[washingtonismoney]

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.

I don't think that's how they rate players. Take QBs.

2015 five-star Rivals pro-style QBs: 1
2014: 1
2013: 2
2012: 1
2011: 0

And I would guess there's more variability at other positions. I don't think this describes how they actually rank players. They have both relative rankings (top 250) and absolute ones (three/four/five stars...) Both, of course, are important.

Going back to the question posed by the OP, while there are a disproportionate number of top WRs this year, it's hard to know whether that's a momentary quirk (maybe it's just a good year for WRs!) or a persistent bias without more data. Also, I would guess most teams these days play 3-WR sets more often than not. (And so, therefore, it's more like 3/22 = 13.6%)

[washingtonismoney]

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.

I don't think that's how they rate players. Take QBs.

2015 five-star Rivals pro-style QBs: 1
2014: 1
2013: 2
2012: 1
2011: 0

And I would guess there's more variability at other positions. I don't think this describes how they actually rank players. They have both relative rankings (top 250) and absolute ones (three/four/five stars...) Both, of course, are important.

Going back to the question posed by the OP, while there are a disproportionate number of top WRs this year, it's hard to know whether that's a momentary quirk (maybe it's just a good year for WRs!) or a persistent bias without more data. Also, I would guess most teams these days play 3-WR sets more often than not. (And so, therefore, it's more like 3/22 = 13.6%)