Player Discussion Phillip Danault II: 2nd C? edition

[Sorinth]

Pffff... Wasn't he supposed to explode this season and prove everybody wrong and show that he's more than a 3rd line center playing for an offensive powerhouse in Washington? What happened there?

I don't think anybody expect him to explode because he was behind Backstrom & Kuznetzov.

But Eller being a 3rd line C is exactly my point. He had a season even more impressive then Danaults, yet he's considered a 3rd line C my almost everybody. So it's premature to claim Danault is a legitimate top-6 player based off of one season. He has the potential to be one, but he has to show he can do it without being stapled to Pacioretty/Radulov.

That mostly brings us to the need to repeat to confirm.

Yes, and he also has to do it without our two best wingers. If we stick Danault with Pacioretty/Drouin and he puts up 40 points again I'll be disappointed (Especially in the coaching staff). Otherwise he's just another Desharnais, produces adequately when the team is built around him, but the team shouldn't be built around him.

this isn't what I was saying.

You said people complaining about the trade only did so because they are anti-MB. It's BS, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to be against that trade.

Danault got 10 ES points in 35 games as a bottom sixer, including 13 games on the 4th line.

He got 27 ES points in 47 games as a top sixer.

10 points in 35 games, is a 23 point pace, throw in a few SHP and the odd PPP and it's not that impressive. Even 3rd liners like Eller/Plekanec put up close to 30.

So basically, you have not found anyone else in the last 4 years.
Plus doing a projection over a season is just numbers.
You have not proof that Eller would continue at that pace.
But the following four years show us what Eller can do.

But we also need to go deeper in your comments.
Who is going to be our 2 center?
For me Danault is just fine but maybe your prefer Plekanec?

We can always put Plekanec, McCarron or Shaw to center the second PP unit.

It's actually very common for a player to put a up a great year and then never repeat it. I picked Eller because people will be familiar with him and Belial has spent years trashing him.

 

[Sorinth]

I hope he improves. Because 40 points that's mostly a hot streak with two great wingers and a brutally bad playoffs doesn't make him good. It makes him trade bait.


Yeah, he's going to be shoehorned into a top-6 role and look not-bad while squandering chance after chance. We saw it with other undertalented or undercapable players in the top6 - like Plekanec (later years) and Desharnais.

Opportunity cost of playing such mediocrity is higher than people think. 37 even strength points when the moon is waxing or whatever other arbitrary paradigm means dickall if he's Simply Not Good Enough (Yet).

The opportunity cost depends on who else is available. If Danault is taking minutes away from Galchenyuk then yes it's dumb. If he's taking minutes away from Plekanec, it's probably the right call.

Though the fact that Danault is the best option for our #2 C and will possibly be our #1 C is just another example of Bergevin ineptitude.

 

[Belial]

I don't think anybody expect him to explode because he was behind Backstrom & Kuznetzov.

But Eller being a 3rd line C is exactly my point. He had a season even more impressive then Danaults, yet he's considered a 3rd line C my almost everybody. So it's premature to claim Danault is a legitimate top-6 player based off of one season. He has the potential to be one, but he has to show he can do it without being stapled to Pacioretty/Radulov.


It's actually very common for a player to put a up a great year and then never repeat it. I picked Eller because people will be familiar with him and Belial has spent years trashing him.

Man the stats are there stop bringing back Radulov and Pacioretty all the time, Danault produced roughly at the same pace even on the 4th line with Mitchell and Flynn!

And I don't know what are you talking about in your last paragraph as I was one of Eller's biggest fans and I always thought he can do more with better linemates and more offensive opportunities but I guess I was wrong as he disappointed all the time he got an opportunity to shine.

 

[Fozz]

Ideally, I think everyone would like Danault to continue getting better and improve on last year's totals in order to be considered a valid top-6 centre.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Ideally, I think everyone would like Danault to continue getting better and improve on last year's totals in order to be considered a valid top-6 centre.

Last year's production was already top-6 centre quality. He needs to maintain to remain one.

 

[Doc McKenna]

Last year's production was already top-6 centre quality. He needs to maintain to remain one.

No it wasn't. When you play top line with PP you need more than 40 a season. We weren't happy with DD and Pleks getting 50+ points each.

40 is a 3rd liner filling in a top 6 role with good linemates...much like Danault did last year. See Weise for another example of a winger doing the same.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

You said people complaining about the trade only did so because they are anti-MB. It's BS, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to be against that trade.

Well I didn't say 'only did so' if you read my comments. I said that it sounds like that.

Plus this kind of distracts from the original point that you were saying my reason that people aren't praising Danault (one of the POSSIBLE reasons I thought of) was nonsense because virtually everybody praised the Drouin trade. I wouldn't say virtually everyone, there was plenty of detractors who wanted a C but semantics aside it was generally praised.

Having said that that was ONE of the possible reasons isn't invalidated because fans praised the Drouin trade. People are slow to praise MB. He's painted as someone who does NOTHING right and yes there are legit reasons why he's hated. He's done plenty wrong AGAIN which I've already stated.

If you think the large part of so-called 'MB detractors' who think he can't do ANYTHING right are objective then there's no reason to continue the discussion. I wouldn't say I'm a supporter. I'm losing faith in him overall though I do think there's things he's done better than previous regimes. Things that have been cancelled out by some horrendous things.

IMO the very vocal critics of MB AREN'T objective (sure no one really can but I feel there are a very small handful on here that are somewhere approaching that). That's not a crime. I just don't like it when they really seem to think so and are utterly convinced of it. I know people who are more objective and think themselves as less objective ironically enough.

 

[Treb]

No it wasn't. When you play top line with PP you need more than 40 a season. We weren't happy with DD and Pleks getting 50+ points each.

40 is a 3rd liner filling in a top 6 role with good linemates...much like Danault did last year. See Weise for another example of a winger doing the same.

PP time for Habs forwards:

220:14 Patches 13 PPP
216:28 Radulov 16 PPP
142:27 Shaw 7 PPP
138:57 Chuckie 15 PPP
131:17 Gallagher 3 PPP
74:12 Plekanec 7 PPP
67:22 Lehkonen 4 PPP
50:56 Danault 2 PPP
44:14 Byron 4 PPP
43:11 DD (in 31 games ) 2 PPP

Danault did not play that much on the PP.

 

[Apoplectic Habs Fan]

PP time for Habs forwards:

220:14 Patches 13 PPP
216:28 Radulov 16 PPP
142:27 Shaw 7 PPP
138:57 Chuckie 15 PPP
131:17 Gallagher 3 PPP
74:12 Plekanec 7 PPP
67:22 Lehkonen 4 PPP
50:56 Danault 2 PPP
44:14 Byron 4 PPP
43:11 DD (in 31 games ) 2 PPP

Danault did not play that much on the PP.

So if given 200 pp minutes he would be a 46 point top line center. Noice

He will be given every opportunity and he earned it. Whether this is good for the team is another question

 

[Goldenhands]

Danault clearly had his best moments with Shaw and Lehkonen, lets put the kid in his right chair, as our third line center with gritty players, thats where he is the most valuable and try Pleks on the top 6 with skilled players, I feel he has a decent last season in the legs..

 

[Cole Caulifield]

No it wasn't. When you play top line with PP you need more than 40 a season. We weren't happy with DD and Pleks getting 50+ points each.

40 is a 3rd liner filling in a top 6 role with good linemates...much like Danault did last year. See Weise for another example of a winger doing the same.

Danault played about 30 sec of PP per game on average. You expect serious production there? I watched the games last year and I can't say I remember Danault starting on the first PP unit, or even getting out there with 1 min of PP left. I mean, I'm sure it happened a few times but not in the amount where you'd say : ah yes he was a fixture on the PP last year.

Plus you keep forgetting that Danault only played half the year on the top line with top linemates.

Weise and Danault are absolutely nothing alike in any way I can fathom.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Well I didn't say 'only did so' if you read my comments. I said that it sounds like that.

Plus this kind of distracts from the original point that you were saying my reason that people aren't praising Danault (one of the POSSIBLE reasons I thought of) was nonsense because virtually everybody praised the Drouin trade. I wouldn't say virtually everyone, there was plenty of detractors who wanted a C but semantics aside it was generally praised.

Having said that that was ONE of the possible reasons isn't invalidated because fans praised the Drouin trade. People are slow to praise MB. He's painted as someone who does NOTHING right and yes there are legit reasons why he's hated. He's done plenty wrong AGAIN which I've already stated.

If you think the large part of so-called 'MB detractors' who think he can't do ANYTHING right are objective then there's no reason to continue the discussion. I wouldn't say I'm a supporter. I'm losing faith in him overall though I do think there's things he's done better than previous regimes. Things that have been cancelled out by some horrendous things.

IMO the very vocal critics of MB AREN'T objective (sure no one really can but I feel there are a very small handful on here that are somewhere approaching that). That's not a crime. I just don't like it when they really seem to think so and are utterly convinced of it. I know people who are more objective and think themselves as less objective ironically enough.

This describes the situation as I see it.

 

[Tyson]

Danault is an outstanding 200 foot player. Great hockey sense and will get better.

This acquisition by Bergevin does prove that even a blind squirrel can find a nut

 

[BaseballCoach]

Danault is an outstanding 200 foot player. Great hockey sense and will get better.

This acquisition by Bergevin does prove that even a blind squirrel can find a nut

Or that a blind nut can find a useful squirrel, LOL

 

[Brainiac]

Danault is an outstanding 200 foot player. Great hockey sense and will get better.

This acquisition by Bergevin does prove that even a blind squirrel can find a nut

We can complain all we want about Bergevin, but he's still kinda good at finding these bargain players like Danault, Byron, Weise etc. He even got some skilled players for cheap like Vanek, Radulov.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

Danault is an outstanding 200 foot player. Great hockey sense and will get better.

This acquisition by Bergevin does prove that even a blind squirrel can find a nut

He's not outstanding whatsoever. Bergeron is outstanding. Reserve the superlatives for worthy players, please.

Well I didn't say 'only did so' if you read my comments. I said that it sounds like that.

Plus this kind of distracts from the original point that you were saying my reason that people aren't praising Danault (one of the POSSIBLE reasons I thought of) was nonsense because virtually everybody praised the Drouin trade. I wouldn't say virtually everyone, there was plenty of detractors who wanted a C but semantics aside it was generally praised.

Having said that that was ONE of the possible reasons isn't invalidated because fans praised the Drouin trade. People are slow to praise MB. He's painted as someone who does NOTHING right and yes there are legit reasons why he's hated. He's done plenty wrong AGAIN which I've already stated.

If you think the large part of so-called 'MB detractors' who think he can't do ANYTHING right are objective then there's no reason to continue the discussion. I wouldn't say I'm a supporter. I'm losing faith in him overall though I do think there's things he's done better than previous regimes. Things that have been cancelled out by some horrendous things.

IMO the very vocal critics of MB AREN'T objective (sure no one really can but I feel there are a very small handful on here that are somewhere approaching that). That's not a crime. I just don't like it when they really seem to think so and are utterly convinced of it. I know people who are more objective and think themselves as less objective ironically enough.

Your point is obvious - after years of bad management, people distrust BargainBin Bergevin. Yes, of course. That's how goodwill works once you squander it.

 

[habalifeok]

The biggest step off track was Leblanc in the first round in 2009. It may have seemed a little off track then but it started a total derailment . The French Canadian hero the organization was looking for then may just maybe be Drouin who can be electrifying. No pressure Jonathan.

 

[Scriptor]

He's not outstanding whatsoever. Bergeron is outstanding. Reserve the superlatives for worthy players, please.


Your point is obvious - after years of bad management, people distrust BargainBin Bergevin. Yes, of course. That's how goodwill works once you squander it.

Would you agree with 'useful' 200' player? Good 200' player, or is that to nice an assessment? Slightly above average 200' player? Average 200' player. Bad 200' player? Useless, dime a dozen 200' player?

I'm really curious as to what superlative you would use so as to determine if I think that your opinion is out in left field or, actually, pretty clairvoyant.

After that, it will be a question of determining if my view of your opinion is out in left field. However, clarity is a good thing.

How would you describe Danrult's 200' game?

 

[Scriptor]

The biggest step off track was Leblanc in the first round in 2009. It may have seemed a little off track then but it started a total derailment . The French Canadian hero the organization was looking for then may just maybe be Drouin who can be electrifying. No pressure Jonathan.

To claim that Leblanc was a mistake is easy after the fact. His draft ranking made him a reasonable choice at the time.bIn the end, he sucked big time, but a lot had to do with circumstances, including an untimely ankle injury and lost confidence resulting from it.

Never a fan of the Leblanc pick, but it wasn't an asinine decision.

Hopefully, Drouin proves to be that local, francophone hero. To me, local is as important as francophone. Unfortunately, it's not with local boys like Mitchell that we will stir the passions of the fans. Better local than not, but choosing between a Bégin or a Drouin, for example, I don't think we end up with the same sentiment amongst the fan base, and right fully so, IMHO.

 

[Doc McKenna]

PP time for Habs forwards:

220:14 Patches 13 PPP
216:28 Radulov 16 PPP
142:27 Shaw 7 PPP
138:57 Chuckie 15 PPP
131:17 Gallagher 3 PPP
74:12 Plekanec 7 PPP
67:22 Lehkonen 4 PPP
50:56 Danault 2 PPP
44:14 Byron 4 PPP
43:11 DD (in 31 games ) 2 PPP

Danault did not play that much on the PP.

Danault wasn't on the powerplay AT ALL till halfway through the season, thanks for showing how his use is like Daveys(Same production despite good linemates).

This was the whole discussion I was in the other day. He isn't getting 39 seconds a game for 82 games, he GOT 1:10 or so for 47 Games Its not high but its not the 10-20 second tail end of PP like some of you are describing.

Gallagher was awful last year, but playing with a broken hand.. again, is bound to effect his play.

Hopefully, Drouin proves to be that local, francophone hero. To me, local is as important as francophone. Unfortunately, it's not with local boys like Mitchell that we will stir the passions of the fans. Better local than not, but choosing between a Bégin or a Drouin, for example, I don't think we end up with the same sentiment amongst the fan base, and right fully so, IMHO.

If the player has heart and plays well for the CH i don't think it matters what his origins are. Look at Pks return or Saku. So I don't believe it does matter except to a certain somewhat biased set of fans. I have no extra praise for local guys like Domi, Rychel, Jovo, Gleeson etc. Adam Graves is the exception, why? Because he comes home and gives back to the community all the time. Even though he was a ranger and didn't play for the wings or leafs(local top team at 35% and 40% of the population) he was still praised because of his charity while Domi was still thought of as a cement head despite playing for the leafs by their local fans.

 

[Scriptor]

If the player has heart and plays well for the CH i don't think it matters what his origins are. Look at Pks return or Saku. So I don't believe it does matter except to a certain somewhat biased set of fans. I have no extra praise for local guys like Domi, Rychel, Jovo, Gleeson etc. Adam Graves is the exception, why? Because he comes home and gives back to the community all the time. Even though he was a ranger and didn't play for the wings or leafs(local top team at 35% and 40% of the population) he was still praised because of his charity while Domi was still thought of as a cement head despite playing for the leafs by their local fans.

In the end, fans seek to identify with a player. A local player has an advantage at the start. If he doesn't work hard and/or produce, he'll likely be the first one that fans turn on like wolves.

Expectations are actually much higher of local players, in Montreal, at least. It's not a pretty trait when it comes to Montrealers.

 

[CrAzYNiNe]

Danault played about 30 sec of PP per game on average. You expect serious production there? I watched the games last year and I can't say I remember Danault starting on the first PP unit, or even getting out there with 1 min of PP left. I mean, I'm sure it happened a few times but not in the amount where you'd say : ah yes he was a fixture on the PP last year.

Plus you keep forgetting that Danault only played half the year on the top line with top linemates.

Weise and Danault are absolutely nothing alike in any way I can fathom.

He had very few games where he played a lot on the PP. This is how it broke down:

He didn't get a lot of ice time, but neither did he produce.

His PP TOI was never stable, some games 0 other games 2 minutes. When you look at the above link, you can see he never earned more ice time.

Being completely analytical:

He earned his first point on the PP after only 6 minutes of total PP time in 40 games. Amazing! That was very good point/ice time ratio. Definitely deserved more ice time, and that is what he got.

After that he got more regular PP ice time, over the next 32 games he had about 43 minutes of ice time until his next point.

At that point he played on 2:30 more over the last 8 games or so, which were dominated by Shaw playing center on the PP or Galchenyuk.

Again, I won't read too much into 50 minutes of PP, but he needs to earn his time. He will certainly be given a chance next season, it's up to him to perform.

 

[bsl]

Against weaker competition his speed and defensive awareness make him a great third line center on any team in this league, he is however not 1st line material, I like this player and maybe feel he could be a modern version of Carbo and that would be great, he lacks the top end talent to be higher than that.

I agree. But then go look at carbo's stats in junior. He'd be a top ten pick today. Carbo had far more offensive ability than pd.

Different era.

I'll take pd as number 2 c this year because Habs have no one else. And He's solid on d. Could be worse.

But he is not the long term solution to top 2 c.

And Chucky is not ready for number 1. Danault by default will have to be number one because he is better at defense than Chucky.

Welcome to mb world.

I think we can all agree on this.

 

[BaseballCoach]

I agree. But then go look at carbo's stats in junior. He'd be a top ten pick today. Carbo had far more offensive ability than pd.

Different era.

I'll take pd as number 2 c this year because Habs have no one else. And He's solid on d. Could be worse.

But he is not the long term solution to top 2 c.

And Chucky is not ready for number 1. Danault by default will have to be number one because he is better at defense than Chucky.

Welcome to mb world.

I think we can all agree on this.

Every team needs to develop its own talent to fill important slots.

I see nothing wrong with giving Alex Galchenyuk the responsibility to center Pacioretty and Gallagher for instance. His two wingers are good defensively and they were one of the hottet lines offensively in the latter part of 2015-16.

I see nothing wrong with giving Philip Danault the opportunity to develop a bit further and solidify his position as a #2C. He is not a Malkin type #2 of course, but if that is what we want let's be honest and say expect want TWO ELITE #1s and nothing less!

If we have to acquire someone as a building block, it would be to replace what Nathan Beaulieu was; the guy to play top-4 minutes paired with Shea Weber, leaving Jeff Petry paired with a good defensive D.

Philip Danault has not shown any slowdown in his maturation process yet, and I feel we must continue to support that process for as long as it can play out for.

 

[Spearmint Rhino]

Every team needs to develop its own talent to fill important slots.

I see nothing wrong with giving Alex Galchenyuk the responsibility to center Pacioretty and Gallagher for instance. His two wingers are good defensively and they were one of the hottet lines offensively in the latter part of 2015-16.

I see nothing wrong with giving Philip Danault the opportunity to develop a bit further and solidify his position as a #2C. He is not a Malkin type #2 of course, but if that is what we want let's be honest and say expect want TWO ELITE #1s and nothing less!

If we have to acquire someone as a building block, it would be to replace what Nathan Beaulieu was; the guy to play top-4 minutes paired with Shea Weber, leaving Jeff Petry paired with a good defensive D.

Philip Danault has not shown any slowdown in his maturation process yet, and I feel we must continue to support that process for as long as it can play out for.

There's nothing wrong with hoping guys exceed expectations, it's when you bank on them exceeding expectations is when you run into problems, we can't go into the season without a #1C and expect to compete, basically the story of Montreal for the last 2 decades and we've learnt nothing.

Chucky being a great #2 and Danault being a great #3 is what we need to be successful