FOF:2k7--Draft Interviews

[albionmoonlight]

So far, I have found the draft interview process to be somewhat tedious. It becomes kind of mechanical to me near the end.

I would MUCH prefer being able to do interviews during the draft. While that is not realistic, it would enable me to focus my interviews on the players that the process has narrowed down for me. As it is, I don't really like having to think about potental late round picks before FA1.

I have seen several people, however, state that they love the new draft and that it is the best part of the new game.

So, I am wondering. How do people use the interviews? Do you have a system? Do you only use it for top picks? Do you feel that you need all 60 interviews (and wish that you had more)?

How's it working out for people?

[cuervo72]

How would that work though in a MP draft where you could have three rounds pass during a day (for leagues that put out files during the draft)?

[albionmoonlight]

MP probably does make it so that all of the pre-draft work should be able to be done before the draft.

I'm not even so much arguing with the design decision, as saying that I don't like it and wondering how others are using it. I am hoping that if/when I see how to use it to my advantage, it will become part of the game and not seem so daunting.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

I have enough faith in Solecismic's design decisions that I tend to assume that the problem is with me not knowing how to use it well rather than with the game having a problem being set-up the way that it is.

[Ksyrup]

I've been thinking a lot about this as well, because my "process" has been so haphazard and unfocused that I'm not sure it is worth the (clicking) time I spend. Basically, I interview the first 20 or so top players, then pick several lesser players from pretty much every position until I've used all 60. But I really have no clue who to use them on and end up just guessing on who to interview.

I like your idea better, although it is unrealistic. Here is my "wish list" idea on what I think would be a decent compromise:

Make "draft scouting" a budget item, and tie the number of interviews to varying budget amounts. For example, if you spend $2M, you get 20 interviews; $6M you get 60 (max) interviews. Then, instead of doing individual pre-draft interviews like they are now, you assign each position block (QB, RB, WR, OL, DL, LB, secondary) a percentage of time you want your scout to focus on that position block, adding up to 100%, of course. So, you could have your scout focus 10% on QBs, 20% on OL, etc. (Jim could make this a position block or specific to each individual position, I suppose).

Whatever that position's percentage is multiplied by the total number of interviews you have budgeted gives you your max number of interviews for that position. Then, from the point you move to the "begin amateur draft" stage and at any time during the draft, you are able to use your interviews within each position block to narrow your drafting focus on the fly. This has a few benefits:

1. Ties scouting to finances, which I personally like.

2. Forces you to think about your drafting needs in determining how much time your scout should devote to certain positions.

3. Ties your scout's time at each position to the number of interviews you can do at each position.

4. Eliminates the problem of having to remember who and why you interviewed before free agency and allows you the opportunity to refocus your scouting "on the fly" during the draft, but with some realistic limitations.

Basically, your scout would (theoretically) have info on every single draftee, but you could only see his report on X number of players within a position based on your budget and the amount of time you had him focus on that position. If you're in the 5th round and need a CB, you could instantly ask him for a report on X player - assuming you still had interviews left at that position - to decide right then whether to draft the guy.

That's my wish list. As far as reality goes, I'd like to hear what everyone does.

One thing I've noticed from a few drafts is that highly developed players tend to be scouted as overrated. One of my few focuses has been on trying to find an already-developed guy who is underrated. But so far, I haven't found any.

[cuervo72]

I'll admit again to not really playing with this...but are these maybe most helpful for guys who look like workout warriors (your Bubbas of the world), and you'd like to get a closer look to see if the guy might be a diamond in the rough, or that he may indeed be closer to what his blue ranges seem to represent?

[dbd1963]

Here's what I've done and it has worked pretty well for me.

I decide what I'm going to pick in what round. The more important positions get 15 or even 20 interviews, but I target the interviews to what is usually available at my spot. If I'm picking late in the first round, I don't waste my time with the guys rated with 7s or better. 7th round is always BPA, so I'm not targeting guys that far back. I may not target 6th rounders anymore because I've not hit it right yet, but through the first 5 rounds I've done very well.

Unfortunately, this hasn't always meant that the guys I picked were really better than guys I passed on due to interviews, at least so far as my scouts are concerned, but I have grown my talent even with picking late in each round.

Another system I've heard of is targeting one or two positions each draft. Seems like you'd leave a lot of talent on the board that way.. but you'd know an awful lot about the positions you are drafting. I'd do that if I were looking for a QB maybe.

One thing I know I need to do, but keep forgetting, is target toward my scout's strengths. I have to remember he doesn't know very much about QBs and that's why it looks like there are a bunch of studs in the 5th round..

Anyway, I like the interviews. It does take time, but if you think about it and work at it, you can have a much better draft.

I forgot about the interview process during one draft and used Skydog's chart like I used to, and had a completely dud draft.

[mrsimperless]

Don't laugh at this, but a system borrowing some features from Madden would be nice here. For those who haven't gone through the draft in Madden each player is given a projected round that they should be drafted in. There are even tweeners, so you could have a QB at 1, a QB at 1-2 and a QB at 2. The top picks are broken down even more granular into projected top 5, top 10, etc. If we had this "basic league-wide" knowledge, sort of like Mel's big board then it would help us target our interviews. When I draft in MAdden I list my positions of need and break them down into basically 3 areas: early, mid and late. I go through my roster by position and decide what I need. I then interview those players who are likely to be available in my need areas at the right time. So if I need a backup QB and I want to get a mid rounder I wouldn't waste my time with guys who will probably go in the first couple of rounds.

We can do this now in FOF, but the problem is you have to make all of these projections yourself on who you think each team is going to draft. Maybe a collaborative effort in an MP league might work, but that's a lot of work to go through in SP each offseason.

[Maple Leafs]

I really like the concept and the implementation.

When I went to do my first draft, got to my pick (10th overall) and found that the best eight players on the board were all "highly over-rated".... I didn't like that so much.

[MizzouRah]

A "mock draft" would be great to see.

[QuikSand]

A couple of thoughts:

-I think I still have some remnant of TCY in my head with the overrated/underrated tag, as I find myself treating it like gospel. So far, with very limited results, I am finding that plenty of my "underrated" guys don't really work out, and that a fair number of my "overrated" guys don't really lose much. I think I have been overreacting to these tags.

-One theory that I'm thinking about for the interviews is that they might be especially useful for players who have projected ratings in key areas that are "topped out." Basically, I know what I'm going to get with most players -- their ratings of 40-70 in something will convert to something like 45-55 in the same thing after the interview - generally narrowing on the lower part of the range. But guys with ranges that go to 100 -- maybe we learn more about that player by seeing his post-interview projection? After all, a DT who projects to 70 in Run D and another DT who projects to 100 are pretty different players, but both would conceivably start out with a range that looks something like 65-100.

[Galaxy]

A "mock draft" would be great to see.

Or at least a prediction of the round (s) they will go. I think the problem with the interview is you have a hard time deciding where a player might go.

[kcchief19]

I like the interviews. Thus far, here's how I typically use my interviews:

1) Interview a handful of the top rated players in the draft (about 5), with an emphasis on a position of need and great athletes. I use this to determine if I think someone is worth trying to trade up to get.

2) Interview a chunk of players at my positions of need. In my last draft, I need WRs desperately, so I interviewed about 15 WRs. I select the players to interview based upon high combine scores in key skill areas and high position scores when applicable.

3) Interview a couple of "intriguing" players at each non-kicker position. I'm mostly looking at guys who look like they will slip through to later rounds, players with middle of the round ratings who look like they may have some boom potential.

What I'm looking for essentially are to identify which early round picks are mostly likely to meet or exceed expectations, which middle round picks are mostly likley to boom and which players of all ranks are mostly to bust and should be avoided.

I haven't found it tedious at all. In fact, I think it has made my actually drafting more realistic and efficient. I now essentially scout the entire draft ahead of time instead of scouting the draft when it is my turn to make a selection. I spend all my time upfront and spend very little time during the actual draft. My experience thus far

The color coding for players helps me too. Overrated players do not get flagged, while players who are as scouted or underrated get flagged, essentially allowing me to have three distinction of players: players I interviewed and liked, players I interviewed and didn't like, and players I did not interview.

Also, my initial impression of how my team is performing is that chemistry plays a key role and should be critical to team building. The affinity/conflict detection of interviewing is a decision factor for me.

[MizzouRah]

Or at least a prediction of the round (s) they will go. I think the problem with the interview is you have a hard time deciding where a player might go.

Exactly.

[kcchief19]

I really like the concept and the implementation.

When I went to do my first draft, got to my pick (10th overall) and found that the best eight players on the board were all "highly over-rated".... I didn't like that so much.
I've been pondering that. It does appear that highly rated players are more likely to be overrate, I'm assuming that has to do with the breakdown of the player creation mode, since players with ratings near the max seem to be more likely to have actual ratings below the midpoint of their range.

Like Quik noted, I think it's a mistake to assume that an overrated great player will be nothing, as they may have been in TCY. Now, an overrated 7.0 player may still be better than a underrated 5.0 player.

[kcchief19]

One thing to me that does require more study is the role the AI GMs and scouting error plays in the draft.

Case in point: in previous incarnations of FOF, you could almost bet the house in what order players would be selected according to their position groups. You didn't see the AI do a lot of "reaching" by selecting a lower rated player. Now, I'm seeing the AI do thinks like select the 9th best WR on the board, which just so happens to be a player I interviewed and was hoping would slip one more round.

Is this a case where my scout is underrating a player and the AI's scout is overrating the player, thus leading the player to be higher on the AI draft board than mine? Or does the AI use the same intervew data I have access to, allowing it to better determine which players are worth drafting? I don't know how you could isolate and measure that.

I think I felt differently about this in the past, but now I find the idea of a mock draft as pointless eye candy. I'm the GM -- it's my job to determine who I think the other teams will select. And let's face -- this is a computer game. A mock draft isn't going to reflect a personality of an AI GM -- it's merely going to reflect the standard deviation of the probabilty an AI team will select a certain player. I think the resources that could be pored into a sophisticated mock-draft module that doesn't result in either a perfect mirror of the draft or just a statistical deviation are better invested elsewhere in the game.

[Dutch]

This is gonna be pretty cool in MP.

How you allocate your 60 interviews if you're drafting 1.8 will be vastly different than if you are drafting 1.28.

You don't want to waste your interviews on guys who likely won't be around...or will they? Sounds like fun to me. :)

[Axxon]

I would much rather be able to do at least some kind of interview on draft day as well and I don't have a real "system" yet but I'm really enjoying the draft and am having better luck with it than I had in the past.

My current team has two bookend DE's that I would not have had without the new system.

The first guy was a second rounder who was very underrated. He slipped to the second round and wasn't one of the top 10 guys at his position. He was a pash rush specialist and he didn't disappoint notching 7 in his rookie season but he surprised with ~40 tackles too. He lost DRoy to another lineman who had 9 sacks.

The next season we had the 4th pick in the draft and needed another DE for the other side. I was targetting the position heavily and there were three who would go in the top 10. I had my choice of all three and the guy who was ranked second also had a very underrated tag. The first guy was merely overrated and the third guy was as scouted. His card looked good but not better than either of the other two. I chose him anyway.

He notched up 12.5 sacks and ~50 tackles winning DRoy and he jumped to 58/78 ratings. His bookmark notched 14 sacks himself giving me the number 2 and number 3 in sacks. He did then ask for a pay raise which I must agree he deserved.

Now, if I could only find a QB but that's another story. :) With a scout who is only fair with QB's it's not been easy but I like that too.

[Maple Leafs]

I feel like being able to do an "interview" on draft day would be an immersion breaker for me. I'm just not sure how you could do anything during the actual draft without it feeling broken somehow.

[Axxon]

I feel like being able to do an "interview" on draft day would be an immersion breaker for me. I'm just not sure how you could do anything during the actual draft without it feeling broken somehow.

Yes, but pro teams don't have to just pick out 60 guys to talk to either and they have a full staff providing much of what the interview simulates and that staff also is able to project who's going to be looking for what and is able to target where guys are likely to be taken through all seven rounds and one guy doesn't have to study 31 other teams by himself before he even looks at the draft board. That's a lot of work in a single player universe and equally immersion breaking.

In the case of two immersion breaking choices the one that streamlines the game to the users convenience should at least be considered.

[DaddyTorgo]

Yes, but pro teams don't have to just pick out 60 guys to talk to either and they have a full staff providing much of what the interview simulates and that staff also is able to project who's going to be looking for what and is able to target where guys are likely to be taken through all seven rounds and one guy doesn't have to study 31 other teams by himself before he even looks at the draft board. That's a lot of work in a single player universe and equally immersion breaking.

In the case of two immersion breaking choices the one that streamlines the game to the users convenience should at least be considered.

agree with axxon. please, save me time and painstaking effort.

[Galaxy]

I feel like being able to do an "interview" on draft day would be an immersion breaker for me. I'm just not sure how you could do anything during the actual draft without it feeling broken somehow.

I agree with this. Wouldn't interviews during the draft kill the entire concept of the purpose of the interview. I would feel like it would be cheating if I could wait until my pick, then go out and interview three or four guys.

It's not true to real life. It would take away a lot of the excitement, stragety, and forces you to be selective and smart.

For some reason, I think that NFL teams are limited in interviews. Correct me if I am wrong.

As for the Mock Draft, after thinking about it, I think it would be worthless. You can judge where the overall league's preception of where a player is rated (and adjusted according to the emphasis of the position as well). The board can be stacked in that matter if you wish. You just have to break it down more and figure out the projection "round" of a player. Run a few drafts and copy down the league-wide grade of a player and see the ranges of each pick. Use the average as a guide.

I like the set-up. The AI values players differently.

[Axxon]

I agree with this. Wouldn't interviews during the draft kill the entire concept of the purpose of the interview. I would feel like it would be cheating if I could wait until my pick, then go out and interview three or four guys.

It's not true to real life. It would take away a lot of the excitement, stragety, and forces you to be selective and smart.

For some reason, I think that NFL teams are limited in interviews. Correct me if I am wrong.

As for the Mock Draft, after thinking about it, I think it would be worthless. You can judge where the overall league's preception of where a player is rated (and adjusted according to the emphasis of the position as well). The board can be stacked in that matter if you wish. You just have to break it down more and figure out the projection "round" of a player. Run a few drafts and copy down the league-wide grade of a player and see the ranges of each pick. Use the average as a guide.

I like the set-up. The AI values players differently.

It doesn't force you to be selective and smart. It forces you to either extremely micromanage unrealistically since no GM does what we have to do in the game or to have no interview information on guys after the first few rounds.

I do agree however that interviewing in the draft feels cheap but between feeling cheap and feeling like I'm doing work, I'll choose feeling cheap. YMMV though.

Is there a compromise? I could think of several ways of trying to achieve this but none of them are really something that could be changed with a patch. I don't mind it the way it is that much but I don't feel like it adds what it could if there was more direction to it and it's like a mindless little mini game after you've scouted what's likely to be available to you in the first couple of rounds. I've seen guys I've interviewed still in the 4th round but never later. I'm sure if I spent a couple of weeks on each draft that would change but would I enjoy it any better? I don't think so.

As for NFL guys only getting a limited number of interviews, I've never heard of a rule like that and I can't imagine why there would be one. Still, interview in the context of the game surely can't be the right term. How do you tell if a guy is over or underrated by interviewing him?

What I'd like to see, if it's possible, and this may actually be the compromise that could be implemented, is if on the draftee's player card, your scout would add in his own draft round projection that states what level of talent he perceives the player to have.

This wouldn't be based on other guys, simply his accessment of the guys talent. You'd still have to factor in other factors but it would be a great tool to get a handle on where the guy is and would make planning later rounds easier.

Again, though, I've had a blast with the new draft and if it never changes I wouldn't overly mind. The new system adds a great element to the money rounds of the draft and that's great. It'd be nice to have some of that fun down in the lower rounds too without having to spend hours setting it up.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Rather than an "interview," I think of it as a personal scout visit on the guy (during college games, private workout). If you look at it that way, the "interview" makes much more sense. I don't like doing interviews during the draft. You could just wait for your pick and then scout 4 guys. Beforehand is not too bad in my opinion. I don't spend a lot of time on it. I just rattle of 50-60 interviews in about a couple of hours. That just about does it. I just think the draft would be more predictable if you could interview during the draft, which I don't want. To each his own though.

[Narcizo]

A couple of thoughts:

-I think I still have some remnant of TCY in my head with the overrated/underrated tag, as I find myself treating it like gospel. So far, with very limited results, I am finding that plenty of my "underrated" guys don't really work out, and that a fair number of my "overrated" guys don't really lose much. I think I have been overreacting to these tags.


Definitely found this as well. I started only drafting underrated or better players with the odd "as scouted" but soon saw that it wasn't a guarantee. I'm also finding that a quick comparison of the players' draft board rating and their blue bars can pretty much reveal who will be considered "under-rated" anyway.

I haven't done enough long-term comparisons to see exactly what you should be looking for in a draft class. But it's clear that an under-rated tag is only one of the factors that have to be considered.

In answer to the question I've been interviewing players I think will be judged as under-rated and then some players I think I might pick anyway.

[Warhammer]

The next season we had the 4th pick in the draft and needed another DE for the other side. I was targetting the position heavily and there were three who would go in the top 10. I had my choice of all three and the guy who was ranked second also had a very underrated tag. The first guy was merely overrated and the third guy was as scouted. His card looked good but not better than either of the other two. I chose him anyway.

Just curious, why didn't you take the #2 guy who was underrated?

[Warhammer]

For me, it is very easy to figure out approximately when a player might go. I might be off 10 or 15 picks, but you start to get a feel for when players are going to go after a few drafts.

One thing I really like about the new draft process is that you do see some players that have a high rating/adjusted rating that have terrible bars. Occassionally you see one of these guys drafted where predicted by rating, and others that fall or don't get drafted at all. I really like this.

My interviews fall into these categories:
1) Top position of need, I will interview the top guys at the position of need with emphasis on those with intriguing bars or workouts.
2) Players I target in the 2nd to 4th rounds of the draft. I basically look at the 5-15/20 players at each position and interview the intriguing prospects.
3) Any left overs are used on workout warriors at any position, or any interesting players.

It has worked out well for me so far. I like the greater degree of uncertainty about players, I don't notice any +/- in ratings from the draft board to my roster to impact whether or not I am going to sign the guy, etc. I wind up signing the guys and hope they trend upwards rather than the old way of things.

[Galaxy]

It doesn't force you to be selective and smart. It forces you to either extremely micromanage unrealistically since no GM does what we have to do in the game or to have no interview information on guys after the first few rounds.

\What I'd like to see, if it's possible, and this may actually be the compromise that could be implemented, is if on the draftee's player card, your scout would add in his own draft round projection that states what level of talent he perceives the player to have.

This wouldn't be based on other guys, simply his accessment of the guys talent. You'd still have to factor in other factors but it would be a great tool to get a handle on where the guy is and would make planning later rounds easier.




How do we know that the GMs of other teams don't have the same interview limit?

That's not a bad idea about the scout providing a "round value".