Ajaxab
06-16-2007, 06:28 PM
This isn't. "You're fired." ;)
I know there has been a relatively recent thread on this, but that thread turned into a discussion of underrated, overrated, etc. so I thought I would throw out these thoughts on 'hard to read.'
I'm baffled by the 'hard to read' scout response to interviews. I am paying my scout to make judgments, not to tell me they're having a difficult time figuring out the potential talent of a given draftee. If they are not willing or able to give me their opinion, I don't want them working for me. Maybe I'm reading into things slightly, but the 'hard to read' response appears to subtly shift the emphasis to the talent of the scout rather than the 'underrated/overrated' responses that more directly emphasize the talent of the player. The response shifts our attention to the scout's inability to gauge that player's talent level rather than the ability of that player. I'm not sure that learning about our scout is the intention of the interview.
Skydog suggested that the scout who came back with 'hard to read' was 'just keepin' it real.' Perhaps, but would we expect a RL GM to accept this from a scout who will not or cannot provide an opinion about a player? I suppose someone could argue that 'hard to read' is an opinion, but it doesn't seem to be an opinion that has a whole lot of value. I would expect scouts who are experts at watching players would be able to give me a bit more than uncertainty.
I would be much more amenable to a response like "Hard to read, but I'm leaning toward underrated." At least the scout would be offering an opinion that we could take or reject and I could justify paying the guy his salary. C'mon scout, just tell me what you think!
I know there has been a relatively recent thread on this, but that thread turned into a discussion of underrated, overrated, etc. so I thought I would throw out these thoughts on 'hard to read.'
I'm baffled by the 'hard to read' scout response to interviews. I am paying my scout to make judgments, not to tell me they're having a difficult time figuring out the potential talent of a given draftee. If they are not willing or able to give me their opinion, I don't want them working for me. Maybe I'm reading into things slightly, but the 'hard to read' response appears to subtly shift the emphasis to the talent of the scout rather than the 'underrated/overrated' responses that more directly emphasize the talent of the player. The response shifts our attention to the scout's inability to gauge that player's talent level rather than the ability of that player. I'm not sure that learning about our scout is the intention of the interview.
Skydog suggested that the scout who came back with 'hard to read' was 'just keepin' it real.' Perhaps, but would we expect a RL GM to accept this from a scout who will not or cannot provide an opinion about a player? I suppose someone could argue that 'hard to read' is an opinion, but it doesn't seem to be an opinion that has a whole lot of value. I would expect scouts who are experts at watching players would be able to give me a bit more than uncertainty.
I would be much more amenable to a response like "Hard to read, but I'm leaning toward underrated." At least the scout would be offering an opinion that we could take or reject and I could justify paying the guy his salary. C'mon scout, just tell me what you think!