Pronman readily admits that he prefers tiny scoring forwards who skate like crazy. All of his rankings emit from that preference towards what a “good” player looks like. And he’s not the only one that looks at any player from the Mike Johnston-era Portland Winterhawks and sees translatable NHL skills. But... like how many of those guys have actually worked out? Rattie certainly didn't.
Our scouting department -- for better or worse -- has generally prioritized size, tenacity, defense, and "grind" unless the skill is too much to pass up (lookin' at you, Scotty P). Guys like Neighbours, Holloway, Stenberg, Dean, Stancl, Pekarcik, Peterson, etc etc etc are all guys who you can count on playing a 200-ft game, playing physical, and ideally not sacrificing offense along the way. We proved in 2019 that you can win a cup with a bottom-6 built on those principles if all goes well. When you mix that in with top-6 guys who also play in that style, but really excel offensively like Thomas, Kyrou, Snuggerud, and Dvorsky, you're talking about a really formidable forward corps that's tough to play against.
So really I think it comes down to differences in philosophy more than Pronman unfairly assessing our prospects. Have any of our dudes led the WJC in scoring, or even gotten close? No. They've all had "pretty good," maybe even elite junior careers so far. But Pronman doesn't really put faith in "pretty good, maybe elite" players, he cares a ton about the top-5 players because hockey is a strong-link sport. But I think there are other equally-valid ways of building out a prospect pool that he just simply doesn't value as much. If nothing else, I think it's a good gut-check on how optimistic we ought to be about where we are.