The sample size is too small to look at individual point totals, but not at expected goals. The predictive power of xG, both on a team and individual level, converges much more quickly than goals for at both a team an individual level:
Expected Goals are a better predictor of future scoring than Corsi, Goals
From the article, first at the team level:
As you can see after 10 games, a team's GF% has essentially no predictive power, with an r^2 of approximately 7%. Meanwhile, xGF% has much more predictive power: after only 10 games it has an r^2 of 24%. Not even close to a perfect predictor, but much better than GF% which is essentially random in a 10 game sample. In other words, after 10 games, one would rather know a team's xGF% instead of their GF% (and indeed, their win-loss record) to determine if they are any good, at least at 5v5.
And this makes sense, right? Look at the last 10 games on the NHL standings and we see the following oddities:
Edmonton: 8-2-0
Ottawa: 5-5-0
Montreal: 3-5-2
Chicago: 8-2-0
Dallas: 2-4-4
So now we go to the individual level, where we see the following:
In terms of individual on-ice performance, xGF% is still a much better predictor than GF% in terms of predicting future GF%. Even after just 10 games (Kuznetsov has played 11) xGF shows MUCH better predictive power than GF%. Again it's not perfect, and it gets better after 20-30 games, but it is still far better to look at than actual goals for. In other words, I'd rather look at someone's xGF% after 10 games than their goal differential if I wanted to know how their goal differential might look for the rest of the season.
And indeed, Kuznetsov is currently sporting a healthy 62% xGF%. That'll do.
Now for those who are interested in individual points, there's also good news: expected goals on an individual basis predicts future individual goals much better than current individual goals, even after 10 games:
After only 10 games the r^2 between ixG and future iG is a massive 63%, compared to 22% between iG and future iG. Again, in other words, after a 10 game sample if we want to know how a player is going to score goals for the rest of the season you'd be better off looking at their ixG rather than their actual goals scored. And for Kuznetsov he currently has the third best ixG/60 rate on the team, behind only Ovechkin and Sheary. And he has the second best ixG/60 at 5v5, behind only Sheary. Unfortunately his results have lagged his xG rates: at 5v5 he has only scored 0.4 goals/60 despite having a ixG/60 of 0.78, and at all strengths it's 0.68 and 0.85, respectively.
The above article does not address assists unfortunately, but that's ok because his assist rate right now is actually very good. He's 4th best on the team in 5v5 A1/60 at 0.8, which is a touch below his career average but can also be easily explained by saying his on-ice shooting percentage is 8.5% at 5v5, also below his career average by about the same amount that his A1 rate is. He'll likely pick up a few more primary assists based on his on-ice shooting percentage improving a bit. And he already leads the team in primary assists in all-situations on a per 60 basis, so I don't think there's much to complain about there!
So that leaves secondary assists. Kuznetsov doesn't have a single secondary assist this year, which is largely the reason why his point totals are disappointing on the surface. But fortunately I don't think it really matters much:
The noise surrounding secondary assists - TSN.ca
The secondary assists will come, especially if he keeps driving offense the way he has been so far.
And to answer your final question: yes, every player makes nice plays that teammates fail to convert. But I'd argue that Kuznetsov has been especially unlucky in this regard so far, at least when it comes to individual point production.