To start, taking a shot at my age is indicative of your own immaturity, isn't it?
I know Jason Allison very well. I liked him as a player. But his numbers are entirely irrelevant. He got phased out of the NHL because his skating was so damn bad. Never mind his 60 point season, that year had a lot of high point totals, a far cry from what we're seeing today. The highest total from this season wouldn't have cracked the top ten that year. The game is different from then, and it is certainly different from the mid 90s. Strome's skill-set, from my viewings, is better tailored for today than Allison's was, even at his best.
Strome's skating isn't nearly as bad as some suggest. He's not Guy Lafleur, but he is an effective skater for his own style of play. And I don't think his skating compares to Allison's.
Strome is a better skater than Allison was in terms of agility and top speed. Allison was stronger, but Strome could get there. But the point is that while he won't be winning races, he can keep up and get where he needs to go just fine. And his skating can improve with the right coaching. Just look at what Barb Underhill has done for some of her students.
Where I genuinely take issue is Josh Bailey as a likely comparison. Bailey is a disappointment to be polite. Hitting 40 points once is not good for a top ten prospect, and you're suggesting that a guy who will probably go fifth will end up like him? I don't agree at all.
You're limiting Strome's potential. To suggest his top end comparable is a guy who effectively played in a completely different era is unfair, to suggest his likely trajectory is comparable to a guy that had been a total bust is just silly in my opinion.
Could you be right? Absolutely! Could I eat a calculator and crap out some winning lottery numbers? Sure. I just feel like you have a bias against Strome that prevents a realistic analysis.