Murphy was competing well from the get-go. Now he has 2 years working with Pease's version of the Muschamp offense (run first, run second, run third, pass only in panic situations) and he always threw a good pass and was a good athlete. Star systems are merely a method to discriminate so that certain people get more noteriety than others. Of course, the probability of collegiate success corresponds pretty well with consensus rankings. For example a consensus 5 star has a decent chance to contribute as a freshman (like VH3) and is likely to be a starter almost anywhere by his third year, for a 4 star he might contribute as a frosh, and also has a decent change of being in the 2 deep within 3 years. For a 3 star, very little chance of contributing as a frosh, and probably less than 50% chance of being 2-deep in 3 years. For a 2 star, almost no change of Frosh contribution and perhaps a 25% change of being 2-deep in the SEC by the third year. Note - that is consensus. Each rating system has it's own biases and preferences and each messes up a far greater percentage of the time than a consensus.