Post-Game Talk: Habs play like Romaine lettuce and lose to Devils 2-5

[The Great Weal]

Yet he routinely scores 15 or more a year.

"Dude all you have to do is just block his shot. It's so easy because you know it's coming."

 

[1909]

I'm sure our small forwards like Domi, Drouin, Gallagher and Tatar are the reason we are losing games.

Its certainly not because of our big 6'1+ dmen like Benn, Schlemko and Ouelett

If you get bigger forwards (skilled too of course), your overall D game is improved. If you don't understand this very basic stuff that smaller players at some point recuperate slower than bigger ones, I dunno what to tell you. The D is small too by NHL standards with Juulsen out of it.

 

[Habs Halifax]

His stats in Montreal are.
You just cherry picked 30+.

I was very clear with what I said and I didn't cherry pick anything. His 30+ stats is what I said and where people start talking about decline typically. Regardless, his stats in Montreal are off by how much? Is this worth talking about where it's off by like one goal and one point? Are you trying to say that this is evidence in decline?

Heck, I still believe in Price's ability and we all know that our team D is exposing him which makes it appear he is in decline. Circumstance plays a huge factor.

Sorry, Weber is Weber. The same guy he has been for many seasons now. He's the same age as Burns and he has not declined in stats. If you think he is in decline, you are cherry picking 1 goal and 1 assist in the difference.

So when there was a war going on in terms of Weber's decline when we acquired him at age 31, was the decline people were talking about 1 goal and 1 assist drop in yearly production over 3 years?

 

[Runner77]

Weber coming back means he will play around 25 minutes of #1 D hockey. That also means that one of Schlemko/Benn will be scratched. That's already a huge change.

You don't think they're going to ease Weber in? May be quite some time before he logs in 25 minutes. At least, that would be the prudent thing to do, especially to avoid another injury due to too aggressively using the player returning from major injury.

 

[Mrb1p]

You don't think they're going to ease Weber in? May be quite some time before he logs in 25 minutes. At least, that would be the prudent thing to do, especially to avoid another injury due to too aggressively using the player returning from major injury.

I dont think this management thinks, so thats a tall order for them

 

[The Great Weal]

You don't think they're going to ease Weber in? May be quite some time before he logs in 25 minutes. At least, that would be the prudent thing to do, especially to avoid another injury due to too aggressively using the player returning from major injury.

Lol it's the Montreal Canadiens, they always rush players back. Hey who knows what happens right? He could decline because of his injuries. He could also be better because he hasn't played for a year and isn't fatigued. I think around 25 is a good amount, but only time can tell.

 

[Kudo Shinichi]

If you get bigger forwards (skilled too of course), your overall D game is improved. If you don't understand this very basic stuff that smaller players at some point recuperate slower than bigger ones, I dunno what to tell you. The D is small too by NHL standards with Juulsen out of it.

Im sure the turnovers from our Dmen and their bad positioning is because of our small forwards

 

[WeThreeKings]

They will almost certainly just dump him in. They are still propagating the mythos that Weber is some man mountain.

 

[The Great Weal]

Im sure the turnovers from our Dmen and their bad positioning is because of our small forwards

The size argument never ceases to amaze me. Galchenyuk and Pacioretty were bigger than their replacements yet Tatar and Domi have looked better.

 

[Runner77]

Lol it's the Montreal Canadiens, they always rush players back. Hey who knows what happens right? He could decline because of his injuries. He could also be better because he hasn't played for a year and isn't fatigued. I think around 25 is a good amount, but only time can tell.

True that there have been some issues with the medical staff in the last few years. But, when a player has been out as long as Weber, I thought they might have taken extra precautions. We'll see but like you, I'm skeptical.

 

[The Great Weal]

True that there have been some issues with the medical staff in the last few years. But, when a player has been out as long as Weber, I thought they might have taken extra precautions. We'll see but like you, I'm skeptical.

All I know is that I can't wait to have him back because it means less Benn/Schlemko/anyone not named Petry

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

I was very clear with what I said and I didn't cherry pick anything. His 30+ stats is what I said and where people start talking about decline typically. Regardless, his stats in Montreal are off by how much? Is this worth talking about where it's off by like one goal and one point? Are you trying to say that this is evidence in decline?

Heck, I still believe in Price's ability and we all know that our team D is exposing him which makes it appear he is in decline. Circumstance plays a huge factor.

Sorry, Weber is Weber. The same guy he has been for many seasons now. He's the same age as Burns and he has not declined in stats. If you think he is in decline, you are cherry picking 1 goal and 1 assist in the difference.

You took about 1 minute to read my post. Re-read it again. It is cherry picking.

1-it is logical to start counting for decline at the point where people start mentioning decline for that player specifically and in Weber's case, that's May 2016. That's not arbitraty. Talking about Burns is pointless. Decline comes differently for different players. In Weber's case, PUNDITS started mentioning decline in May 2016. No need to cherry pick some other point.

2- since prime years mostly always have higher yield than entry level years, you want to compare prime years to when the decline is said to start.

You did the opposite in both cases. You took the arbitrary 30 years of age as starting point of decline (false and it is cherry picking, unintended as it may be) and you took his entire career stats to compare which skews his prime years.

Now, your hastiness to respond and lavk of understanding of what you did tells me you really didnt take time to read what I wrote.

I don't care if you accept this or not. It's your loss if you can't come to terms with it. And wuite frankly, i dont have the patience to go any further woth you on this if you can't take the time to breathe, read, think, remove your ego, re-read again and try to actually understand my arguments instead of instantly knee jerking. It is pointless to even talk with you as you are unable to accept when you are wrong. Your selections to compare the data is wrong.

 

[Habs Halifax]

You took about 1 minute to read my post. Re-read it again. It is cherry picking.

1-it is logical to start counting for decline at the point where people start mentioning decline for that plater specifically and in Weber's case, that's May 2016. That's not arbitraty. Talking about Burns is pointless. Decline comes differently for different players. In Weber's case, PUNDITS started mentioning decline in May 2016. No need to cherry pick some other point.

2- since prime years mostly always have higher yield than entry level years, you want to compare prime years to when the decline is said to start.

You did the opposite in both cases. You took the arbitrary 30 years of age as starting point of decline (false and it is cherry picking, unintended as it may be) and you took his entire career stats to compare which skews his prime years.

Now, your hastiness to respond and lavk of understanding of what you did tells me you really didnt take time to read what I wrote.

I don't care if you accept this or not. It's your loss if you can't come to terms with it. And wuite frankly, i dont have the patience to go any further woth you on this if you can't take the time to breathe, read, think, remove your ego, re-read again and try to actually understand my arguments instead of instantly knee jerking.

1) Well, there has been talk about decline with Weber from those typically upset that Bergevin traded him for Subban. In 3 years, Weber has shown zero signs of decline. 1 goal and 1 assist in season averages over 3 years is not decline. He is still playing the same game he played before. Same Weber.

2) Weber has been consistent over a very long time and it's impressive. Yeah, he's not in his prime years but the 30+ stats shows that he is on par or better compared to this career stats. You say decline is different with every player. Why do we think decline hits Weber so fast when were talking about a very consistent player in his career? Do you think he is getting slower and dumber like Alzner? Do you think Weber's game is about clutching and grabbing which has greatly affected Alzner's style of play?

I don't care what you think I did. I provided you facts that you can't handle. I showed you...
1) Career Stats
2) 30+ Stats
3) Stats with the Habs

There is no cherry picking. You can review the FACTS as you wish and I gave you various examples to review trends. At the end of the day, they are facts of what he has done, not opinions.

Once again, there is zero evidence of decline. That's how I see it.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

1) Well, there has been talk about decline with Weber from those typically upset that Bergevin traded him for Subban. In 3 years, Weber has shown zero signs of decline. 1 goal and 1 assist in season averages over 3 years is not decline. He is still playing the same game he played before. Same Weber.

Like I said, it's pointless to argue with you. You still use your faulty stats.

Prime years: 51 points average, 56 points high.

First and only full season since decline was mentioned: 42 points

9 pts under prime years average, 14 points under career high.

That's not 1 goal and 1 assist.

That's a decline of close to 20% from his prime year average and 25% lower than his career high.

I havent read the rest of your post because you keep childishly insisting on using your faulty points of comparison, completely dismissing my arguments instead of actually countering them. It's insulting and that's the point at which most people start calling you namea and you act like a victim without realizing how much you're testing people's patience with your incapacity to actually accept and understand when you are wrong.

The 16 in 26 skews the total in Mtl as it is is far too small a sample and comes at a time where Weber usually produces the most into a season, as proven by the year before, he had 17 in 20 and finished with only 42, without injury.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Like I said, it's pointless to argue with you. You still use your faulty stats.

Prime years: 51 points average, 56 points high.

First and only full season since decline was mentioned: 42 points

9 pts under prime years average, 14 points under career high.

That's not 1 goal and 1 assist.

That's a decline of close to 20% from his prime year average and 25% lower than his career high.

I havent read the rest of your post because you keep childishly insisting on using your faulty points of comparison, completely dismissing my arguments instead of actually countering them. It's insulting and that's the point at which most people start calling you namea and you act like a victim without realizing how much you're testing people's patience with your incapacity to actually accept and understand when you are wrong.

The 16 in 26 skews the total in Mtl as it is is far too small a sample and comes at a time where Weber usually produces the most into a season, as proven by the year before, he had 17 in 20 and finished with only 42, without injury.

It's not faulty stats. It's 3 examples that give you something to look at in terms of trends. There is no decline alarms to be rang. My apologies that you don't agree but the facts are what they are.

I showed you both 30+ stats and stat with the Habs (31+). There is not much difference. Have another look and you can ignore the 30+ stats and use the Habs stats as you wish. No matter how you twist it, it's the same results with minuscule differences. Weber's consistency has been impressive

Career Stats:
- 867 games
- 189 goals (prorates to 18 goals per Season)
- 501 points (prorates to 47 points per Season)

Habs Stats (31+):
- 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)

Are you seriously trying to say I cherry picked the stats to show that he has 1 more goal and 3 more points in average? Come on man. The decline talk that most are referencing to is age 30+. I don't care if you want to pick age 30 or age 31. Results are the same

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

It's not faulty stats. It's 3 examples that give you something to look at in terms of trends. There is no decline alarms to be rang. My apologies that you don't agree but the facts are what they are.

I showed you both 30+ stats and stat with the Habs (31+). There is not much difference.

What im trying to impress on you is WHY people are legitimate in their doubts.

Prime years: 51 points average, 56 points high.

First and only full season since decline was mentioned: 42 points

9 pts under prime years average, 14 points under career high.

That's not 1 goal and 1 assist.

That's a decline of close to 20% from his prime year average and 25% lower than his career high.

That's why some people think he has started his decline.

I've already mentioned I personally think he'll be fine and get between 40-45. That's what he gave us in his only full season. It's still good. But it is a slight decline from his prime years.


Also, you acknowledge the starting point which is when he came up with the Habs, but you still ommit to accept that the data set you used was faulty. You can't use entire career stats vs period of decline. You have to use prime years to see if there's a decline from his high point.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

@TooLegitToQuit Just to put a bit more perspective into the mindset that he is in decline offensively, that 42 point season (16-17) is his lowest offensively since two years (40 pts, 06-07) before he actually broke out and had his first season (53 pts 08-09) that matches his prime years average (51 pts, 373 in 602, 2008-09 to 2015-16).

Although, and why I have reserves, he did have one season low point offensively with 43 points in his prime years (09-10), and his first season in Montreal (42) might just be simply another bump in the road.

 

[HockeyDBspecialist]

If you get bigger forwards (skilled too of course), your overall D game is improved.

what ?
What are you basing this from ?
Just look at LA.. look the GA and the terrible +/- of all the forwards.

 

[Shad]

Wonder what he is saying

Freddie, paint my ship!

 

[Habs Halifax]

What im trying to impress on you is WHY people are legitimate in their doubts.

Prime years: 51 points average, 56 points high.

First and only full season since decline was mentioned: 42 points

9 pts under prime years average, 14 points under career high.

That's not 1 goal and 1 assist.

That's a decline of close to 20% from his prime year average and 25% lower than his career high.

That's why some people think he has started his decline.

I've already mentioned I personally think he'll be fine and get between 40-45. That's what he gave us in his only full season. It's still good. But it is a slight decline from his prime years.


Also, you acknowledge the starting point which is when he came up with the Habs, but you still ommit to accept that the data set you used was faulty. You can't use entire career stats vs period of decline. You have to use prime years to see if there's a decline from his high point.

I did this quick so let me know what is wrong. When I look at this, all I see is minuscule up and down variances from season to season. The other thing to note is talent he is playing with from season to season.

Also, How did Weber get off to such a great start last year and put up that kind of production while also playing hurt? Let me guess, he was in decline and would of slowed down in the rest of the year right?

Come on man... He's been very consistent. I'll let you cherry pick a range of years if you wish. But all I am doing is showing you facts.

Age 21:
- 40 pts in 79 games with 17 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 42 pts with 18 goals

Age 22:
- 20 pts in 54 games with 6 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 30 pts with 9 goals

Age 23:
- 53 pts in 81 games with 23 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 54 pts with 23 goals

Age 24:
- 43 pts in 78 games with 16 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 45 pts with 17 goals

Age 25:
- 48 pts in 82 games with 16 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 48 pts with 16 goals

Age 26:
- 49 pts in 78 games with 19 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 52 pts with 20 goals

Age 27:
- 28 pts in 48 games with 9 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 48 pts with 15 goals

Age 28:
- 56 pts in 79 games with 23 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 58 pts with 24 goals

Age 29:
- 45 pts in 78 games with 15 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 47 pts with 16 goals

Age 30:
- 51 pts in 78 games with 20 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 54 pts with 21 goals

Age 31:
- 42 pts in 78 games with 17 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 44 pts with 18 goals

Age 32:
- 16 pts in 26 games with 6 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 50 pts with 19 goals

I see zero evidence of decline. All I see is normal fluctuations from year to year. No need to sound the alarm bells

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

I did this quick so let me know what is wrong. When I look at this, all I see is minuscule up and down variances from season to season. The other thing to note is talent he is playing with from season to season.

Come on man... He's been very consistent. I'll let you cherry pick a range of years if you wish. But all I am doing is showing you facts.

Age 21:
- 40 pts in 79 games with 17 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 42 pts with 18 goals

Age 22:
- 20 pts in 54 games with 6 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 30 pts with 9 goals

Age 23:
- 53 pts in 81 games with 23 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 54 pts with 23 goals

Age 24:
- 43 pts in 78 games with 16 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 45 pts with 17 goals

Age 25:
- 48 pts in 82 games with 16 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 48 pts with 16 goals

Age 26:
- 49 pts in 78 games with 19 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 52 pts with 20 goals

Age 27:
- 28 pts in 48 games with 9 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 48 pts with 15 goals

Age 28:
- 56 pts in 79 games with 23 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 58 pts with 24 goals

Age 29:
- 45 pts in 78 games with 15 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 47 pts with 16 goals

Age 30:
- 51 pts in 78 games with 20 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 54 pts with 21 goals

Age 31:
- 42 pts in 78 games with 17 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 44 pts with 18 goals

Age 32:
- 16 pts in 26 games with 6 goals
- Prorated to a 82 games: 50 pts with 19 goals

I see zero evidence of decline. All I see is normal fluctuations from year to year. No need to sound the alarm bells

Look at the high points and low points in fluctuations since he first went over 50.

High point 58, lowest point? 44. That's the first season in Montreal. His lowest ppg since breaking out.

That's my point.

Now, you want to use the 16 in 26 to say he's still at 50/82 by tge end of the season if he wasnt injured and you say this:

Also, How did Weber get off to such a great start last year and put up that kind of production while also playing hurt? Let me guess, he was in decline and would of slowed down in the rest of the year right?

Now I want you to read this as carefully as possible: this comment of yours is proof that you dismiss and ommit something that I have already repeated 3 times:

16-17:
- 17 pts in first 20 games (70 in 82)
- 25 in his last 58 games (35/82)
- 42 in 78 in total (44/82).

17-18
- 16 in 26 (50/82)
- 50/82 in total according to you

I have repeated this 3 times and yet you have the audacity to put words into my mouth by pretending i would say he wouldnt maintain the same rate because of injury??? or decline??? when I already factually shown why I think he wouldn't finish the season 50/82). Do you start to understand why so many people lose patience with you??? what you did right there is as much disrespect as when you get called names, and it might help you to understand that sometimes the causality lies at your feet. When you do this, this ridiculous strawman put into my mouth when i've already clearly stated somethong entirely different, it's an insult. If you wish for people to respect you, do everyone a favor and not do this type of disrespectful ****.

 

[Habs Halifax]

@TooLegitToQuit Just to put a bit more perspective into the mindset that he is in decline offensively, that 42 point season (16-17) is his lowest offensively since two years (40 pts, 06-07) before he actually broke out and had his first season (53 pts 08-09) that matches his prime years average (51 pts, 373 in 602, 2008-09 to 2015-16).

Although, and why I have reserves, he did have one season low point offensively with 43 points in his prime years (09-10), and his first season in Montreal (42) might just be simply another bump in the road.

Both of us can go on witch hunts and cherry pick. The trends reveal that there is modest up and down years throughout his career and the team he plays with including talent depth has a lot to do with it.

Sorry, I don't see decline issues.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Look at the high points and low points in fluctuations since he first went over 50.

High point 58, lowest point? 44. That's the first season in Montreal. His lowest ppg since breaking out.

That's my point.

Now, you want to use the 16 in 26 to say he's still at 50/82 by tge end of the season if he wasnt injured and you say this:



Now I want you to read this as carefully as possible: this comment of yours is proof that you dismiss and ommit something that I have already repeated 3 times:

16-17:
- 17 pts in first 20 games (70 in 82)
- 25 in his last 58 games (35/82)
- 42 in 78 in total (44/82).

17-18
- 16 in 26 (50/82)
- 50/82 in total according to you

I have repeated this 3 times and yet you have the audacity to put words into my mouth by pretending i would say he wouldnt maintain the same rate because of injury??? or decline??? when I already factually shown why I think he wouldn't finish the season 50/82). Do you start to understand why so many people lose patience with you??? what you did right there is as much disrespect as when you get called names, and it might help you to understand that sometimes the causality lies at your feet. When you do this, this ridiculous strawman put into my mouth when i've already clearly stated somethong entirely different, it's an insult. If you wish for people to respect you, do everyone a favor and not do this type of disrespectful ****.

Focus on the stats and examples. Your making too much you vs me narrative and the style approach. I have no interest in this. We both spoke, leave it at that.

Personally, I don't believe you can prove decline in this case. All I see is ups and downs and I evaluated averages cause it reveals a lot more than one good year vs one off year. A lot has to do with who you play with as well. Weber went from a legit playoff team and team on the rise to a team that lacked offensive talent. This should not be ignored.

I still see Weber as the same guy. No need to raise decline alarm bells. You haven't showed me anything that proves decline and something we should be worried about. If Weber comes back and has prorated numbers below 40 pts per year for several years, you can tell me your prediction was right. But until then, I will continue to think he is a 45-50 pts and 15-20 goal potential and has shutdown ability in his own end. If he falls consistently below this range, that's the Weber I know. If he has 12 goals an 47 pts, do I consider this decline? Hell no!

 

[Doc McKenna]

Focus on the stats and examples. Your making too much you vs me narrative and the style approach. I have no interest in this. We both spoke, leave it at that.

Personally, I don't believe you can prove decline in this case. All I see is ups and downs and I evaluated averages cause it reveals a lot more than one good year vs one off year. A lot has to do with who you play with as well. Weber went from a legit playoff team and team on the rise to a team that lacked offensive talent. This should not be ignored.

I still see Weber as the same guy. No need to raise decline alarm bells. You haven't showed me anything that proves decline and something we should be worried about. If Weber comes back and has prorated numbers below 40 pts per year for several years, you can tell me your prediction was right. But until then, I will continue to think he is a 45-50 pts and 15-20 goal potential and has shutdown ability in his own end. If he falls consistently below this range, that's the Weber I know. If he has 12 goals an 47 pts, do I consider this decline? Hell no!

So then Domi must surely be the 100 point centre we have needed, if prorated. If Domi hits 100 pints this year I will change my avatar to anything you want.

 

[Habs Halifax]

So then Domi must surely be the 100 point centre we have needed, if prorated. If Domi hits 100 pints this year I will change my avatar to anything you want.

Well, prorating someones shorten season where it comes close to his career averages is not the same as prorating someone like Domi to 100 pts when his career best was like 52 pts. Not the same treatment. One is more proven vs the other. It's anybodies guess if Domi can be a pt/game player all year. Weber has hit 50 pts before. To say he never will again cause he is 33 is weird. Especially when his career averages are close to his year to year production. The up and down variance is impressive. He's been consistent