Career Stats:
- 867 games
- 189 goals (prorates to 18 goals per Season)
- 501 points (prorates to 47 points per Season)
Habs Stats:
- 104 games
- 23 goals (prorates to 18 goals per Season)
- 58 points (prorates to 46 points per Season)
Age 30+ Stats:
- 182 games
- 43 goals (prorates to 19 goals per Season)
- 109 points (prorates to 49 points per Season)
His age 30+ stats are on par or better than his career stats. I don't see evidence of decline. His game was never built on speed. We should reasonably expect to see the same Weber for a few years yet with some up and down type seasons. It happens to everybody
His stats in Montreal are.
You just cherry picked 30+.
I don't cherry pick. I look at when the first decline comments came out and why. It arcs back to his last game with Nashville, just weeks before the trade. THAT'S when the decline comments came out, before he was a Habs. I clearly remember the team 690 bunch being the first ones I heard talk about decline, the following morning of Nashville's elimination to the Sharks.
Also, you use his entire career stats which is faulty if you want to look at decline. To see decline, you need to calculate prime years. This should be obvious and logical. By using his entire career, you are skewing what he truly averages in his prime. Please re-read this a few times before interjecting and trying to refute this.
Now, his prime stats are 373 pts in 602 games for a ppg average of 50.8 points per 82 games.
In his first season in Montreal, he had only 42 points. Almost a full 10 points (8) below his prime average, 14 points below his career high. Now, he did play great that season, but since there was a decline in offensive stats the season right after pundits first started talking about decline, there's room for discussion.
As for the following season, the 16 in 26, it isn't proof enough as the season before, Weber started out with 17 pts in 20 games, only to get 25 pts in the next 58 games, so those 16 pts in 26 games are just proof that Weber starts off strong, a reputation he has from as far back as Nashville. It's not proof that he would've kept that rate going forward, even without injury. The ample samples from the past are proof enough.
Now, I say all of this to impress on you the reasons why people have doubts. There is legitimate data for people to think his offense is starting to decline.
Now add the injuries and you'll understand why you'll waste your time arguing over this.
I personally think he'll be around the 40-45 mark for a while IF both his injuries haven't permanently hindered him. I think he has good chances of being back close to 100%.
let's face it though, while still being a good #1, he'll never be as dominant as he was between 25-30, but we'll still have a solid D if the injuries haven't slowed him down.