i agree with this in general, but i will say, at least in defense of his statement about 5*'s specifically, usually, the "dudes" that get in that top 30-40 nationally as high schoolers......they stand out. they look 'different', hence the rating. i don't know that you could go back and look at the recruiting profile or the video of any of those guys in high school and say "how'd they not rate him a 5*?"
i think in the cases of the guys you mentioned above, it's just more proof that no one really ever knows how a kid is going to develop (or not) over time. they may have certain physical attributes that lend themselves toward something later on, but have yet to show the ability to deserve being a top 30-40 guy..in high school.
it's a tale as old as time...but there's plenty of 5*'s that err'body wanted over the years that never amounted to anything and never sniffed the NFL as well.
so it goes both ways. there's not a staff out there that gest them all right. you just hope you're evaluations are right, more than wrong over as long a time line as you're allowed to coach at a particular program.
time will tell on CJH....no one is going to argue though, that in the SEC, you do need talent levels at least be relatively close to the rest of the competition. and you need it to get there faster than ever these days. so getting as many inside that top 250-300 as you can is, at least in my opinion, a hedged bet on doing that. you're, in theory, getting a more known/proven commodity with less questions about what you can/should expect from a player....and what you could/should expect earlier on in his career.
