They were brutal rosters.
Exaggeration. While colourful, this kind of hyperbole weakens rather than strengthens your point.
And in no way comparable with what Mitch Marner has to work with.
Yes and?
Yzerman put up 155 points and they still only managed a .500 record. The only guy he really had was Adam Oates and he was just breaking into the league and didn't even play the full year.
Pts aren't as meaningful as you seem to think.
The Montreal Canadiens were the best defensive team in the league. Why would you think they have anything in common with those Detroit clubs? They had a very deep roster with several HOFers on their roster including Chelios and Patrick Roy.
Case in point. See above.
Horrible division. Weak clubs. Yzerman carried them. And there's absolutely zero in common with what Marner's had to work with. This is all pretty clear. Why are you even debating this?
Your debating yourself here.
I simply called to attention that Yzerman wasn't on a basement roster the whole time before the Bowman era in Detroit. You proceeded to double down with easily disproven exaggerations.
To address the Marner comparisons, I don't share your take there either. Marner is at a very similar career inflection point as Yzerman was in his late 20's. Big difference is that Marner has been on a better team & won a lot more games than Yzerman did early in his career (though Yzerman and his "brutal" Red Wings actually won more playoff rounds than Marner and his Laffs through 8 seasons).
But like Yzerman, if Marner wants to be a key player on a cup winning team, he'll have to evolve his game and put more attention to the non scoresheet aspects of driving impact. Yzerman himself, IIRC, acknowledged that the way he played early in his career wasn't conducive to winning. Points aren't everything, not all elite talents figure that out, and many fans simply can't see it.