[OutsiderFan]

The whole rating system leaves a lot to be desired.  They don't rate to a standard, they rate relative to the others in the class.  So it's entirely possible that one year has a great number of elite QBs, but since they only give out X number of 5 star rating to QBs, some of them will be 4 stars.  So if the next year nobody can touch a QB from the previous year, there will still be 5 star QBs, when if there was an actual standard for what a 5 star QB is, maybe there wouldn't be any.

Things like the "Rivals 250" make great marketing gimmicks, but not accurate talent evaluations.  But you're never going to see it be the "Rivals 189" - for the 4 and 5 star level talents - one year and the "Rivals 203" another.

As for WRs,it's real easy to watch 7-on-7 camps and the underwear olympics to assess who the best athletes are, but we all know games are won and lost in the trenches.  It also just happens that OL and DL are the most difficult positions to project.

A more cynical view might be that not only are the athletes known for running and jumping easier to project, fans can get more excited by watching guys run and jump on film at the WR position than the OL and DL positions.  The reality is Scout, Rivals, etc., are businesses that want people subscribing for their data.  The more 4-5 star guys who are visible on video, the more fan bases will be excited to follow their team's recruiting exploits, because more 4 star recruits tends to equal more engaged fan bases.

[OutsiderFan]

The whole rating system leaves a lot to be desired.  They don't rate to a standard, they rate relative to the others in the class.  So it's entirely possible that one year has a great number of elite QBs, but since they only give out X number of 5 star rating to QBs, some of them will be 4 stars.  So if the next year nobody can touch a QB from the previous year, there will still be 5 star QBs, when if there was an actual standard for what a 5 star QB is, maybe there wouldn't be any.

Things like the "Rivals 250" make great marketing gimmicks, but not accurate talent evaluations.  But you're never going to see it be the "Rivals 189" - for the 4 and 5 star level talents - one year and the "Rivals 203" another.

As for WRs,it's real easy to watch 7-on-7 camps and the underwear olympics to assess who the best athletes are, but we all know games are won and lost in the trenches.  It also just happens that OL and DL are the most difficult positions to project.

A more cynical view might be that not only are the athletes known for running and jumping easier to project, fans can get more excited by watching guys run and jump on film at the WR position than the OL and DL positions.  The reality is Scout, Rivals, etc., are businesses that want people subscribing for their data.  The more 4-5 star guys who are visible on video, the more fan bases will be excited to follow their team's recruiting exploits, because more 4 star recruits tends to equal more engaged fan bases.