I think this is going to be par for the course. This early commit stuff for age appropriate players who have yet to go through puberty is a big risk. If the kid is a repeat and he is signed early he might have already hit puberty and developed. I know that an athlete is an athlete but if you take two great athletes with the same skills but one is 6'3 200lbs vs a 5'8 155 I put my money on the bigger of the two. So now a kid was over looked but all of the sudden he starts to grow like a bean and put on size it does make a difference.
I have observed just the opposite. Some of the kids who seemed to be better players because they were shaving 6' and 180 in 9th grade relied on size and muscle mass to appear to dominate they boys they were playing against. The players who had to develop speed, finesse and stick skills to compete with them are often now better players. Some of the early bloomers are still the real deal, but some have been overtaken by peers. Often the early bloomers end up smaller at the end of senior year than the late bloomers because longer puberty results in more height. Gradual growth helps them develop stick skills 9-13 and speed during the years it is most beneficial 13-16, strength comes later. If strength comes too early it can impede speed to skills. http://cdn4.sportngin.com/attachments/photo/2836/4469/TrainabilityChart.png
Some early recruiting coaches had a tough time distinguishing the early bloomers, who appeared to dominate from the late bloomers who could dominate later, but couldn't physically compete against grown men at age 13. Of course there are exceptions, some kids are just studs.
