I only browsed the article and responses. It seems the author is applying the usual lack of depth to his analysis typical of sportswriters.
Only highly rated players can be busts.
Does his simple percentage analysis allow for the notion that your chances of having a bust with two top 75 players are less than than having 10?
Does it account for the fact that a highly ranked player will be more likely to at least start on a team with less overall talent thus making becoming a bust less likely? Players that might bust at Bama won't as likely bust at Ole Miss or Florida because their backups won't be as good.
Three stars can't, by definition, be busts. If their development to NFL players is used only as a positive, how does that impact a team that has a relatively much lower proportion of 3 stars?
As many have said or alluded to, imprecise ratings by sportswriting hacks, incomplete understanding by sportswriting hacks, and simplistic analysis by sportswriting hacks rarely produce a clear picture of anything.