Player Discussion Phillip Danault II: 2nd C? edition

[ECWHSWI]

Maybe more of a blue collar guy. He doesn't have the skill of a Radu or Chucky, but he has a ton of other strengths in his game.

I think he is a bit underrated because some still think he is the player who had 10 points last year. Danault has taken a huge leap forward in his game. I think he benefits more from the mental side of playing with 2 elite players rather then their skill so much. I mean you have to learn something when you are on the Ice with Max and Radu no?

Wonder if he can become a playoff hero. That will be the next step for him.

Adding Byron and Danault for nearly nothing was a great move by MB.

the guy is getting nothing but praises... so how is he underrated ? ? ?

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

I'm trying to de-politicize myself for precisely the reason you point out in your last paragraph.

But the point remains that he's essentially a sophomore and Chicago gave up on him and he's played with good players here. DD also produced.

I'm hesitant to praise him or pencil him in as a future top contribuer just as I was hesitant to do it with any other promising but not there yet player.

Remember that he's 24, not 19. He doesn't have much time left to burst out. If he remains what he is that's totally fine too, he's a good NHLer.

For sure. I'm a little gun shy with the DD comparisons but they're not completely out of left field. I do think DD regressed little by little over the last 4 years due to just being the tiniest guy ever. Not really saying he was ever a true top 6 C but there was a time where he was a good player. I think the decline happened after that year he had between Cole and Patches. Could be wrong.

24 isn't 19 but he does seem to be a bit of the late bloomer variety. I don't think the guy can improve leaps and bounds but I don't think he's peaked.

Not too sure CHI gave up on him. Pretty sure I heard that they didn't exactly want to trade the kid. How true that is I'm not too sure.

Whether he's a #2 or #3 he's still clearly capable of slotting in on a top line and performing well there. That's huge. You'd have to be an elite #3 (sure some say it's an oxymoron but for facility of speech) to be able to do that on a high ranking team. I was an Eller fan but there's no way he could have made that line as successful as Eller has. I'm pretty convinced of that.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Maybe more of a blue collar guy. He doesn't have the skill of a Radu or Chucky, but he has a ton of other strengths in his game.

I think he is a bit underrated because some still think he is the player who had 10 points last year. Danault has taken a huge leap forward in his game. I think he benefits more from the mental side of playing with 2 elite players rather then their skill so much. I mean you have to learn something when you are on the Ice with Max and Radu no?

Wonder if he can become a playoff hero. That will be the next step for him.

Adding Byron and Danault for nearly nothing was a great move by MB.

he definitely plays a playoff type game. I can actually see him elevating his game. Could be wishful thinking but the guy's just a real hard worker.

I like the make up of our forwards for the most part. Though we're not great up the middle I think a huge majority of our top 9 our playoff types. Some are proven in the NHL some are proven in other leagues.

Both Byron and Danault are wait and sees. I still don't think the successes are too fluky but you don't want to be too premature with them. Looking at byron's 3 prior seasons he was pacing for 10-15 goals so this isn't exactly coming out of left field but this also could be a career year.

I've gotta hunch that both are a bit of the late bloomer types. I definitely hope so. They were good pick ups even if they never got better than they did last season imo. But now they could be just outrageous steals. I mean people laugh at the BargainBin thing but the guy does pretty well at that stuff. I hope to hell he does it throughout his tenure.

 

[Sorinth]

The point of the exercise was to show that Danault isn't only producing because he's with Pacioretty & Radulov. He's been producing with everyone he's played with, including the 4th line.

While I like Mitchell, he has also played with others but he wasn't producing, whereas Danault has.

And yes, that line was hot, but you attribute that to the players playing on that line. The 4th line on opening night had Danault and Byron on it. They both had a great season, so that 4th line was hot thanks to these guys.

And 13 games isn't a large enough sample size to say his production isn't because of Pacioretty & Radulov.

Do you honestly think had he stayed on the 4th line he would still have 40 points? The far more likely situation is he would've done exactly what Mitchell has done, eventually cool down and not produce much afterwards. The reason he sustained his production was because he got an increased role and better linemates.

 

[Adam Michaels]

And 13 games isn't a large enough sample size to say his production isn't because of Pacioretty & Radulov.

Do you honestly think had he stayed on the 4th line he would still have 40 points? The far more likely situation is he would've done exactly what Mitchell has done, eventually cool down and not produce much afterwards. The reason he sustained his production was because he got an increased role and better linemates.

And I credit Danault for his sustainability. He has flourished in every situation his coach has put him in. That has more to do with Danault stepping up than it does only his linemates.

My first post you quoted was a reply to someone who asked what his production was like playing on that 4th line with Mitchell/Byron/Flynn. I didn't just do it for kicks. I was answering a question.

 

[MXD]

And 13 games isn't a large enough sample size to say his production isn't because of Pacioretty & Radulov.

Do you honestly think had he stayed on the 4th line he would still have 40 points? The far more likely situation is he would've done exactly what Mitchell has done, eventually cool down and not produce much afterwards. The reason he sustained his production was because he got an increased role and better linemates.

Tricky question, considering any 4th line C on pace for that many points would be quickly moved up on any lineup...

 

[Andrei79]

And 13 games isn't a large enough sample size to say his production isn't because of Pacioretty & Radulov.

Do you honestly think had he stayed on the 4th line he would still have 40 points? The far more likely situation is he would've done exactly what Mitchell has done, eventually cool down and not produce much afterwards. The reason he sustained his production was because he got an increased role and better linemates.

Your circular logical needs to be broken. The reason he got an increased role, unlike Mitchell, is because he deserved it based on his play. Does Pacioretty get the same production on the fourth line with fourth line minutes and no PP ? It's an irrelevant argument because his play warrants top 6 minutes.

 

[Doc McKenna]

Your circular logical needs to be broken. The reason he got an increased role, unlike Mitchell, is because he deserved it based on his play. Does Pacioretty get the same production on the fourth line with fourth line minutes and no PP ? It's an irrelevant argument because his play warrants top 6 minutes.

No he got his role because of 2 major injuries to DD and Chukie. our top 2 centerman this year. If not for that he stays on fourth line with the odd time playing on blackhole pleks wing-think he would have a lot of points with pleks?

 

[Habssince89]

I think he can hit 20G30A if he continues to play with these quality linemates. We'll see how that unfolds in future seasons but for now, let's remember that having a guy like Danault as the 1C is usually awful because your 1C is expected to create (usually) the most chances and scoring. Danault gets that taken off his plate by Radulov.

So let's say a typical 1st line is: Playmaker/Shooter/Support. That's Rads/Max/Danault

That line still has all those components, and while Danault isn't a superstar he isn't a bad player at all. I think our top line is solid, and will continue to be successful so long as the other lines stay productive.

 

[Gyfu]

I think he can hit 20G30A if he continues to play with these quality linemates. We'll see how that unfolds in future seasons but for now, let's remember that having a guy like Danault as the 1C is usually awful because your 1C is expected to create (usually) the most chances and scoring. Danault gets that taken off his plate by Radulov.

So let's say a typical 1st line is: Playmaker/Shooter/Support. That's Rads/Max/Danault

That line still has all those components, and while Danault isn't a superstar he isn't a bad player at all. I think our top line is solid, and will continue to be successful so long as the other lines stay productive.

At this point, i'd like to see 41 with 67+24, would be a solid 2way speed kills type line that could make most dcore in the league look like pylons, not a real 1st line but a threat nonetheless... a 2nd line with 47 on rw and 27+65 wherever they belong would make a heavier slower pace puck control type line with shawzer for fo's if needed + sandpaper/net presence and "prust"ector for chucky... 62-14-11 by default, but again solid 2way sandpaper type... 21-92-17 although my preference would be 37 instead of 21 but i doubt it's gonna happeb

 

[c3z4r]

Maybe it's just me, but I see Cody Eakin in him, not Bergeron or whichever elite players he'd been getting compared throughout this thread.

 

[Andrei79]

No he got his role because of 2 major injuries to DD and Chukie. our top 2 centerman this year. If not for that he stays on fourth line with the odd time playing on blackhole pleks wing-think he would have a lot of points with pleks?

Mitchell got the same chance, why isn't he on the top 2 lines ?

 

[Doc McKenna]

Mitchell got the same chance, why isn't he on the top 2 lines ?

How old are they(save you the work, 32 vs 24) and which one is likely to get at the very least slightly better in the next couple of years But thanks for crapping on "what have you done for me lately" mitchell. If we went by the first month he was our best center.

I could give you another reason, it isn't his place of birth but it is the name on his back. But that has less to do with mitchell playing where he belongs(though he should be playing more as of late) vs where the other guy is given top minutes, pp, best linemates- just like someone else who just got moved from this team. Dano isn't bad, but he doesn't belong on the top line.

 

[Andrei79]

How old are they(save you the work, 32 vs 24) and which one is likely to get at the very least slightly better in the next couple of years But thanks for crapping on "what have you done for me lately" mitchell. If we went by the first month he was our best center.

I could give you another reason, it isn't his place of birth but it is the name on his back. But that has less to do with mitchell playing where he belongs(though he should be playing more as of late) vs where the other guy is given top minutes, pp, best linemates- just like someone else who just got moved from this team. Dano isn't bad, but he doesn't belong on the top line.

Your excuses are comical. You think coaches care how old they are ? Danault is a better player, that's why he's stayed on the top line and Mitchell hasn't. It's not crapping on Mitchell (who I didn't bring up first), but if you can't see the difference in quality between the two you're a lost cause and it's useless to carry on the discussion.

 

[Doc McKenna]

Your excuses are comical. You think coaches care how old they are ? Danault is a better player, that's why he's stayed on the top line and Mitchell hasn't. It's not crapping on Mitchell (who I didn't bring up first ), but if you can't see the difference in quality between the two you're a lost cause and it's useless to carry on the discussion.

Yes it matters and they should care. Look at last two seasons, pleks and DD playing ahead of Chuckie and this is our result. Why put a kid at C to develop his game when you can put 34 year old player that is about to drop off a cliff there instead

Mitchell got the same chance, why isn't he on the top 2 lines ?

No your reading is poor. You brought mitchell into this. My point in response is they are actively trying to develop the 24 year old 3rd C, unlike their 32 year 4th C. Do YOU see a difference?

So yeah this discussion can end if you don't understand how a 3rd line C skillwise shouldn't be your top centerman at 24 years old(less potential than 20 year old with same skill level) , but should still be developed and hope he can be a two way 2ndC.

 

[76]

He looked nothing less than dominant on most of his shifts against Detroit yesterday. All night long he developed plays with smart, skills and strength.
When I see him play like that and remember he is only 23 I think of him as a legitim C2 who could even get the 60pts range.

 

[DuRoux]

Danault is a gem in the rough for maybe 2C glory for a few years. He is not the kind of player that make teammates looks better, but his a solid guy that will look good with good player. I'm pretty fine with this moving forward.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Danault is a gem in the rough for maybe 2C glory for a few years. He is not the kind of player that make teammates looks better, but his a solid guy that will look good with good player. I'm pretty fine with this moving forward.

especially with our winger depth right now which is pretty sweet. I'm looking forward to seeing what he can do in the playoffs.

 

[Adam Michaels]

especially with our winger depth right now which is pretty sweet. I'm looking forward to seeing what he can do in the playoffs.

He strikes me as someone who will be a warrior. I don't picture him faltering and changing his game because the going gets tougher in the playoffs.

 

[Adam Michaels]

http://www.tvasports.ca/2017/04/15/phillip-danault-sauve-constamment-les-canadiens

Danault is 8th in the NHL when it comes to getting the puck back after losing the face-off in the defensive zone.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

Hey folks, remember when I said you shouldn't rely on who is essentially a sophomore who was traded for peanuts?

Danault had an awful game4 and only 14 minutes of icetime for a reason.

There's a reason why 99 times out of 100 talent is more desirable and valuable than so-perceived effort or hard work. There's a reason why Chucky should be on the top-line and not tradebait and why Danault shouldn't be treated as a top6 C until he's proven and earned it.

There's also a reason why Chicago traded him.

So let's hope he pulls it together and has a better game but for the love of god, stop penciling him as a future top6 C while clamoring and bellowing that Chucky HAS to be traded. No he doesn't because Danault isn't half as talented as Chucky is.

 

[MXD]

Hey folks, remember when I said you shouldn't rely on who is essentially a sophomore who was traded for peanuts?

Danault had an awful game4 and only 14 minutes of icetime for a reason.

There's a reason why 99 times out of 100 talent is more desirable and valuable than so-perceived effort or hard work. There's a reason why Chucky should be on the top-line and not tradebait and why Danault shouldn't be treated as a top6 C until he's proven and earned it.

There's also a reason why Chicago traded him.

So let's hope he pulls it together and has a better game but for the love of god, stop penciling him as a future top6 C while clamoring and bellowing that Chucky HAS to be traded. No he doesn't because Danault isn't half as talented as Chucky is.

Good post... because Danault is actually a bit of a disappointment so far.

But the underlined... OUCH. I guess that's the reason why the Capitals traded Forsberg, why the Habs traded McDonagh (....)

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

Good post... because Danault is actually a bit of a disappointment so far.

But the underlined... OUCH. I guess that's the reason why the Capitals traded Forsberg, why the Habs traded McDonagh (....)

My point isn't that he's not talented or doesn't have potential, but that he wasn't a blue-chip prospect for a reason.

 

[MXD]

My point isn't that he's not talented or doesn't have potential, but that he wasn't a blue-chip prospect for a reason.

If that implies McDonagh and Forsberg weren't bluechip prospects...

I mean, the best comparison for Danault is David Legwand. If a team deems that a total of 250 minutes of Fleischmann and Weise is worth a guy who's gonna end up being David Legwand, well, it should probably have found another player to send the other way.

 

[Leon Lucius Black]

Hey folks, remember when I said you shouldn't rely on who is essentially a sophomore who was traded for peanuts?

Danault had an awful game4 and only 14 minutes of icetime for a reason.

There's a reason why 99 times out of 100 talent is more desirable and valuable than so-perceived effort or hard work. There's a reason why Chucky should be on the top-line and not tradebait and why Danault shouldn't be treated as a top6 C until he's proven and earned it.

There's also a reason why Chicago traded him.

So let's hope he pulls it together and has a better game but for the love of god, stop penciling him as a future top6 C while clamoring and bellowing that Chucky HAS to be traded. No he doesn't because Danault isn't half as talented as Chucky is.

What does that have to do with anything? Bowman also traded Trevor Daley last year for Scuderi who is absolute garbage and Daley went on to be a key part of a cup winning team.

Danault was a former 1st round pick, he played on Team Canada at the World Juniors, he's had potential to be a solid player but he didn't get much of a chance in Chicago because they were a perennial contending team with depth down the middle. He's not just some random plug who came out of nowhere, when he was drafted scouts loved his 2-way game and work ethic which are both what has made him productive here.

Danault DID earn his ice time as a top 6 C after Galchenyuk struggled when he came back. No one wants to see Danault as a top line C, but given Plekanec's offensive struggles this year and Galchenyuk's poor 2nd half of the season Danault was put into a very tough situation.

And people don't Chucky traded so Danault can be the #1 C, they want him traded so if it can help bring us an actual #1 C back.