If you're a high-end player in the sense I meant, you're a star. There's no disconnect there. And in that short post, I wrote the question word for word including the word 'star', so I'm not sure how you can honestly construe that as moderating the words to fit a narrative.
High end can be interpreted to mean several things. You purposely changed the wording from STAR to high end for a reason. That gives you a lot more latitude in terms of defining his talent. You can spin it all you like but the end result is that you did not use the word STAR in your answer.
Luckily, goal scoring isn't a requirement for a playmaker to become a star. You can't accuse me of trying to fit things into a narrative and then combine parts of two seasons to only look at one part of his game, one that doesn't even make sense considering he's a pure playmaker, as a basis for your case. That's about as textbook as it can get.
That's your opinion. A STAR winger doesn't score less than 10 goals a season (projected this year) generally speaking unless you are a 37-year-old Joe Thornton. Being a playmaker doesn't give one a free pass for the negatives already mentioned. You'd better be putting up 80+ assists a year if you can't score goals. The definition of a 'star' is not the definition of a playmaker. There's more to it.
You were the one who downplayed it as a small size sample and a poor stretch of play. I merely highlighted the reality of the situation. It's a 60 game period where he is producing like a 4th liner in terms of goals. I don't see many stars crapping the bed at that level. Teams learn to defend players who are one-dimensional "playmakers". Spin it any way you like but it's not a good look and certainly not a projection of future greatness.
What is an overwhelmingly strong case is that he is a supreme talent who was one of the best junior players in a long time who then translated that fully to the NHL at the age of 19. Even if his season continues like this, it doesn't erase what has come before.
Junior league stats quite often don't carry over into the NHL. We've seen many examples of that over the years. Yes he had a nice rookie season but you can't live off of that forever. So far this season you'd have to be disappointed in his play and production. You want a future "STAR" to get better, not digress....or is it just the league figuring out his weaknesses?
This is said about every damn player who ever has a stretch of lesser production. Ovi was figured out when he had a rough season. Matthews was figured out when he hit his scoring drought. Johnny Hockey was figured out last season.
I do not remember Matthews scoring 6 goals over a 60 game period. Again you try to downplay a 60 game period into being " a stretch of lesser production" A STRETCH? ....Nice try...I guess your response will be to say he is a playmaker...lol
Nobody is a slam dunk, if you're not McDavid. But a sensible projection has him as a star. His speed is fine, his shot is a weakness, and "ability to grind" or size is not going to be a factor for whether a player like him becomes a star or not.
Nice Strawman!
My bad, I thought you said that Marner has "an overwhelmingly strong case" to project as a future STAR. Sorry to put words in your mouth.
BTW his speed is average----You again downplay it as being "fine" OK then.
The ability to retrieve the puck is what I'm referring to as the 'grind'. Don't you see that as an issue? Ya know ,it's kinda nice to have the puck.
By which you ignore the larger sample of last year combined with history and shown talent to focus on a rough second season.
