Player Discussion Phillip Danault

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

No, but the great majority can't think for themselves.

gotcha. I understand your stance better now then.

 

[Mrb1p]

Tatar - Danault - Gallagher has been one of the best 5 on 5 lines in the league since last season

What does best in the league mean ? Top 5 ? Top 10 ? TOP 30?

Not better than
The Bergeron line
The Stepan line
The Eichel line
The Monahan line
The Aho line
The Mackinnon line
The Larkin line
The McDavid line
The Barkov line
The RyJo line
The Couturier line
The Crosby line
The Hertl line
The Couture line
The Statsny line
The Karlsson line
The Schenn line
The ROR line
The Point line
The Tavares line
The Pettersson line
The Backstrom line
The Scheifele line
The Dubois line

Heck, is that line actually better than
The Little line ?
The Matthews line ?
The Barzal line ?
The Seguin line ?
The Horvat line?
The Kuznetslov line ?
The Johnson line ?
The Toews line ?
The Strome line ?
The Henrique line ?
The Duchene line in CBJ ?

Really, people should stop using that BS line shoved by MTL media because ITS NOT ONE OF THE BEST LINE IN THE LEAGUE.

Heck, might as well say that Mete and Weber are one of the best pairing in the league, because it would mean the same thing. Lets call Kinkaid one of the best backup in the league, heck, lets call Mete one of the best LD in the league too!

 

[Paddyjack]

The problem with Danault is not his play, it is the way they use him. Every time I hear or read that he centers the Habs top line I cringe. It is unfortunate because he does a lot of good things out there and his role should be on the 3rd line.

 

[Mrb1p]

The problem with Danault is not his play, it is the way they use him. Every time I hear or read that he centers the Habs top line I cringe. It is unfortunate because he does a lot of good things out there and his role should be on the 3rd line.

Its Desharnais all over again. A franchise that overplays a player so much that they actually start to hate him.

 

[THE HOFF]

What does best in the league mean ? Top 5 ? Top 10 ? TOP 30?

Not better than
The Bergeron line
The Stepan line
The Eichel line
The Monahan line
The Aho line
The Mackinnon line
The Larkin line
The McDavid line
The Barkov line
The RyJo line
The Couturier line
The Crosby line
The Hertl line
The Couture line
The Statsny line
The Karlsson line
The Schenn line
The ROR line
The Point line
The Tavares line
The Pettersson line
The Backstrom line
The Scheifele line
The Dubois line

Heck, is that line actually better than
The Little line ?
The Matthews line ?
The Barzal line ?
The Seguin line ?
The Horvat line?
The Kuznetslov line ?
The Johnson line ?
The Toews line ?
The Strome line ?
The Henrique line ?
The Duchene line in CBJ ?

Really, people should stop using that BS line shoved by MTL media because ITS NOT ONE OF THE BEST LINE IN THE LEAGUE.

Heck, might as well say that Mete and Weber are one of the best pairing in the league, because it would mean the same thing. Lets call Kinkaid one of the best backup in the league, heck, lets call Mete one of the best LD in the league too!

I consider (personally) the Bergeron line as the best 5 on 5 line in the NHL. Last year they matched their production (5 on 5) and +/- (which over the course of a full season does say something). I'm curious to see which metric you use to completely discard them from being a good 5 on 5 line ?

 

[Mrb1p]

I consider (personally) the Bergeron line as the best 5 on 5 line in the NHL. Last year they matched their production (5 on 5) and +/- (which over the course of a full season does say something). I'm curious to see which metric you use to completely discard them from being a good 5 on 5 line ?

Don't you think there might be a big gap between being "a good 5 on 5 line" and being "one of the best in the league"?

 

[Kriss E]

Well Gallagher got a career high 29 goals at even strenght that's a 7 goal difference with his previous career high two years ago, to me that is significant and more than the double of your 2-3 goals you are claiming it to be, your point is simply not true. He almost got an entire 30 goals playing with danault and you cannot fault Gallagher's usage on the powerplay and his underwhelming results of last year on the PP on danault.

Hum.. that's called nitpicking. Fact is, produced at the same rate overall. He doesnt get extra brownie points just because he scored more at EV.
Also, Gallagher should be at his prime now. You would expect quite the improvement over previous years.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Why do people try making conclusions so early on....
It's 9 games. Danault is what he is...a good two way player. He is smart defensively and can pot in some points...he should not be centering your best wingers.

He should play first line center because he is our best center right now. Until KK or another one get his game peak he is the most qualify for the job. CJ can change lines a little bit, for more offence there, more defense there, maybe Danault needs better line,mates to conter the very best opponents, like a
Danault-Armia-Gallagher, (that would be our shutdown line for very best opponents)
and create an all offence line with :
Domi-Drouin-Suzuki.
3rd line would be :
KK with Tartar and Lekhonen (or Byron) and still a line that can score goals.

 

[Kriss E]

What if I told you Gallagher never actually got a decent top 6 center ? DD, Danault, broken down Plekanec... Maybe thats why there's no uptick in production ?
.

I'd say meh...I dont view Gallagher as highly as you do. I think he is exactly what hes shown, nothing more nothing less.

 

[Kriss E]

He should play first line center because he is our best center right now. Until KK or another one get his game peak he is the most qualify for the job. CJ can change lines a little bit, for more offence there, more defense there, maybe Danault needs better line,mates to conter the very best opponents, like a
Danault-Armia-Gallagher, (that would be our shutdown line for very best opponents)
and create an all offence line with :
Domi-Drouin-Suzuki.
3rd line would be :
KK with Tartar and Lekhonen (or Byron) and still a line that can score goals.

No he shouldn't. Ever. Unless we just have a bunch of 4th line centers, he shouldn't.be there.
What the f*** are we trying to accomplish putting him there?
Is it better for kids development? Nope, as proven time and time again by other teams, play your talent kids in the top 6, case closed.
Does it make the team better? Who cares if you cant even make the POs in the end.
Is it better to have this meritocracy system you discuss? Hell no. Eller and Galch have proven how incredibly stupid that is. Patches said so publicly himself years ago. Heck, Danault would not be able to look as offensively capable if he was getting the same usage as KK. It's stupid.

What the f*** is the plan or purpose here? Oh...let's just put the kids here where theres a hole, wait for him to improve...who do we pair him with? Hmm..let's see, what's left?...oh those two guys...
wtf.

 

[Mrb1p]

I'd say meh...I dont view Gallagher as highly as you do. I think he is exactly what hes shown, nothing more nothing less.

Can you imagine one player that did not get better when he played with a better center ?

Why is Pacioretty a PPG player all of a sudden ? Is it because he found a new gear at 30 years old? Why did Kessel become a 90 points player in Pittsburgh, he was always a PPG-ish player?

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Thats exactly why you need to think about trading him in a near future and i love Danault. One of Poehling or Suzuki will be able to replace Danault starting next year in my mind, so you could file a big hole on left D or big scoring winger by packaging Danault, having a good prospect pool will provide you the depth to make moves like that!!

I think it would be smarter to package one of Tatar or Byron or Lehkonen to get a good left D and keep Danault. Even in the eventuality of one of Poehling or Suzuki will be able to replace Danault starting next year in my mind, as you say, I would keep Danault I will explain why : we have the luxury of one the best 3rd center shutdown 2 way center in the league, still at the peak of his age, perfect in some important last minutes faceoffs, he's a luxury I would like we have after the two first centers.

 

[Mrb1p]

He should play first line center because he is our best center right now. Until KK or another one get his game peak he is the most qualify for the job. CJ can change lines a little bit, for more offence there, more defense there, maybe Danault needs better line,mates to conter the very best opponents, like a
Danault-Armia-Gallagher, (that would be our shutdown line for very best opponents)
and create an all offence line with :
Domi-Drouin-Suzuki.
3rd line would be :
KK with Tartar and Lekhonen (or Byron) and still a line that can score goals.

Domi is the teams best center.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

No he shouldn't. Ever. Unless we just have a bunch of 4th line centers, he shouldn't.be there.
What the **** are we trying to accomplish putting him there?
Is it better for kids development? Nope, as proven time and time again by other teams, play your talent kids in the top 6, case closed.
Does it make the team better? Who cares if you cant even make the POs in the end.
Is it better to have this meritocracy system you discuss? Hell no. Eller and Galch have proven how incredibly stupid that is. Patches said so publicly himself years ago. Heck, Danault would not be able to look as offensively capable if he was getting the same usage as KK. It's stupid.

What the **** is the plan or purpose here? Oh...let's just put the kids here where theres a hole, wait for him to improve...who do we pair him with? Hmm..let's see, what's left?...oh those two guys...
wtf.

You are too soon. You think CJ should do what will happen in two or 3 years. Those kids are not ready yet. You see the Habs should do this because of some projection these kids will be in 2 or 3 years. Time travelling. You are too soon. We are not in 2021 yet.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Domi is the teams best center.

Best even vs the very best centers of the league or best in pure offence?

 

[Simarino]

I think it would be smarter to package one of Tatar or Byron or Lehkonen to get a good left D and keep Danault. Even in the eventuality of one of Poehling or Suzuki will be able to replace Danault starting next year in my mind, as you say, I would keep Danault I will explain why : we have the luxury of one the best 3rd center shutdown 2 way center in the league, still at the peak of his age, perfect in some important last minutes faceoffs, he's a luxury I would like we have after the two first centers.

But hes gonna ask close to 7M a year if he keeps producing like that.. You cant pay a 3rd line center that much and i dont think Danault is gonna be one of our top 2 center in max 2 years from now...

 

[Kudo Shinichi]

What does best in the league mean ? Top 5 ? Top 10 ? TOP 30?

Not better than
The Bergeron line
The Stepan line
The Eichel line
The Monahan line
The Aho line
The Mackinnon line
The Larkin line
The McDavid line
The Barkov line
The RyJo line
The Couturier line
The Crosby line
The Hertl line
The Couture line
The Statsny line
The Karlsson line
The Schenn line
The ROR line
The Point line
The Tavares line
The Pettersson line
The Backstrom line
The Scheifele line
The Dubois line

Heck, is that line actually better than
The Little line ?
The Matthews line ?
The Barzal line ?
The Seguin line ?
The Horvat line?
The Kuznetslov line ?
The Johnson line ?
The Toews line ?
The Strome line ?
The Henrique line ?
The Duchene line in CBJ ?

Really, people should stop using that BS line shoved by MTL media because ITS NOT ONE OF THE BEST LINE IN THE LEAGUE.

Heck, might as well say that Mete and Weber are one of the best pairing in the league, because it would mean the same thing. Lets call Kinkaid one of the best backup in the league, heck, lets call Mete one of the best LD in the league too!

There are several articles that show that Danault's line was one of the best.
They don't score as much as the Eichels, Pettersson lines, etc. but they give up way fewer goals and scoring chances

https://www.tsn.ca/montreal-hoping-for-more-magic-from-gallagher-this-season-1.1348388

Phillip Danault established himself with his best season to date

Analyze This: Case can be made that Phillip Danault is Canadiens' MVP



etc.

 

[Mrb1p]

Best even vs the very best centers of the league or best in pure offence?

Best is best, doesn't matter what you think it is. If you like getting scored on and getting lucky a few times, go with Danault, if you like keeping the puck and scoring and the other team sometimes getting lucky, go with Domi.

The notion that Domi doesn't face top lines is ridiculous.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

But hes gonna ask close to 7M a year if he keeps producing like that.. You cant pay a 3rd line center that much and i dont think Danault is gonna be one of our top 2 center in max 2 years from now...

We have a ton of money to spend anyway and nobody wants to sign here. He's here, he's happy, he performs. I repeat, nobody wants to sign here so the money we save means nothing. We have the money to give him his 6,5 to 7m$ if he ask it.

 

[Mrb1p]

There are several articles that show that Danault's line was one of the best.
They don't score as much as the Eichels, Pettersson lines, etc. but they give up way fewer goals and scoring chances

https://www.tsn.ca/montreal-hoping-for-more-magic-from-gallagher-this-season-1.1348388

Phillip Danault established himself with his best season to date

Analyze This: Case can be made that Phillip Danault is Canadiens' MVP



etc.

Any player in the league would have a positive corsi while playing with Gallagher, hes one of the best shooters in the league and shoots as much as Ovechkin.

Sadly, its not an actual notion one should use when trying to prove a point.

How do you think this line would fare with any other center instead of Danault? Hint: Just as good or better, and in some cases, slightly worse to worse. (Like if Weal centered that line, maybe.)

Also, GF and GFx takes into account the whole unit, not the line, which is false data, again.

Barkov played most of last season with Reimer as his goaltender and Yandle on his unit, do you think that is fair to the line when compared to Petry and Price ?

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Best is best, doesn't matter what you think it is. If you like getting scored on and getting lucky a few times, go with Danault, if you like keeping the puck and scoring and the other team sometimes getting lucky, go with Domi.

The notion that Domi doesn't face top lines is ridiculous.

You drop value of Danault too much I think. We I read you I don't see the Danault I see when I watch him. You see problems where I don't see and I'm not the only one thinking that. Why you disqualify Danault on this site, I don't get it.

 

[THE HOFF]

Don't you think there might be a big gap between being "a good 5 on 5 line" and being "one of the best in the league"?

no not at all actually. Being a good 5 on 5 line IS being a good line. I believe in roles. I believe the modern powerplay is not putting your best trio and two best D anymore. Its about chemistry for that specific task rather than keeping the same trios/duos. Its happening everywhere. we are not alone

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Any player in the league would have a positive corsi while playing with Gallagher, hes one of the best shooters in the league and shoots as much as Ovechkin.

Sadly, its not an actual notion one should use when trying to prove a point.

How do you think this line would fare with any other center instead of Danault? Hint: Just as good or better, and in some cases, slightly worse to worse. (Like if Weal centered that line, maybe.)

Even in the best games of Weal, ... if you want to compare Weal with Danault it's like comparing Mini-me with the Doctor Evil. And I love Weal some times !

 

[Kriss E]

Can you imagine one player that did not get better when he played with a better center ?

Why is Pacioretty a PPG player all of a sudden ? Is it because he found a new gear at 30 years old? Why did Kessel become a 90 points player in Pittsburgh, he was always a PPG-ish player?

Not to nitpick but Patches scored 40pts last year, 22G...so far this season he only has 2 Goals but yes is a PPG, however, this is just 10 games in. Last season, Gallagher had a scoring pace of 65G after October if I recall. Tatar was hovering over the 100pts mark...
Doesn't mean anything on such a short sample.

Phil Kessel, he only scored 92pts once in Pittsburgh, his 3 other years, he put up 59-70-82pts. In Toronto he had already put up 80 and 82pts before, and he had a 89pt pace in the lockout year. So, ya, of course playing with guys like Crosby and Malkin helps, but it's not like Kessel hadn't shown to be a very player before.

Again, I don't think Gallagher is as good as you think. I don't think he's being ''held back'' by any center/linemates in the least. Of course, give him Crosby as a center, he'll produce more. That's hardly a testament of his skills, it's more about who's next to him.
In the end, Gallagher plays his style no matter who he's with. He's not a natural sniper, he doesn't have soft hands or a creative offensive mind like Marchand, he's a garbage goal guy and is pushing himself to his physical limit every game. He's not someone who's leaving more to be desired, he's playing up to his full potential.

 

[Mrb1p]

Not to nitpick but Patches scored 40pts last year, 22G...so far this season he only has 2 Goals but yes is a PPG, however, this is just 10 games in. Last season, Gallagher had a scoring pace of 65G after October if I recall. Tatar was hovering over the 100pts mark...
Doesn't mean anything on such a short sample.

Phil Kessel, he only scored 92pts once in Pittsburgh, his 3 other years, he put up 59-70-82pts. In Toronto he had already put up 80 and 82pts before, and he had a 89pt pace in the lockout year. So, ya, of course playing with guys like Crosby and Malkin helps, but it's not like Kessel hadn't shown to be a very player before.

Again, I don't think Gallagher is as good as you think. I don't think he's being ''held back'' by any center/linemates in the least. Of course, give him Crosby as a center, he'll produce more. That's hardly a testament of his skills, it's more about who's next to him.
In the end, Gallagher plays his style no matter who he's with. He's not a natural sniper, he doesn't have soft hands or a creative offensive mind like Marchand, he's a garbage goal guy and is pushing himself to his physical limit every game. He's not someone who's leaving more to be desired, he's playing up to his full potential.

Youre selling Gallagher short, but whatever.

Also, "of course playing with X guy" helps is what Im going for. Put him with better players and he will produce more, this is it.