I don't think he's implying that it's easy, but that he actually looks for diamonds in the rough instead of purely people who are amazing in the now.
Hockey is hobby that I follow a lot and despite metrics and scouting, a LOT of prospects who blossomed into all-stars ended up falling into later rounds while there are notable top ten draftees who ended up as huge busts.
> I’ve also made bad calls on future perfect people in the past. I saw potential that never materialized. It’s an art more than a science. I just hope I continue to get better at it.
I think his point was just to remind everyone how they should keep in mind the growth potential of people they hire, not to share actual information.
How? How do you figure out someone is "future perfect" and not mediocre? If things were that easy, wouldn't all of us be hiring "future perfect" people anyway?