Proposal: Montreal - Florida

[LeafingTheWay]

he deserves to be on the team for his PP and D abilities. And its funny how Weber was always considered an elite D up until he gets traded to Montreal. Lmao, logic... I can assure u all NHL GMs value him as such. ANd Gms are far more qualified than you guys are, esp these HF posters.

Did you read any of my post
There has ALWAYS been a minority group on HF that has been repeating Weber has declined. Now that he's involved with your team, you take notice. It's normal for fans of a team to do that (like you and the other Jack guy).

There are a whole bunch of D that should have been taken before Weber IMO.
Lmao, logic ... GMs are more qualified than anyone else so they are always a 100% correct and never wrong. Am I doing it right? If you want to ignore the data given, then sure go ahead and follow your team without questioning a single move they make.

Back to the point here. Montreal needs a D-man that can transition the puck out of the zone on the top pairing. Weber's great but that top-pairing lacks transition ability. Just as the next brilliant minds of the hockey world said (Chayka - Arizona's GM, Dubas - Toronto's Assistant GM and next-after-lou GM), transitional play is the biggest asset a D-man can have and teams should look for in a D-man.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Did you read any of my post
There has ALWAYS been a minority group on HF that has been repeating Weber has declined. Now that he's involved with your team, you take notice. It's normal for fans of a team to do that (like you and the other Jack guy).

There are a whole bunch of D that should have been taken before Weber IMO.
Lmao, logic ... GMs are more qualified than anyone else so they are always a 100% correct and never wrong. Am I doing it right? If you want to ignore the data given, then sure go ahead and follow your team without questioning a single move they make.

Back to the point here. Montreal needs a D-man that can transition the puck out of the zone on the top pairing. Weber's great but that top-pairing lacks transition ability. Just as the next brilliant minds of the hockey world said (Chayka - Arizona's GM, Dubas - Toronto's Assistant GM and next-after-lou GM), transitional play is the biggest asset a D-man can have and teams should look for in a D-man.

How has Weber declined and what specifically makes him "not elite" as you say?

Also when you say always been, does that mean that since he came into the league there has been a minority of people who felt that he was not elite?

How long has this decline been in play?

Honestly curious?

 

[jacks*]

Did you read any of my post
There has ALWAYS been a minority group on HF that has been repeating Weber has declined. Now that he's involved with your team, you take notice. It's normal for fans of a team to do that (like you and the other Jack guy).

There are a whole bunch of D that should have been taken before Weber IMO.
Lmao, logic ... GMs are more qualified than anyone else so they are always a 100% correct and never wrong. Am I doing it right? If you want to ignore the data given, then sure go ahead and follow your team without questioning a single move they make.

Back to the point here. Montreal needs a D-man that can transition the puck out of the zone on the top pairing. Weber's great but that top-pairing lacks transition ability. Just as the next brilliant minds of the hockey world said (Chayka - Arizona's GM, Dubas - Toronto's Assistant GM and next-after-lou GM), transitional play is the biggest asset a D-man can have and teams should look for in a D-man.

Well your right on one thing. The minority group thing because the majority know better.
Markov can transition the puck out of the zone on the top pairing,
Quite possibly Beaulieu down the road and Mikhail Sergachev i have no doubt will.

On the G.M's i would tend to think they are much more qualified than say...you.

 

[rhinoshawarma]

No he wasn't, what the. You do realize that there are minority groups on HF like me that don't think Weber's elite right You're just seeing this minority group now because he's involved with your team.



Being assistant captain of team canada has nothing to do with it. He's a great leader.
He shouldn't have made the team but that's off the point.

You guys need to score based off of past seasons, I agree. But you just traded your best transitional D. You have no one on your team able to transition the puck up effectively on the top pairing anymore, and that's the most important part in today's game.

He got picked to team canada because he's a good leader? No, several gm's and Babcock chose him for more than just being a leader.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

How has Weber declined and what specifically makes him "not elite" as you say?

Also when you say always been, does that mean that since he came into the league there has been a minority of people who felt that he was not elite?

How long has this decline been in play?

Honestly curious?

The past 3 years, his possession numbers and impact on teammates has dropped at a steady decline. I'm sure you can find articles online or whatever that show the analytics or whatever.

Here's my analysis from what I've seen (no numbers):

He's great in the offensive zone (elite play in that zone). He's great along the boards and getting the puck off people using aggression. He sucks at transitioning the puck and that's the IMO the most important ability a defenceman should have. He relies on Josi to get the puck out of the zone. His stick play also isn't that great IMO. Does he suck and not a #1? No, he's great and still a #1D but he's not elite all around anymore, he's an average #1D now IMO (I'd rank him around 15-17). I wouldn't want him as my lead D because I want my main D to be able to be solid all around (Keith, Doughty, Subban, Hedman, OEL, Brodie, Karlsson), and I feel Weber will falter in Montreal because they don't have a transitional D to play on the top pairing beside Weber.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

He got picked to team canada because he's a good leader? No, several gm's and Babcock chose him for more than just being a leader.

Again, them picking him has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Him being assistant captain has to do with him being a leader. Like I said, GMs tend to overevaluate aggression. Chicago signed Seabrook to a HUGE contract recently even though he started declining, NYR still plays Girardi on the top pairing when he's a bottom pairing guy, guys like Polak, Gudbranson, D.Murray went for high trade prices, Montreal traded the better D man Subban for Weber because they lacked aggression, etc. See what I mean? Them picking Weber onto the team doesn't prove anything tbh.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

Well your right on one thing. The minority group thing because the majority know better.
Markov can transition the puck out of the zone on the top pairing,
Quite possibly Beaulieu down the road and Mikhail Sergachev i have no doubt will.

On the G.M's i would tend to think they are much more qualified than say...you.

Nice comeback. I could make a list of the players that were predicted to decline and actually did. Literally all of them do, yet the majority always at the start deny it and refuse to look deeper. Analytics isn't perfect, but with regression and decline it's almost always right.

Also, Markov has declined too... He's not a top pairing guy anymore.

IMO, Montreal should run this top-4 (If Sergachev makes the team).

Beaulieu - Weber
Markov - Sergachev (slightly shelteted)

 

[rhinoshawarma]

Again, them picking him has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Him being assistant captain has to do with him being a leader. Like I said, GMs tend to overevaluate aggression. Chicago signed Seabrook to a HUGE contract recently even though he started declining, NYR still plays Girardi on the top pairing when he's a bottom pairing guy, guys like Polak, Gudbranson, D.Murray went for high trade prices, Montreal traded the better D man Subban for Weber because they lacked aggression, etc. See what I mean? Them picking Weber onto the team doesn't prove anything tbh.

Lol I think you're a bit blindsided by your Weber hate. Armstrong, Bergevin, Blake, Babcock, Holland and Murray. They pick him only for "aggression" ? Laughable

 

[rhinoshawarma]

Nice comeback. I could make a list of the players that were predicted to decline and actually did. Literally all of them do, yet the majority always at the start deny it and refuse to look deeper. Analytics isn't perfect, but with regression and decline it's almost always right.

Also, Markov has declined too... He's not a top pairing guy anymore.

IMO, Montreal should run this top-4 (If Sergachev makes the team).

Beaulieu - Weber
Markov - Sergachev (slightly shelteted)

LOL

and put Petry payed over 5m on the 3rd pairing? Sergachev will play on the left side if anything.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

LOL

and put Petry payed over 5m on the 3rd pairing? Sergachev will play on the left side if anything.

Oh Jesus, I knew I was forgetting someone. Petry's my favourite on the team because he's so underrated and yet I forgot him

I'd give Webers pairing regular top pairing starts, Petry's pairing the harder usagel (only problem again is finding someone capable to play beside him), while icing a Serg- Markov sheltered pairing (kind of like a lesser version of Campbell-Ekblad). Also, I thought Serg was comfortable on both sides no?

 

[LeafingTheWay]

Lol I think you're a bit blindsided by your Weber hate. Armstrong, Bergevin, Blake, Babcock, Holland and Murray. They pick him only for "aggression" ? Laughable

I didn't say only... He's a great D but there were several better choices than Weber, but they all lacked physicality that Weber brings. Like the example I gave before, MANY GMs feel it's necessary to have a Weber/Seabrook/etc on their team when it's not at all. I don't get what those names have to do with this.The Bergervin that keeps a terrible coach over Subban and then trades him for a different 'team look'? The Babcock that played Hunwick on the top pairing dragging Rielly down big time? The Holland that signs vets to pointless dumb contracts? They all make mistakes. Fortunately their mistakes on the world stage have no conveniences. We could've taken Beaulieu on the team and still won.

 

[Gentle Man]

And just like that, the topic is dead.