I think everyone knows and can agree to the following things:
1. There are plenty of 2* kids that have made it big.
2. A 5* does not guarantee success.
Almost every thread about recruiting stars contains one of the following 2 arguments:
1. Stars don't mean shit, just look at Kevin Grady!
2. Stars don't mean shit, Pat White was a 2*!!!!
OK, these are obviously both right and overbroad. Stars are a prediction, and as such, will be wrong from time to time. Pointing out either of these things does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove the validity of guru rankings.
Let's just stipulate that star rankings, while flawed, provide the best metric for evaluating talent. On the whole, more stars = more chance of success. This does not preclude the possibility of outliers.
I'm not sure what brought this on. Maybe because I am predicting ~4 more threads complaining about us offering Witty and the inevitable Pat White reply. Carry on.