number of interviews pre-draft

[jmlazgar]

As far as I know, the NFL allows 45 interviews at the combine. Yet FOF only seems to allow 12. Is there a place to change that to 45/?
Thanks
Jay

[QuikSand]

I do not believe this is editable in-game. A prior version of the game allowed 60 interviews. Many players found this to be tedious (me included), and the developer decided to change the fixed setting to a much lower number, for whatever reason.

For what it's worth, there's a strong contingent of veteran players who really downplay the value of interviews anyway. We "know" a lot about the players without doing them, and many interviews yield either ambiguous or only marginally useful results anyway.

I'm in the "if I totally forget to even do them, no big deal" camp, myself.

[jmlazgar]

Is what you "know" based on combine, or are there other factors that play a significant role?
Thanks

[MIJB#19]

I still like to do interviews, but it's only useful of you have a good Offensive Coordinator, Defensive Coordinator (or Assistent Coach for kickers) in scouting and interviewing. Drafting is a bit of a stab in the dark anyway, so it's only useful if the interviews can help you into the right direction.

[Dawgfan19]

Perhaps I am in the minority, but I rely heavily on interviews. Those serve as useful information to substantiate other data points such as bar profiles, combines, etc. Limiting to 12 interviews is too restrictive. Hopefully, the OOTP version will have a configurable option.

[Ushikawa]

I don't think the interview result is particuarly valualbe but I do like seeing the wide blue bar ranges reduced to the yellow bars quite a bit the VO, OR, UR or VU rating to me is jsut sayign where they might fall within the new range IMO.

Especially in this version, they are by no means as precise as before even with good coaches you will see Very Overrated guys who hold their bars and Very Underrated guys who tank a bit but better than nothing just one more piece of info to use.

I tend to use them: on guys that the bars don't match the combine (higher or lower), many guys at my 1 or 2 need positions to see if I can differentiate them a bit more, and while I don't think I have drafted a QB ina while I would def use them on that type of pick where variability is so high.

[Dawgfan19]

I am observing the opposite. While it is true a U or VU rookie may drop in season 1, those players often increase in future seasons. That's probably due to a dice roll component in ratings movement. And, of course, you do get scout error, just to add to the fun.

Now, with QBs, interviews are practically worthless. They seem often wrong - also you frequently get the wonderful H2R assessment.

[Ushikawa]

Yea my last few drafts have been terrible in multiple leagues so maybe i shoudl be giving more credence to the interview label.

[tzach]

i acknowledge there's mixed views on how useful interviews are.


what i've seen is that the people that really know how to draft -- and i'm not in that category -- have a good feeling on which players will have higher ratings than scouted pre-draft based solely on the bar and combine profiles. it remains to be seen how this info can be taken from interviews in a reliable way, in particular from the underrated/overrated/as scouted labels. if anyone knows, please post.


my approach to verify this was the following. I assembled the best scouting and interviewing coaches one could have (>95 in both categories for HC, OC, DC, and interviewing 98 for AC). i then proceeded to interview 200 players and record the staff's pre-draft rating and interview impression (i did this by re-loading the game over and over so i could get the interviews to 12).


what i found was that the staff's impression was correct in about 50% of the cases (the exact number was 54 % or so), which is why i don't bother with interviews.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by tzach

i acknowledge there's mixed views on how useful interviews are.


what i've seen is that the people that really know how to draft -- and i'm not in that category -- have a good feeling on which players will have higher ratings than scouted pre-draft based solely on the bar and combine profiles. it remains to be seen how this info can be taken from interviews in a reliable way, in particular from the underrated/overrated/as scouted labels. if anyone knows, please post.


my approach to verify this was the following. I assembled the best scouting and interviewing coaches one could have (>95 in both categories for HC, OC, DC, and interviewing 98 for AC). i then proceeded to interview 200 players and record the staff's pre-draft rating and interview impression (i did this by re-loading the game over and over so i could get the interviews to 12).


what i found was that the staff's impression was correct in about 50% of the cases (the exact number was 54 % or so), which is why i don't bother with interviews.

In your research, can I assuming you put in a draft class yourself, to make sure you know in advance what the players actually look like before the random changes (like pre-season 2) get into effect?

[Ushikawa]

I was always under the impression that rookie ex2 was a reveal not a random change. So a precreated class would yield the same results but the predraft scouting bars would vary.

[tzach]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

In your research, can I assuming you put in a draft class yourself, to make sure you know in advance what the players actually look like before the random changes (like pre-season 2) get into effect?

i don't think the changes are random except VSOD, which i remove from the analysis (this is easy to spot as the changes are 20+ from the predictions).

[tzach]

i used a normal game generated draft class.