Players Intellegence.

[claystone]

Do players with "High Intellegence Rating" play better and also progress faster than a player with lower intellegence?

I would figure a QB with High Intellegence would learn more formations faster if they had a higher intellegence rating.

[RedKingGold]

Do players with "High Intellegence Rating" play better and also progress faster than a player with lower intellegence?

Most likely not.

I would figure a QB with High Intellegence would learn more formations faster if they had a higher intellegence rating.

Yes (i.e. quarterbacks with higher intelligence learn more formations faster than those quarterbacks with lower intelligence).

[claystone]

Most likely not.



Yes (i.e. quarterbacks with higher intelligence learn more formations faster than those quarterbacks with lower intelligence).


Thanks RedkingGold.

[tarcone]

I have a QB in the IFL with a 0 for intelligence. He is in his 5th season and knows 16 formations. He started at 9.
Based on this Im not sure if that is true that a low intelligence QB will not learn formations fast.

[claystone]

I have a QB in the IFL with a 0 for intelligence. He is in his 5th season and knows 16 formations. He started at 9.
Based on this Im not sure if that is true that a low intelligence QB will not learn formations fast.


So what you're saying is intelegence means really nothing in this game?

The reason i asked this question regarding intellegence is too see how much does intellegence affect a players ratings.

EDIT: I was hoping that "Intellegence" played a greater role in players progressing faster and playing better.

[Ben E Lou]

Good

Dice

Rolls.


Even crappy intelligence QBs *can* learn formations quickly if the dice roll in their favor in training camp. Drawing conclusions based on one player is a bad idea.

[claystone]

Good

Dice

Rolls.


Even crappy intelligence QBs *can* learn formations quickly if the dice roll in their favor in training camp. Drawing conclusions based on one player is a bad idea.

got it...lol

[tarcone]

Good

Dice

Rolls.


Even crappy intelligence QBs *can* learn formations quickly if the dice roll in their favor in training camp. Drawing conclusions based on one player is a bad idea.

You can minimize this all you want. But it isnt just good dice rolls. I put effort into making sure he learned. I spent training camp time on this area. So, no, its not all good dice rolls.
And you cant say that it will make them learn faster, based on your answer (good dice rolls), bad dice rolls will affect a 100 rated intelligence. So he wont learn faster.
I agree that a QB with high intelligence CAN learn faster, but it is not a sure thing.

[gstelmack]

I agree that a QB with high intelligence CAN learn faster, but it is not a sure thing.

Correct, if the dice rolls go against him ;)

[tarcone]

Correct, if the dice rolls go against him ;)

Exactly my point. OR You put 5 minutes of TC in that area.

[gstelmack]

Exactly my point. OR You put 5 minutes of TC in that area.

I think the point that Ben was trying to make are there are no guarantees. You can modify things to the hilt (high intelligence, lots of TC time, a mentor, proper QB style) and there is still no guarantee the guy will gain formations. Even if you do all of that, there is still a chance the guy won't learn anything.

And the converse is true. Low intelligence, no TC time, no mentor, and you can still gain formations.

You can nudge the odds in your favor, but there are no guarantees. One counter-example of a low intelligence QB gaining formations does not rule out intelligence affecting formation acquisition. That's why people who study FOF run multiple seasons to get as much data as possible. That's all Ben was pointing out: the dice rolling one way or another will affect individual examples, so you need a multitude of examples to draw a conclusion.

[Ben E Lou]

Greg is correct. I was specifically reacting to the "conclusion" drawn from tarcone's one example: "...what you're saying is intelegence means really nothing in this game.."

[tarcone]

Ok. Im with you guys. I was just stating that there are no "absolutes" in my simpleton way.
:funkychickendance: