That doesn't surprise me, somewhat like the difference between the credit rating you see and the one the car dealer sees. But I was referring to the program's stated position that they do not use any service outside of their own internal one. If that is in fact not coach speak, then any rating given by a service (for consumers, or teams that use them) is really not useful for us to evaluate how the staff feels they are doing, only how the services feel they are doing. And if there is a disconnect between how the staff feels they are doing (staff thinks they've landed 5*) and how the services suggest they are doing (service thinks they're actually 3*), we really won't know who was right until those players have 2-3 years to develop and work their way into the starting lineup.
The point remains though: we have zero insight into how the staff rates, therefore we have zero insight into how well they feel they are doing. They may feel they have landed a bunch of future AAs and are giddy over the fact that nobody else figured it out, while VN is anguished over the apparent breakdown.