Player Discussion Phillip Danault - The Centermania Edition

[malcb33]

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).

I'm not sure what you expect when those are your comparables....... come on man, you don't need to be better the McD, Bergeron or Tavares to be a #1C. So basically if you're not one of the top 10-12 centres in the league, your not a #1C? SMH

For the record, I agree that Danault should really be a 3C on a contender or at best a top 3C on a team which rolls their top lines evenly (typically not contenders though)

 

[mynamejeff420]

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.

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).

1) Over the past 2 seasons Danault and Gallagher have spent 1628:16 together, and Gallagher has played 279:28 without Danault. Danault and Tatar have played 1481:16 with each other and Tatar has played 501:46 without Danault. So you can actually compare with and without Danault, there's a pretty good sample of both situations. The results are clear, the Habs score more with Tatar w/ Danault or Gallagher w/ Danault vs Tatar w/o Danault or Gallagher w/o Danault.

2) While Danault may not make those high skill plays with consistency, he still plays against elite competition and outscores them to a large degree, while also scoring at a higher rate than 95% of the forwards in the league. The team with the most goals wins, not the team with the most high skill plays. When Danault is on the ice, the Habs get 58% of the goals at even strength. That's is better than 90% of the forwards who have played over the last 2 seasons. I couldn't care less about how many high skill plays he makes, as long as he's getting results. Because it's the results that matter, as they are the thing that determines the winner of the game.

3) If teams were able to adapt to a strategy where they cut off the passing lanes for Danault and forcing him to shoot, don't you think they would've done so already? He's spent the past 2 years dominating the competition. If it was easy enough to do, it would've happened. It's been 2 years.

4) I get that, from an entertainment perspective, things like "amazing passes" or "high skill plays" are important. They're fun to watch. But a simple pass that results in a goal is worth just as much as an amazing pass that leads to a highlight reel goal. It's all the same. So it's kind of a silly thing to place importance on, in my opinion, because a goal is a goal. It's silly in my opinion to base your judgement on a player's value to winning on that. From an entertainment perspective, it makes sense to put value on that, because entertainment is subjective and you do you. But to place value on it from a "who does a better job at helping his team win games" perspective, it makes no sense. Danault heavily outscores the competition. That's what matters. Not the flashy plays.

5) While Danault may not have the flash you're looking for, it doesn't change the fact that he drives goalscoring for his teammates to a high degree. Over the last 2 years, few have done a better job.

6) At a certain point you have to put value on the results, not the process. 2 years is more than enough time to judge value. Here's a little thought experiment: which player would you rather have, and which player do you think does more to help you win:

	GF/60	GA/60	GF%
Player A	3.43	2.50	57.84
Player B	3.23	2.81	53.55

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In my opinion, it's Player A. Player A scores more and does better than defense. So overall he's getting a larger goal share. The larger goal share is better and does more to help the team win, because goals are what win games. So even if Player B might be more "flashy" than Player A, Player A is still doing more to help you win, both offensively and defensively.

(Player A is Danault and Player B is Matthews)

 

[LaP]

	GF/60	GA/60	GF%
Player A	3.43	2.50	57.84
Player B	3.23	2.81	53.55

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Impossible to know with those numbers. PP numbers. PK numbers. Hits. Blocked shots. Shots. Goals. Primary assists. Performance of linemates versus his own. Etc ... etc ... etc ...

 

[LaP]

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.

A backup goalie wont change much until we improve the defense. We pay Price 10.5 millions we can't afford a quality backup paid 4 millions. Throw any 1-2 millions backup behind that defense and the result will be the same unless it's an underpaid kid.

 

[Mrb1p]

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.

He is the number one issue though. The lack of a first line center is the problem and it has been since... ? Heck i dont even know, Gros Bill?

 

[LaP]

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.

There's many ways to create opportunities for your linemates. I think overall in that regard Danault is doing a good job. Not great but good enough. He keep the play alive and create space. He's a top checker one on one in the league both offensively and defensively. This result in goals opportunities. Don't think it would work with any type of wingers but with guys going to the net like Gallagher it does. But that's just one aspect of hockey. To be an effective offensive contributor in playoffs against top pairing in the league you got to be more complete than that. And as long as Danault is centering our best wingers he'll face the top pairing in important games. I don't understand why some people don't see that as a problem.

 

[peate]

le danault is not a part of ze probleme.

That avatar brings back memories. Playoffs? What's dat?

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

He is the number one issue though. The lack of a first line center is the problem and it has been since... ? Heck i dont even know, Gros Bill?

If my miracle Danault was traded for a better center, Habs won't make the PO because the left D would still be a problem not fixed, the back-up goalie still a problem, Price would be overused and the and third center still a problem unless KK or Poeh improve. Second and third wingers still a problem. I guess Habs have enough depth 4th line.

As for since the Gros Bill, you forget P. Mahovlich, Lemaire, Larouche, Smith, Turgeon, Damphousse, and maybe Koivu.

 

[Scriptor]

As for those who love to slam on Danault, I believe he's established himself as a legitimate 2nd line C and, if he were to sign a contract like Pageau at 6 X 5M, he'd be a value 2nd line C.

If Danault had only helped Tatar and Gallagher produce the way they have, the argument that he does nothing for them because they will produce the same without him -- although farcical -- would have a little more credit than it does because Danault also helped Pacioretty and Radulov produce before both left the team -- and he did so at the earlier stage in his development.

Some will say Radulov produced more with a better C in DAL the next season but, he also produced more with an experienced C and a different system than that which was prevalent in MON at the time. He also produced more with a deeper offensive lineup than that which MON had at the time.

I think that Danrult's line mates appreciate him because he allows them to concentrate on their offense and their strengths, handling the D-side of the game and being strong on the cycle (and board play) in the offensive zone.

Danault's value, amongst fans -- non francophone fans, actually (if we're to be honest about it)-- is pretty low, much lower than amongst a majority of francophone fans.

It's just an observation, not an attempt to stir the pot.

In the end, as I consider that MON fans undervalue Danault as a whole, his real value might be seen in a trade, especially after he signs for 5M.

One-line teams -- there are many in the NHL -- would surely appreciate Danault as a 2nd line C, IMHO. There are a lot of offensive players who would love to have a longer offensive leash because Danault can cover for them defensively.

I agree that Danault might not be the offensive catalyst of a line but, his defensive play and ability to keep up with skilled players in a supporting role enables his line mates to exploit their offensive skills to their fullest.

On a 2nd line, that's a great commodity to have. On a first line, it lacks punch. On a 3rd line, it would be awesome if a team has the offensive depth to have top-6 wingers playing on the 3rd line but, few have enough of those wingers to man two lines, never mind three.

 

[DAChampion]

As for those who love to slam on Danault, I believe he's established himself as a legitimate 2nd line C and, if he were to sign a contract like Pageau at 6 X 5M, he'd be a value 2nd line C.

If Danault had only helped Tatar and Gallagher produce the way they have, the argument that he does nothing for them because they will produce the same without him -- although farcical -- would have a little more credit than it does because Danault also helped Pacioretty and Radulov produce before both left the team -- and he did so at the earlier stage in his development.

Some will say Radulov produced more with a better C in DAL the next season but, he also produced more with an experienced C and a different system than that which was prevalent in MON at the time. He also produced more with a deeper offensive lineup than that which MON had at the time.

I think that Danrult's line mates appreciate him because he allows them to concentrate on their offense and their strengths, handling the D-side of the game and being strong on the cycle (and board play) in the offensive zone.

Danault's value, amongst fans -- non francophone fans, actually (if we're to be honest about it)-- is pretty low, much lower than amongst a majority of francophone fans.

It's just an observation, not an attempt to stir the pot.

In the end, as I consider that MON fans undervalue Danault as a whole, his real value might be seen in a trade, especially after he signs for 5M.

One-line teams -- there are many in the NHL -- would surely appreciate Danault as a 2nd line C, IMHO. There are a lot of offensive players who would love to have a longer offensive leash because Danault can cover for them defensively.

I agree that Danault might not be the offensive catalyst of a line but, his defensive play and ability to keep up with skilled players in a supporting role enables his line mates to exploit their offensive skills to their fullest.

On a 2nd line, that's a great commodity to have. On a first line, it lacks punch. On a 3rd line, it would be awesome if a team has the offensive depth to have top-6 wingers playing on the 3rd line but, few have enough of those wingers to man two lines, never mind three.

Ummmm, Danault was not responsible for Radulov and Pacioretty's production in Montreal.

 

[Scriptor]

Ummmm, Danault was not responsible for Radulov and Pacioretty's production in Montreal.

Well, according to them, he certainly helped by freeing them from defensive assignments. Of course, you can always roll out the, "What do you expect them to say about a line mate?" strawman....

 

[JoelWarlord]

As for those who love to slam on Danault, I believe he's established himself as a legitimate 2nd line C and, if he were to sign a contract like Pageau at 6 X 5M, he'd be a value 2nd line C.

If Danault had only helped Tatar and Gallagher produce the way they have, the argument that he does nothing for them because they will produce the same without him -- although farcical -- would have a little more credit than it does because Danault also helped Pacioretty and Radulov produce before both left the team -- and he did so at the earlier stage in his development.

Brendan Gallagher with Charles Hudon and the corpse of Tomas Plekanec:

Brendan Gallagher with Philip Danault and Tomas Tatar:

Clearly it is Danault causing Gallagher to soar to new heights.

To be clear my opinion is not that he provides nothing to those players, the line is clearly a greater than the sum of its parts thing and they all contribute. I just think it's laughable to say it's anyone other than Gallagher driving the bus on that line. Tatar fair enough but he was also a mid 50s point producer early in his career too, he's been very good but there's also an ice time factor here going from 16 to 18+ minutes.

RE: Pacioretty and Radulov I just don't see it at all. He did not "help them produce" beyond simply being the only plausible option on the roster at the time. They were both fringe elite forwards in their primes, and both were exceptionally good in transition as play drivers. Danault was just the only plausible fit there, it had nothing to do with those players needing him to cover for them defensively.

 

[DAChampion]

Well, according to them, he certainly helped by freeing them from defensive assignments. Of course, you can always roll out the, "What do you expect them to say about a line mate?" strawman....

A player says "I support the coach."
Sctiptor: " We know that the player's support the coach."
Reality: We don't know if the player's support the coach.

 

[Scriptor]

Brendan Gallagher with Charles Hudon and the corpse of Tomas Plekanec:

View attachment 342863

Brendan Gallagher with Philip Danault and Tomas Tatar:

View attachment 342864

Clearly it is Danault causing Gallagher to soar to new heights.

To be clear my opinion is not that he provides nothing to those players, the line is clearly a greater than the sum of its parts thing and they all contribute. I just think it's laughable to say it's anyone other than Gallagher driving the bus on that line. Same for Pacioretty and Radulov, we're talking about two fringe-elite forwards in their prime, neither player needed Danault to free them up for their offensive role. Pacioretty was a top 5 goal scorer in the league with David Desharnais, he pulled his own weight in transition and defensively, and Radulov was excellent as well.

Honestly, Pacioretty was lazy and preferred a C like Danault who freed him from his defensive responsibilities. He said as much the year he played with Radulov by praising Danault for how he handled that part of the job for the line.

I agree that Gallagher is the motor of the lines he is a part of. Some posters act like Danault is just along for the ride and that makes zero sense. Too many consecutive years where he contributes to what you justly described as a sum of all parts production from the lines he centered.

Anyhow, arguing that Danault isn't a 2nd line C would be out in left field. The statistics support his being a great two-way, 2nd line C.

I think it's clear that MON needs to work on assembling a top-notch first line, though. If that falls into place, I am pretty comfortable with Danault in a 2nd line, two-way role with the same wingers.

It's a matter of semantics, though, with some posters arguing based on the traditional, yet outdated, line exploitation model; two offensive first lines, a checking line and an energy line to tire out opponents.

That has evolved over the years and scoring is relied upon from more than two lines. A genuine 1st line, the Tatar - Danault - Gallagher line as a two-way 2nd line capable of producing the way they do at even strength, a more offensive 3rd line that can exploit playing against weaker opposition and a checking fourth line that can provide some complementary scoring would be a great model for MON.

People rant and rave about Barkov but, there is still hope that Kotkaniemi can match Barkov's production as he continues to progress. Just examining Barkov's progression and his production in the first four years that he played NHL hockey, we might come to realize that patience is needed when it comes to the 19-yr-old Kotkaniemi.

Suzuki and Kotkaniemi eventually centering two offensive lines split on the 1st and 3rd, with a top-5 two-way line like Danault's current line at even strength as a 2nd line would be excellent, IMO. TOI can always vary based on nightly performances and determination of who is hot on any given night.

The basis for this line exploitation model would be to play sound defensive hockey but, mostly, to increase the odds of getting offensive production from at least two lines each game.

Believe what you want but, Danault can be an integral part of a strong lineup for the Habs, both offensively and defensively.

 

[Scriptor]

A player says "I support the coach."
Sctiptor: " We know that the player's support the coach."
Reality: We don't know if the player's support the coach.

All good. I expected as much. Some posters quote what they want when it suits their narrative and dismiss anything else said as expected when it doesn't. And they feel very comfortable lying to themselves.

Par for the course.

I would have been surprised at anything more than that.

 

[DAChampion]

All good. I expected as much. Some posters quote what they want when it suits their narrative and dismiss anything else said as expected when it doesn't. And they feel very comfortable lying to themselves.

Par for the course.

I would have been surprised at anything more than that.

You're just grouping the rest of the forum into "posters" and it makes you come off as incoherent. Hint: I'm not responsible for what other people have written.

I have long been consistent, there is no value in generic statements from public figures. They're only meaningful if they go off script.

 

[Scriptor]

You're just grouping the rest of the forum into "posters" and it makes you come off as incoherent. Hint: I'm not responsible for what other people have written.

I have long been consistent, there is no value in generic statements from public figures. They're only meaningful if they go off script.

That argument overlooks degrees of praise and is even more all-encompassing than your posters allusion.

There's a generic, tepid praise and then there's a praise beyond what's necessarily required to meet conventional public praise.

Pacioretty's praise of Danault -- need to find some quotes -- was more than a cursory acknowledgement of how good a line mate and team mate he was.

Hope you can acknowledge the difference in degrees of praise.

One looks obligated for good graces and the other comes across as more genuine.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Ummmm, Danault was not responsible for Radulov and Pacioretty's production in Montreal.

When he was with Paccio and Radu he was just beginning his nhl carreer. He improved a lot since so it doesn't count today when we talk about him.

 

[DAChampion]

When he was with Paccio and Radu he was just beginning his nhl carreer. He improved a lot since so it doesn't count today when we talk about him.

Right, but it was written above that Danault was responsible for Radulov's and Pacioretty's production.

Follow the conversation.

 

[DAChampion]

That argument overlooks degrees of praise and is even more all-encompassing than your posters allusion.

There's a generic, tepid praise and then there's a praise beyond what's necessarily required to meet conventional public praise.

Pacioretty's praise of Danault -- need to find some quotes -- was more than a cursory acknowledgement of how good a line mate and team mate he was.

Hope you can acknowledge the difference in degrees of praise.

One looks obligated for good graces and the other comes across as more genuine.

Pacioretty used to make genuine statements, he stopped around 2012 when he saw that the pushback was immense. He now says as little as possible, and only what people want to hear. Players know to tell fans what they want to hear.

 

[Andy]

Saying that Danault is a great player AND that he was not responsible for Radulov and Pacioretty's success are not incommensurate positions. Both Pacioretty and Radulov went on to have just as much success/even greater success than they did with the habs.

On to Danault, he's a fantastic hockey player. He's by far the team's best centreman. His position on the club hasn't really held anyone back. KK wasn't at all ready, and Suzuki got more and more responsibility as the season went on.

Danault has high IQ, a strong, active stick, and his board work is the best on the Canadiens. He almost always makes the right play. He's not fancy, but he's effective.

Danault is exactly what I thought Eller would be if we were given the opportunity to develop his offensive side. In retrospect, Danault getting to play with Pacioretty and Radulov for the year was instrumental in his development. Does he take the next step if he was buried in the bottom 6? I'm not so sure. I'm glad the team actually took a chance with him and allowed him to develop his offensive game.

 

[Mrb1p]

Saying that Danault is a great player AND that he was not responsible for Radulov and Pacioretty's success are not incommensurate positions. Both Pacioretty and Radulov went on to have just as much success/even greater success than they did with the habs.

On to Danault, he's a fantastic hockey player. He's by far the team's best centreman. His position on the club hasn't really held anyone back. KK wasn't at all ready, and Suzuki got more and more responsibility as the season went on.

Danault has high IQ, a strong, active stick, and his board work is the best on the Canadiens. He almost always makes the right play. He's not fancy, but he's effective.

Danault is exactly what I thought Eller would be if we were given the opportunity to develop his offensive side. In retrospect, Danault getting to play with Pacioretty and Radulov for the year was instrumental in his development. Does he take the next step if he was buried in the bottom 6? I'm not so sure. I'm glad the team actually took a chance with him and allowed him to develop his offensive game.

No he's not a fantastic hockey player. Hes about average when it comes to NHL'rs and he's well below average in raw skills and IQ.


The meme that he almost always makes the right play needs to die, he's a low IQ player that has a case of Eller-itis magnified by 100 and coupled with poor puck handling abilities. He gives up possession more often than any other Habs Ive seen this year and was only bested by Benn in that category in the past, not somewhere you want to be. His puck management is well below average for a top 9 forward and I laugh at anyone that calls a player that can't manage a f***ing puck "high iq".

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Right, but it was written above that Danault was responsible for Radulov's and Pacioretty's production.

Follow the conversation.

His year with Radu and Paccio I found he was just there to recover defensivly if it was necessary, giving both Radu and Paccio more freedom to make offensive plays. Now I find Danault more offensive, a better passer, a winner in battles of pucks among boards and overall a better player. He follows the example of Bergeron, a good example to follow. He lacks shooting skills, well nobody is perfect.

It's somehow irrelevant to bring to the discussion his year with Paccio and Radu. Like a last attempt to prove something, whatever positive or negative.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

I've heard on 98,5 ex Hawks coach Quenneville was mad at the trade that sendt Danault to the Habs when in return Hawks got Wiese and Fleishman, who both did nothing in the PO. I don't have a proof that Quenneville was mad about that decision but he lost his job because he was mad about several decisions.

Here is a link and a quote :
"This team also doesn’t have much depth at center, which doesn’t help solidify lines and keep the scoring consistent. The Phillip Danault trade of 2014 looks worse and worse by the day. The trade didn’t make the team better in 2014, and now they are missing the guy who would slot into the Hawks’ third line beautifully."
Stan Bowman no Longer has a Head Coach to Blame his Incompetency on and Now the Clock is Ticking on his Career

I take Quenneville opinion before any posters here on this forum. If Danault was the third center with the Hawks, Quenneville would probably have is job as head coach of the Hawks today instead of being fired.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

I've heard on 98,5 ex Hawks coach Quenneville was mad at the trade that sendt Danault to the Habs when in return Hawks got Wiese and Fleishman, who both did nothing in the PO. I don't have a proof that Quenneville was mad about that decision but he lost his job because he was mad about several decisions.

Here is a link and a quote :
"This team also doesn’t have much depth at center, which doesn’t help solidify lines and keep the scoring consistent. The Phillip Danault trade of 2014 looks worse and worse by the day. The trade didn’t make the team better in 2014, and now they are missing the guy who would slot into the Hawks’ third line beautifully."
Stan Bowman no Longer has a Head Coach to Blame his Incompetency on and Now the Clock is Ticking on his Career

I take Quenneville opinion before any posters here on this forum. If Danault was the third center with the Hawks, Quenneville would probably have is job as head coach of the Hawks today instead of being fired.

The trade was pretty good... Nobody will deny it. Weise and Fleishman were done and we got a 2nd a future NHLer. Nobody said that Danault is useless.