Drafting without interviewing?
 

Anyone ever do this? I actually had 7 signable draft picks in my last draft wihout interviewing a single player.

:D

I actually forgot all about it as I was really into FA signings. Seemed to work out for me... hmmmmmm....

I very rarely interview. Maybe just to see what the scout shrinks the bars to. But for the most, I only need the intelligence of the players, and if you're in a league where the intelligence is listed in the conscriptor, then there's pretty much no need to use interviews at all.

I'm still having a problem with the logical approach of interviews. The problem is the built-in margin of error based on the quality of the scout. Everything I do is built on logic (even if it is flawed, it's mine damnit!) while rex's interview process can crap all over that logic simply based on some dice-rolls. So while I get that most of the 60 interviews are accurate "assissts", I never get that warm fuzzy that any particular player's interview is accurate. Couple that with the button clicking pain in the ass that is the interview process, I skip it most of the time.

Although the extra knowledge about the player and affinity/conflict matchups is nice...the reality is we can get that info globally elsewhere.

Bottom-line: The entire interview process could stand to be revamped and probably needs to go in a different direction entirely.

There is hardly ever an unsignable draft pick! Even the ones that come out real low - what if, right?

What Steel said about intelligence is right. I use interviews also as validation, because I'm a crap drafter and it sometimes helps to just get another data point (with the knowledge that it isn't always right - but if a scout confirms what you are thinking, it is helpful).

(Also, it is very useful for NC players.)

Apparently, Interrogator can tease the intelligence (and personality, etc) scores out of everybody. So what I'm wondering is, why are only some conscriptors equipped with this? Is it just a necessary file that you need to upload to conscriptor as the admin? Or is there just a new/special version somewhere?

(but if a scout confirms what you are thinking, it is helpful)

What if the scout randomly chooses to tell you that VU player is VO? Would that change your mind if you saw VO? Wouldn't that be annoying if your intuition got it right only for your extra due-dillegence to then randomly screw you?

Anecdotally - no hard evidence - I tend to think sometimes the VU or VO players tend to be interpreted by scouts as one or the other. This may or may not be true. But sometimes when I see a guy I'm pretty sure is VO and the interview comes back VU, I'm even more sure.

Although I probably wouldn't interview in the first place.

Usually it's more helpful when I think a guy is VU but he only comes back U, or when I think a guy is VO and he only comes back O. It would make me think, "maybe he won't creep/drop as much as I would have guessed."

I've had drafts where I may only sign 3-5 players.

Hmmm, interesting concept and it's possible, but it's gonna be hard to shake me from this assumption.

IF player is Very Underrated
AND scout is EXCELLENT in DEVELOPING YOUTH
Die-roll...
98% report back Very Underrated
2% report back (something else at random)

OR

IF player is Very Underrated
AND scout is POOR in DEVELOPING YOUTH
Die-roll...
80% report back Very Underrated
20% report back (something else at random)

I would guess it's significantly less chance of the scout reporting back correctly. Maybe 75% success if the scout is excellent

Perhaps, I just threw those %'s out there.

i never interview and always get a high draft rating the only thing i sometimes forget about is player development especially in rounds 1-3 but thats down to me, not the interview as its already there.

i dont think there is any advantage in interviewing to be honest

I'm starting to get that feeling myself.