Please don't answer in my quote, it makes it very hard to respond.
You are twisting my words now. I said that the question was if he was a future star, that he was, and then used another word in my explanation. I've said that I did it because I saw them have the same meaning. I've explained there's nothing devious behind that. I can't force you to believe me, but just deciding that I mean something else than I say is not discussing in good faith. If that's how you roll, I'm not gonna respond after this.
As for the goals, nobody is denying it's an issue. What I'm saying is that there's more to the picture, and the whole picture isn't quite so gloomy. I see no reason to look at only goals instead of the whole picture, like you do.
Junior stats don't always carry over. Marner has shown that his did. I am disappointed, but I also realize that variation in performance is perfectly ordinary. Expecting players to always get better is not fair. It's not all in their control.
And again you decide to only talk about goals instead of the whole picture, and again you move the goalposts. I pointed out that the "the league has figured him out"-is said a ton, and is almost never proven correct. The players I mentioned doesn't have to perform as bad as Marner did, in goalscoring specifically for that to be true.
Marner's speed is definitely not average. He threatens with it in his transition play quite often, and you can see him gain separation. It's not a top end attribute, but it's not average.
And yes, Marner has a very strong case for a projection as a star player. There's an obvious difference between having a very strong case and being a guaranteed thing. Surely you realize that? I don't see why I should have to explain such obvious difference in definitions.