Draft question - Scouting reports & Interviews

[mrfahaji]

I'm just going through my first amateur draft, which is rather exciting, but after 2 days of compiling spreadsheets I'm still in the pre-draft stage!

I'm not exactly sure what to make of the 'interview' process though. I've been pretty thorough, and narrowed my choices down, but it seems that 90% of the players I interview come back as 'Very Overrated'. What does this imply exactly? Does it mean that the blue/orange blocks indicating the attributes will actually be much lower if/when I draft the player?

My scout is reasonably good, think he has 'Good' or 'Very Good' for 'Young Talent'. Is it this rating which determines how accurate the scouting report is, or do other factors come to play?

I guess it will just be a bit frustrating if I put loads of time into researching a draft class, and then when I get the results none of the players are remotely close to what I thought they'd be!

(I know in real life players don't always turn out how you'd expect, but this is a computer game and surely most of the fun should be that thorough pre-draft preparation yields better results that simply automating the process).

Thanks in advance for any tips and guidance. I have read the player guide but it doesn't go into much detail on this bit. Do people tend to interview the medium-lower players or the top-end ones?

[gstelmack]

There are a couple of threads in here on draft strategy. A search should turn them up. The key word is "combines".

[thenewchuckd]

Just to quickly answer a few questions:


...it seems that 90% of the players I interview come back as 'Very Overrated'. What does this imply exactly? Does it mean that the blue/orange blocks indicating the attributes will actually be much lower if/when I draft the player?

Sort of. I take the scout impression to be an indicator of how good his global post-draft rating is. So, for example, if he comes out of the draft with a future rating of 50, his true rating is actually lower than that. Maybe even much lower.

The kicker is that scouts can be wrong. Even a very good scout will, on occasion, tell you that a VO player is VU. And since many players in the draft are VO, you have to be really careful with the information that your scout gives you.

By the way, in my experience the vast majority of players in the draft pool are O or VO. If you just go interviewing willy nilly, you should not be surprised to come out with that result.


My scout is reasonably good, think he has 'Good' or 'Very Good' for 'Young Talent'. Is it this rating which determines how accurate the scouting report is, or do other factors come to play?

I'm not 100% on the answer to this. But if I had to guess, I think it is some combination of his 'young talent' and positional group skill that determines how accurate his report is. A bit like how both skills work to narrow the blue bars that you see.


Thanks in advance for any tips and guidance. I have read the player guide but it doesn't go into much detail on this bit. Do people tend to interview the medium-lower players or the top-end ones?

I'm not very strategic so maybe others can jump in on this one.

[garion333]

Do people tend to interview the medium-lower players or the top-end ones?

That's really up to you. If I have a top 10 pick in the first round, I'll interview the first 20 or so people.

If I'm farther down, I'll spot pick closer to where I think people will land. I usually use up half my interviews for people I want/need/look amazing and who will likely fall in the first two rounds (possibly into the third, depending on where I'm drafting).

After that, I target guys for positions of need. If I need a running back or wide receiver, I look at some of the guys rated farther down, find some combines and bars I like and interview them. I don't believe a Seventh Round pick has to be a dead pick, so I will actually interview people really far down the line if I'm hoping to find a gem. But in general I believe it's better to spend time focusing on people falling in the first few rounds of the draft was you will be giving them longer contracts and more money.

But interviews aren't everything. Really, the combination of the combine and the bars is what should influence you first, and in that order.

[Jughead Spock]

IME, to cut to the chase, most draft 'experts' tend to ignore scouting, almost entirely. Other than to scout out personality, intelligence, etc. The VO/VU stuff is not worth worrying about.

[thenewchuckd]

IME, to cut to the chase, most draft 'experts' tend to ignore scouting, almost entirely. Other than to scout out personality, intelligence, etc. The VO/VU stuff is not worth worrying about.

I personally think scouting has a great deal of value. The greater clarity on the blue bars is worth the price of admission by itself. The VO/VU stuff also has its value in my opinion.

I hear this kind of thing thrown around a lot but most of the great drafters that I know do interviews.

[mrfahaji]

Cool, thanks guys. Perhaps the most useful thing about scouting is finding out if players have any 'Affinity', 'Team Leader' or 'Conflict' issues?

I think I enjoy trying to find the 'gems' possibly available in the later rounds as much, if not more, than looking at some of the best players available!

[thenewchuckd]

Cool, thanks guys. Perhaps the most useful thing about scouting is finding out if players have any 'Affinity', 'Team Leader' or 'Conflict' issues?

That's probably the least useful thing since you can get that information from the player's birthdate.

[Ben E Lou]

The VO/VU stuff is not worth worrying about.This. Interviews are mostly a waste of time. There are a few specific cases where they can be helpful, but I completely ignore the VO/VU info on all guys who went to the combines, and on most non-combine guys. I typically do less than 20 per year, quite often 0, and I draft pretty well. ;)

[Dutch]

This. Interviews are mostly a waste of time. There are a few specific cases where they can be helpful, but I completely ignore the VO/VU info on all guys who went to the combines, and on most non-combine guys. I typically do less than 20 per year, quite often 0, and I draft pretty well. ;)

Same here, except I suck at drafting. However, gstelmack's utility does a pretty solid job of it. :)

[aston217]

This. Interviews are mostly a waste of time. There are a few specific cases where they can be helpful, but I completely ignore the VO/VU info on all guys who went to the combines, and on most non-combine guys. I typically do less than 20 per year, quite often 0, and I draft pretty well. ;)

I remember you posted a study a long time ago that seemed to indicate that VU was a prediction that a player will rise, VO that he would fall, etc. Is that obsolete now?

[Jughead Spock]

That's probably the least useful thing since you can get that information from the player's birthdate.

But not degree. If he has the 'right' birthdate and a 3 personality, pass.

I do interview pretty much all of the non-combine types.

[thenewchuckd]

I remember you posted a study a long time ago that seemed to indicate that VU was a prediction that a player will rise, VO that he would fall, etc. Is that obsolete now?

I think he just means that if you look at all the other indicators: combines, bars, etc, that you can figure out if a player is VU or VO all by yourself. I think that's true to some extent. I just don't take the global view that it is completely useless information. It is true that for most combine studs and duds that interviews are not going to give you much that you don't already know. But for me, there is a huge grey area in between.

I also absolutely need to do interviews in most of my leagues because I'm looking at huge blue bars. In a perfect world, where I can see that a WR's big play bar is between 90-100 instead of 50-100, then yeah I'm going to pick up the vast majority of VU players without doing interviews. I just do not have that luxury.

Anyhow, just my opinion.

[mrfahaji]

But not degree. If he has the 'right' birthdate and a 3 personality, pass.

I do interview pretty much all of the non-combine types.

I found the thread suggested by gstelmack, it was a useful read, although having just had a fairly successful draft, I don't think general draft prep should be disregarded in favour of some of the guidelines given in that thread. I think just look for workout warriors and any particularly dreadful combine scores!

What's all this about birthdates being an indicator of personality? At first I thought thenewchuckd was making some sort of horoscope-related joke, but Jughead Spock seems to back it up! What on earth is a 'right birthdate', and a 'personality 3'??!

[aston217]

Birthdates isn't an indication of personality, but affinities and conflicts are defined by a player's birthdate.

Affinities and Conflicts - Summary Table - Front Office Football Central (http://operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=66426)

You can predict all your "affinity with leaders, conflict with leaders" based on birthdate, with the degree of the affinity/conflict dependent on the sum of the personality strengths of the two players in question.

Personality strength is something you get from an interview. That's what Jughead means - an interview can give you a good idea of whether a player you are looking at drafting has exceptional affinity, extreme conflict, anywhere in between, or nothing. If the guy has 3 personality, it's unlikely to register as even 'mild' unless your leader has say, a 97 personality strength or higher. I don't know any hard or fast guidelines for what the sums need to be. Although anecdotally I think 100 is a baseline and 150+ is a good sign of strong or exceptional.

[BreizhManu]

only interview QB (for intelligence check) and non combine guys.