[TrumpCard]

I just noticed that 46 of the top 250 in the composite rankings on 247Sports play WR even though only 9.1% (2/22) of the players on the field play that position.  If you go to each of the major services, you'll see 50+ WRs have 4-star ratings.  On Scout, it's 64.  That's not even counting the guys at ATH who will end up at WR.  Is there a good reason that WRs are given 4-star rankings so much more often than you'd expect based on the perecentage of guys who play that position?  If you believe what they say about winning football in the trenches, then that rating systems seem even more out-of-whack.  With the media placing so much emphasis on the WR position, you can almost see why some middling WRs talk so much on the field. 

[TrumpCard]

I just noticed that 46 of the top 250 in the composite rankings on 247Sports play WR even though only 9.1% (2/22) of the players on the field play that position.  If you go to each of the major services, you'll see 50+ WRs have 4-star ratings.  On Scout, it's 64.  That's not even counting the guys at ATH who will end up at WR.  Is there a good reason that WRs are given 4-star rankings so much more often than you'd expect based on the perecentage of guys who play that position?  If you believe what they say about winning football in the trenches, then that rating systems seem even more out-of-whack.  With the media placing so much emphasis on the WR position, you can almost see why some middling WRs talk so much on the field. 

[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.

[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%)

[dabomb1227]

I think a lot of this has to do with a few things
First, RB is a position of decreasing value in the NFL.  RBs are easily replaced and are no longer being well paid and the league is during into a passing league.  This has the effect of talented 6'0 190lb players who could have been a great RB deciding to play WR. 
Second, many WRs are eventually asked to switch to DB in college but may be listed at WR because that is there position of preference.
The final factor I believe is the expansion of 7-on-7 tournaments as Outsider Fan stated

[dabomb1227]

I think a lot of this has to do with a few things
First, RB is a position of decreasing value in the NFL.  RBs are easily replaced and are no longer being well paid and the league is during into a passing league.  This has the effect of talented 6'0 190lb players who could have been a great RB deciding to play WR. 
Second, many WRs are eventually asked to switch to DB in college but may be listed at WR because that is there position of preference.
The final factor I believe is the expansion of 7-on-7 tournaments as Outsider Fan stated

[TrumpCard]

You're right that my post would be more interesting with additional data.  As you noted, the data over time would be interesting.  I'd also be interested to combine WR, CB, S, RB, and ATH.  Those guys cover a total of 7/22 positions on the field.  I bet if you add up the 4-stars at those positions, you'd see more than 1/2 of the total 4-star rated players even though those guys account for about 1/3 of the total players on the field and even though those guys have a disproportionately small impact on the outcome of the game relative to the guys who play DL and OL. 

[TrumpCard]

You're right that my post would be more interesting with additional data.  As you noted, the data over time would be interesting.  I'd also be interested to combine WR, CB, S, RB, and ATH.  Those guys cover a total of 7/22 positions on the field.  I bet if you add up the 4-stars at those positions, you'd see more than 1/2 of the total 4-star rated players even though those guys account for about 1/3 of the total players on the field and even though those guys have a disproportionately small impact on the outcome of the game relative to the guys who play DL and OL. 

[TrumpCard]

Now Rivals has 60 WRs rated 4-star or higher, with 47 of them in the R250.

[TrumpCard]

Now Rivals has 60 WRs rated 4-star or higher, with 47 of them in the R250.