Even that viewpoint doesn't really explain some of the takes on that list. Guys like Sanderson, Jarvis and Raymond aren't struggling, yet they're ranked behind players who are barely even doing all that great at lower levels.
Response below:
He just thinks that at the height of their NHL careers, the prospects will turn out better than the more established guys. It's not that crazy in my opinion. Plus it's fun offseason content.
Exactly. He's not rating who they are right now, he's rating who they might become. By definition, younger guys still have a larger range of potential outcomes, so it's not surprising that the prospects still fit in the higher levels of the list.
does anyone actually take Pronman seriously?
The athletic really needs to freshen up their hockey writers.
They should promote Ian Mendes, (or Bultman). They are actually good and know their hockey.
Response below:
His draft ranking is usually pretty spot on. I don’t necessarily have an issue with his U23 list although I think some of my team players are too low (everyone could say the same).
It’s a fun read in early September before training camp. Nothing more, nothing less
Exactly this... Pronman isn't some great prognosticator but he's probably just as well sourced at this point at Bob McKenzie, and he usually takes 1-2 hot takes per year to keep people talking (Yakemchuk, Solberg last year). I'm surprised every time at how UPSET people get when a new list comes out. Sure, he's no better at evaluating talent than you or I, extraordinary keyboard jockeys that we are. But -- I guarantee you Pronman talks to more NHL scouts and spends more time assessing what is likely to happen at the draft, and that's where he is very useful and not at all a hack.
Plus, it's f***ing entertainment, people shouldn't be so wound up about it when someone writes something for a paycheck and for us to read as fans.
