Player Discussion POLL? On a contender Danault is a:

[CauZuki]

1 vote for number 1C, didn't know his agent was on HF...

 

[Skip Bayless]

Capable 2C, needs to be surrounded by talent.

 

[Kraken Jokes]

Except the poll question specifies “on a contender”.

Sure, he hasn't really been "temporary" #1 during that time either though.

 

[angusyoung]

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

If PD and MD are legitimately whining and crying about their deployment and TOI etc, get them out ASAP,not team players if that's their attitude.

 

[Mrb1p]

If PD and MD are legitimately whining and crying about their deployment and TOI etc, get them out ASAP,not team players if that's their attitude.

Agreed.

 

[mynamejeff420]

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.
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.

There are three things that determine whether or not you're a top liner. Your talent, your overall production and your potential. When you excel or are very good at all three, you're a legit top liner. Danault does not fit that mold. 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.

Hey I'm very fine with throwing out points as a stat. There's much better options anyways.\

Danault has the production to be considered a top liner at even strength, so he should be considered a top liner (a term that refers to even strength usage).

Obviously his offensive abilities aren't so limited that he can't outproduce some other more "talented" players, so maybe you're just underrating his offensive abilities.

 

[mynamejeff420]

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.

Danault is 28th in 5v5 points over the last 2 years and 23rd in first assists. Ahead of a number of guys who also get to play with linemates on par (or better) than Tatar and Gallagher.

If the points argument isn't good enough because of Tatar/Gallagher driving the line, which is fair (points are an imperfect measure and it's not impossible for a passenger to put up a lot of points) I can use GAR (Goals Above Replacement) instead. Based on the Even Strength Offense (EVO) component of GAR, Danault ranks 27th. Essentially, based on his play (GAR accounts for a number of contextual factors like quality of teammate, quality of competition, usage, zone starts, etc.), Danault has added 19.4 "goals" worth of even strength offense relative to a replacement level player. Only 26 forwards have added more value in terms of even strength offense. So even when you isolate Danault's performance from his teammates, he still comes up among the top players in the league.

 

[mynamejeff420]

Danault wasn't 9th in ES scoring. He finished 17th among Cs.

Last season, Domi finished 8th among Cs for ES points (62), while Dano was 32nd. Brock Nelson finished ahead of Dano this year, is he also a #1 C?

Danault was 9th among centres and 17th among forwards/skaters in 5v5 points. I assume you're looking at the NHL's website which includes 6v5 and 5v6 situations under the umbrella of "even strength" (which is silly because they're not even strength). By 5v5 points Nelson is 47th among forwards and 21st among centres, which is much less impressive than 17th and 9th. I don't think it's too wild of a claim to say Nelson performed like a low-end 1C this year (at even strength).

Also just for pedantry's sake, Domi was 5th among Cs in 5v5 points last year, and 11th among forwards, while Danault finished 30th among Cs in 5v5 points and 62nd among forwards. So I'd say last season Danault produced like a low end 1C and a high end 1C this year (at 5v5).

 

[Habs Icing]

Danault is 28th in 5v5 points over the last 2 years and 23rd in first assists. Ahead of a number of guys who also get to play with linemates on par (or better) than Tatar and Gallagher.

If the points argument isn't good enough because of Tatar/Gallagher driving the line, which is fair (points are an imperfect measure and it's not impossible for a passenger to put up a lot of points) I can use GAR (Goals Above Replacement) instead. Based on the Even Strength Offense (EVO) component of GAR, Danault ranks 27th. Essentially, based on his play (GAR accounts for a number of contextual factors like quality of teammate, quality of competition, usage, zone starts, etc.), Danault has added 19.4 "goals" worth of even strength offense relative to a replacement level player. Only 26 forwards have added more value in terms of even strength offense. So even when you isolate Danault's performance from his teammates, he still comes up among the top players in the league.

Even if all your analytics show what you think they do and I doubt it, Suzuki and KK will be better players (and I'm one who doesn't think KK is all that special but I do think he'll be better than Danault). What do you do then? Do you play Danault above his station and have one of the kids not develop? Do you trade Suzuki or KK so you can keep a center who will average 12 goals a season and that's playing with the best wingers on the team?

 

[Kriss E]

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

Well as I said previously, I put him in between Plek and Eller.

 

[Kriss E]

Hey I'm very fine with throwing out points as a stat. There's much better options anyways.\

Danault has the production to be considered a top liner at even strength, so he should be considered a top liner (a term that refers to even strength usage).

Obviously his offensive abilities aren't so limited that he can't outproduce some other more "talented" players, so maybe you're just underrating his offensive abilities.

I'm not underrating anything. You have provided zero arguments about his offensive abilities outside his ES points.
He has no shot, he is not a playmaker, he isn't particularly creative with the puck...it's very obvious he is benefitting a lot from playing with two of the best wingers.
He is not a Plekanec who would create his own offense and was consistent with it regardless who was on his wings for most of his career.

 

[Kriss E]

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.

Well if that's a top line center to you, don't wonder why your team sucks ass and never makes the POs.
Btw, Parayko has never been the #1Dman in St-Louis. He's a top pairing Dman, which is different, and 35pts is more than fine for that.

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.

You tell me buddy, you want to really go down that road of suggesting Danault is better than any of the guys you mentioned or even deserves to be in the same breath?
Plekanec produced as much as Danault at ES, there isn't a soul here who ever suggested he was a top line center.
Heck, even Koivu, people weren't calling him a #1. But I guess...Phillip freaking Danault is...

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 doesn't score, he never cracked the 15 goal mark. He gets points leaching off his linemates, just like DD did. He doesn't have a good shot, he's not a playmaker, he isn't creative, and that's why he doesn't want to be removed from his line. He is fully aware his production will take a big hit.

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?

Don't they have multiple WR ranging from starter to bench warmer?
Your analogy is quite bad, football is completely different anyways, there are no different lines. The coach decides on the play and puts forward the formation. They don't rotate lines every 45 seconds.

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?

Because that is literally what differentiates whether you're a top line caliber player, or top 6, or top 9...
Why would you care to have someone who produces more!!! Why oh why would anybody care about this!
Are you hearing yourself?

 

[Mrb1p]

Well as I said previously, I put him in between Plek and Eller.

Closer to Eller than Plek.

Plekanec has worst usage and managed to outproduce the lad by 20 points and 15 goals lmao.

While actually playing shutdown defense, not just being hyped for it.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Danault is not a bad center and would make alot of teams top 6. The wingers he play with help him alot but i hate people who call him a scrub and everything. Also i like how we throw in the word contender out there. Were Dallas considered contenders? Islanders? Or are we talking top 10 teams in the league?

I also think people here overate other teams top 6

 

[JoelWarlord]

Well if that's a top line center to you, don't wonder why your team sucks ass and never makes the POs.
Btw, Parayko has never been the #1Dman in St-Louis. He's a top pairing Dman, which is different, and 35pts is more than fine for that.

If we're just gonna go back and forth over "1st line center at even strength" which Danault is and "#1C at all situations" which Danault isn't because he isn't great on the PP then whatever, he's not an all situations guy but lots of 1Cs don't kill penalties either so here we are. I absolutely consider Parayko a #1, he just plays on a team with two.

You tell me buddy, you want to really go down that road of suggesting Danault is better than any of the guys you mentioned or even deserves to be in the same breath?

What? I'm asking you why if the gap between Danault and his peers as 1Cs is so great that you scoff at the very idea of comparing them, why can't a player as talented as Aho crush Danault at even strength with even better linemates? And no I didn't go down that road, I said I would trade him for Aho in a second. If you read that as me saying Danault is better than those players idk what to tell you. I'm saying that at even strength he's an elite defender and gives up far less offensively to his peers than his raw point totals would suggest.

Plekanec produced as much as Danault at ES, there isn't a soul here who ever suggested he was a top line center.
Heck, even Koivu, people weren't calling him a #1. But I guess...Phillip freaking Danault is...

I mean Plekanec was really good, and he hit the 20G/70P mark so I'm not sure what the problem is here. Just by the most raw basic number there is since we're talking about raw points he was 22nd in points among C's during his prime from 2006-2016 and he was a great two way player. 20G 7 times and highs of 69 and 70 points. I dunno man. I think he was absolutely among the low end of #1 centers in his prime but I don't expect you to agree with me. I put Danault in the same range, I voted ideally #2 on a contender because I think he's in a low end #1/high end #2 range.

Don't they have multiple WR ranging from starter to bench warmer?
Your analogy is quite bad, football is very different anyways.

Yeah which is why I specifically referred to a WR1 as in the #1 go-to WR on a team like we talk about #1C and #1D. The point is we're talking about a player who's great at the bulk of the game but doesn't rack up counting stats on special teams, which is no reason to dismiss how good they are at the majority of regular play.

Because that is literally what differentiates whether your a top line caliber player, or top 6, or top 9...
Why would you care to have someone who produces more!!! Why oh why would anybody care about this!
Are you hearing yourself?

Is Drouin the same calibre of player as Gallagher? They both score about 50-55 points so he must be, right? Is Mike Hoffman the same calibre of player as Andrei Svechnikov? How about Brayden Schenn and Sean Couturier? Anyway yeah I hear myself just fine. You're just ignoring the words "overall raw" before point production for some reason as if even strength and power play scoring are equally valuable.

Very simply, I do not care if Danault hits 60 or 70 or whatever arbitrary cutoff of total points. Getting to those thresholds would mean using him on the PP and I don't see a reason to prioritize that. His scoring is good at even strength, he's an excellent defensive forward, a great penalty killer, and overall incredibly effective at controlling play at even strength. What's the problem with using him at even strength + PK and giving the power play minutes to better PP options?

 

[Kriss E]

If we're just gonna go back and forth over "1st line center at even strength" which Danault is and "#1C at all situations" which Danault isn't because he isn't great on the PP then whatever, he's not an all situations guy but lots of 1Cs don't kill penalties either so here we are. I absolutely consider Parayko a #1, he just plays on a team with two.
What? I'm asking you why if the gap between Danault and his peers as 1Cs is so great that you scoff at the very idea of comparing them, why can't a player as talented as Aho crush Danault at even strength with even better linemates? And no I didn't go down that road, I said I would trade him for Aho in a second. If you read that as me saying Danault is better than those players idk what to tell you. I'm saying that at even strength he's an elite defender and gives up far less offensively to his peers than his raw point totals would suggest.

This ''1C at ES'' is the biggest crock of shit I've read here. àDanault is not a #1 Center in any way shape or form. His skillset is not high enough for him to be one. He can't shoot, has no playmaking abilities, and zero creativity. He relies on his linemates, like DD did.
You can consider Parayko a #1D all you want, fact is he never has been the #1D in St-Louis, that honor goes to Pietro. I wouldn't consider Parayko as a legit #1 because there is an expected level of production from those guys.
When your top Dman is scoring 30pts and your #1C is putting up 50....you're doing things wrong, very very wrong.

Why didn't Aho produce more than Danault at ES? Who knows. I watched us play Carolina twice. But there's a reason you would take Aho in a second over Danault, it's not because of his whopping 17pts on the PP.
McDavid only scored about 10 more points than Danault on ES...are they almost on par?
Looking squarely at points is beyond stupid. It'll make you reach some ridiculous conclusion like Danault being a top center.

I mean Plekanec was really good, and he hit the 20G/70P mark so I'm not sure what the problem is here. Just by the most raw basic number there is since we're talking about raw points he was 22nd in points among C's during his prime from 2006-2016 and he was a great two way player. 20G 7 times and highs of 69 and 70 points. I dunno man. I think he was absolutely among the low end of #1 centers in his prime but I don't expect you to agree with me. I put Danault in the same range, I voted ideally #2 on a contender because I think he's in a low end #1/high end #2 range.

Plekanec was never considered a top line center. Ever. By anybody.

Yeah which is why I specifically referred to a WR1 as in the #1 go-to WR on a team like we talk about #1C and #1D. The point is we're talking about a player who's great at the bulk of the game but doesn't rack up counting stats on special teams, which is no reason to dismiss how good they are at the majority of regular play.

You're not making any sense mate. Stick to hockey. The football analogy does not work at all.

You are looking at a team and saying ''their #1 WR''...you're not putting it in relations to the rest of the league.
Danault is/was our #1C. That doesn't mean he's one when comparing him to the others.
He's not ''Great at the bulk of the game'', he has no shot, he's not a playmaker, he's not creative, his offensive game is very basic, he cannot produce independently unlike a Plekanec would.

Is Drouin the same calibre of player as Gallagher? They both score about 50-55 points so he must be, right? Is Mike Hoffman the same calibre of player as Andrei Svechnikov? How about Brayden Schenn and Sean Couturier? Anyway yeah I hear myself just fine. You're just ignoring the words "overall raw" before point production for some reason as if even strength and power play scoring are equally valuable.
Very simply, I do not care if Danault hits 60 or 70 or whatever arbitrary cutoff of total points. Getting to those thresholds would mean using him on the PP and I don't see a reason to prioritize that. His scoring is good at even strength, he's an excellent defensive forward, a great penalty killer, and overall incredibly effective at controlling play at even strength. What's the problem with using him at even strength + PK and giving the power play minutes to better PP options?

Well fine, but don't argue about him being a top line center then. That's what differentiates the top liners from the rest, their offensive production, quite silly that you simply decide to ignore it.

 

[JoelWarlord]

This ''1C at ES'' is the biggest crock of shit I've read here.

You organize your teams into 4 lines at even strength. On special teams you do not. The 1st line at even strength is the team's 1st line and the center on that line is the 1st line center. I think Danault is absolutely among the top 30 in the league at this role.

That's what differentiates the top liners from the rest, their offensive production, quite silly that you simply decide to ignore it.

I've been talking about Danault's production this entire time! Dismissing raw point totals as misleading doesn't mean I'm ignoring production, it means the literal opposite in that I'm valuing the much more valuable production at even strength over power play scoring (which still matters but is easier to find).

Anyway whatever. I've said my piece and we're going in circles.

 

[Kriss E]

You organize your teams into 4 lines at even strength. On special teams you do not. The 1st line at even strength is the team's 1st line and the center on that line is the 1st line center. I think Danault is absolutely among the top 30 in the league at this role.

Again, you ignore the flaws. He can't shoot, he's not a playmaker, he's not creative, can't produce independently. But ya..big time first liner this Danault because...stat sheets.

I've been talking about Danault's production this entire time! Dismissing raw point totals as misleading doesn't mean I'm ignoring production, it means the literal opposite in that I'm valuing the much more valuable production at even strength over power play scoring (which still matters but is easier to find).

Anyway whatever. I've said my piece and we're going in circles.

Production is what separates top liners from the rest, and that includes the PP.
You would have no reason to choose Aho over Danault otherwise.
The troubling part here is you think Danault creates offense as much, if not more, than these other top liners.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

If PD and MD are legitimately whining and crying about their deployment and TOI etc, get them out ASAP,not team players if that's their attitude.

Such an immature way of looking at things.

 

[McGees]

So I'd say last season Danault produced like a low end 1C and a high end 1C this year (at 5v5).

Just. No. We have a very strong 5v5 system, one of best in league last few years but throw whatever stats you like, I will never buy that he is a 1C, never mind a high end 1C.

 

[mynamejeff420]

Just. No. We have a very strong 5v5 system, one of best in league last few years but throw whatever stats you like, I will never buy that he is a 1C, never mind a high end 1C.

But isn't part of the reason behind Montreal's 5v5 dominance due to players like Danault being really good at 5v5?

 

[mynamejeff420]

I'm not underrating anything. You have provided zero arguments about his offensive abilities outside his ES points.
He has no shot, he is not a playmaker, he isn't particularly creative with the puck...it's very obvious he is benefitting a lot from playing with two of the best wingers.
He is not a Plekanec who would create his own offense and was consistent with it regardless who was on his wings for most of his career.

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.

 

[Mrb1p]

Danault is not a bad center and would make alot of teams top 6. The wingers he play with help him alot but i hate people who call him a scrub and everything. Also i like how we throw in the word contender out there. Were Dallas considered contenders? Islanders? Or are we talking top 10 teams in the league?

I also think people here overate other teams top 6

Nobody thinks Danault is a scrub. If I don't think Danault is a scrub, its because nobody thinks that. Literally zero.

 

[mynamejeff420]

Even if all your analytics show what you think they do and I doubt it, Suzuki and KK will be better players (and I'm one who doesn't think KK is all that special but I do think he'll be better than Danault). What do you do then? Do you play Danault above his station and have one of the kids not develop? Do you trade Suzuki or KK so you can keep a center who will average 12 goals a season and that's playing with the best wingers on the team?

I mean I'd at least wait until Suzuki and KK are demonstrably better than Danault (or getting close to it). Right now they're about to enter their 2nd and 3rd years (really 2nd for KK too since this past one was marred by injuries). I don't see why Montreal can't continue to shelter them and feed the tough minutes to Danault. They shouldn't be throwing Suzuki and KK to the wolves right now anyways. There's no rush. You can keep all 3 for now. If, in a few years, Suzuki and KK are clearly ready to take on tougher minutes, then you explore a Danault trade. But not right now, when we don't know if they're ready for it yet.

 

[Kriss E]

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?

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.

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.

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.