Who here considers Phillip Danault a top6 Center in the NHL?

WatchfulElm

Former "Domi a favor"
Jan 31, 2007
5,922
3,646
Rive-Sud
People can crap on the idiosyncrasies of HFBoards polls, but I can't remember the last poll that ended up a lop-sided 10% vs 90% and got it wrong. Guess we'll see where Danault goes from here.

90 vs 10?

The way I see it, the majority (52 vs 48) believes he's a top 6 or on his way to be a top 6.

Even though the poll options are biased.
 

Ohashi_Jouzu*

Registered User
Apr 2, 2007
30,332
11
Halifax
90 vs 10?

Correct. 10% have chosen 'yes' answers. 90% have chosen 'no' answers.

That one of the 'no' options allows for the speculation that he might turn into one in the future (the cop out option for us Habs fans who want to be realistic but positive) means little about the actual poll question or today's reality.
 

WatchfulElm

Former "Domi a favor"
Jan 31, 2007
5,922
3,646
Rive-Sud
Correct. 10% have chosen 'yes' answers. 90% have chosen 'no' answers.

That one of the 'no' options allows for the speculation that he might turn into one in the future (the cop out option for us Habs fans who want to be realistic but positive) means little about the actual poll question or today's reality.

Once again, the question is tricked because he's not a top 6, he's a middle 6, which means he can play on the top 6 but is not a bona-fide top 6.

Is Anisimov a top 6 players? Probably not. He's more of a middle 6. That doesn't stop him from being the 2nd line center on one of the best NHL team.

The OP probably wants this poll to be seen as a proof that Danault shouldn't be used on the top 2 lines. But in the end it won't prove s**t, because in reality most 2nd line centers in the NHL are "middle 6 players", and not bona-fide top 6.
 

Ohashi_Jouzu*

Registered User
Apr 2, 2007
30,332
11
Halifax
Once again, the question is tricked because he's not a top 6, he's a middle 6, which means he can play on the top 6 but is not a bona-fide top 6.

Is Anisimov a top 6 players? Probably not. He's more of a middle 6. That doesn't stop him from being the 2nd line center on one of the best NHL team.

The OP probably wants this poll to be seen as a proof that Danault shouldn't be used on the top 2 lines. But in the end it won't prove s**t, because in reality most 2nd line centers in the NHL are "middle 6 players", and not bona-fide top 6.

It's not "proof" of anything, except that those who think he's suitable for top 6 duties are probably stretching their opinion far more than those who think he isn't. Even the cop-out of "middle 6" implies that he's ideally a 3rd line centre, and should only be used in the top 6 for short periods or in emergencies... hence not really a suitable top 6 centre.
 
Last edited:

WatchfulElm

Former "Domi a favor"
Jan 31, 2007
5,922
3,646
Rive-Sud
It's not "proof" of anything, except that those who think he's suitable for top 6 duties are probably stretching their opinion far more than those who think he isn't. Even the cop-out of "middle 6" implies that he's ideally a 3rd line centre, and should only be used in the top 6 for short periods or in emergencies... hence not really a suitable top 6 centre.

Middle 6 means he's suitable for 2nd line duties and 3rd line duties. No just in case of "emergencies". Arguing otherwise is really pointless here.
 

CrAzYNiNe

who could have predicted?
Jun 5, 2003
11,748
2,889
Montreal
Once again, the question is tricked because he's not a top 6, he's a middle 6, which means he can play on the top 6 but is not a bona-fide top 6.

Is Anisimov a top 6 players? Probably not. He's more of a middle 6. That doesn't stop him from being the 2nd line center on one of the best NHL team.

The OP probably wants this poll to be seen as a proof that Danault shouldn't be used on the top 2 lines. But in the end it won't prove s**t, because in reality most 2nd line centers in the NHL are "middle 6 players", and not bona-fide top 6.

So if you think he is a middle 6 center, he is not a top6 center and the question is pertinent.

You make a good point above about team depth at center and usage of players. However in Montreal, Danault is used as a top6 center when the only other center worth discussing is Galchenyuk... Who wasn't given a chance to play center in the playoffs, because of off ice issues that may have impacted on ice play. This means Danault was the Habs #1C. The guy is by your definition a middle 6 center yet he is the Habs number 1 center... I can live with having two top6 centers for the Habs without any true #1. We both know this isn't the case. I find that some use "Danault is a top6 center" as a way to defend the lack of center depth.

In the end Danault was not a top6 center in 2016-2017 but I sure hope he can project to be one as he gains more NHL experience.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,407
78,003
Redmond, WA
Correct. 10% have chosen 'yes' answers. 90% have chosen 'no' answers.

That one of the 'no' options allows for the speculation that he might turn into one in the future (the cop out option for us Habs fans who want to be realistic but positive) means little about the actual poll question or today's reality.

Or maybe it's just you that is wrong, there's a thought.
 

WatchfulElm

Former "Domi a favor"
Jan 31, 2007
5,922
3,646
Rive-Sud
So if you think he is a middle 6 center, he is not a top6 center and the question is pertinent.

You make a good point above about team depth at center and usage of players. However in Montreal, Danault is used as a top6 center when the only other center worth discussing is Galchenyuk... Who wasn't given a chance to play center in the playoffs, because of off ice issues that may have impacted on ice play. This means Danault was the Habs #1C. The guy is by your definition a middle 6 center yet he is the Habs number 1 center... I can live with having two top6 centers for the Habs without any true #1. We both know this isn't the case. I find that some use "Danault is a top6 center" as a way to defend the lack of center depth.

In the end Danault was not a top6 center in 2016-2017 but I sure hope he can project to be one as he gains more NHL experience.

Well I'm sure that nobody would argue that Danault is a true #1 center. But he's definitely good enough to be a #2 center. Or, said otherwise, he's good enough to be a top 6 center, but in the ideal situation we should consider him to be a middle 6 center.

People arguing that the Habs got a top 6 center are not wrong because that's how he was used for most of the year. Those categories are so meaningless anyway. How do you define "top 6 center"?

1- A center good enough to play on both 1st line? (probably not Danault)
2- A center good enough to be on the 2nd line? (which is Danault)
3- A center who is used on the top 2 lines (which is also Danault)
 

Lays

Registered User
Jan 22, 2017
13,559
12,630
If he's your 2C your team isn't going to be too good. He's a good 3C, I don't see him becoming a 2C either
 

Tyrus

5 ft 7 in.
May 20, 2013
1,747
746
Well I'm sure that nobody would argue that Danault is a true #1 center. But he's definitely good enough to be a #2 center. Or, said otherwise, he's good enough to be a top 6 center, but in the ideal situation we should consider him to be a middle 6 center.

People arguing that the Habs got a top 6 center are not wrong because that's how he was used for most of the year. Those categories are so meaningless anyway. How do you define "top 6 center"?

1- A center good enough to play on both 1st line? (probably not Danault)
2- A center good enough to be on the 2nd line? (which is Danault)
3- A center who is used on the top 2 lines (which is also Danault)

A center who will either be a driving force on the second line or suitable glue-guy for the first, which is not Danault.
 

bob27

Grzelcyk is a top pairing defenceman
Apr 2, 2015
3,332
1,426
If he's your 3c you've got great centre depth. If he's your 2c, you've weak down the middle, but you'll probably live if the #1c is good enough. If he's your 1c, you're in for a world of hurt.

To be fair to Habs, they had him as their "1C" and won their division and had great possession numbers. Clearly their center position is a major problem, but rest of their team is good enough to survive that... for now.
 

Ohashi_Jouzu*

Registered User
Apr 2, 2007
30,332
11
Halifax
Middle 6 means he's suitable for 2nd line duties and 3rd line duties. No just in case of "emergencies". Arguing otherwise is really pointless here.

At the end of the day, "middle 6" can mean whatever you need it to. Bottom line is most people still don't feel like a truly competitive team would play him in the top 6, and most people are probably right, for now.
 

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
73,942
43,025
He's not a top 6 right now. If we're lucky he may become one in the future but we should be looking for outside help rather than trying to develop him into a role he's probably not suited for.
 

KevinRedkey

12/18/23 and beyond!
Jan 22, 2010
9,797
4,698
1C = Definite top line player (EG: John Tavares)
Top 6C = Maybe good enough to play 1C, but would ideally play 2C (EG: Kyle Turris)
2C = Ideal 2C that can't really be a 1C (EG: Mikael Backlund)
Middle 6C = Maybe good enough to play 2C, but would ideally play 3C (EG: Mathieu Perreault)
3C = Ideal 3C that can't really be a 1C or 2C (EG: Calle Jarnkrok)
Bottom 6C = Maybe good enough to play 3C, but would ideally play 4C (EG: Dominic Moore)
4C = Ideal 4C that can't really be a 1C, 2C, or 3C (EG: Nate Thompson)

Apologies if the examples arent perfect. I tried my best off the top of my head.

Personally I consider Danault a Middle 6C
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->