Fungo, I agree and am not knocking PG. I think they did an excellent job with the crystal ball in projecting the top ten rounds of last year's draft.
As acknowledged in my prior post, signability has a lot to do with whether a player gets drafted and where he gets drafted. If, as in the case of Michael Demperio, the Braves call on draft day and the Demperios say, "Don't bother drafting Michael, he's not signing for that," then he won't get drafted. Likewise, if the MLB team calls and the player says -- "I don't know, I kind of really would like to go to school, ... but maybe ..." -- he may get drafted, but as a chance pick in a lower round than his talent would dictate. You obviously can't knock PG for having identified those types of players as a potential high draft picks. That probably explains a lot of the "Group 3" players who went a little lower than projected by PG.
I also recall drafting Little League teams and completely shooting in the dark in the last couple rounds. I remember wanting to pick one kid solely because his nickname on the registration form was "Sonic", which I thought was pretty cool. It's essentially the "bell curve" phenomenon. The outliers on either side of the bell curve -- the really, really great players, and the really, really bad ones -- are easy to identify. As you move from the edges of the bell curve, the players become harder to distinguish from one another.
In any event, the point of my post was not to use 20/20 hindsight to quibble with the accuracy of the pre-draft rankings, but rather to affirm a comment by Michael'sDad -- "Hopefully some do 'fall through the cracks'" in the rankings and yet are noticed by MLB scouts. There's no question that happens, maybe not in the top 10 rounds, but certainly after that.