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.