Player Discussion Phillip Danault

[yianik]

Danault was 49th in scoring among centres, and had a FOW of 55.5%.

He has 2 years left on his contract.

We have Domi, Kotkaniemi, Poehling , Suzuki all in the mix for the top 6 C spots.

Hopefully players step up and if Danault is looking for too much money we can move him bý the TDL in 2021. Lots of time, and we need to let our C prospects show us what they have. No rush to trade anyone.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Danault was 49th in scoring among centres, and had a FOW of 55.5%.

He has 2 years left on his contract.

We have Domi, Kotkaniemi, Poehling , Suzuki all in the mix for the top 6 C spots.

Hopefully players step up and if Danault is looking for too much money we can move him bý the TDL in 2021. Lots of time, and we need to let our C prospects show us what they have. No rush to trade anyone.

This is so ridiculous. When we talk about Danault and his 53 points, we are told that it is best for him to be the 3C, because a strong team that has a 2C (league-wide) as its 3c becomes a contender.

But then we try to move top centers to wing so that Poehling can be a 2c.

Why not take our own advice and play Poehling as 3C and be that contending team.... OR play him as a 1LW or 2LW if he can pull it off?

 

[Toene]

We'd all just rather you put the numbers down before you take someone's eye out.

Honestly, your use of statistics reminds me of internet libertarians use of the deductive method. A bat**** conclusion doesn't provoke a questioning of your presuppositions. Unquestioningly assume that a metric that would, on its own, intimate that Phillip Danault is a better or comparable playmaker to Sebastian Aho is valid? Awesome!



Defensively he compliments them, sure. Offensively? Lmao. Maybe Faksa would be played where he belongs on our roster, which is all I ask for with respect to Phillip. Or we find some easy mark of a GM who believes half the stuff you do about Danault and get paid off.



That's your assertion, you don't have an argument to support it. The fact that Domi is not just better offensively is admitted, and just sort of...shrugged off. Like, who cares that he's literally twice the goal scorer and a much better playmaker, and produced far more points with inferior linemates. Danault is like...complete. It's nonsense, and if a GM out there is willing to pay assets for it, we should take advantage of it.

Man I agree with you most of the times but you got that hate-boner on Danault. Gallagher's best total was 54 points, last season, but he had his best goal-scoring season this year. Tatar's best total was this season, 58 points. Danault's highest total was this season, 53 points.

So BG and TT are our best wingers and are supposedly responsible for Danault's production, yet had their best seasons totals in their career playing with him. On top of forming one of the best ES line in the NHL.
Somehow, the conlusion you draw is that Danault is a weak link here. Seems to me he helped his teammates as much as they helped him, and together they had a great chemistry on a line that contributed at a top-6 level.

Why not just call a spade a spade? He's playing top-6 minutes, offering a top-6 production (without PP time) comparable to his linemates', who are established top-6 players. So... Whats left? You're going off goal totals, even when you're aware that Gallagher and Tatar are the shooters on that line and there isnt as much a need for Danault to finish plays?

 

[Guns n Roses]

Man I agree with you most of the times but you got that hate-***** on Danault. Gallagher's best total was 54 points, last season, but he had his best goal-scoring season this year. Tatar's best total was this season, 58 points. Danault's highest total was this season, 53 points.

So BG and TT are our best wingers and are supposedly responsible for Danault's production, yet had their best seasons totals in their career playing with him. On top of forming one of the best ES line in the NHL.
Somehow, the conlusion you draw is that Danault is a weak link here. Seems to me he helped his teammates as much as they helped him, and together they had a great chemistry on a line that contributed at a top-6 level.

Why not just call a spade a spade? He's playing top-6 minutes, offering a top-6 production (without PP time) comparable to his linemates', who are established top-6 players. So... Whats left? You're going off goal totals, even when you're aware that Gallagher and Tatar are the shooters on that line and there isnt as much a need for Danault to finish plays?

Do you actually watch Danault play? If you did you would understand why he has no business in a top 6 role, his offensive instincts suck.

 

[Toene]

Do you actually watch Danault play? If you did you would understand why he has no business in a top 6 role, his offensive instincts suck.

I saw him dig for pucks and create plays. Not excelling at it, but he was pretty good. Didnt see the same thing as you.

Im not saying he's a high-end 2C, just a good one. Of course it would be awesome if we had two 1Cs so you could dislodge PD and see him overachieve on a third line. But we're not there yet, and we may not be, ever. Who knows if Poehling or Kotka disappoint or not? Imo I think they will reach their potential, but I'm the "I'll believe it when I see it" type.

 

[Guns n Roses]

I saw him dig for pucks and create plays. Not excelling at it, but he was pretty good. Didnt see the same thing as you.

Im not saying he's a high-end 2C, just a good one. Of course it would be awesome if we had two 1Cs so you could dislodge PD and see him overachieve on a third line. But we're not there yet, and we may not be, ever. Who knows if Poehling or Kotka disappoint or not? Imo I think they will reach their potential, but I'm the "I'll believe it when I see it" type.

You thinking Danault is a good 2C makes us very bad discussion partners. That’s not how you build a winner. You don’t even make the playoffs with him as a 2C let alone contend for anything. You need offensive talent in the top 6 and Danault has very little, he’s a “shutdown” center after all.

 

[Rosso Scuderia]

Danault is the type of player that is good at everything but not great at everything. Still can be very serviceable and he's very reliable. A player that every coach loves.

I wouldn't mind keeping him, I just don't want him to prevents development of a more offensive center.

I just hope the management knows what they do and don't f*** it up with our centers this time.

I also see him ideally as a 3rd C... he can play 2nd if we have a superstar C, which we don't.

I rather see Danault get 40 pts as a 3rd C than 50 pts as a 2nd C.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Man I agree with you most of the times but you got that hate-***** on Danault. Gallagher's best total was 54 points, last season, but he had his best goal-scoring season this year. Tatar's best total was this season, 58 points. Danault's highest total was this season, 53 points.

So BG and TT are our best wingers and are supposedly responsible for Danault's production, yet had their best seasons totals in their career playing with him. On top of forming one of the best ES line in the NHL.
Somehow, the conlusion you draw is that Danault is a weak link here. Seems to me he helped his teammates as much as they helped him, and together they had a great chemistry on a line that contributed at a top-6 level.

Why not just call a spade a spade? He's playing top-6 minutes, offering a top-6 production (without PP time) comparable to his linemates', who are established top-6 players. So... Whats left? You're going off goal totals, even when you're aware that Gallagher and Tatar are the shooters on that line and there isnt as much a need for Danault to finish plays?

This is much stiffer resistance than Archi was putting up, so thanks for moving the discussion along.

A lot of players had their highest totals this year given that it was the highest scoring year in a very long time. I think only 2005-06 or 2006-7 were higher since the first lockout. That doesn't mean Danault caused Gallagher's or Tatar's career highs on its own, but I should provide an argument for why I think he didn't. Using the data you're using, both Gallagher and Tatar have done better or about as good as they did this year before, and Danault hasn't. Moreover, the only time Danault ever came close -- if you can call within 11 points close -- he was playing with even better players than Gallagher and Tatar. It's that he's never done anything good offensively unless he was attached to Pacioretty, Radulov, Gallagher or Tatar, and even then this is not very impressive production.

This is less compelling for Tatar, because he was playing with Datsyuk, but for Gallagher, this is a rock solid case: he was playing with Plekanec. So it starts to seem unlikely that Danault is inflating anything.

But then we have data of what happened for Tatar and Gallagher when Danault wasn't on with them. Phillip Danault and Brendan Gallagher weren't an effective combo if they didn't have Tatar. However, Tatar was very effective away from those two. Meanwhile, Phillip Danault's numbers were disastrous away from those two. His line was always outshot and outchanced if he didn't have one of the top 5 volume shooters in the league and a slick playmaking Tatar to help him out.

What he does for those two is cover their backs which allows them to attack, and transport the puck through the neutral zone effectively. That is borne out in the data: even when Danault is getting outshot and outchance he defends the middle quite well. But that's not an offensive contribution.

 

[BaseballCoach]

This is much stiffer resistance than Archi was putting up, so thanks for moving the discussion along.

A lot of players had their highest totals this year given that it was the highest scoring year in a very long time. I think only 2005-06 or 2006-7 were higher since the first lockout. That doesn't mean Danault caused Gallagher's or Tatar's career highs on its own, but I should provide an argument for why I think he didn't. Using the data you're using, both Gallagher and Tatar have done better or about as good as they did this year before, and Danault hasn't. Moreover, the only time Danault ever came close -- if you can call within 11 points close -- he was playing with even better players than Gallagher and Tatar. It's that he's never done anything good offensively unless he was attached to Pacioretty, Radulov, Gallagher or Tatar, and even then this is not very impressive production.

This is less compelling for Tatar, because he was playing with Datsyuk, but for Gallagher, this is a rock solid case: he was playing with Plekanec. So it starts to seem unlikely that Danault is inflating anything.

But then we have data of what happened for Tatar and Gallagher when Danault wasn't on with them. Phillip Danault and Brendan Gallagher weren't an effective combo if they didn't have Tatar. However, Tatar was very effective away from those two. Meanwhile, Phillip Danault's numbers were disastrous away from those two. His line was always outshot and outchanced if he didn't have one of the top 5 volume shooters in the league and a slick playmaking Tatar to help him out.

What he does for those two is cover their backs which allows them to attack, and transport the puck through the neutral zone effectively. That is borne out in the data: even when Danault is getting outshot and outchance he defends the middle quite well. But that's not an offensive contribution.

Actually what I hope is that Kotkaniemi and Domi are our top two centers, Danault our shutdown guy, and Poehling plays like a top-6 power winger while Caufield lights it up from the right side, and Suzuki also makes it as a top-6 or -9 right winger. The development of these youngsters would allow us to trade some older forwards who can score 20 for a good return.

 

[Toene]

Using the data you're using, both Gallagher and Tatar have done better or about as good as they did this year before, and Danault hasn't.

Danault is also slightly younger, but way less-seasoned. Couldn't it be due to a natural progression?

As for the WOWY (idk if it's what you are using), Id suggest the difference in results could be explained not solely by the varying linemates but also by th established chemistry with TT and BG. Like how Danault in 2016-2017 produced more per 60 minutes without Pacioretty and Radulov than with them. It depends.
Not every good player can play with anyone. Hall and McDavid didnt fit. Same for Josi and Subban. So what you're pointing out is probably right, but not definitively.

But you make a compelling argument. I'd like to concede that I was partly wrong in saying he wasnt the weak link, because it appears he is on an offensive pov.
But not near the the point that he's dragging is linemates down, otherwise Tatar and BG would see at least a slight drop in production, not a better/equal outcome like this year. And the defense he offers helps making this line a net positive in GF/GA. I maintain that his contributions (offensive and defensive) are those of a top-6 C.

Lastly, about league-wide offense, it was partly due to the increase in PP opportunities, something the Canadiens as a whole didnt really benefit from since the powerplay was tuuuuuuuurrible. Tatar and Gallagher included. The whole team scored a total of 31 PP goals. That's less than their best goal-scorer had EV goals alone (BGally). Atrocious. But how could you ask Danault (or anyone on the Habs) to increase his production proportionally to the rest of the league if 1. he doesnt play PP, and 2. even if he did, it would have sucked as much. Though Im starting to think that trying PD on the second-wave wouldnt have hurt considering our "top-forwards" werent doing shit either.

So, tl;dr : you are right that he's weaker offensively than his linemates, but I maintain that he's a top-6 level center based on his offensive and defensive contributions. Voila.

 

[BaseballCoach]

he's weaker offensively than his linemates, but I maintain that he's a top-6 level center based on his offensive and defensive contributions. Voila.

Of course. Gallagher is a first-line RW and Tatar is a borderline 1LW, at least last year's version was. So Danault is indeed a notch below them offensively. Together, however, the three did very, very well and Phil's play was definitely one of the reasons.

 

[Toene]

You thinking Danault is a good 2C makes us very bad discussion partners. That’s not how you build a winner. You don’t even make the playoffs with him as a 2C let alone contend for anything. You need offensive talent in the top 6 and Danault has very little, he’s a “shutdown” center after all.

The reason we dont make good discussion partners is because you post emotional, narrative-driven comments. Your mind is already made on most subjects. I dont want to sound condescending because I think you have a lot of potential as a poster but the way you "hate" and "like" players seems based a lot (not entirely) on your personal preferences. For example :

"You don’t even make the playoffs with him as a 2C let alone contend for anything".

Yet the last time we made the playoffs, he was playing 1C. So your statement was wrong and easily verifiable.

Now, I never said having someone better than Danault at 2C doesnt help making this team as contender. But it's far from the only thing. I could say : if we find a top-pairing defenseman, we could bump down Mete and be closer to contention. Sure. But it's true for any position, center, wing, defense, goal. So it's kind of a pointless exercise imo. In the mean time, Danault plays top-6 and delivers at a top-6 rate. When we'll have better, we'll cross that bridge.

 

[Guns n Roses]

The reason we dont make good discussion partners is because you post emotional, narrative-driven comments. Your mind is already made on most subjects. I dont want to sound condescending because I think you have a lot of potential as a poster but the way you "hate" and "like" players seems based a lot (not entirely) on your personal preferences. For example :

"You don’t even make the playoffs with him as a 2C let alone contend for anything".

Yet the last time we made the playoffs, he was playing 1C. So your statement was wrong and easily verifiable.

Now, I never said having someone better than Danault at 2C doesnt help making this team as contender. But it's far from the only thing. I could say : if we find a top-pairing defenseman, we could bump down Mete and be closer to contention. Sure. But it's true for any position, center, wing, defense, goal. So it's kind of a pointless exercise imo. In the mean time, Danault plays top-6 and delivers at a top-6 rate. When we'll have better, we'll cross that bridge.

When he was our 1C? You mean the year that Radulov was the 1C and Danault coasted off of his back the whole season? Radulov hated playing with Danault and would of had many more points with a real top 6 center.

 

[Toene]

When he was our 1C? You mean the year that Radulov was the 1C and Danault coasted off of his back the whole season? Radulov hated playing with Danault and would of had many more points with a real top 6 center.

You're all over the place.

 

[Guns n Roses]

You're all over the place.

The year Radulov was here, he was basically the center on that line, bringing the puck up the ice like a bull and feeding Max. Danault was coasting and pretty much useless on that line, Radulov hated playing with him. You don’t remember?

 

[Toene]

The year Radulov was here, he was basically the center on that line, bringing the puck up the ice like a bull and feeding Max. Danault was coasting and pretty much useless on that line, Radulov hated playing with him. You don’t remember?

Please keep it to facts only. Your headcanon isn't that. Also you use too many connoted words and sentences. Doesnt mean you are wrong, but I cant really assess your statement if it's bathed in a subjective narrative.

Coasting?... Have you seen Max Pacioretty during these playoffs? Now that was coasting. Danault almost always works hard on the ice. Anyways, he was played at center on the line-up, took face-offs, and handled many center duties. You'd claim Stamkos isnt a center since Kucherov was the on who brought the puck up ice on that line? Nope.

If we made the playoffs with a green Danault playing over his head on the first line 2 years ago, Im sure it's also doable if he plays at 2C behind a better top C. We were missing what? 2 points? to make the playoffs with a bad defense and a putrid PP. But Danault is the problem? Even if he didnt get his chance on the PP? Eh....

 

[Guns n Roses]

Please keep it to facts only. Your headcanon isn't that. Also you use too many connoted words and sentences. Doesnt mean you are wrong, but I cant really assess your statement if it's bathed in a subjective narrative.

Coasting?... Have you seen Max Pacioretty during these playoffs? Now that was coasting. Danault almost always works hard on the ice. Anyways, he was played at center on the line-up, took face-offs, and handled many center duties. You'd claim Stamkos isnt a center since Kucherov was the on who brought the puck up ice on that line? Nope.

If we made the playoffs with a green Danault playing over his head on the first line 2 years ago, Im sure it's also doable if he plays at 2C behind a better top C. We were missing what? 2 points? to make the playoffs with a bad defense and a putrid PP. But Danault is the problem? Even if he didnt get his chance on the PP? Eh....

Danault is ONE of our problems. And even if we make the playoffs with him in our top 6, we’re not winning anything. Mediocrity is the standard around here, it’s painfully obvious.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Danault is ONE of our problems. And even if we make the playoffs with him in our top 6, we’re not winning anything. Mediocrity is the standard around here, it’s painfully obvious.

Danault is not mediocre. Yes, Desharnais was but they really aren't the same person.

 

[Canadienna]

Danault is fantastic, and although we may have to move on from him before his next deal, it will fall on Domi/Kotka/Poehling for someone to eat up the big minutes against other teams top lines.

I think they are up for it, given a year or two.

 

[Guns n Roses]

Danault is not mediocre. Yes, Desharnais was but they really aren't the same person.

What is Danault then? His offensive instincts are mediocre, and he has no business in the top 6. He’s a “shutdown” center who messes up defensively at times. Offensively, he sucks, plain and simple. Having him in our top 6 makes us a mediocre team. Drouin too. And Mete in the top 4 as well.

 

[Tyson]

Do you actually watch Danault play? If you did you would understand why he has no business in a top 6 role, his offensive instincts suck.

Dude your vitriol towards this player is becoming comical.

 

[Guns n Roses]

Dude your vitriol towards this player is becoming comical.

But his offensive instincts DO suck, we have all seen it. And having him in the top 6 equals FAILURE , we have also seen this. Not sure what is so comical about the truth.

If the plan is to fail, then yes, Danault is a top 6 forward. Mete is also a top 4. And Drouin played great because he got 50 points! Yay failure!

 

[Tyson]

But his offensive instincts DO suck, we have all seen it. And having him in the top 6 equals FAILURE , we have also seen this. Not sure what is so comical about the truth.

If the plan is to fail, then yes, Danault is a top 6 forward. Mete is also a top 4. And Drouin played great because he got 50 points!

I see Danault as our most complete 200 foot player. He has superior defensive awareness and has developed into a 50 point producer. Top 6? No. A key member of this team? Absolutely.

 

[BaseballCoach]

What is Danault then? His offensive instincts are mediocre, and he has no business in the top 6. He’s a “shutdown” center who messes up defensively at times. Offensively, he sucks, plain and simple. Having him in our top 6 makes us a mediocre team. Drouin too. And Mete in the top 4 as well.

Danault has offensive skills, but not the same ones that say Alex Galchenyuk has. Everyone gets their points in a certain way more often than others, and for Danault it is off cycles usually.

Every goal counts for ONE on the scoreboard, and there is no bonus for "prettier" goals.

Your bias is showing in your comments, for example that Danault messes up defensively sometimes. Of course he does, and so do Bergeron, Toews and Kopitar. O'Reily too. The quesitons is "How often?"

With Phil it is not too often. He was on the ice for fewer ES goals per game than Bergeron, far fewer than Toews and Kopitar, and just three goals more than O'Reilly.

Yet, I bet you would not say "Bergeron is a 'shutdown' center who messes up defensively at times".

You're simply biased.

 

[Guns n Roses]

I see Danault as our most complete 200 foot player. He has superior defensive awareness and has developed into a 50 point producer. Top 6? No. A key member of this team? Absolutely.

How is he our most “complete” center when his offense sucks? Complete only means defense around here. And we’ve all seen him mess up multiple times last season playing defense.

Our most “Complete” center is Kotkaniemi

Our most valuable center last season was Domi.

Danault is not a “complete” centerman, he’s a “shutdown” centerman. To be “complete” you need to have natural offensive instincts.