Player Discussion Phillip Danault II: 2nd C? edition

[NotProkofievian]

So what your saying is your draft analysis of his ceiling wasn't a ceiling at all?

Ceiling, that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

His ceiling right now is first line centre. Is he likely to make that? No, its a very low probability IMO... but as an 18 year old, his ceiling (ie best case scenario) remains high, even if the likelihood of getting there is low.

I agree he likely tops out as a second line centre, but there is still a chance he could be more.

I think he has a pretty good idea of what a ceiling is. If you want a ceiling to never be broken, just say the ceiling for everyone is a generational player. That's not a meaningful qualifier though. As you say, there's a certain probability associated to every outcome. It's higher or lower for every player. What he's saying a ceiling is could be ''the best outcome with a probability not lower than x.'' This is a perfectly coherent idea, and I would say a much more useful idea.

 

[Adam Michaels]

I think Danault is a 3. If Poehling can create through his playmaking enough to put up 50ish pts a season with his frame then yeah he'd be an ideal #2C.

I just think he's gonna need to progress in other offensive facets or he won't be able to produce enough at the NHL level.

I know Danault isn't a playmaking center. But he's on pace for about 50ish points this year. He scored 40 last year after playing the first part of the season as a winger (starting on the 4th line). Before tonight's game, he is on pace for 48 points.

 

[Lebowski]

I know Danault isn't a playmaking center. But he's on pace for about 50ish points this year. He scored 40 last year after playing the first part of the season as a winger (starting on the 4th line). Before tonight's game, he is on pace for 48 points.

I think in Danault's case, a lot of that is born out of opportunity alone. I mean, he's a hard worker, good skater, and a fairly smart two-way player, but what skills does he have that could make him a reliable top 6 producer?

Say you put De La Rose on the top line with our best wingers for most of the year, how many points do you think he'd get? I don't want to be unfair to Danault, because he has been tremendous for us, but if we actually have a decent depth chart at center, he shouldn't be any higher than 3rd, and then with fewer minutes and lower quality of teammates, his numbers would go down accordingly.

There's maybe one or two teams in the league that can play Danault enough for him to get 50 points. Unfortunately, we happen to be one of them.

 

[Mrb1p]

I think in Danault's case, a lot of that is born out of opportunity alone. I mean, he's a hard worker, good skater, and a fairly smart two-way player, but what skills does he have that could make him a reliable top 6 producer?

Say you put De La Rose on the top line with our best wingers for most of the year, how many points do you think he'd get? I don't want to be unfair to Danault, because he has been tremendous for us, but if we actually have a decent depth chart at center, he shouldn't be any higher than 3rd, and then with fewer minutes and lower quality of teammates, his numbers would go down accordingly.

There's maybe one or two teams in the league that can play Danault enough for him to get 50 points. Unfortunately, we happen to be one of them.

Hes a good skater, good stick handler at high speeds, good play maker, nose for the net.. This board drives me crazy.

 

[LaP]

Honestly i hate when people say Danault is on pace for 50 points. Right now he's on pace for 48 points over 82 games. But he's in a good sequence. He has 9 points in his last 11 games (pace of 67 points). He likely can't sustain that last 11 games pace for the rest of the year. He'll cool down a bit and will probably finish the year with around 45 points. Most of the year he's been on pace for 40 something points. I hate how people come here when he's in a good sequence and try to sell him as a 50 points player. He might pull it but i just don't see it personally.

I just calculated in Excel the number of games Danault was on pace for 50 points after said game (0.6097 ppg). There was 8 games over 36 where he was on pace for 50+ points. So like i said most of the season he was on pace for under 50 points. There was actually 13 games where his pace was 41 points and under (0.5 ppg). No later than November 29th (the start of his current 11 games good sequence) he was on pace for 41 points.

Honestly i like Danault and i hate having to do that. It's ridiculous i'll be the first to admit it. It's the same old story. A guy is having a great sequence and people liking him a lot start pumping his tire acting like he'll do much better than what he did so far in his career. I don't mind when we talk about 20 to 23 years old players as those realistically can progress. But Danault gonna be 25 soon. I mean he might be a 50 points player moving forward but he is a lot more likely to settle down as a 40 points guy. At least people should not act like he's a 50 points player before he actually does it at least once. And even once would not really make him a surefire 50 points player.

I think he might still have some potential to grow but at this point it's highly unlikely. If he becomes a solid 2nd line center it should be a bonus honestly it should not be part of any plan. He just has not shown this capability so far in his career.

 

[Adam Michaels]

I think in Danault's case, a lot of that is born out of opportunity alone. I mean, he's a hard worker, good skater, and a fairly smart two-way player, but what skills does he have that could make him a reliable top 6 producer?

Say you put De La Rose on the top line with our best wingers for most of the year, how many points do you think he'd get? I don't want to be unfair to Danault, because he has been tremendous for us, but if we actually have a decent depth chart at center, he shouldn't be any higher than 3rd, and then with fewer minutes and lower quality of teammates, his numbers would go down accordingly.

There's maybe one or two teams in the league that can play Danault enough for him to get 50 points. Unfortunately, we happen to be one of them.

But if you play him enough and he gets those 50 points, then it should be a good thing, right? If they played him enough and he didn't produce, I'd be saying he's miscast.

 

[LaP]

But if you play him enough and he gets those 50 points, then it should be a good thing, right? If they played him enough and he didn't produce, I'd be saying he's miscast.

If he can produce at a 50 points pace over 82 games almost every season while playing 16-17 minutes yes it's positive.

 

[Adam Michaels]

If he can produce at a 50 points pace over 82 games almost every season while playing 16-17 minutes yes it's positive.

Yes. The future will show us if he can keep up such production. But for now, I think he's doing a good job as a 2C. He's a smart player. He's real good defensively. He's strong in the face-off circle. And he chips in enough offensively to warrant that 2C spot.

 

[Mrb1p]

Honestly i hate when people say Danault is on pace for 50 points. Right now he's on pace for 48 points over 82 games. But he's in a good sequence. He has 9 points in his last 11 games (pace of 67 points). He likely can't sustain that last 11 games pace for the rest of the year. He'll cool down a bit and will probably finish the year with around 45 points. Most of the year he's been on pace for 40 something points. I hate how people come here when he's in a good sequence and try to sell him as a 50 points player. He might pull it but i just don't see it personally.

I just calculated in Excel the number of games Danault was on pace for 50 points after said game (0.6097 ppg). There was 8 games over 36 where he was on pace for 50+ points. So like i said most of the season he was on pace for under 50 points. There was actually 13 games where his pace was 41 points and under (0.5 ppg). No later than November 29th (the start of his current 11 games good sequence) he was on pace for 41 points.

Honestly i like Danault and i hate having to do that. It's ridiculous i'll be the first to admit it. It's the same old story. A guy is having a great sequence and people liking him a lot start pumping his tire acting like he'll do much better than what he did so far in his career. I don't mind when we talk about 20 to 23 years old players as those realistically can progress. But Danault gonna be 25 soon. I mean he might be a 50 points player moving forward but he is a lot more likely to settle down as a 40 points guy. At least people should not act like he's a 50 points player before he actually does it at least once. And even once would not really make him a surefire 50 points player.

I think he might still have some potential to grow but at this point it's highly unlikely. If he becomes a solid 2nd line center it should be a bonus honestly it should not be part of any plan. He just has not shown this capability so far in his career.

He's a 40-45 points forward at ES. Try to discredit him however you want but at ES, he's producing like a really good 2nd liner.

 

[LaP]

He's a 40-45 points forward at ES. Try to discredit him however you want but at ES, he's producing like a really good 2nd liner.

Danault plays on average 1:20 on the PP every games. It's low for a 2nd line player (usually they are at around 2 minutes) but don't act like he's not having any PP time at all please.

Yes. The future will show us if he can keep up such production. But for now, I think he's doing a good job as a 2C. He's a smart player. He's real good defensively. He's strong in the face-off circle. And he chips in enough offensively to warrant that 2C spot.

He's not a strong 2nd line center though. For it to work the rest of the top 6 would need to be far better that it is right now. Like he can do the job but he's not a strength there.

But that's beside the initial point anyway (which is my fault sorry). I think Poehling ceiling is definitely higher at this point of his career. Will he reach it only time will tell.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Notice how all of the ''Danault is a 2nd liner'' arguments revolve around ''if you only consider this situation, or that situation, he's actually a really good 2nd liner.'' When you have to only consider a small subset of circumstances to make the argument, and ignore any mitigating circumstances, your argument isn't that strong.

He's a tweener who was dragged kicking and screaming to 40 points last year, and is on pace for mid 40 points this year, when mid 40 points is worth a lot less. I feel like Montreal Canadiens fans would be more receptive to this truth if he we had a real forward talent to hope for.

 

[Mrb1p]

Danault plays on average 1:20 on the PP every games. It's low for a 2nd line player (usually they are at around 2 minutes) but don't act like he's not having any PP time at all please.



He's not a strong 2nd line center though. For it to work the rest of the top 6 would need to be far better that it is right now. Like he can do the job but he's not a strength there.

But that's beside the initial point anyway (which is my fault sorry). I think Poehling ceiling is definitely higher at this point of his career. Will he reach it only time will tell.

Danault is 67 league wide in EVP. Just ahead of Nylander, Giroux, Oshie, Perron, Niederreiter, Horvat, Sedin, Point, Staal, Johansen and just behind Kreider, Rakell, JVR, Schenn, Radulov, Toews, Marchessault and Kessel.

The only other players that would probably be qualified of "3rd liners" in the top 100 are Maroon and Byron.

Maroon is 12 spots lower than Danault and plays with McDavid... Byron is 100th, 33 spots lower than Danault.

Danault is not a 3rd liner and he hasn't been for the whole of the 2017 calender.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Danault is 67 league wide in EVP. Just ahead of Nylander, Giroux, Oshie, Perron, Niederreiter, Horvat, Sedin, Point, Staal, Johansen and just behind Kreider, Rakell, JVR, Schenn, Radulov, Toews, Marchessault and Kessel.

The only other players that would probably be qualified of "3rd liners" in the top 100 are Maroon and Byron.

Maroon is 12 spots lower than Danault and plays with McDavid... Byron is 100th, 33 spots lower than Danault.

Danault is not a 3rd liner and he hasn't been for the whole of the 2017 calender.

And it's not like he's being spoon fed great line mates either. I won't argue with people who think he's still only a #3. I do get it. But he deserves credit and the production (which we desperately need) is right on par for a solid #2. I'd still love a true #1 and an upgrade on Danault at #2 but he's getting the job done.

Hate MB all you want but it was a great trade.

 

[habsterr]

Hes a good skater, good stick handler at high speeds, good play maker, nose for the net.. This board drives me crazy.

Based off hero charts Danault is not a good goal scorer and play maker; it's his speed and tenacity that make him a productive fore checker. Danault is still one of MB best acquisitions.

 

[Habs Icing]

Danault is 67 league wide in EVP. Just ahead of Nylander, Giroux, Oshie, Perron, Niederreiter, Horvat, Sedin, Point, Staal, Johansen and just behind Kreider, Rakell, JVR, Schenn, Radulov, Toews, Marchessault and Kessel.

The only other players that would probably be qualified of "3rd liners" in the top 100 are Maroon and Byron.

Maroon is 12 spots lower than Danault and plays with McDavid... Byron is 100th, 33 spots lower than Danault.

Danault is not a 3rd liner and he hasn't been for the whole of the 2017 calender.

Turris is a 2nd line center man on most contending teams. You really believe that Danault's overall game is on par with Turris? That's one way to look at it.

Another way, do you think you'll win a Cup with Danault as a #2? I don't and I don't care how many elite forwards you put on his line. I still have nightmares from last year of Radulov's exasperated looks every time he set up Danault and the kid flubbed the pass.

And i hate having to write this post. I really like Danault but he's a great 3rd liner on a contender but a 2nd liner on a non-contender.

 

[LastWordArmy]

I think he has a pretty good idea of what a ceiling is. If you want a ceiling to never be broken, just say the ceiling for everyone is a generational player. That's not a meaningful qualifier though. As you say, there's a certain probability associated to every outcome. It's higher or lower for every player. What he's saying a ceiling is could be ''the best outcome with a probability not lower than x.'' This is a perfectly coherent idea, and I would say a much more useful idea.

Use proper language then.

"A realistic projection" instead of "ceiling"

And no, I don't think every player has a ceiling of generational player.

But to say a first round pick, who is putting up over a point per game at 18 in the NCAA has a ceiling of a 2nd liner, is just not accurate. While its unlikely, there is a chance he could be a first line player. Whether that chance is 5% or something... its not completely insignificant either.

 

[admiralcadillac]

Notice how all of the ''Danault is a 2nd liner'' arguments revolve around ''if you only consider this situation, or that situation, he's actually a really good 2nd liner.'' When you have to only consider a small subset of circumstances to make the argument, and ignore any mitigating circumstances, your argument isn't that strong.

He's a tweener who was dragged kicking and screaming to 40 points last year, and is on pace for mid 40 points this year, when mid 40 points is worth a lot less. I feel like Montreal Canadiens fans would be more receptive to this truth if he we had a real forward talent to hope for.

There is irony in your post

 

[Mrb1p]

Turris is a 2nd line center man on most contending teams. You really believe that Danault's overall game is on par with Turris? That's one way to look at it.

Another way, do you think you'll win a Cup with Danault as a #2? I don't and I don't care how many elite forwards you put on his line. I still have nightmares from last year of Radulov's exasperated looks every time he set up Danault and the kid flubbed the pass.

And i hate having to write this post. I really like Danault but he's a great 3rd liner on a contender but a 2nd liner on a non-contender.

Turris is a second line center on most teams? He has been a first line center on both his last two teams, one that went to the ECF and another to the SCF...

The problem is the expectations people have from a 1C. You dont have to be McDavid to be a 1C.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Turris is a second line center on most teams? He has been a first line center on both his last two teams, one that went to the ECF and another to the SCF...

The problem is the expectations people have from a 1C. You dont have to be McDavid to be a 1C.

No, but to be competitive you need a C that makes their wingers better, is a threat to score and is almost always hovering around the 70 pt mark.

Most centers are playmakers, but in order to be a 1C on a team, you need to be a threat to score. Backstrom is one of the best pure passers in the league and he's not always a threat to shoot, but you have to play for that possibility, which makes him more dangerous.

It's why guys like Gomez don't last long, when you can't score from a shot, I just slack off on your shooting late, take away passing lanes and let my goalie eat you up.

If Poehling wants to raise his ceiling to be a potential 1C, he's going to have to get better at shooting the puck. Unfortunately, there's a very short list of players who have improved their shot after being drafted.

It's actually one of the things I look for in most highly rated offensive prospects. If I don't see a good NHL shot, I almost always drop them down my list.

 

[Lebowski]

You're a true 1C if you can be the 1C of a cup winner... Turris isn't it. Ideally he's a #2, or a solid #1B. He's 1B in Nashville and they have other strengths that can make up for the fact they don't have big offensive superstars like most team that go on to win the cup.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Use proper language then.

"A realistic projection" instead of "ceiling"

And no, I don't think every player has a ceiling of generational player.

But to say a first round pick, who is putting up over a point per game at 18 in the NCAA has a ceiling of a 2nd liner, is just not accurate. While its unlikely, there is a chance he could be a first line player. Whether that chance is 5% or something... its not completely insignificant either.

The language is proper.

An absolute ceiling for any player is a generational player, by definition. A player can't be better than the best player of his generation. It's just not useful to use this to categorise all players. It is a ceiling for all players, it's just not a particularly tight one for almost all of them. So, there has to be a notion that it's realistic that the player would even achieve it for us to use it to categorize players. If it's realistic that he can achieve it, unless it's an absolute ceiling, he could probably surpass it, too.

WTK is not talking about a ''realistic projection.'' He's talking about the ''best projection that's at all likely.''

 

[WeThreeKings]

The language is proper.

An absolute ceiling for any player is a generational player, by definition. A player can't be better than the best player of his generation. It's just not useful to use this to categorise all players. It is a ceiling for all players, it's just not a particularly tight one for almost all of them. So, there has to be a notion that it's realistic that the player would even achieve it for us to use it to categorize players. If it's realistic that he can achieve it, unless it's an absolute ceiling, he could probably surpass it, too.

WTK is not talking about a ''realistic projection.'' He's talking about the ''best projection that's at all likely.''

I posted my current top 10 in the draft thread, go take a look.

And yep, I'm talking realistic ceilings.. but ceilings and floors are never fixed, unless the ceiling is always generational player and floor is always retired from pro hockey to pursue other things.

A player's ceiling and floor are absolutely different all the time until their progression or regression is done.

 

[LastWordArmy]

A player's ceiling and floor are absolutely different all the time until their progression or regression is done.

A ceiling can drop and a floor can rise....

But the opposite should not be true, or else you aren't using the terms correctly.

A ceiling should be high, and get lower as the player proves he isn't going to reach his max potential.
A floor should be low and get higher as the player proves what he is.

The gap between the two narrows as a prospect ages and develops...

But neither should be shattered.

 

[Lebowski]

A ceiling can drop and a floor can rise....

But the opposite should not be true, or else you aren't using the terms correctly.

A ceiling should be high, and get lower as the player proves he isn't going to reach his max potential.
A floor should be low and get higher as the player proves what he is.

The gap between the two narrows as a prospect ages and develops...

But neither should be shattered.

They get shattered all the time, though... Things change quickly.

I don't think anyone penciled Weber as a future Norris contender back when he got drafted, even on the high end.

 

[WeThreeKings]

A ceiling can drop and a floor can rise....

But the opposite should not be true, or else you aren't using the terms correctly.

A ceiling should be high, and get lower as the player proves he isn't going to reach his max potential.
A floor should be low and get higher as the player proves what he is.

The gap between the two narrows as a prospect ages and develops...

But neither should be shattered.

That makes things pointless because then every player has a generational ceiling.

Again, I will use the example of PK Subban. Under no circumstances in his draft year would anyone say his ceiling is a Norris trophy winning defenseman.

He had a crazy development curve which elevated his ceiling as a player.

Datsyuk, Zetterberg? These guys had talent but their ceilings at the time were not what they became. If they were? They would have been the first picks by Detroit in those drafts.

I would now recommend that you write for all your prospect reports "Ceiling? Generational player. Floor? Retired Hockey Player". Just so you can use the parameters you have now set for yourself.

Let's use a more current example. Robert Thomas, during his off season, he studied the releases of the best scorers in the NHL. He overhauled his shooting and is now a more dangerous scoring threat than in his draft year. That changes his ceiling as a player, because previously, he did not show he had the scoring capacity to elevate his projection at the NHL level. What you projected him 12 months at the draft, even as a Blues scout, has now changed.