Player Discussion POLL? On a contender Danault is a:

[GigaMike]

Fair point, I've only focused on the results and sort of ignored how he got there. While I did cite a metric that goes deeper than ES points (EVO, which isolates a player's results from his usage), that still doesn't explain the how.

While Danault doesn't have a shot, imo that isn't a barrier to him being a top C. Guys like Getzlaf and Backstrom can get away with it, why can't Danault?

You say Danault isn't a playmaker, but imo that's false. In my opinion, from what I've watched, he's a very good playmaker. While he may not be creative with the puck, that doesn't make his passes any less effective imo. He's still an excellent puck distributor and is quite strong at setting up plays. The passes may not be flashy but they do the job. That's why he ranks so highly in primary assists, he's great at setting guys up. He's also a great puck carrier, making it easier to create offense since he's so effective at transition play, getting the puck out of the defensive zone and into the offensive zone. He's also great on the forecheck and taking the puck back, should MTL lose possession. All of these things lead to great offensive numbers, because all of these things are critical in creating offense. He's not a great offensive player because he puts up a lot of ES points (or EVO or whatever), he has those great numbers because he's a great offensive player. The things he does well (which I outlined above) lead to the great offensive numbers. Which, in turn, make him a great offensive player.

Huh? He's 45th in the league for center this season in primary assists...He's 3rd on the Habs behind Domi ans Suzuki

 

[mynamejeff420]

Huh? He's 45th in the league for center this season in primary assists...He's 3rd on the Habs behind Domi ans Suzuki

Sorry should've clarified that I meant 25 assists, since this exchange has been about 5v5 play and whether or not Danault a capable top line C at 5v5. Over the past 2 seasons he's 14th among Cs in primary assists at 5v5 and 25th overall.

 

[mynamejeff420]

Because they are way way way way better than Danault. In what world does someone even think to mention those guys in the same breath.
They're older now, but those guys were steady ppg players for a big chunk of their careers who hit 90-100pt plateaus.

For the Backstrom/Getzlaf comparisons:
(At 5v5)

Name	Years	GP	G	P	G/GP	P/GP
Phillip Danault	18/19-19/20	152	21	80	0.14	0.53
Nicklas Backstrom	12/13-13/14	130	15	54	0.12	0.42
Ryan Getzlaf	10/11-11/12	149	12	67	0.08	0.45

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The difference comes on the PP, at even strength they were neck and neck. While I'm not going to suggest Danault now is better than they were at his age, I am pointing out that he outproduced them at 5v5. So if Danault's 5v5 production right now isn't #1C quality, then neither was their at age 25/26.

Euhh...no, he's not. Desharnais was a better playmaker and he was mediocre at best.
You're fishing for arguments and reinventing Danault. A great puck carrier?? What in the hell are you talking about? His stickhandling is rudimentary, we've never seen this guy stickhandle through an opponent, his puck carrying skills are just plain basic.

His offensive numbers are not ''great'' and Phillip Danault is not a great offensive player FFS mate...
A great offensive player is Filip Forsberg, Matthews, Eichel, Aho, and the likes. Not f***ing Danault.
Holy shit.

Try watching the games closely and you'll see that I'm not wrong. He's stellar in transition and stellar at distributing the puck. He may not be a flashy player but that doesn't mean he's a bad one. It's very evident by the eye test. However, if that's not good enough for you, these things are tracked as well:

(First picture is 19/20, second is 18/19)

Danault is quantifiably a great passer (90th+ percentile in shot assists) and a monster in transition (great at getting the puck out of the zone, elite at getting the puck into the zone).

 

[Kriss E]

For the Backstrom/Getzlaf comparisons:
(At 5v5)

Name	Years	GP	G	P	G/GP	P/GP
Phillip Danault	18/19-19/20	152	21	80	0.14	0.53
Nicklas Backstrom	12/13-13/14	130	15	54	0.12	0.42
Ryan Getzlaf	10/11-11/12	149	12	67	0.08	0.45

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The difference comes on the PP, at even strength they were neck and neck. While I'm not going to suggest Danault now is better than they were at his age, I am pointing out that he outproduced them at 5v5. So if Danault's 5v5 production right now isn't #1C quality, then neither was their at age 25/26.

You have to be completely blind or know absolutely nothing about hockey to make any kind of parallel between Danault, Backstrom and Getzlaf.
Tomas Plekanec also outproduced them, who gives a flying f***, he was not better than them and nor is Danault.
Danault is not even better than Plekanec so just stop it with this nonsense.

Try watching the games closely and you'll see that I'm not wrong. He's stellar in transition and stellar at distributing the puck. He may not be a flashy player but that doesn't mean he's a bad one. It's very evident by the eye test. However, if that's not good enough for you, these things are tracked as well:

View attachment 367347View attachment 367346
(First picture is 19/20, second is 18/19)

When stats reading goes wrong.
I suggest you drop the stat sheet and do what you're telling others to do, watch the game.

Danault is quantifiably a great passer (90th+ percentile in shot assists) and a monster in transition (great at getting the puck out of the zone, elite at getting the puck into the zone).

Bahahaha....Danault the Great Passer.

 

[peate]

You have to be completely blind or no absolutely nothing about hockey to make any kind of parallel between Danault, Backstrom and Getzlaf.
Tomas Plekanec also outproduced them, who gives a flying f***, he was not better than them and nor is Danault.
Danault is not even better than Plekanec so just stop it with this nonsense.


When stats reading goes wrong.
I suggest you drop the stat sheet and do what you're telling others to do, watch the game.

Bahahaha....Danault the Great Passer.

I heard he has a great pick-up line.

 

[Habs Icing]

I heard he has a great pick-up line.

He stole it from Pee-Air

 

[angusyoung]

Such an immature way of looking at things.

My opinion or their attitude?

 

[Archijerej]

You say Danault isn't a playmaker, but imo that's false. In my opinion, from what I've watched, he's a very good playmaker.

I wouldn't probably go as far as calling it very good, but this is probably the most underrated aspect of Danault's game.

 

[mynamejeff420]

You have to be completely blind or know absolutely nothing about hockey to make any kind of parallel between Danault, Backstrom and Getzlaf.

You're the one saying Danault needs to produce like a top player. I compared his production to other top centres at the same age. He outproduced them. What's the problem there?

Tomas Plekanec also outproduced them, who gives a flying f***, he was not better than them and nor is Danault.

Plekanec did not outproduce them by the way, and Danault is better (both offensively and defensively) than Plekanec was at the same age. (Plekanec had 23 5v5 goals and 57 5v5 points in 161 games at their age, or 0.14 G/GP and 0.35 P/GP).

When stats reading goes wrong.
I suggest you drop the stat sheet and do what you're telling others to do, watch the game.

You're the one who keeps going back to the stats sheet. All you're saying is that Danault doesn't put up enough points to be a top centre. I hate to break this to you, but points are a stat. I've watched nearly every game Danault has played as a Hab. He passes the eye test with flying colours. If your stat sheet (hockeydb) is telling you that he's not very good, then maybe something is wrong with your stat sheet.

Bahahaha....Danault the Great Passer.

This is a take backed up both by the eye test (I've watched him play a lot and he is an effective passer) and the numbers (he sets up a lot of shots, at a better rate than ~95% of the forwards in the league). Try watching the game tape again and then tell me Danault is a bad passer.

 

[Kriss E]

You're the one saying Danault needs to produce like a top player. I compared his production to other top centres at the same age. He outproduced them. What's the problem there?

You're getting a few things confused. I said looking as a whole, he didn't, he finished 38th among centers but you decided to remove PP production as if a characteristic of a top liner is not to produce on the PP. Looking at just ES does not paint a full picture, otherwise, Plekanec was also a top liner which is a ridiculous assertion.
Also, you looked at his ES production to say he could be a very good 2nd line center. I never denied that he would but did precise he would have to produce very well when being used as a 2nd liner for him to prove that, which he hasn't quite done yet.

All very simple.

Plekanec did not outproduce them by the way, and Danault is better (both offensively and defensively) than Plekanec was at the same age. (Plekanec had 23 5v5 goals and 57 5v5 points in 161 games at their age, or 0.14 G/GP and 0.35 P/GP).

Plekanec during his career highs produced around 45 pts. I don't career about ''same age''. Danault is not a rookie and players makes the NHL at a younger age these days compared to back when Plek made it.
Danault is at his peak, when Plek was at his peak, he was way better than what Danault has shown.
Drop the damn stats already.

You're the one who keeps going back to the stats sheet. All you're saying is that Danault doesn't put up enough points to be a top centre. I hate to break this to you, but points are a stat. I've watched nearly every game Danault has played as a Hab. He passes the eye test with flying colours. If your stat sheet (hockeydb) is telling you that he's not very good, then maybe something is wrong with your stat sheet.

No I'm not, I've discussed his limitations, you're the one always resorting back to your stats because that's the only argument you have.
You obviously need glasses if you watched Danault and told yourself ''he's a top liner''. Either that or Danault is all you've ever watched.
There isn't a single expert who qualifies Danault as a top line center and there's a very good reason for that.

This is a take backed up both by the eye test (I've watched him play a lot and he is an effective passer) and the numbers (he sets up a lot of shots, at a better rate than ~95% of the forwards in the league). Try watching the game tape again and then tell me Danault is a bad passer.

I didn't say he was a bad passer. I said he's not a very good one as in, he isn't a playmaker and he's not creative with the puck.
Cycling the puck around and passing it to an open guy or the point doesn't qualify him as a ''very good passer''.

 

[Scintillating10]

Gallagher was right other day. Their line had no problem playing against top lines in league.

 

[Notabaguette]

Danault for 5million is a good deal. He is going for the money though. Look at the Pageau contract as a comparable.

He is a 2nd line C

 

[Rosso Scuderia]

He's the perfect 3rd C. That's a fact. If he's your 2nd C it's because you have a mediocre team.

He's been playing top 6 C for like 3 years now. Where did that lead us? We had better top 6 C in the past and we sucked too.

Have some f***ing standards people. His career year, he got 53 pts. He never scored more than 13 goals and he's been playing with our best wingers for 3 years now. How many playoffs round have we won with him playing top 6 C? He got outplayed by 2 kids that kicked him out of the top 6.

Stop using some stats to prove that he's top 6. People tried that before with DD claiming that he's 1st C. Having top 60 stats doesn't mean you're 2nd C, let alone a 2nd C for a contender.

But the question should be : are you comfortable having Danault playing top 6 C for the next 6-8 years. Or do you think Danault as a 2nd C or the C centering our best wingers good enough to make us a contender.

Because let me remind you that the goal is to win the f***ing cup. So if the question is can he play top 6? Well of course he can. He's been doing it for 3 years now... But can a team be a contender with Danault as a top 6 C. I really don't think so.

A team with MacKinnon and Kadri, Crosby Malkin, Backstrom Kuznetsov, Matthews Tavares as top 6 Cs are out of the playoffs but will always get the chance because their depth at C... Yet some people are ready to settle with Danault as a top 6 C and think we have a chance to be a contender with that. Lol I think some of you forgot how is it to have a winning team.

Also, his first 16 playoffs has been quite mediocre and he played most of those games with our best wingers.

So yeah... His role for a contender team should be 3rd C. Same as Eller when he won the cup. Same as Staal. Same as Bonino etc..

 

[mariolemieux66]

He's the perfect 3rd C. That's a fact. If he's your 2nd C it's because you have a mediocre team.

He's been playing top 6 C for like 3 years now. Where did that lead us? We had better top 6 C in the past and we sucked too.

Have some f***ing standards people. His career year, he got 53 pts. He never scored more than 13 goals and he's been playing with our best wingers for 3 years now. How many playoffs round have we won with him playing top 6 C? He got outplayed by 2 kids that kicked him out of the top 6.

Stop using some stats to prove that he's top 6. People tried that before with DD claiming that he's 1st C. Having top 60 stats doesn't mean you're 2nd C, let alone a 2nd C for a contender.

But the question should be : are you comfortable having Danault playing top 6 C for the next 6-8 years. Or do you think Danault as a 2nd C or the C centering our best wingers good enough to make us a contender.

Because let me remind you that the goal is to win the f***ing cup. So if the question is can he play top 6? Well of course he can. He's been doing it for 3 years now... But can a team be a contender with Danault as a top 6 C. I really don't think so.

A team with MacKinnon and Kadri, Crosby Malkin, Backstrom Kuznetsov, Matthews Tavares as top 6 Cs are out of the playoffs but will always get the chance because their depth at C... Yet some people are ready to settle with Danault as a top 6 C and think we have a chance to be a contender with that. Lol I think some of you forgot how is it to have a winning team.

Also, his first 16 playoffs has been quite mediocre and he played most of those games with our best wingers.

So yeah... His role for a contender team should be 3rd C. Same as Eller when he won the cup. Same as Staal. Same as Bonino etc..

He's a 53 points 1st line center for crying out loud. Danault has 4 PP points and 0 SH points. Danault is at best a 2nd line defensive forward and on a Stanley Cup team, that's just not enough. I hope we add to Danault and get a younger scoring forward with size.