Player Discussion Phillip Danault II: 2nd C? edition

[optimus2861]

If you think having a #2 center at 49 points, is good... You must clearly be happy with the work Marc Bergevin has done with this franchise...

I did not ever say it is good and if you think for one red minute that I am happy with Marc Bergevin you clearly have not read one single other post I've been making on this board since 2015 or so.

I'm not a particular fan of Danault, myself, and tend to think he's somewhat overrated. And I'm not at all saying that 49 points for a #2C makes a team a Cup contender. Probably not. Nor am I even saying that I think Danault would be a particularly good #2C. Probably more of a low-end one, better utilized as a #3C.

But, in today's NHL.. 49 points would be crazy good for #3C and probably means you'd have the likes of Crosby/Malkin ahead of that guy. 49, 50 points, is a low-end to average #2C. Certainly not a #1C.

 

[Mrb1p]

I agree that he's shown enough to be considered a top-6 player but he didn't spend the majority of his time on the 4th line. He played 13 games to start last year on the 4th line and then was put with Pacioretty, throughout the year he bounced around a bit but he spent less then 30 games in total in the bottom six during this year and last.

What would be interesting to see is if he can play wing and still maintain his production in the top-6. If he can help alleviate the defensive responsibilities and faceoffs for either Drouin or Galchenyuk it would solve a lot of problems for us down the middle.

Why use it at W when he's a better center than Drouin ?

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

Why use it at W when he's a better center than Drouin ?

Because Drouin is the chosen one.

 

[CrAzYNiNe]

There are 31 1st line centers and 31 2nd line centers in the NHL (Last year it was 30 & 30). That said there are elite 1st line centers, there are average 1st line centers, and there are below average 1st line centers, etc...

The thing to keep in mind is that to be a contender you don't need just any 1st line player, you need the high end 1st liners so that you can compete and beat top teams.

I don't agree. Why are you a below average first line center when you can just be a 2nd line center?

The number of teams does not designate the number of top line players. The quality of players designate the number of top line players.

 

[ginomini]

I don't agree. Why are you a below average first line center when you can just be a 2nd line center?

The number of teams does not designate the number of top line players. The quality of players designate the number of top line players.

There is a difference between a fantasy/cup winning team and a realistically competitive team. Having a first line center of 60-65 points and a second of 50 is realistic.

If Montreal would have, lets say, Ryan O'Reilly, they would most likely be a playoff team (or atleast a playoff caliber team).

A GM can't build a team out of fantasy land. He must build it with the assets he has. I don't think it is realistic to say MTL could/should have an PPG 1C and a 60 pts 2C.

They can clearly be competitive with Danault as a 2C and a guy like O'Reilly as 1C, which makes Danault a 2C.

 

[Sorinth]

I don't agree. Why are you a below average first line center when you can just be a 2nd line center?

The number of teams does not designate the number of top line players. The quality of players designate the number of top line players.

The number of teams absolutely designates the number of top line players because that's how many spots there are. If it's based off of points (ie 65+ means your a 1st liner) you could end up with say 40 1st line centers. How can you claim a guy is a 1st line center if no team in the league would play him on the 1st line?

Your definition is even more weird because a Gretsky can come in the league and suddenly there are 10 less 1st line centers just because he raises the average so much. That's pretty nonsensical.

 

[Sorinth]

Why use it at W when he's a better center than Drouin ?

The simple answer is that centers have the puck on their stick more often then wingers and I'd rather the puck on Drouin's stick then Danault's. Drouin also has a much higher ceiling so it makes more sense to help him reach it then it does to to focus on Danault's ceiling. If Drouin gets close to his potential we have a high end 1st line center, if Danault reaches his ceilling we have another Plekanec, good but simply not good enough.

 

[CrAzYNiNe]

The number of teams absolutely designates the number of top line players because that's how many spots there are. If it's based off of points (ie 65+ means your a 1st liner) you could end up with say 40 1st line centers. How can you claim a guy is a 1st line center if no team in the league would play him on the 1st line?

Your definition is even more weird because a Gretsky can come in the league and suddenly there are 10 less 1st line centers just because he raises the average so much. That's pretty nonsensical.

So Malkin is a #2 center by your definition.

Your method doesn't work. The NHL doesn't have 31/93 top line players. The number of teams does not designate the how many top players in the NHL. Neither does my average method. Kopitar is a #1 center, last year his number weren't there. Discussions are needed to see who is included and who is excluded. But no where should the number of teams be the be all, end all number of top line players.

 

[Sorinth]

So Malkin is a #2 center by your definition.

Your method doesn't work. The NHL doesn't have 31/93 top line players. The number of teams does not designate the how many top players in the NHL. Neither does my average method. Kopitar is a #1 center, last year his number weren't there. Discussions are needed to see who is included and who is excluded. But no where should the number of teams be the be all, end all number of top line players.

Since we are using the label to rank players you have to consider what would happen if players were evenly distributed. So Malkin would be a #1 because he's among the top 31 centers. It's really simple rank the centers from best to worst, the top 31 centers are 1st line players because they would play on the 1st line of an NHL team.

 

[gillyguzzler]

Danault has been openly critical for certain players for being lazy (without naming them). He agents as made similar comments on the weekend. He named names.

I wonder how all this is playing in the dressing room.

 

[Price is Wright]

Danault has been openly critical for certain players for being lazy (without naming them). He agents as made similar comments on the weekend. He named names.

I wonder how all this is playing in the dressing room.

If any of that is true, the captain should deal with it, with the leadership committee supporting.

Unless of course he's calling out the captain, which would be fair.

 

[jfm133]

Ryan O'Reilly has similar stats as Danault this year, same for Toews and some others good names. What some does not want to recognize is the fact that Danault is still improving. There is no Radulov at his side this year and his stats are better. Imagine, he plays with Pacioretty and still find a way to get points. At the same age Plekanec got 47 points, the year after 69, and then 39. Danault is clearly the successor of Plekanec. Solid two way center.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Ryan O'Reilly has similar stats as Danault this year, same for Toews and some others good names. What some does not want to recognize is the fact that Danault is still improving. There is no Radulov at his side this year and his stats are better. Imagine, he plays with Pacioretty and still find a way to get points. At the same age Plekanec got 47 points, the year after 69, and then 39. Danault is clearly the successor of Plekanec. Solid two way center.

Love Danault. I'm not sold on him still trending significantly upward from here but I do think he can still be better marginally. If he could be anywhere near prime Pleks (one that isn't soft as sh#t in a sneaker) then that would be amazing. It is possible but I wouldn't bet on it. If he could do that and Peopling could be a legit #1 (yes both these cases are extreme best case scenarios) then we'd be in decent shape.

I don't like him calling out people but if one was Pacioretty then I'd want him to be the new captain. If it's Galchenyuk then it's like kicking someone while they're down.

 

[Kudo Shinichi]

You realize that the position a players plays on NHL.com is not actually indicative of where he lines up on the ice? (Drouin is now a C under last years stats. He didn't play center for TB)

You realize the NHL doesn't have 62 top 6 centers? You can take the lazy way out, you can look at the stats in that manner and draw your own conclusions. If I take your way of thinking, that means Connor McDavid at 100 points is a 1st line center and so is Bozak? This doesn't make any sense, does it make sense to you?

Like I said, the Habs don't have a #1 center. That means that your #2 center and #3 center need to step up and produce more. Having a 70 pts #1 and a 60pts #2 is something any team can live with. Have a 60 pt #1 and a 50 pt #2 is a recipe for failure. The Habs don't even have any center that is capable of producing 50 pts... at least not as an NHL center.

The way I calculate is I take ppg for players that have played at least half a season. I take the top 180 players. I average out the top 90 and the next 90. With the average I have a good idea of where the line is drawn for a top 3 player and a top 6 player. Obviously exceptions, obviously you will have omissions. Depending on where the outliers are, you have anywhere between 15-25 #1 centers in the NHL in any given year. This year the gap was large between McDavid, Crosby, Backstrom and Scheifele. This leads to a lower amount of top 3 centers, where it was about 15 of them. This means that the NHL had only about 50-55 top 6 centers, with 35-40 centers being top 6 but not top 3.

This isn't a science class. Nothing I just proposed is anywhere near a science. However as far as my understanding of hockey, a 49 point center is not a top 6 player, especially not on a team that is starved of consistent offence.

If you think having a #2 center at 49 points, is good... You must clearly be happy with the work Marc Bergevin has done with this franchise...

Last year, here are the centers that had 60 pts or more: McDavid, Crosby, Backstrom, Scheifele, Getzlaf, Malkin, Seguin, Matthews, Zetterberg, Carter, Tavares, Staal, Kadri, Johansen.

Except for Kadri and maybe Staal, all of them are number 1 centers.

If you go under 60 pts, you get names like Kuznetsov, Monahan, Toews, Bergeron, Giroux, etc.
Those are also players considered number 1 centers.

And you're telling me a number 2 center should be a player like those mentioned above?
This isn't fantasy land...

Also what the habs have or don't have has nothing to do with the definition of a 2nd line center. Our team being starved in offense doesn't mean that the 50 pt pace of Danault isn't top 6 production. In fact, the fact that we suck offensively makes it even more impressive for Danault to be on pace for 50 pts...

 

[scrubadam]

If only the habs had a former 1st round pick 25 year old that can get 45 or more points with 0 PP time while playing C.

I only wish somehow the habs could get a player like that especially for 2 underperforming UFA vets and also manage to get the team they trade with to THROW IN a 2nd round pick.

Too bad we won't get a guy like that eh?

 

[LaP]

If you go under 60 pts, you get names like Toews, Bergeron, Giroux, etc.
Those are also players considered number 1 centers.

All guys who had many 60 points seasons in career. People should stop with the 1 year analysis. YOu evaluate a player based on what he gave in his career and in the last 3 to 5 years (unless the guy is over 30 then it's more tricky). Not what he gave TEH last year and only TEH last year. If you do that then Byron is almost as good as Kopitar cause he did almost as good as Kopitar last year. Price is one of the worst goalie this season. I still take him over most of the guys in front of him.

I like Danault. He can be a 2nd line center in a strong lineup. But if he'S driving your offense you are in trouble. Danault and Shaw as a 2nd line doesn't cut it.

To be more clear about strong lineup let's just pretend AG and Drouin would be tearing the league apart on a first line with Gallagher. Radulov and Patch would be playing on a 2nd line with Danault. Then Danault would be fine as a 2nd line center.

 

[MarkovsKnee]

He's on on pace for 15 goals and 49 pts
Thats good 2nd line production

I think the reason people have a hard time accepting him as a 2nd line center is because there isnt a lot of wow in his game. If we showed those people clips of Eller and clips of Danault without knowing who the players were, they would probably think that Eller is the better offensive player simply because of the wow plays he can make.
But in reality, its Danault.

His skating is elite and explosive. He has high hockey iq. His passing level is good, his shot is decent and accurate. Hes good at deflecting puck, and hes good along the boards. Except for his skating, he doesnt really have something that stands up much. However, he isn't bad at anything. Hes at least average at everything.
A guy like Pacioretty is a tremendous goalscorer, but he sucks at passing the puck.
Galchenyuk is very talented, but his board battles and sometime his decision making leaves to be desire.
Danault doesn't have have a weakness like that.

Not to mention, Danault is really good defensively.

Danault is great along the boards in the offensive zone, but not so much in the defensive zone. He relies too much on zoning out & using his stick to poke at the puck rather than getting body position on a player & stick checking. He's on the wrong side of the puck too often in our zone & ends up chasing.

He gets beat in the neutral zone a lot too. He's not a guy who too often breaks up plays in the neutral zone, like Plekanec's can & turn the puck up the ice.

However, when he does get the puck he's very good at either moving it out himself or getting it forward to a teammate. You don't see him get picked very often or make dumb turnovers. His puck management skills are his best skills, by far.

If Chucky could manage the puck as well as Danault can, he'd be a top line forward. It's Chucky's biggest weakness.

Danault is not nearly as good defensively as I'd like him to be. He's not a shutdown guy at all. He's pretty average pker too.

Ultimately, I think Danault's place on a team is as a 3rd line center. He's top 6 with us by default & he gets a lot of opportunities with us he wouldn't get with other teams because we lack so much at the center position.

 

[Price is Wright]

Danault has one undeniable skill: even strength points.

If we include last years numbers he has 55 ESP in 116 games, behind Pacioretty but ahead five points on Byron and 15 ESP ahead of Galchenyuk.

That's pretty good. That lands him 29th for all centres in the league for those two years.

Now that doesn't make him a first line centre, even if he's Top 30 in centres for even strength points. But it reminds me of Tyler Bozak, which could be his true comparison. Bozak isn't anything special, and he should never be your 1C, but your 2C? He can certainly do the job.

Of course it'd be better to have two centres better than him so he can command a third line and put ESP without eating PP time from anyone, but until the Canadiens have that sort of depth, him playing 2C isn't terrible.

 

[mariolemieux66]

Phil D 135th in the league in scoring.

 

[Miller Time]

Danault is a very good top 9 C, on a great cap hit for what he delivers.

Shame we are so thin on talent/have such a poorly assembled roster that we need him to be bring far more than he can right now.

 

[Mario le Magnifique]

Danault is a very good top 9 C, on a great cap hit for what he delivers.

Shame we are so thin on talent/have such a poorly assembled roster that we need him to be bring far more than he can right now.

I don't think we can ask for more, he's our top producer ATM. Which tells you how bad we are.

 

[Habs100]

I'm happy for Danault. I think he is a number 2 center, especially on a team with a true number 1 center. It's a shame we lost Radulov. He was a perfect linemate for Danault. Radulov can carry the line offensively, especially from a play making perspective. Danault can hold his own and is particularly effective at puck retrieval. Then you had Pacioretty the shooter.

Everybody knew we needed to come into this season with two good offensive lines. It was easy to shut that line down. Getting Drouin made sense from that Perspective. All we would have had to do was find out who the best player is to play with Drouin and Galchenyuk. Byron? Hudon? Gallagher? Carr? Lehkonen? Scherbak? We have 6 candidates. 6! I'm sure one would do the job. But instead we let Radulov, the heart and soul of the offense walk!

 

[Mrb1p]

Nashville had a worse 2C than Danault last year and Johansen might not be that much better than danault, yet most call the Preds the perfect team. Shame.

 

[Leon Lucius Black]

He's fine as a second line centre, plus he's just 24 and could still get better.

Most top 6 centres get a lot of their points on the PP, he's comparable pointwise to guys like Couturier/Jordan Staal who produce a decent amount of points at even strength but don't put up many on the PP.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

He's an elite middle 6 centerman which makes him a great #2. He's not a high skill guy who you want setting up your top sniper, but he's going to do it all for you 5 on 5.