especially in the trenches- most power is generated from the hamstrings, gluts, and core muscles; things NFL teams do not test for at the combine. Pectoral and arm strength might partially dictate the success of a swim move, but it will have very little to do with a drive block or anchoring.
Additionally, I believe just as there is a difference between track speed and field speed, there is a difference between gym strength and playing strength. And of course arm length impacts bench press efficiency, though that is generally accounted for already.
Point being, I think if a guy looks really strong on tape but doesn't rock the bench press, I would trust the tape, unless he was playing for Division II or something. I would only heed the bench press if it is excessively low, and even then, I would make sure the participant wasn't hurt or sick when testing.
