Jeez. Referring to Danault as an offensively challenged C when he's legitamitely the #1 C on a playoff team with no star players and we're genuinely a 0-line team on pace to finish 30th has gotta be the stupidest thing I've ever read. In that case Gaudreau should be described as a defensively challenged winger lol, just completely missing the point of his actual value. All i can say is have you watched Monahan or Danault since 2018? Rasmus is also for sure our 2nd best RD, and since our top pairing is ABSOLUTE GARBAGE with him on it 100% ya i wanna swap our 'best' RD for a way better RD lol. Dumba is in another tier than Rasmus. Do you really just ignore how bad we are and still believe we're a 'three line team'? Did you listen to Sutter's presser this morning? Said we have 0 30 goal scores on this team and that Gaudreau and Monahan have been consistently not a top-line all year. Said Monahan specifically doesn't have enough pace and that his game falls off as the game goes on. We are currently a 2-line team lol and one of those lines has Lucic hahaha. My god what a terrible valuation of Danault and Dumba hahah. 'Offensively challenged' Danault has been considered by Mackinnon as the most underrated to play against C in the league, is trusted as the #1 C (in terms of TOI and usage) on a playoff team and consistently out-matches opposing top-lines 5v5. So... which set of evidence do I consider? Montreal's management that plays Danault as a 1C, Danault killing it at 1C, Montreal being a playoff team, Mackinnon saying he's the hardest C to play against, a top player by any advanced stat you look at, and Sutter's comments about how we actually aren't a 'three-line team' or some guy on a forum named Yepthatsme who has a vendetta against my proposals and Philip Danault lol. AND Danault could be our 2C lol. Do you wanna ever give Johnny some two-way studs or do you just prefer the Monahan's/ Ferlands/ Hudlers/ Ritchies that have effectively ruined much of his prime and our contention window?