If you call Danault a 3rd line center after the year he just had, I think this might border the hate line. Call him a middle 2C guy and that is fair. The only way I consider Danault a 3C is on a cup contending roster and a very solid top 9
Even then, he could be a two-way shutdown C with top-6 minutes while an offensive 3rd line takes advantage of weaker match-ups to rack up even more points. Slightly less ice time for them (the offensive third line), but with better opportunities to expose opponents, would easily compensate for the lesser ice time.
Besides, Danault could continue to see little PP minutes and those could be given to a mixture of danault,s wingers and the 1st and 3rd line players on one of the two PP waves.
I honestly think that the mistake some are making is that they look at the Danault line as an offensive line in an archaic model of the past where teams had two offensive lines, a checking line and an energy line.
With teams relying more on their top-9 for balanced offensive production (those that expect to go deep in the playoffs, at least), the line of Tatar - Danault - Gallagher could continue to handle opponents' best lines while two other lines were given more offensive missions against lesser competition.
People forget that Danrult's line had a +48 goal differential while playing primarily against opponents' top lines and having a higher D-zone start percentage while doing so.
When Danault's line was on the ice, it basically scored more than the Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid, Matthews, Tavares, McKinnon, etc. competition that it faced. How much better than that does it get? Galchenyuk, for example, even when he played C and had offensive flurries, still finished with a negative goal differential. That means that opponents scored more goals than we did when Galchenyuk was on the ice.
Most would surely claim that Galchenyuk had better offensive instincts than Danault (and with reason), but would that justify Galchenyuk playing top minutes against top opponents while we were scoring less than the team facing us did when he was on the ice?
People should just stop equating Danault playing top-6 minutes at even strength (or even the most minutes for a Montreal C while 5 on 5) with that of taking on the prime offensive role. Even then, I'd say looking at his mission that way would be viewed as positive since 48 goals MORE than the opponent, when a great team scores 300 goals, is huge! It also means that the main cannons on opposing teams were not scoring as much against us as they might be against other teams.
Slagging or marginalizing Danault's contribution to his line and to the team this season is plain and simple demagoguery and completely misinformed.
Nothing prevents Montreal from having a second offensive line with the Domi line, beyond the Danault line, even of Danault's line continues to get top-6 minutes against the opponents' best players.
How difficult is this concept to grasp, really? For some, it seems to be an insurmountable hill to climb.
