Player Discussion Phillip Danault - The Centermania Edition

[Le Barron de HF]

I do think that Danault is underrated on this site but with his skillset and lack of shooting ability (plus the fact he barely shoots), I don't think he would surpass 10 power play points in a season which would boost his points total to the late 50s/early 60s.

 

[Mrb1p]

I miss the days where Danault was my only concern

 

[angusyoung]

I miss the days where Danault was my only concern

We don't!

 

[LaP]

Holy **** so now Danault is better than Kuznetsov. It is officially entering DD 2.0 territory.

 

[Jerryvvv]

Danault is a third line center on a contender,

heck, in the 2018-2019 season he would have been a FOURTH line center in Toronto, and probably a few other teams also!!

 

[The Great Weal]

Danault is a third line center on a contender

Danault is a 3rd line center on a team that has 2 #1Cs yes, but he would be the 2c on many teams including good teams like Dallas and Carolina.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

Overrated by some, underrated by others... He's not a 1st liner that's for sure, he's so limited offensively.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

I miss the days where Danault was my only concern

You had a passion in your life back then, lol.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Off topic but I forgot how good Pierre Larouche was in the late 70's when I watched a documentary about him 3 days ago on rds. The last time two canadiens scored 50 goals. Lafleur was the other one and Shutt scored 47. He lost interrest in hockey for a while when his wife got cancer. Then for stupid coaching reasons the coach used him as a 4th line pairing with Keith Acton, he was in press box for 5 games, Larouche who always said what he think without a filter said Grundman was a bowling manager, "un gérant de salle de quilles" and soon after that he was traded to the Whalers. He's been traded to the Rangers where he scored 50 g again, he had Herb Brooks as a coach, witch he loved because there was no dumping pucks, the possession of puck was important. Brooks said you can't skate faster than a puck dumped, you lose too much energy trying to get it back, it's better find a way to keep it and try to make a play. Like the Wings did with Yserman and Zetterberg and like the russians did in their good years in the 70's

He ended his carreer quickly at the age of 31 because of an injury and came back to hockey as an assistant of Mario Lemieux with the Pens. Larouche outscored Lafleurs's numbers in the LHJMQ and only ten years after Lemieux outscored Larouche's record in the LHJMQ. Good story, good documentary. Larouche was a player with a baby face, he was very skilled and scoring looked easy for him.

 

[The Great Weal]

Overrated by some, underrated by others... He's not a 1st liner that's for sure, he's so limited offensively.

I just feel like there are other issues to address than having Danault as your 2C. He's definitely not a 1C, I don't see many people claiming that he is a #1 C. But take the Avs for example, replace Kadri with Danault and they are still the same level of threat as a team imo.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

I just feel like there are other issues to address than having Danault as your 2C. He's definitely not a 1C, I don't see many people claiming that he is a #1 C. But take the Avs for example, replace Kadri with Danault and they are still the same level of threat imo.

Habs can have a better #1C than Danault for sure but still, his line produce with some kind of success. If we want to fix a problem my first concern is to find a back-up goalie, then find two more good defensemen, find a power winger and then improve the #1 C. Find a #3C because KK doesn't seem able to take the pressure for the moment. Maybe find an inforcer to replace Deslaurier too.

 

[mynamejeff420]

I'd like to know where you get your weed?

Stop....please just stop. I love Phil Danault as a 3rd line C, might just one of the best in the league. But please...........................

I can’t do these debates anymore. I really like PD as a player and I feel like I’m bashing him when I get into these debates because many others are over the top with their hatred towards this player.

He’s crafty along the wall, retrieving pucks, keeping plays alive, he’s a decent passer and he’s a high IQ player, but his offence is not elite. His shot is weak, his hands are nothing special and stick handling/dangling is not a strength, he is an underrated passer imo, but elite, naw. He doesn’t get much PP time and I don’t think he should. I’d be ok with having him on the 2nd wave, taking draws and going to the net, but can’t have him manning the point or half-wall, he’s not good enough for that role.

The advanced stats guys have a really hard time reconciling their numbers with an eye test or facing the fact their numbers might be misleading. At some point what actually happens needs to outweigh projections.

I remember being told Scotty Gomez was still driving the play relatively close to normal and it was just a matter of time, he then went scoreless for over a year, some even argued that wasn’t who he really was either. He was then bought out and never the same again and eventually retired. I just can’t give these guys the attention when they say things like Philip Danault is elite offensively.

Over the past 2 years at 5v5, Danault ranks 29th in points (91st percentile), 37th in P/60 (89th percentile), 19th in GF/60 (94th percentile), and 8th in xGF/60 (98th percentile). All marks of an elite offense at even strength (unless consistently ranking in the 90th percentile or above doesn't mean someone's elite). If Danault is a 3C because of his offense then like 95% of the league is also 3rd line quality or worse. His lack of volume shooting and shooting talent is an issue for sure, but at the end of the day the puck is going in to the net at an elite rate when he's on the ice, and that's all that really matters. Plus he's a really good passer anyways, as he ranks in the 91st percentile for shot assists per 60.

I'm convinced that all these people saying he's a 2/3 C at best just aren't watching him. I've watched almost every Habs game over the last number of years and it's very clear to me that Danault is very good. He may not be a flashy player but he produces results far superior to a number of flashier players, and at the end of the day, results win games, not flashy plays.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

Over the past 2 years at 5v5, Danault ranks 29th in points (91st percentile), 37th in P/60 (89th percentile), 19th in GF/60 (94th percentile), and 8th in xGF/60 (98th percentile). All marks of an elite offense at even strength (unless consistently ranking in the 90th percentile or above doesn't mean someone's elite). If Danault is a 3C because of his offense then like 95% of the league is also 3rd line quality or worse. His lack of volume shooting and shooting talent is an issue for sure, but at the end of the day the puck is going in to the net at an elite rate when he's on the ice, and that's all that really matters. Plus he's a really good passer anyways, as he ranks in the 91st percentile for shot assists per 60.

Yes, his even strength numbers are pretty high, but it's not because he's a really good passer, in fact, he's not particularly good in that area. When was the last time he made an amazing pass ?

If he was such a good passer, he would be great on the PP and it's not the case.

Goals are scored when he's on ice, probably because his wingers are able to score 25-30 goals/season, with or without him.

I'm convinced that all these people saying he's a 2/3 C at best just aren't watching him. I've watched almost every Habs game over the last number of years and it's very clear to me that Danault is very good. He may not be a flashy player but he produces results far superior to a number of flashier players, and at the end of the day, results win games, not flashy plays.

He's a 2/3 C at best, we all watched almost every game... I mean he's not even as good as Pleky and we all crapped on Tomas, because of his lack of offensive talent.

You are here trying to convince us that Danault is a #1C ? Come on man !

What results are you talking about ? Win games ? We missed the playoffs 4 times the last 5 years.

 

[THE HOFF]

le danault is not a part of ze probleme.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

le danault is not a part of ze probleme.

I know you are not serious, but:

A #2/3C playing on the first line is part of the problem, he's not the #1 issue with the team, but he's part of the many problems keeping us from competing.

 

[frapp10]

If Tatar-Danault-Gallagher was our second line our team would be a contender

 

[frapp10]

If Tatar-Danault-Gallagher was our second line our team would be a contender

 

[mynamejeff420]

Yes, his even strength numbers are pretty high, but it's not because he's a really good passer, in fact, he's not particularly good in that area. When was the last time he made an amazing pass ?

If he was such a good passer, he would be great on the PP and it's not the case.

Goals are scored when he's on ice, probably because his wingers are able to score 25-30 goals/season, with or without him.




He's a 2/3 C at best, we all watched almost every game... I mean he's not even as good as Pleky and we all crapped on Tomas, because of his lack of offensive talent.

You are here trying to convince us that Danault is a #1C ? Come on man !

What results are you talking about ? Win games ? We missed the playoffs 4 times the last 5 years.

A lot of his passes lead to shots, which is the purpose of a pass, to lead to a shot that (hopefully) leads to a goal. He does that better than 9o% of the league. They may not be "flashy" or "amazing" but if they do the job, who cares? A goal is a goal.

He is one of the better forwards on the PP with the Habs, on a per minute basis. He just isn't on the PP a lot so he doesn't get the opportunity. He's 5th in GF/60 on the PP.

Yes, Tatar and Gallagher are great players too, but they do a hell of a lot better with him vs without him. That leads me to believe that he's got something to do with that goal scoring.

	GF/60 w/ Danault	GF/60 w/o Danault
Gallagher	3.76	2.58
Tatar	3.48	3.23

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

As for "results" I mean goals for and goals against. The Habs missing the playoffs in 4 of the last 5 years has nothing to do with Danault being bad, he's crushed the competition. It's what happens when he's on the bench that hurts, and so if he's not on the ice how can he help? The Habs missing the playoffs is not a Danault issue, it's a "rest of the roster" issue.

	GF/60	GA/60	GF%
w/ Danault	3.44	2.54	57.55
w/o Danault	2.40	2.42	49.77

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I've also watched the games and Danault is a smothering and presence against the opposition imo. I've also watched almost every Habs game and I rarely see Danault getting consistently beat, which he's able to manage while playing against the best of the best. We're just getting different things out of our eye tests I guess. The thing is, mine is backed by tangible results (goals for and against), while I have yet to see proof to back up your claim that he's a 2/3 C besides "he doesn't make amazing passes". I'm very happy and open to hearing some reasoning for why he isn't suited to be a 1C, as long as it's not "he's not skilled enough", because based on the results (goals for and against), he clearly is.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

I know you are not serious, but:

A #2/3C playing on the first line is part of the problem, he's not the #1 issue with the team, but he's part of the many problems keeping us from competing.

I rank Danault as a problem behind a back-up goalie. Behind a good left D pairing with Weber or Petry, maybe two good LD are needed. A power-forward is needed, it might be a center or a winger. As a matter of fact, Suzuki is not quite ready taking #1C duty, neither Domi. A third center is needed, unless KK return to be as good as he was first half of his season two years ago. There is problems everywhere in this team and people focus on Danault, who overall make his line having the most pts and lead in plus and minus. The team is generally too small, we are still the smallest team. If we replace Danault with a smaller center our team will look even more like midgets vs men.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

A lot of his passes lead to shots, which is the purpose of a pass, to lead to a shot that (hopefully) leads to a goal. He does that better than 9o% of the league. They may not be "flashy" or "amazing" but if they do the job, who cares? A goal is a goal.

A goal is a goal, yes!

The thing is, mine is backed by tangible results (goals for and against), while I have yet to see proof to back up your claim that he's a 2/3 C besides "he doesn't make amazing passes". I'm very happy and open to hearing some reasoning for why he isn't suited to be a 1C, as long as it's not "he's not skilled enough", because based on the results (goals for and against), he clearly is.

The "he doesn't make amazing passes" is important for people who like to be impressed and their judgment is based on that.

I'll try to answer why he is not a true #1C. He desn't have a good shot, so opposite teams can adapt a strategy where they will cut his passing line to force him to shoot. He doesn't make great dekes so he cannot make amazing plays to have a nice shot on goal or great pass, like true elite centers do. He skate fast but not as fast as McDavid. He is somehow tall but not tall and heavy like Tavares. He have a good hockey IQ but not as much as Bergeron, etc. I can go like that all night long, lol. He is overall good but he lacks some skills to be elite. His best qualities are puck protection, plays among the board, overall speed, endurance, hockey IQ, intercept opponent passes, face-offs and good passes (without amazing).

 

[The Great Weal]

A goal is a goal, yes!

The "he doesn't make amazing passes" is important for people who like to be impressed and their judgment is based on that.

I'll try to answer why he is not a true #1C. He desn't have a good shot, so opposite teams can adapt a strategy where they will cut his passing line to force him to shoot. He doesn't make great dekes so he cannot make amazing plays to have a nice shot on goal or great pass, like true elite centers do. He skate fast but not as fast as McDavid. He is somehow tall but not tall and heavy like Tavares. He have a good hockey IQ but not as much as Bergeron, etc. I can go like that all night long, lol. He is overall good but he lacks some skills to be elite. His best qualities are puck protection, plays among the board, overall speed, endurance, hockey IQ, intercept opponent passes, face-offs and good passes (without amazing).

Danault is simply an effective player. He won't wow you with jaw dropping passes and goals, but he is effective. He works hard, plays smart and is effective. While it's understandable to say that his wingers would produce more with a more gifted offensive center, that more gifted offensive center will likely hold onto the puck more compared to Danault and may result in less points for Gally and Tatar. He makes the right plays and helps out Gally and Tatar in that aspect with them being more talented than him.

The frustrating thing is that we don't have a skilled center that is complete to play ahead of him. Hopefully Suzuki and/or KK grow into that role. I'd still love to keep Danault(assuming he doesn't ask for the moon and gets a contract similar to Pageau) even if Suzuki and KK pan out. He's played wing before too so if we have another center in his place, he can still be a winger with good faceoff skills.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

A lot of his passes lead to shots, which is the purpose of a pass, to lead to a shot that (hopefully) leads to a goal. He does that better than 9o% of the league. They may not be "flashy" or "amazing" but if they do the job, who cares? A goal is a goal.

He is one of the better forwards on the PP with the Habs, on a per minute basis. He just isn't on the PP a lot so he doesn't get the opportunity. He's 5th in GF/60 on the PP.



Yes, Tatar and Gallagher are great players too, but they do a hell of a lot better with him vs without him. That leads me to believe that he's got something to do with that goal scoring.

	GF/60 w/ Danault	GF/60 w/o Danault
Gallagher	3.76	2.58
Tatar	3.48	3.23

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

As for "results" I mean goals for and goals against. The Habs missing the playoffs in 4 of the last 5 years has nothing to do with Danault being bad, he's crushed the competition. It's what happens when he's on the bench that hurts, and so if he's not on the ice how can he help? The Habs missing the playoffs is not a Danault issue, it's a "rest of the roster" issue.

	GF/60	GA/60	GF%
w/ Danault	3.44	2.54	57.55
w/o Danault	2.40	2.42	49.77

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I've also watched the games and Danault is a smothering and presence against the opposition imo. I've also watched almost every Habs game and I rarely see Danault getting consistently beat, which he's able to manage while playing against the best of the best. We're just getting different things out of our eye tests I guess. The thing is, mine is backed by tangible results (goals for and against), while I have yet to see proof to back up your claim that he's a 2/3 C besides "he doesn't make amazing passes". I'm very happy and open to hearing some reasoning for why he isn't suited to be a 1C, as long as it's not "he's not skilled enough", because based on the results (goals for and against), he clearly is.

Where did you get your stats ? Pretty sure you can't compare with or without Danault, because they always played together since Tatar is here...

It's not only about amazing passes, it's about creating opportunities when the simple play does not work. It's about slowing down the pace with your skills and make the perfect pass at the right moment in order to create a scoring chance. It's about unblocking games by your own when nothing is working for your team... It's about that, that's what a #1C should do and that's not Danault.

 

[HabsCowboysOwn]

It's amazing to me that the fact Danault isn't a #1 C has to be explained to anyone. How far disconnected from reality does one has to be to actually believe he's an elite player at his position? Scary stuff.

 

[LaP]

Why do people focus on Danault playmaking abilities? It's not the main problem with him. The main problem is he can't score. It makes a him a one trick pony. In regular season not that big of a problem specially against weaker teams. But in playoffs it's a death sentence. The best defences have no problem defending against one trick ponies. The main difference between Danault and Plekanec is the scoring abilities. Plekanec was a regular 20-25 goal scorer (with a significantly better shot). Danault has not scored 15 goals yet. Last time we went in playoffs his line was nullified offensively at 5 vs 5. Only production came from Radulov. If Danault could score 25 to 30 goals he would be a very solid top 6 center one of the best in the league.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

Why do people focus on Danault playmaking abilities? It's not the main problem with him. The main problem is he can't score. It makes a him a one trick pony. In regular season not that big of a problem specially against weaker teams. But in playoffs it's a death sentence. The best defences have no problem defending against one trick ponies. The main difference between Danault and Plekanec is the scoring abilities. Plekanec was a regular 20-25 goal scorer (with a significantly better shot). Danault has not scored 15 goals yet. Last time we went in playoffs his line was nullified offensively at 5 vs 5. Only production came from Radulov. If Danault could score 25 to 30 goals he would be a very solid top 6 center one of the best in the league.

It's because we are unanimous on his bad scoring abilities.