Player Discussion POLL? On a contender Danault is a:

[Habs Icing]

Top centres tend to play with top wingers, it's not a phenomenon exclusive to Danault. Over the past 2 seasons Danault has outproduced guys like Kuznetsov, Aho, Giroux, Rantanen, and Wheeler at 5v5. Are their performances less impressive than Danault's? They produced less points and they got to play with guys like Ovechkin, Teravainen, Svechnikov, Couturier, Voracek, MacKinnon, and Scheifele.

How many of those points were goals and first assists? When it comes to offense Danault benefits from being lined up with Gallagher and Tatar not the other way arounf. Even Danault indirectly said as much when he squawked in the presser about playing with defensive linemates. An argument can be made Gallagher & Tatar would have better offensive numbers if played with an offensive center.

 

[Kriss E]

How many of those points were goals and first assists? When it comes to offense Danault benefits from being lined up with Gallagher and Tatar not the other way arounf. Even Danault indirectly said as much when he squawked in the presser about playing with defensive linemates. An argument can be made Gallagher & Tatar would have better offensive numbers if played with an offensive center.

It's David Desharnais discussion all over again. Some just refused to see the obvious, he was being carried by Patches and Gallagher/Cole/Vanek.
Danault scored 3 goals in his last 34 games this year, and he's not a playmaker, nor is he even creative with the puck...there's a reason why he doesn't want his role to change and drop down the line up. He knows fully well he won't be able to produce nearly as much.

 

[Habs Icing]

I thought it would be useful to get some statistical reference material, so I gathered some. These are combined results compared to other centers from the past two seasons.

1. Time on ice/game played

View attachment 367087

Conclusion: he's been used as high-end #2/low-end #1 C. That's if you believe there are 31 #1 centers in the league.

2. ES time on ice/game played

View attachment 367088

Conclusion: as above.

3. SH time on ice/game played

View attachment 367089

Conclusion: one of the heaviest used penalty killing cennterman in the NHL.

4. PP time on ice/game played

View attachment 367090

Conclusion: negligible usage

5. Points/game played

View attachment 367091

Conclusion: considering that many players ranked higher play wing (despite being labeled as C), and the company he's in, these are #2 C numbers.

6. ES points

View attachment 367092

Conslusion: Danault would likely be lower in a ES points/games played stat but I haven't found it. Still, if one believes that 41st place in TOI means a #1 C usage, then it logically follows that this kind of ES production is also on a level of #1 C.

7. Points/60 minutes played

View attachment 367093

Conclusion: it doesn't seem like Danault's point production is inflated by his icetime

8. Primary assists/game played

View attachment 367094

Conclusion: it seems like there's nothing wrong with Danault's ability to manufacture goals.

9. Primary assists/60 minutes played

View attachment 367095

Conclusion: again, not inflated by icetime. View attachment 367087 View attachment 367088 View attachment 367089 View attachment 367090 View attachment 367091 View attachment 367092 View attachment 367093 View attachment 367094 View attachment 367095

You can't just post stats up and make claims without some context. We'll stick with Hab players. Players everyone in this forum have watched. For example your last two stats show Primary assists/games played and primary assists/60 minutes played. In both examples Domi is ahead of Danault despite the fact that Domi in the two years he was here was played with offensively weaker linemates. That tells me Danault has been played above his station.

Another observation in the points/60 minutes
....................G/60................A1/60.......................A2/60
Domi .........97 .....................89 ............................43
Danault......59.........................87.............................79

Those numbers again tell me Danault is not the offensive driver on his line whereas Domi is. Danault benefits from paying with Gally and Tatar. You switch linemates for those two players and Danault's numbers would be in the trash can

 

[Archijerej]

Danault was the 19th most used Center at ES. He played around 19min total per game here. That is not 2nd line ice time.

Where do you get that from?

Here are the stats for this past season:

Last two seasons (when the Tatar-Danault-Gallagher line was created) combined:

My point stands anyways, if you're going to say he produced like a top line scorer at ES, then let him do it getting 2nd line minutes.

1. He is getting 2nd line minutes, as evidenced by the stats above.

2. I'm not claiming anything. I'm showing. Here are his ES points the last two seasons combined:

Here are his ES points/60 minutes

How on earth these stats make you conclude his production is inflated by his icetime, when he's actually producing MORE than his icetime suggests he should?

How on earth can anyone conclude from these stats that he's not at least a good #2 C?

 

[Archijerej]

If Danault is your #1C, your team will also suck.

Who's arguing against that? NotProkofievian, who's representing a 0,6% opinion on the issue and is obviously f***ing around?

I never claimed he's not a good #2.

Great! We're in agreement.

I said let him produce as he is but do it getting used as a 2C.

Wait, what? So is he a good #2 or is he not?

So...he didn't score 50pts? K, thanks.
Pace=/=Doing it.

Oh, give me a break.

Great so you agree his play is not #1C level, which is what I was arguing against. So...not exactly sure what your post is about in the end. I never argued Danault can't/isn't a good 2C.

So again, is he a good #2 or not?

 

[NotProkofievian]

Who's arguing against that? NotProkofievian, who's representing a 0,6% opinion on the issue and is obviously f***ing around?

Lol.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

If someone can find ES primary points per 60 for all cmen (lol), it would help settle the debate.

Hypothesis;

- Danault will be much lower than 17th among all Cs

- it will show Dano's production is due to his linemates and not the other way around.

 

[Archijerej]

If someone can find ES primary points per 60 for all cmen (lol), it would help settle the debate.

It most certainly would. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, the stat is not readily available and has to be computed from goals/60 minutes and primary assist/60 minutes.

- Danault will be much lower than 17th among all Cs

He will. His lack of goalscoring will drag him down. But the argument is not that he's a top-31 center in the NHL. And certainly not offensively.

- it will show Dano's production is due to his linemates and not the other way around.

How many more points would you expect from Tatar and Gallagher if they were not dragged down by Danault?

It's an important question, because it might mean that we have one of the best goalscorers in the world at RW and a top-10 (maybe better?) LW and stupid Phil is spoiling it all for us two seasons in a row.

 

[General Fanager]

If KK lives up to the fans' expectations, Danault should see time on the PP only when an epidemic of injuries strikes the team.

If just one of KK or Suzuki is injured then Danault should be on the second unit.

Just my opinion but I would have KK on the first PP and Danault on the second.

Suzuki I would have on the point with Weber. Unless MB gets The Habs a PP QB

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

How many more points would you expect from Tatar and Gallagher if they were not dragged down by Danault?

It's an important question, because it might mean that we have one of the best goalscorers in the world at RW and a top-10 (maybe better?) LW and stupid Phil is spoiling it all for us two seasons in a row.

It's a bad question because it assumes several things, none of which I infered or said. Your question is based on assumptions, foremost being that it ignores the line is functional because of chemistry. Gally or Tatar might certainly benefit offensively from a true #1 center, but the real question is whether Danault can produce outside of getting our better wingers.

 

[Kriss E]

Where do you get that from?

Here are the stats for this past season:

Last two seasons (when the Tatar-Danault-Gallagher line was created) combined:


1. He is getting 2nd line minutes, as evidenced by the stats above.

2. I'm not claiming anything. I'm showing. Here are his ES points the last two seasons combined:

Total ice time at ES. You didn't show shit. Comparing his minutes to Draisalt or others is pointless. Fact remains, he is the #1 center in Mtl, or at least has been used as such for the past few seasons.

Here are his ES points/60 minutes

How on earth these stats make you conclude his production is inflated by his icetime, when he's actually producing MORE than his icetime suggests he should?

How on earth can anyone conclude from these stats that he's not at least a good #2 C?

...

I never argued Danault can't/isn't a good 2C.

Would be good if you didn't just invent things so you can argue...It's like you want to think that's what I'm saying just so you can write your posts.

I said, let him produce as much as he did as a #2C in Mtl. It's pretty freaking simple, clear, and it's not bashing anyone.
It's not about inflated ice time, it's also getting the best wingers and opportunities.

As I said, to me, Danault is in between Plekanec and Eller, which is anything but a knock.

 

[Kriss E]

Who's arguing against that? NotProkofievian, who's representing a 0,6% opinion on the issue and is obviously f***ing around?

The guy I was quoting. If you're going to jump into a conversation, make sure you followed it.

Wait, what? So is he a good #2 or is he not?

Dear Lord.

Oh, give me a break.

So he didn't, great. Moving on.

So again, is he a good #2 or not?

Let him be the #2 center in Mtl and let's take it from there shall we? I'm sure he's a capable #2.

 

[Archijerej]

Total ice time at ES. You didn't show shit. Comparing his minutes to Draisalt or others is pointless.

I've shown ES icetime per game, both for this season and for last two seasons combined.

Fact remains, he is the #1 center in Mtl, or at least has been used as such for the past few seasons.

Yes, that's true. He gets a bit more icetime at even strength than our second most used center. My point was to demonstrate that by league standards, he's being used more like a #2C in terms of icetime.

Seems like you weren't arguing against this point. I misunderstood. I apologize.

I said, let him produce as much as he did as a #2C in Mtl. It's pretty freaking simple, clear, and it's not bashing anyone.

Fair enough. I'll be as happy as anyone if Suzuki proves he's a better player as soon as next season.

 

[Archijerej]

You can't just post stats up and make claims without some context. We'll stick with Hab players. Players everyone in this forum have watched. For example your last two stats show Primary assists/games played and primary assists/60 minutes played. In both examples Domi is ahead of Danault despite the fact that Domi in the two years he was here was played with offensively weaker linemates. That tells me Danault has been played above his station.

Another observation in the points/60 minutes
....................G/60................A1/60.......................A2/60
Domi .........97 .....................89 ............................43
Danault......59.........................87.............................79

Those numbers again tell me Danault is not the offensive driver on his line whereas Domi is. Danault benefits from paying with Gally and Tatar. You switch linemates for those two players and Danault's numbers would be in the trash can

To make this short I can only repeat what I previously posted in our discussions on this topic:

I fully agree Max Domi is a better offensive player than Philip Danault.

That said, Danault is a significantly better centerman then Domi.

I wouldn't mind Domi staying as a winger if he could accept the role and if we could move Drouin without taking a loss.

 

[JoelWarlord]

Don't really get the "3C on a contender" thing. Which contenders? He's a 3C for Pittsburgh and Washington sure, maybe Tampa when Stamkos is healthy (although I think they'd run Point-Danault-Cirelli). He's a 2C in St. Louis, Dallas, or with the Islanders. He's better than Hayes, Horvat, Krejci, and Kadri. That's a lot of good teams where Danault would be the 2nd best C on the roster. He'd be a 2C on any of the Chicago cup teams too.

I can understand being skeptical of the even strength scoring because he's playing with top wingers and doesn't have the tools to be a top end PP guy and raw point scorer and all that, I think it's fine to say he's not a "true" 1C because of those factors. I just don't really see the reason to downgrade him to "great 3C" when there is absolutely no way there are 62 centers in the league better than him and he's better than the 2C of 6/8 of the final 8 teams, last year's cup winner and finalist, and would have been the 2C on the Chicago cup teams.

 

[Ozmodiar]

It's David Desharnais discussion all over again. Some just refused to see the obvious, he was being carried by Patches and Gallagher/Cole/Vanek.
Danault scored 3 goals in his last 34 games this year, and he's not a playmaker, nor is he even creative with the puck...there's a reason why he doesn't want his role to change and drop down the line up. He knows fully well he won't be able to produce nearly as much.

same as DD because: benefits from playing with linemates who are better than him.

different than DD because: for Danault, if you take away those linemates, he’s still a good hockey player. Also, Danault has good line mates but not the luxury of the O-zone face offs, beer league line changes, etc...

 

[Kraken Jokes]

As a #2 but can temporarily fill in as a #1.


Considering he has been temporarily filling in as a #1 for the last 3-4 seasons, it's hard to argue that the answer is anything but this option.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

same as DD because: benefits from playing with linemates who are better than him.

different than DD because: for Danault, if you take away those linemates, he’s still a good hockey player. Also, Danault has good line mates but not the luxury of the O-zone face offs, beer league line changes, etc...

What we need is a mix between the two. A Philvid Desharnault!

Dano's two-way play mixed with Doh-vide's vision and passing.

 

[Koivu777]

I could see him getting dealt at the deadline next season.

 

[JoelWarlord]

If you're conclusion is...Danault is one the best ES players in the NHL and is therefore a first line center....then the method you used to reach this idea is completely f***ed and needs to be thrown in the garbage.

I really don't get your issue here. 80% of the game is played at even strength and Danault has demonstrably been among the best at driving offence at even strength while being elite defensively. That's a first liner to me. Colton Parayko is a #1 defenceman that's never broken 35 points.

If these other "true" first line forwards have the flair, the look, the style, the skill, and the killer instinct that Danault supposedly lacks, why can't they outscore him at even strength? I realize Danault plays with Tatar and Gallagher but Svechnikov and Teravainen aren't exactly chopped liver, why can't Aho outscore Danualt at even strength? Why can't Pettersson? Barkov? Bergeron? Eichel? All these guys can't meaningfully separate themselves offensively from Danault in the state where 80% of the game is played. Yes of course I would trade him for Aho, but that's not the question here because we can't readily acquire Sebastian Aho type players out of thin air.

Any moron can look at a stat sheet, look at the names, and just say ''well, he scored the most points, therefore he's the best, he scored 2nd most, therefore he's the 2nd best, 3rd is 3rd best...etc..etc...etc..'' or ''everyone in the top 93 scorers is a top liner because there are 31 teams x 3 players on the first line=93''...it's such a rudimentary analysis.
Drop the damn stats sheet already.

It's not just scoring, it's scoring combined with shot impacts and elite defence. Sean Monahan scores comparably to Danault at even strength and he sucks because he's useless defensively and mediocre at best at driving play. The point is that he can score similarly to these well-regarded players and provides immense value defensively while his peers are often mediocre to poor defenders.

He's got great defensive talent but very limited offensive abilities which lowers his potential, and his overall production is average at best with only one season of 50pts and 13 goal peak. This does not make him a top line center, in any way shape or form. There is no such thing as being a ''top center for 80% of the time'' because he was 9th in ES scoring as a center. Enough of this shit. What the hell am I reading, holy f***ing crap.

If you had a WR who was elite at regular scrimmage play but poor at returning punts and kickoffs would you dismiss him as "not a true 1WR" because his raw yardage ends up lower than other players who returned punts?

I don't care about his overall raw point production, why should I? He scores a lot at even strength, is an elite defender, and anchors the penalty kill. Why should I care if he can rack up 15 power play points to hit some arbitrary threshold of 60 or 70 points? Why wouldn't we just use him at ES and on the PK and give the PP time to more effective PP forwards like Suzuki?

 

[Kriss E]

same as DD because: benefits from playing with linemates who are better than him.

different than DD because: for Danault, if you take away those linemates, he’s still a good hockey player. Also, Danault has good line mates but not the luxury of the O-zone face offs, beer league line changes, etc...

I agree. My point was simply, he is way more dependent of his linemates being better offensively than he is, just like DD was.
As you pointed out though, you can remove his offense entirely and he'll still be useful.

 

[McGees]

I could see him getting dealt at the deadline next season.

If we are in contention which everyone expects us to be, they won’t trade him. They need to sign or trade him before that or risk losing him for nothing.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

I agree. My point was simply, he is way more dependent of his linemates being better offensively than he is, just like DD was.
As you pointed out though, you can remove his offense entirely and he'll still be useful.

So basically, he's two steps shy of being the equivalent of an old Joe Juneau.

 

[Ozmodiar]

What we need is a mix between the two. A Philvid Desharnault!

Dano's two-way play mixed with Doh-vide's vision and passing.

Could be as legendary as Dandouillon.

 

[Ozmodiar]

As a #2 but can temporarily fill in as a #1.


Considering he has been temporarily filling in as a #1 for the last 3-4 seasons, it's hard to argue that the answer is anything but this option.

Except the poll question specifies “on a contender”.