Rookie Interviews - what are we learning?

[QuikSand]

There have been a few scattered discussions about this topic, but I thought it might be valuable to consolidate a bit in one obvious heading.

I am starting up a FOF 2007 career, and once again I am trying to focus mostly on player development, rather than just assembling my team full of developed free agents. (I'm basically playing empty cupboard, but only bringing aboard rookies)


So... when you do an interview on a rookie, what are you learning about his appeal as a potential draft selection?

[QuikSand]

Okay, following the rich tradition, I will reply to my own inquiry.


In-game, we clearly get the following new information:

- Wide blue ratings bands become narrower orange bands

- We get an "impression" whether he is over- or under-rated

- We get an indication of his chemistry with the applicable team leader

- We reveal his ratings for Loyalty, Wants Winner, Leadership, Intelligence, and Personality

anything I'm missing here?

[QuikSand]

As far as chemistry goes, I tend to keep an eye on it already -- so if I'm paying attention, I already know whether the player fits into a group that will have an affinity or conflict with the team leader(s). It's handy to see it there as a reminder, but that information is obtainable manually, without the interview.

However, since the strength of the affinity or conflict is a function of the Personality rating (at least in large part), revealing this rating is a gain, as I get a sense of whether the ultimate affinity/conflict will be material enough to be listed in game. (A Personality rating below 30 doesn't seem to register in-game at all)

[QuikSand]

I thought this post from another thread was worth quoting in its entirety:

First of all it seems I owe an apology. A closer look at the question shows that there does appear to be some correlation between the interview report and a comparison of HTML and in-game draft ratings. And it seems that the idea that the in-game draft board ratings are your own scouts is a non-starter as I found out when I created a test MP league. Every team I checked had the same draft board rating. So that's me batting 0 for 2 at the moment.

To test a few things out I created a test MP league and simmed to the first draft. I then selected the two scouts who seemed to have the most disparate abilities, settling on Philadelphia and San Francisco's scouts. I choose to interview the top 60 wide receivers in the draft for both teams. Philly's scout is rated Excellent for young talent and Very Good for Receivers while the 49ers' ranks average in both. Clearly, you'd expect the Philadelphia scout to provide better, or more accurate, information in the majority, but necessarily all, of the cases. I think the results are pretty revealing of how the draft is scouted at the moment.

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/8872/receiversaa8.jpg

I've highlighted rows in which the scouts interviews resulted in different evaluations in yellow. Players with "v" next to their name are ranked much higher (one whole draft grade) in the in-game rating while those with "^" are rated much higher in the HTML rating. These are the players that I was most interested in hoping to note some sort of pattern.

Firstly note that all players marked "^" are evaluated as underrated while those with "v" are overrated. Now look across to the post-draft rating. As far as I can tell, as no booms or busts are revealed immediately after the draft, these ratings are pretty similar to the in-draft scout ratings you'd see in 2004. Match them with the HTML ratings and I think you can see that there is a pretty evident match. My idea is that the HTML ratings correspond to the draft ratings as they would have been in 2004. Bob Hodges, rated at 38-71 immediately after the draft, is, consquently, graded higher by the HTML than Blaine Robertson, rated 40-65. So when a scout says that a player is underrated he's comparing his evaluation of the players potential ability with the players position in the draft.

So why are the in-game ratings different? Well, apparently the difference between 2004 and 2007 is that combine results and development influence the in-game draft grade a lot more. So, for whatever reason, Hodges combine result or development bumps him lower down than Blaine Robertson. Which is odd on the face of it as Hodges has better combines across the board. (BJump is included because the format got knackered translating to excel). I think the disparity must partly be down to development and partly to an x-factor, applied in game. Wynn's bump from a lowly 2.7 to a lofty 5.0 is easier to see in terms of combine results though.

A look at the players' post training camp shows what a lot of people have come to expect from the draft. The vast majority of major busts (5 potential or more) occur among players who were evaluated as underrated. All players considered undervalued by both scouts suffers a bust. Meanwhile all players who gained in potential were considered overrated. (all apart from one, Mitch Dennis who was "As Scouted" and who, consequently, dropped back down again).

What seems to happen is that a player has two potentials scored. One "true" potential (the level they will reach if they are given all the playing time they need, and which is hidden) and one "scouted" potential (the potential ability that all scouts work from. How good a scout is will help them get a more exact on the "scouted" potential, but as far as I can see it doesn't help find the "true" potential. This has a rather profound effect on the game.

1. Potential creepers (players with "true" potential higher than "scouted" potential eg. Buddy Wynn) are ignored by the AI because they have a rubbish potential. They wind up being cut and disappear from the game. Meanwhile players that have a scouted potential in excess of their true potential (Rico Humphrey or Chester Flynn to pick one among millions) get to stay in the game even though their true potential is probably lower than the creepers'. This results in a loss of talent from the league, because the AI is unable to perceive true talent.

2. The superior Philadelphia scout actually provides more inaccurate data than the San Francisco scout. Take Blaine Robertson. The Philadelphia scout sees that he will come out of the draft rated around 40-65 and, consequently, believes him to be undervalued for his position in the draft. Meanwhile the 49er scout's reading of Robertson is less accurate, he doesn't see the bars in quite the same place and he views him as being "as scouted". Of course, both are wrong, Robertson in overvalued in the draft. But at least the SF scout is being less hoodwinked by pretty scouting figures than the Philly one. The same holds true for each players there was a discrepency for. The Philly scout is consistently more incorrect than the SF scout.

So how do you go about getting the best players available in the draft? A problem with a lot of boomers is that their current ability is so low that you'll never be able to invest in them enough to get it to start pushing the potential upwards. You need to be able to discern the Roosevelt Bakers and the Dwight Colliers of the draft, players who actually deliver what you expect. It seems that players who are rated "As Scouted" are the best bet of actually delivering what they promise. They don't have the bust-potential of undervalued players while they don't have the woeful starting positions of the combine warriors.

While I'm not really certain what ultimate conclusions to draw from this quite yet, it's the most comprehensive look at the role of scouting and what to make of the overrated/underrated tag that has been shared publicly.

[QuikSand]

I will volunteer that I am increasingly spending my interview slots on players who have apparently maxed-out ratings ranges. For those players, it seems to me that we really do learn something new about the ratings themselves.

Where a typical player might have a blue band from 30-70, and after the interview the orange band is from 32-44 -- I am so used to this sort of "refinement" that I basically take it for granted, and don't feel like I'm learning much from it.

However, a player who has a blue band from 60-100, once I interview him, there are a range of different outcomes. Many of these guys turn out to have the familiar orange band somewhere near the bottom of the original blue range -- like 62-74. But some of these guys will have orange bands that are up in the higher ranges of the original blue -- like 80-92. And occasionally, some of these guys will stay "maxed-out" in the rating range, with an orange band from 88-100. To me, I'm really learning something about that guy's ratings when I interview him -- was he maxed-out-blue just because he edged into the top 30-40 points... or is he really maxed-out in scouted potential there?


No experiential evidence behind this, just some of my own common sense.

[Narcizo]

The more I think about this the more I realise I've no idea what's going on. Someone being "very undervalued" outside of the top of the draft sends up all manner of warning flags and I'm not put off solely by a player being "very overvalued". I do sit up and take notice if an evaluation is different from what I projected it would be in my mind based on the blue bars. For example if there's someone with a very good combine and decent (but not exceptional) scouted bars (ie someone I'm guessing is going to be rated as overvalued) who turns up as "undervalued" then I'm going to be very interested in that guy. It might be that they have low development or low intelligence, which will drag down their draft board position, but otherwise it could be someone worth drafting.

Mainly I use it to see their personality stuff, not saying that stuff like that is ever a dealmaker or breaker for me, but it helps sway me - I can't be bothered to track affinities in SP so I use it for that as well.

[Front Office Midget]

Hola Dolafest Batman!!!

[Dutch]

I will volunteer that I am increasingly spending my interview slots on players who have apparently maxed-out ratings ranges. For those players, it seems to me that we really do learn something new about the ratings themselves.

Where a typical player might have a blue band from 30-70, and after the interview the orange band is from 32-44 -- I am so used to this sort of "refinement" that I basically take it for granted, and don't feel like I'm learning much from it.

However, a player who has a blue band from 60-100, once I interview him, there are a range of different outcomes. Many of these guys turn out to have the familiar orange band somewhere near the bottom of the original blue range -- like 62-74. But some of these guys will have orange bands that are up in the higher ranges of the original blue -- like 80-92. And occasionally, some of these guys will stay "maxed-out" in the rating range, with an orange band from 88-100. To me, I'm really learning something about that guy's ratings when I interview him -- was he maxed-out-blue just because he edged into the top 30-40 points... or is he really maxed-out in scouted potential there?


No experiential evidence behind this, just some of my own common sense.

That is the exact rationale I use for determining player interview value, just on the other end of the spectrum. Drafting a player who's bar is touching ZERO is bad (because if he really is a zero, his development is brutally clear (he won't develop). So I like to interview guys that look promising but may have a blue bar (or two) flush to the left--my hope is that the gold bar that replaces it won't be touching.

Or is that just holdover FOF2k4 logic I'm using regarding the ability of players to develop?

[adubroff]

I will volunteer that I am increasingly spending my interview slots on players who have apparently maxed-out ratings ranges. For those players, it seems to me that we really do learn something new about the ratings themselves.

Where a typical player might have a blue band from 30-70, and after the interview the orange band is from 32-44 -- I am so used to this sort of "refinement" that I basically take it for granted, and don't feel like I'm learning much from it.

However, a player who has a blue band from 60-100, once I interview him, there are a range of different outcomes. Many of these guys turn out to have the familiar orange band somewhere near the bottom of the original blue range -- like 62-74. But some of these guys will have orange bands that are up in the higher ranges of the original blue -- like 80-92. And occasionally, some of these guys will stay "maxed-out" in the rating range, with an orange band from 88-100. To me, I'm really learning something about that guy's ratings when I interview him -- was he maxed-out-blue just because he edged into the top 30-40 points... or is he really maxed-out in scouted potential there?


No experiential evidence behind this, just some of my own common sense.


To play devil's advocate, isn't interviewing the 20-60 prospect and determining he's actually a 48-60 larger percentage of an improvement then finding out the 60-100 prospect is really 88-100?

[Front Office Midget]

I normally interview all the players I think I have a chance of getting in the first 2 rounds. I want to make sure I'm getting a good pick there. So I think it's important to clarify the difference between an 80 and a 60 player. In later rounds, I won't feel as bad if I made a bad pick, but if my first rounder busts, then I'm quite disappointed.

As far as what are we learning? I don't know much to that question. I just feel like I'm getting a better view on my scout's impression of the guy. Kind of like when someone comes and visits you in TCY.

[JeffW]

So... when you do an interview on a rookie, what are you learning about his appeal as a potential draft selection?

Hmmm, really not a lot. Very often I can predict which tag a player will have before I interview him.

Narrowing the ratings ranges can be moderately useful.

One thing that I've found is that "As Scouted" players are the least volatile. Underrateds bust more than overrateds, but both bust substantially more than "As Scouted".

I think the key to FOF 2k7 drafting is different from 2k4. There are few boomers, so my emphasis is on avoiding players who will die a slow(sometimes quick) ratings death.

[Narcizo]

I agree with Jeff. Everything is relative and a player who's ratings hold up as scouted can be basically viewed as a boomer, compared to his peers. It seems that a "bust" of anything up to 10 points is pretty much the norm. Unless you draft based on combine results which is likely to get you players who appear to be so bad that you really have to take a leap of faith on them, with questionable results. For every success story there's probably at least 5 stories of players being quietly cut around their 3rd season as it becomes clear that they're not going anywhere useful.

[QuikSand]

To play devil's advocate, isn't interviewing the 20-60 prospect and determining he's actually a 48-60 larger percentage of an improvement then finding out the 60-100 prospect is really 88-100?

In theory, yes. In practice, how often does that happen? (My answer - not nearly enough to make that a worthwhile pursuit)

[Bonegavel]

** Puts on Captain Obvious superhero outfit **

When my scout reports that a player is underrated, I'm taking that to mean he thinks the ratings (in blue) that I'm seeing for the player are low, and that he believes them to be further to the right.

** Takes off suit, was getting itchy **

I ONLY select early round draft picks that have their ratings bars far to the right and my scout sees them as underrated. I'm figuring that if he looks to be really good and underrated, WOW! Bingo city.

Bzzzzztt, wrong.

I haven't kept detailed track (as was done above), but I often note that if my scout is Very Good with young talent and Very good with a position, it doesn't seem to translate into better knowledge in drafting. This is making it feel more like a crapshoot again, which isn't necesarily bad or unrealistic (Ryan Leaf), but I'm not going to continue wasting my time with the 60 interviews if this is indeed the case.

I'm hoping that I'm not utilizing the interview correctly, but for right now it seems that the 60 interviews aren't what they should be.

From the above data, it seems that Underrated players should not be selected. Also, doesn't seem to matter what your scout's ratings are as it doesn't translate into any better insight. In fact, the San Fran scout (the lesser WR scout) was as good if not better than the Philly scout. We should get some numbers pitting the worst scout against the best (edit to add) in more cases to see if this was just an anomaly.

[QuikSand]

To me, there are two levels to all this.

First, there is an intuitive desire for this to "make sense." I want to understand what it means when my scout says a guy is "underrated." My intuition sides with Captain Obvious above, but my experience (and that posted by others) suggests otherwise.

Second, there's just the meta-game aspect here -- I ultimately want to play this computer game effectively. In that sense, I am willing to forego any intuitive connection to "common sense" or "the real NFL" or the like, and just go with "when the game does this, it means that."


I am still having conceptual trouble getting past the former, and moving on to the latter.

[Narcizo]

I think I've said this in the thread I posted in but I'll repeat it to see if it makes sense to anyone else and matches with their experience.

I think the problem is that my experience tells me players have a true potential and a scouted potential (both based on the scouted skills in relevent areas for the player's position). The problem is that the scouted potential is fixed for the player no matter which scout is viewing him. It's a league-wide absolute value in the same way the player's true potential is. Now the quality of the scout determines how accurately they get a fix on that scouted potential. But no matter how good they are they can't do better than see exactly the scouted potential.

My evidence for this is that when one team's scout sees a player's potential increase, so does every other scout in the league.

I'm sure that, if this is the case, there are gaming reasons for it but a more accurate model would surely be to have the scouted potential vary from scout to scout. A great scout will get a much better fix on the player's true potential and not be hoodwinked by an artificial "scouted potential" and, as a consequence, give a worse read on a player than a poor scout.

[Narcizo]

Of course the plus side is that people who don't pay much attention to how drafting seems to work (with undervalued players generally being bogus) will be hopeless drafters in MP leagues. Compensating me somewhat for my inability to get a decent functioning gameplan.

[QuikSand]

Here is my working theory on this, for your consideration.

There are three definiing elements of a rookie player

(1) RATINGS POTENTIAL - his green bars, revealed once he gets through training camp
(2) CURRENT RATINGS - his red bars, revealed once he gets through training camp
(3) DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL - his ability to develop the red bars over time up to or beyond the green bars

Now, as for the "impression" tags - the overrated/underrated labels - I think there is some sense to be made of this. First, think of these as giving you feedback *only* on item (1) above, the RATINGS POTENTIAL factor - basically "what will be the scouted potential rating for this guy once he gets through camp?"

I think the way to think of the impression is, more specifically, "how will this guy stack up in scouted future potential compared to his slot on the Board Rating (or compared to his ranking at the position)?" So, in essence, your scout is looking at a guy currently listed as the #6 overall wide receiver, and assessing whether his scouted future potential after camp is going to live up to that ordering. In the example above, WR Buddy Wynn projects to be something like a XX/26 receiver to your scout, and he reacts to that alone by saying "based on my assessment that he will have a potential of 26, I think he is VERY OVERRATED." This view here, to make sense of it, is basically that a WR with 26 potential isn't ordinarily worth being the 6th receiver taken.

Similarly, look at WR Britt Reeves, way down the WR list posted above. Scouted ratings show him with potential of 56 or so - much higher than many of the guys listed above him. Logically, the scout says getting a XX/56 WR that low on the list (or that late in the draft, if they were selected in that order) looks like a great find, and thus he rates him as "Very Underrated."

If you define the "impression" tag as simply as your scout's comparison of the post-camp future potential ratings versus the visible board ratings (or ranking at the position), then these overrated/underrated tags make plenty of sense.


Now, I think there are a variety of impressions one would take from this. The simplest flow of logic is something like this...

-Here's a guy with lousy apparent ratings, but he's ranked pretty highly at the position with a good board rating
-Naturally, he is tagged as "overrated" by our scout following an interview - the scout sees those lousy projected ratings and reacts accordingly
-Since the board score/rankings take into account both projected ratings and combine scored, it must be because he has good combines
-We believe that good combines tell us a good deal about a players' development potential
-So, this guy might project to not be much, but he's probably a better bet to actually reach that limited potential, or perhaps even exceed it, than the other more highly-projectes guys around him in the rankings

Something like that is, in my view, the best way to try to understand what you're seeing in the "impression" from a rookie interview. What you do with that information is up to you, as usual.

[Bonegavel]

To me, there are two levels to all this.

First, there is an intuitive desire for this to "make sense." I want to understand what it means when my scout says a guy is "underrated." My intuition sides with Captain Obvious above, but my experience (and that posted by others) suggests otherwise.

Second, there's just the meta-game aspect here -- I ultimately want to play this computer game effectively. In that sense, I am willing to forego any intuitive connection to "common sense" or "the real NFL" or the like, and just go with "when the game does this, it means that."

I am still having conceptual trouble getting past the former, and moving on to the latter.

Exactly, and I guess this is Jim's dilemma.

If he makes the scouts recommendations accurate he runs the risk of making that too powerful. But if he makes the scout recommendations too random it makes the interviewing worthless.

From what we are seeing it is looking predictable except you must ignore the literal wording of your scout and simply know that

(Overrated || As Scouted) > Underrated

in almost all cases.

I would prefer that interviewing gave more "perfect" information with the understanding that a certain percentage are just going to go PLOOF! and bust (ala Ryan Leaf). Dittos to the later round dudes (far less BOOMers obvsiously). To balance this better info, maybe lessen the amount of interviews.

[Ben E Lou]

If you define the "impression" tag as simply as your scout's comparison of the post-camp future potential ratings versus the visible board ratings (or ranking at the position), then these overrated/underrated tags make plenty of sense.Ding. Ding. Ding.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

Out of the mouths of babes: http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1289917&postcount=13

I think the interview only tells you how overrated/underrated the overall rating (in your scouts view) is compared to the overall draft rating.

So for example if my scout sees Joe WR as a 64 but his draft rating is 4.5, he will say he is very underrated. I have noticed no real correlation with being underrated and post training camp boosts (admitedly I haven't done any comprehensive tests, just observations over 8 seasons of drafting). Rather, the underrated is the initial boost in overall score compared to combine score when he appears on your roster.

Additionally I have noticed you can pretty much predict if a player is going to be underrated or overrated by simply looking at his bars. If you see this WR rated 4.5, but see him with huge bars in route running and other important ratings, you know he will be very underrated.

In my initial opinion, I think that interviewing gives you an idea of his personality, potential affinities/conflicts, but does nothing to add to the scouting aspect except summarize the scout's opinion.

[Adgnash]

Great thread guys!

Has anyone developed a chart or rule of thumb regarding which ratings are important to each position. For instance, I am drafting a WR, what skills should I be looking at in the draft screen (agility, 40yd, etc)? For an offensive lineman, agility & strength, etc.

And with this information (going back to my WR example), if the guy runs a superfast forty and his agility is fantastic, should he not be/turn into something special at that position?

Thanks!

[Poli]

Nice. I wouldn't have seen this thread had it not been for the "coaches corner" stick.

[gstelmack]

And with this information (going back to my WR example), if the guy runs a superfast forty and his agility is fantastic, should he not be/turn into something special at that position?

If he can't catch the ball, what does it matter how open he gets? Combine numbers are a big help, but the NFL draft history is replete with workout warriors who couldn't actually play football.

[SteveMax58]

Very good thread...

Just a thought on overrated vs. underrated. If you have a listing of 10 players at a position, and the "truly" 7th best player is "scouted" to be the 3rd best player, then that might be the reason players 4, 5, & 6 all interview as "underrated" by your scout.

In reality they don't actually "seem" very underrated, since they are only 1 spot off from their "true" rating, but it would possibly explain the reason why "underrated" seems to mean less than "overrated"...as for every "overrated" player, you have many more "underrated" players as a consequence.

[Ksyrup]

I've been doing a fairly decent job of drafting good future potential guys in the later rounds, but often they end up being less of a player than they appeared to be. I might find a LB at 17/51 in the 6th round, but by year 3, he's maxed out at 39/39, for example. With guys in the first 2 rounds, it's easier to find the ones whose future ratings will "stick." I'm still finding potentially good value picks in the late rounds - even as late as the last pick of the draft - but I haven't hit on how, if it is possible at all, to determine who the sleepers are. Then again, it may just be that their are so few sleepers that there is no intuitive way to scout them out.

I don't put much stock in the "overrated" and "underrated" tags because I haven't figured out what they mean. When I interview and draft, I'm just looking for guys with higher bars than the guys rated similarly around them. It's as simple as that. For some positions, certain bars are more important (like WR, in the late rounds, I'm all about avoid drops), but overrall, I'm finding it fairly easy to spot the guys who are better, on average, then the guys they are bunched with. Again, as noted above, whether they pan out is another matter, but I'd rather have a 17/51 that turns into a 39/39 then a 22/34 who turns into a 29/31 (which I've seen as well). Personally, I've never seen a low ceiling guy boom, but I only concentrate on my own draftees, so it might be possible that I just haven't noticed them. I need to pay attention to where some of the better players in my career have been drafted.

[QuikSand]

I don't put much stock in the "overrated" and "underrated" tags because I haven't figured out what they mean.

I've heard there's a thread around here that discusses this sort of thing. *shurg*

[JeffW]

Now, as for the "impression" tags - the overrated/underrated labels - I think there is some sense to be made of this. First, think of these as giving you feedback *only* on item (1) above, the RATINGS POTENTIAL factor - basically "what will be the scouted potential rating for this guy once he gets through camp?"

It would be cool if the feedback was on his hidden potential relative to his scouting potential. I agree that's not what is happening, though.

[JeffW]

Unless you draft based on combine results which is likely to get you players who appear to be so bad that you really have to take a leap of faith on them, with questionable results.

Yeah, unlike in the old version, I've stayed away from these guys as well. I can't say whether I'll continue doing that with presumably slimmer pickings in the WAFL draft.

I think a lot of unprepared owners are going to get hosed in the new draft landscape.

[Eaglesfan27]

Nice. I wouldn't have seen this thread had it not been for the "coaches corner" stick.


Excellent. :cool:

[Ben E Lou]

Nice. I wouldn't have seen this thread had it not been for the "coaches corner" stick.

Excellent. :cool:

That's what I'm hoping for with the daily stuff. No, some of it won't be a big value-add for those who check the OT and FOF2K7 forums multiple times a day, but I think it'll be very nice for others.

[GMO]

If he can't catch the ball, what does it matter how open he gets? Combine numbers are a big help, but the NFL draft history is replete with workout warriors who couldn't actually play football.

I don't know what 'combine' means?

What does it mean or where can I find the answer?

Thanks.

[RedKingGold]

I don't know what 'combine' means?

What does it mean or where can I find the answer?

Thanks.

Is there a smiley that has a gun pointed to its head?

[PSUColonel]

I don't know what 'combine' means?

What does it mean or where can I find the answer?

Thanks.

http://www.sportznutz.com/nfl/draft/combine.htm

[QuikSand]

The "combine" is a series of athletic drills that would-be NFL rookies undergo to test their physical skills. In the FOF game, this is represented by each player being assigned a time the the 40-yard dash and an agility drill, and other similar "events."

In general, there's a strong correlation between good performance in the FOF combine" and players' eventual development potential.

[Ksyrup]

I've heard there's a thread around here that discusses this sort of thing. *shurg*

And I'm still not sure I've read a post that convinces me of what these tags mean. Smartass! :cool:

[Narcizo]

It would be cool if the feedback was on his hidden potential relative to his scouting potential. I agree that's not what is happening, though.

To my mind this is exactly what the interview ought to suggest (with a reasonable degree of error).

[GMO]

This is the way I see it:

in the chart above Edwin Courtney is rated In-game as 4.7 and is scouted as Overrated. He starts as 23/43 and at 3rd year is 29/40.
Mercury Holliman is In-game 4.6 and scouted as Underrated. After draft he is 29/57 and at 3rd year is 45/45.
Both Courtney and Holliman started at about the same In-game (4.7 and 4.6) and so ,everything else being equal, they should end up being similar in ratings. But Holliman (underrated) at the 3rd year point is better (45/45) than Courtney (overrated, 29/40). Holliman did fall more from the after-draft rating but he's still ahead of Courtney.

It's similar for Marshall Ellison (overrated, 3.8, Very Overrated, 16/24 post-draft, 16/23 after Training camp) and Chester Flynn (underrated, 3.7, 17/47 post-draft, 18/31 after 2 years). Flynn fell a lot but he's still better than the overrated Ellison, even though they both started with similar ratings (3.8 vs 3.7).

Therefore it seems like the Underrated and Overrated tags seem to be accurate much (not 100%) of the time.

[QuikSand]

I can just parse out parts of what you posted, and get "the way I see it" also:

Courtney is ... 4.7 ... Overrated....starts as xx/43

Holliman is ... 4.6 ... Underrated....he is xx/57

The scout is simply making a comparison of what he believes the player's future potential is, and comparing to the overall board rating. I think it's really as simple as that.

Getting input from your scout is simply *not* like talking to a buddy who also plays this game, and getting layered, intelligent input on the whole range of subtleties of the game. It's just the scout restating his impression of the player's future potential... "if the guy develops the way my projected orange ranges say he will, then he will be bette/worse than the consensus board rating would led you to epxect." The scout is not offering any insight into whether the guy has any shot to actually reach (or even exceed) the potential he has judged... that's entirely up to you to sort out.

[DolphinFan1]

I think I finally understand it somewhat.

[WebEwbank]

I am also having some trouble with this. It's easy enough to pluck a Very Underrated guy with very high bars in the first half of the first round. It's later on, when I have to distinguish between three more-or-less fungible JAGs, with, respectively, Underrated, As Scouted and Overrated, that I wonder what it all means.

[DougWyatt]

This is one of those functions that we shouldn't have to test and guess what it means. Really though, if I was a GM & my scout told me his thoughts - I'm certain he'd be clear as to what he meant rather than leave me guessing & hoping someone else has run a bunch of tests to determine what the heck he was talking about.

And, FOF is suppose to be a game that puts me in the "front office" of a football team.

[henry296]

This is one of those functions that we shouldn't have to test and guess what it means. Really though, if I was a GM & my scout told me his thoughts - I'm certain he'd be clear as to what he meant rather than leave me guessing & hoping someone else has run a bunch of tests to determine what the heck he was talking about.

And, FOF is suppose to be a game that puts me in the "front office" of a football team.

In Jim's Q&A, I thought he was very clear. Underrated means your scout gives the player a higher grade than the consensus grade, overrated the opposite.

[Celeval]

In Jim's Q&A, I thought he was very clear. Underrated means your scout gives the player a higher grade than the consensus grade, overrated the opposite.

And the times when people see underrated players go up and overrated go down, your scout is being less accurate than the consensus. Sounds reasonable, at least.

[Bigdummie]

O.K. now I'm confused. Is it better for a drafte to be underated or over rated after you've interviewed them. I was under the impression that underated ment the scouts were missing something. No wonder after 10 years, I'm so bad, well I am running the Lion's. Call me Matt JR.

[Logan]

O.K. now I'm confused. Is it better for a drafte to be underated or over rated after you've interviewed them. I was under the impression that underated ment the scouts were missing something. No wonder after 10 years, I'm so bad, well I am running the Lion's. Call me Matt JR.

The simple, annoying answer is...it depends.

[Bonegavel]

O.K. now I'm confused. Is it better for a drafte to be underated or over rated after you've interviewed them. I was under the impression that underated ment the scouts were missing something. No wonder after 10 years, I'm so bad, well I am running the Lion's. Call me Matt JR.

I'm guessing that an Overrated 7.0 is still better than an Underrated 6.5.

Seems all relative to your draft score.

If you have 2 guys at the same score, then this rating is worth something.

[Narcizo]

I forgot to mention this before but what the hell does "% developed" mean? I know Quiksand has come up with a theory to explain why Dwight Collier is listed as 12% developed when it's clear that to you and me he's 50% developed.

[Bonegavel]

I forgot to mention this before but what the hell does "% developed" mean? I know Quiksand has come up with a theory to explain why Dwight Collier is listed as 12% developed when it's clear that to you and me he's 50% developed.

I believe this to simply mean how far along they are developed towards their future potential (i.e., 50% meaning they have 50% more development until they erase their green bars).

It's either in the help file or in another thread where it mentions that the further developed they are, the more you can trust their ratings.

[QuikSand]

And the times when people see underrated players go up and overrated go down, your scout is being less accurate than the consensus. Sounds reasonable, at least.

I would again suggest that the real key to understanding this in a logical way is to recognize that the scout is not looking at the big picture like you are. He is just charting what he thinks the player's future potential is... he is not looking at the meta-game factors (most notably combine results) that might eventually affect whether that player, in this computer game, will actually reach or even exceed that initially projected potential.

[Bonegavel]

I would again suggest that the real key to understanding this in a logical way is to recognize that the scout is not looking at the big picture like you are. He is just charting what he thinks the player's future potential is... he is not looking at the meta-game factors (most notably combine results) that might eventually affect whether that player, in this computer game, will actually reach or even exceed that initially projected potential.

Isn't this a bit odd since Jim is very much intimate with how the meta-game stuff applies to this?

I mean, if Jim is worried that the AI would be "too good" in regards to understanding the meta-data and then just making them all stupid (or short sighted as it seems here)... he has to realize that we humans will figure out the "system" and gain an advantage over the AI.

Why not just give the AI the edge that we will eventually have when we figure out the draft? Just build in enough busts and I think the system will be just right.

[Narcizo]

Because coding an draft AI is incredibly difficult?

[Bonegavel]

Because coding an draft AI is incredibly difficult?

Everybody always drops back to this argument at some point and in many instances this may be the exact reason.

However, Jim knows the variables involved and how they relate. Assessing talent via a formula where perfect knowledge of the variables and how they interrelate is at hand is right up Jim's alley.

I have to think that he is making them only assess the here and now so as not to give them an advantage over us. But eventually, we will learn how to read the draftees better and the AI will be stuck in the here-and-now.

[QuikSand]

Isn't this a bit odd since Jim is very much intimate with how the meta-game stuff applies to this?

I guess my best response to this is "yes, maybe it is an odd choice" -- but I'd prefer to put it into a broader perspective. If the *only* thing you are taking away from the rookie interview is the overrated/underrated tag, then I think you are putting too much focus onto it.

It's one of many elements involved with assessing a player. That's it. The game, pretty deliberately, doesn't give you an all-packaged guaranteed correct answer - you have to put things together as best you can. You can bicker with that design decision if you like (see the "spoon feeding" thread for more on that conceptually) but if you accept that general concept, then this fits with it just fine.

I think the vast majority of the confusion and frustration with the scout impression in this game comes from people believing it to be broader and more than it was ever intended to be. It's just a further refinement of your scout's projections for the player's skill ratings. It's not a be-all, end-all solution to some complex algorithm that was ever intended to offer a shining path to the perfect draft pick.

[mhass]

I realize a new opinion on this isn't really what this thread needs but my current take on the over/underrated tag is that it gives you a bridge between the combine scores and the bars. The interview (to me) tells us "based on this guys pretty good combine scores, I think those bars I gave you underate his potential as a player." That would explain why so many Underated players end up improving and the converse.

[Bonegavel]

I guess my best response to this is "yes, maybe it is an odd choice" -- but I'd prefer to put it into a broader perspective. If the *only* thing you are taking away from the rookie interview is the overrated/underrated tag, then I think you are putting too much focus onto it.

I agree and it was the main thing I was taking away from interviews in the beginning.

My thoughts on the in-game draft are simple. We can't simulate all the hard work that goes into making assessments that the NFL folks do, but they all do it and they all have their rankings of the players. Probably a good guess that the vast majority of teams have very similar lists. The big difference being team need with occasional out-of-left-field-picks (Jeff Lageman anyone?)

I was hoping that the interviews would let you laser-focus on a few players and get a tighter view of the player's actual numbers. The interview button click represents a lot of hard work on the scouts behalf and would allow each team to alter the list of draftees in a meaningful way.


It's one of many elements involved with assessing a player. That's it. The game, pretty deliberately, doesn't give you an all-packaged guaranteed correct answer - you have to put things together as best you can. You can bicker with that design decision if you like (see the "spoon feeding" thread for more on that conceptually) but if you accept that general concept, then this fits with it just fine.


Agreed, but I think once we (the AI without the 'A') figure out the patterns, the game will be at another disadvantage since it is only looking at determining over/under relative to the draft score and picking along those lines.

We will look at a player and say, "this guy is likely to bust or boom based upon x,y, and z" whereas the computer won't. I'm thinking Jim could add that to their calcs.


I think the vast majority of the confusion and frustration with the scout impression in this game comes from people believing it to be broader and more than it was ever intended to be. It's just a further refinement of your scout's projections for the player's skill ratings. It's not a be-all, end-all solution to some complex algorithm that was ever intended to offer a shining path to the perfect draft pick.

I never wanted it to be the SPttPDP, but I wanted it to help me further refine my choices in a more meaningful way to simulate the hard work the scouts go through in assessing talent. Otherwise, what the hell good is having to pay for a scout? Somewhere above, I think it was pointed out that a "better" scout actually did worse than the poorer scout.

[QuikSand]

BG, you and I really aren't all that far apart here. You'd like for the interview to be a rewarding invesment, and I would too. In my SP career, I found myself skipping at least half my allocation of interviews, just because I felt like I wasn't getting much from them, overall. I'd like it if there were more there, and obviously so would you - thought I suspect we might differ on degrees.

But this...

Agreed, but I think once we (the AI without the 'A') figure out the patterns, the game will be at another disadvantage since it is only looking at determining over/under relative to the draft score and picking along those lines.

...makes me think that you're still seeing too much in the overrated/underrated tags. The AI-run teams are *not* looking solely at this, they are factoring it in, just like you/we are. If anything, the AI-run teams are far, far more likely to select workout warriors (the types who come out rated poorly in these interview impressions) much more savvily than they were in FOF 2004. Your ability to look past the "overrated" label and see that as just part of the greater picture doesn't give you an unfair advantage over the AI -- it's what the AI is already doing, and you're just keeping up.

[Bonegavel]

...makes me think that you're still seeing too much in the overrated/underrated tags. The AI-run teams are *not* looking solely at this, they are factoring it in, just like you/we are. If anything, the AI-run teams are far, far more likely to select workout warriors (the types who come out rated poorly in these interview impressions) much more savvily than they were in FOF 2004. Your ability to look past the "overrated" label and see that as just part of the greater picture doesn't give you an unfair advantage over the AI -- it's what the AI is already doing, and you're just keeping up.

Ah, I was under the impression that the AI was using the overrated / underrated thing incorrectly (and now I'm not sure where I read this, or if it was just something my mind jumbled together during this discussion).

BG, you and I really aren't all that far apart here. You'd like for the interview to be a rewarding invesment, and I would too. In my SP career, I found myself skipping at least half my allocation of interviews, just because I felt like I wasn't getting much from them, overall. I'd like it if there were more there, and obviously so would you - thought I suspect we might differ on degrees.

I definitely don't want the interviews to be any sort of complete pulling back of the curtain, but I would like to think that my scout should be able to apply his skills more than it appears that he does.

I guess I just have to trust Jim that the info given by interviews is enough and that more would be bad. Though, I would rather have less interviews (say 10 or so) and get better info out of them.



It would be sweet if the draft list was personalized according to each team's scout and that interviews were what moved guys up and down the list. I guess the danger here is that it could be easily exploited in MP and anyone with the right passwords could simply have near perfect knowledge of a draft class.

[Dutch]

Here is my working theory on this, for your consideration.

There are three definiing elements of a rookie player

(1) RATINGS POTENTIAL - his green bars, revealed once he gets through training camp
(2) CURRENT RATINGS - his red bars, revealed once he gets through training camp
(3) DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL - his ability to develop the red bars over time up to or beyond the green bars

Now, as for the "impression" tags - the overrated/underrated labels - I think there is some sense to be made of this. First, think of these as giving you feedback *only* on item (1) above, the RATINGS POTENTIAL factor - basically "what will be the scouted potential rating for this guy once he gets through camp?"

I think the way to think of the impression is, more specifically, "how will this guy stack up in scouted future potential compared to his slot on the Board Rating (or compared to his ranking at the position)?" So, in essence, your scout is looking at a guy currently listed as the #6 overall wide receiver, and assessing whether his scouted future potential after camp is going to live up to that ordering. In the example above, WR Buddy Wynn projects to be something like a XX/26 receiver to your scout, and he reacts to that alone by saying "based on my assessment that he will have a potential of 26, I think he is VERY OVERRATED." This view here, to make sense of it, is basically that a WR with 26 potential isn't ordinarily worth being the 6th receiver taken.

Similarly, look at WR Britt Reeves, way down the WR list posted above. Scouted ratings show him with potential of 56 or so - much higher than many of the guys listed above him. Logically, the scout says getting a XX/56 WR that low on the list (or that late in the draft, if they were selected in that order) looks like a great find, and thus he rates him as "Very Underrated."

If you define the "impression" tag as simply as your scout's comparison of the post-camp future potential ratings versus the visible board ratings (or ranking at the position), then these overrated/underrated tags make plenty of sense.


Now, I think there are a variety of impressions one would take from this. The simplest flow of logic is something like this...

-Here's a guy with lousy apparent ratings, but he's ranked pretty highly at the position with a good board rating
-Naturally, he is tagged as "overrated" by our scout following an interview - the scout sees those lousy projected ratings and reacts accordingly
-Since the board score/rankings take into account both projected ratings and combine scored, it must be because he has good combines
-We believe that good combines tell us a good deal about a players' development potential
-So, this guy might project to not be much, but he's probably a better bet to actually reach that limited potential, or perhaps even exceed it, than the other more highly-projectes guys around him in the rankings

Something like that is, in my view, the best way to try to understand what you're seeing in the "impression" from a rookie interview. What you do with that information is up to you, as usual.

I finally get this post. Thanks for the spoon-feed. :)

[Dutch]

dola,

Here's an example of how I interpret this now. Is this correct?

-----

Player X has a raw grade of 7.0 before an interview (the consensus grade). It could be the highest graded player at that position group, or even in the draft. It really doesn't matter.

After the interview, your scout sees a more accurate grade (which isn't revealed) but let's say the scout sees the "true" grade. Maybe it is 8.5.

Your scout will then tell you post interview that this guy is "very underrated".

[Narcizo]

Player X has a raw grade of 7.0 before an interview (the consensus grade). It could be the highest graded player at that position group, or even in the draft. It really doesn't matter.

After the interview, your scout sees a more accurate grade (which isn't revealed) but let's say the scout sees the "true" grade. Maybe it is 8.5.

Your scout will then tell you post interview that this guy is "very underrated".

You'd probably be fooling yourself if you call it the "true grade" because chances are it isn't the very accurate. Underrated means, simply, that the player's blue bars are in a better position then you would expect for a player with his draft grade. Overrated means the opposite.

So, if you get a player show up as underrated you have to ask yourself, why is his draft grade so low compared to his scouted ratings. I think there's two explanations.
1) very rarely, your scout is seeing something that the consensus view isn't and the player actually is significantly better than you would expect given his draft grade, or
2) far, far more common. Something is dragging his draft grade down. Normally this is a one or more poor combine showings, or low development, or it could be a red flag (I think). In these cases the "underrated" tag is misleading as the player almost certainly won't live up to his scouted ratings.

[Dutch]

You are right, "true" is the wrong word. A more accurate grade based soley on the scout's interpretation vs the scouting consensus is what I should say.

[Dutch]

1)

very rarely, your scout is seeing something that the consensus view isn't and the player actually is significantly better than you would expect given his draft grade, or

2)

far, far more common. Something is dragging his draft grade down. Normally this is a one or more poor combine showings, or low development, or it could be a red flag (I think). In these cases the "underrated" tag is misleading as the player almost certainly won't live up to his scouted ratings.

Thanks for the info. I've got to think about this while I'm looking at the amateur draft to make sure I'm "getting" this part.

I feel like I figured something out and now I'm lost again. Grrr...

[Narcizo]

If you got a few interviews to spare for test purposes take a look at no-combine players. With no combine scores to muddy the waters they usually turn out to be "as scouted". If you scout thinks they're over or underrated then that must mean tha the scout is seeing something that the consensus isn't. Whether that is an accurate reading of the player's true ability is a different matter.

[isaccoubaldi]

Here is my working theory on this, for your consideration.

There are three definiing elements of a rookie player

(1) RATINGS POTENTIAL - his green bars, revealed once he gets through training camp
(2) CURRENT RATINGS - his red bars, revealed once he gets through training camp
(3) DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL - his ability to develop the red bars over time up to or beyond the green bars

Now, as for the "impression" tags - the overrated/underrated labels - I think there is some sense to be made of this. First, think of these as giving you feedback *only* on item (1) above, the RATINGS POTENTIAL factor - basically "what will be the scouted potential rating for this guy once he gets through camp?"

I think the way to think of the impression is, more specifically, "how will this guy stack up in scouted future potential compared to his slot on the Board Rating (or compared to his ranking at the position)?" So, in essence, your scout is looking at a guy currently listed as the #6 overall wide receiver, and assessing whether his scouted future potential after camp is going to live up to that ordering. In the example above, WR Buddy Wynn projects to be something like a XX/26 receiver to your scout, and he reacts to that alone by saying "based on my assessment that he will have a potential of 26, I think he is VERY OVERRATED." This view here, to make sense of it, is basically that a WR with 26 potential isn't ordinarily worth being the 6th receiver taken.

Similarly, look at WR Britt Reeves, way down the WR list posted above. Scouted ratings show him with potential of 56 or so - much higher than many of the guys listed above him. Logically, the scout says getting a XX/56 WR that low on the list (or that late in the draft, if they were selected in that order) looks like a great find, and thus he rates him as "Very Underrated."

If you define the "impression" tag as simply as your scout's comparison of the post-camp future potential ratings versus the visible board ratings (or ranking at the position), then these overrated/underrated tags make plenty of sense.


Now, I think there are a variety of impressions one would take from this. The simplest flow of logic is something like this...

-Here's a guy with lousy apparent ratings, but he's ranked pretty highly at the position with a good board rating
-Naturally, he is tagged as "overrated" by our scout following an interview - the scout sees those lousy projected ratings and reacts accordingly
-Since the board score/rankings take into account both projected ratings and combine scored, it must be because he has good combines
-We believe that good combines tell us a good deal about a players' development potential
-So, this guy might project to not be much, but he's probably a better bet to actually reach that limited potential, or perhaps even exceed it, than the other more highly-projectes guys around him in the rankings

Something like that is, in my view, the best way to try to understand what you're seeing in the "impression" from a rookie interview. What you do with that information is up to you, as usual.

So if I understand well if the scout says the player is "as scouted" so this means he deserve the position he has in the Board rating. And what do you think when your scout say the player is "hard to read"?

Another question: in your opinion the scout give an impression based on the position in general on the Board Rating or is "position specific"'?

[strickzilla]

So if I understand well if the scout says the player is "as scouted" so this means he deserve the position he has in the Board rating. And what do you think when your scout say the player is "hard to read"?


just curious about the hard to read tag, i had more than a few of those last draft

[aston217]

It's draft season in both my leagues right now and I had something that's bugged me about interviews for a while now. Hope someone can set me straight on this.

There's been talk of "gray bars" - that is, that it's important for there to be some gray area to the left of a blue bar for a given rating. Otherwise, you're looking at a '0' there. In other words there's an important distinction to be made for each rating, between YLS (yes left space) and NLS (no left space).

Now the question is, sometimes there's no gray on the left side of the blue bar - but when you interview, and the blue bar becomes a thinner orange bar, a sliver of gray appears. Does this mean that the player's rating I'm looking at, falls under Yes-Left-Space now instead of No-Left-Space?

If so: you really can't tell about these things without an interview (and even then, it's not definite). If not: you are actually losing some information once you interview a player that has some low bars, unless you remember whether there was a space there or not.

[Firefly]

I don't know what you're talking about Aston. Is this a mysterious barely noticeable thing you're talking about? Cause blue bars are drawn against a gray background, so there's plenty of gray everywhere.

[aston217]

Yeah, that was worded pretty poorly by me. Sorry. What I mean is when a player has a very low blue bar. Sometimes it'll start from 0 and extent to (however wide the blue bar is). But sometimes it'll start from just a sliver offset from 0. So, the bar will start from what appears to be 2 or something.

Ben mentioned in a thread long long ago how he thought that a blue bar starting from 0 was a bad sign for that bar, but if you have a player with some low blue bars that start from a little past 0, there could be hope for them.

[thenewchuckd]

just curious about the hard to read tag, i had more than a few of those last draft

Ok, I would be careful digging up threads like this. Because the interview thing has really changed over time. And... I have seen some knowledgeable people spreading bad info about interviews recently.

In the newest versions of FOF (including version 6.4), the interview tells you if the player is better or worse than his pre-camp rating (the rating you see immediately after drafting him). The ratings mean the following:

very overrated: the player is actually 12+ points worse in future rating
overrated: the player is 5-12 points worse in future rating
as scouted: the player's future rating is pretty accurate. May drop or gain 5 points
underrated: the player is 5-12 points better in future rating
very underrated: the player is 12+ points better in future rating
hard to read: the scout isn't giving you any additional information
*I may be slightly off on the point gains/losses but you get the idea.

So basically, the interview gives you an indication of whether or not the player is a creeper or a crasher. Hard to read tells you nothing, although the interview is not a waste because the bars narrow, which is sometimes more helpful than anything.

But finally... all scouts make mistakes, even one with excellent in everything. Your scout could even tell you that a VU player is VO. So you have to take the info with a grain of salt (although in my experience, the scout is right more often than he is wrong).

[gstelmack]

Not saying you are wrong, but proof? Like an interviewed draft class and their post-camp changes? I may check this in the WOOF draft coming up.

[thenewchuckd]

Not saying you are wrong, but proof? Like an interviewed draft class and their post-camp changes? I may check this in the WOOF draft coming up.

For me it all goes back to a couple of really old posts by Ben. I am not sure how to link to them but made an attempt below.

I have been drafting by this principle for quite some time now and can say without a doubt that it is true. I don't have any data to share, though.

Scout Impression: Hard to Read? (and other draft discussion) - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=58589)

STRATEGY: The importance of interviews - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=61484)

[thenewchuckd]

And like I said, the numbers I put out may be off, I was just using them to illustrate the point.

[Firefly]

Yeah, that was worded pretty poorly by me. Sorry. What I mean is when a player has a very low blue bar. Sometimes it'll start from 0 and extent to (however wide the blue bar is). But sometimes it'll start from just a sliver offset from 0. So, the bar will start from what appears to be 2 or something.

Ben mentioned in a thread long long ago how he thought that a blue bar starting from 0 was a bad sign for that bar, but if you have a player with some low blue bars that start from a little past 0, there could be hope for them.

I understand now (but I've no idea if that's true or not).

[Firefly]

I think thenewchuck is basically correct, the only thing is the numbers seem too high.

[cuervo72]

Think of the blue not as bars, but as ranges. Like the range game on The Price is Right.

Assume that the future rating for a player is going to be somewhere in that blue. Better scouts will have smaller ranges - instead of guessing a player is going to be somewhere in the 35-65 range, a better scout may be able to pinpoint that to within the 45-55 range (or 35-45, or 55-65).

Conduct an interview and that blue range will turn into a smaller orange range. You got a better view, you narrowed it down.

If a blue range is from 0-30, yes, you need to worry that the player may be blank there. If a blue range is say, 70-100, the player could be a max. If after an interview the range is now 5-25, the player is probably not a 0 (on initial inspection; could well still be a mask there). If the player was narrowed from 70-100 to 85-100 - good sign. He still has a shot at being max there.

[QuikSand]

I'll second cuervo's thinking there. I'd also add in that the "ranges" of either color are inherently deceiving for two reasons:

(1) We are used to looking at horizontal bars, meaning where the read/green *stops* (its rightmost point) is the meaningful thing being indicated. With the blue/orange ranges, it's not the rightmost point, it's somewhere in the middle. That takes getting used to.

(2) There seems to be a definite bias toward the left/low side of the ranges. I have not spent any time looking at this in a long time, but if a guy shows up with a blue range of 50-80, even if you are in the proper "range" mindset, you might be tempted to be thinking 65. Of 100 guys with such a range, I'd guess the median outcome score is more like 55 than 65 -- there's a profound skew to the lower side of the ranges (that may be connected to something, I don't claim to know how this comes to be so, just that it is so).

[aston217]

Looks like I had understood interviews all wrong. Read some of the same stuff, just didn't read carefully enough, I guess.

I thought TC bumps were the only thing that told you where a player was headed. I didn't realize interviews were a good way to predict it, too. I thought that interviews were a good way to figure what a player would come in as, relative to their rating (e.g, a 5.0 adjr player that was O might come in with 30 potential, while a 4.1 VU player might come in with 50 potential) - but that it had no bearing on what their TC bump/drop might be.

And I swear I read on here somewhere that 'overrated' was a good sign.

But anyways, thanks for the enlightenment.

[thenewchuckd]

Looks like I had understood interviews all wrong. Read some of the same stuff, just didn't read carefully enough, I guess.

I thought TC bumps were the only thing that told you where a player was headed. I didn't realize interviews were a good way to predict it, too.

You really need to still take interviews with a grain of salt, though. Scouts can be wrong (although they are more often right than wrong). TC bumps are still the best predictors.

When I first stumbled upon this, my biggest mistake was to pick every player that my scout listed as VU. That led to some big disappointments.

The trouble is that the vast majority of FOF players are VO or O (just take a look at change tracker after a draft and see how many players lose value). So let's say your scout gives a VU on a VO player 5% of the time. That means if you do 60 interviews, you are going to get 3 VO players who come out as VU. Not a ton but considering that VU players are rare to begin with... And you can really start to shoot yourself in the foot if you believe your scout all the time.

[QuikSand]

BEWARE OF OLD INFORMATION

Just another reminder. Some information on this forum is based on the game before one or more patches that made a major difference. I can't honestly recall exactly what version did what, but at one point, I think it was indeed fair to take away "underrated" as a positive sign for the player. Not true now.

Watch the dates of posts, and take that into account for contemporary relevance. Especially in a necromancer post like this.

[aston217]

Yeah, that's the confusing part. Because the support chuck posted for the interviews determining the likelihood of player bumps, is from posts that were about FOF 6.0 something. So I guess it's hard sometimes to sort out what old information is outdated and what isn't sometimes. C'est la vie.

chuck, I hear ya on that. This is a very sensible way for interviews to work though, in that you have to be the one that calls the shot on whether to trust your scout or not. And in that the scout tells you something far more useful than "how the player's bars look relative to his combine", even if it is just their opinion and it might be wrong. I'll have to go back to doing interviews and paying attention to them now.

By the way, I went back to a few files from the 2017 OSFL pre-draft stages to compare two WRs, both with PSPEC in the low-mid 40s, that had blue bars starting at 0 for Avoid Drops. I interviewed both, and one of the orange bars stayed at 0 while another started from let's say 5 or so. After two full seasons, the latter now has Avoid Drops of 24, while the former is at 0 still. So it looks like whatever I was mentioning about blue bars starting from 0 earlier was more misunderstood info. cuervo's intuitive explanation makes sense, and there's no magic "blue bar that starts at 0 = guaranteed zeroness" going on.