DRW204
Registered User
- Dec 26, 2010
- 22,363
- 27,259
comparing nearly any player from their peak seasons in their 20s to their late 30s will likely always show significant decline. like this is obvious. you aren't saying anything new.
comparing stastny to his peak years (1PPG) of course its going to be considered a significant decline.
im comparing him to Stastny as of late. It seems like you think he is going to significantly decline from the 40-50 pt range (which is more representative of current-day Stastny rather than Stastny of 10+ years ago), if that's the case then we wont ever agree. I doubt the Jets agree too.
comparing stastny to his peak years (1PPG) of course its going to be considered a significant decline.
im comparing him to Stastny as of late. It seems like you think he is going to significantly decline from the 40-50 pt range (which is more representative of current-day Stastny rather than Stastny of 10+ years ago), if that's the case then we wont ever agree. I doubt the Jets agree too.
And the year after at 37 he went to and stayed at a .6 ppg player. I said roughly the same age not the exact same age.
Are we also going to ignore that Thornton at his peak was a 100 plus point player. So yea a player that in his mid to late 30's was producing about half as much as he did at his peak is a pretty significant decline. Thornton is a first ballet hall of famer and had room to decline significantly and stay a good producer.
Paul doesn't have that same wiggle room. He's been a low 40 point player each of the last two years despite getting number 1 unit pp time. He doesn't have much if any leeway for a further decline in points before he produces below a second line rate.
Clearly if he gets supplanted in the top 6 Moe likely uses him on the third line.