Player Discussion Phillip Danault - The Centermania Edition
- Thread starter ahmedou
- Start date
- Status
get25
Registered User
- Oct 17, 2015
- 1,983
- 218
The whole line needs to be our second line.
And yet many of our wonderful fans here not that long ago called Gallagher a 3rd liner on a good team, and Tatar a cap dump. Maybe Phil is already playing with 3rd liners......
Oh my God. Gallagher is 5th in the league for goals by a right wing for the past 2.8 seasons. And he is 3rd in ES goals, ahead of Pasternak and Laine who have a lot of PPG.
Tatar is 10th in the league for points by a LW since he got here.
You can argue that Danault would be better on a 2nd line, but Tatar has done well, and Gallagher is one of the top goalscorers consistently. If that were our second line and we had superstars on the first line, yeah sure that would be great. But it seems to me you are dissing all three of them a bit too much. Indeed, if as many claim, Gallagher and Tatar are carrying Danault because they are so good, then just give them a better offensive center and they should be a totally dominant line, no?
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
Agreed. If we can manage to add some talent above them and they become our 2nd line or even the 3rd line, it changes things! Add Kopitar and Kovalchuk for example... Just an example but those belittle ones going to come out for sure...lol. I'd be very happy with this top 9 as our core for the next 4 years. Move the pieces around as you see fit. Then add Caufield & Poehling when they are ready. I would use KK to get Kopitar... unless some fans think KK will rise much faster than expected
Danault is a very valuable piece for us in our middle 2C mix. Problem I have is both KK and Suzuki won't be impact players in the Weber window
Drouin / Kopitar / Domi
Tatar / Danault / Gallagher
Kovalchuk / Suzuki / Armia
or
Domi / Kopitar / Tatar
Drouin / Danault / Gallagher
Kovalchuk / Suzuki / Armia
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Players being played too high in the depth chart is the problem with this team, it indicates a lack of top end talent.
Having Danault on this team means that:
In order to produce decent numbers, he needs to hog the offensive ressources, which in turn, makes others produce less.
You need a PP player from the bottom six because Danault doesn't play the PP, and most likely, that player is both weaker at ES and at PP. (Five players from the top 6 play PP, meaning one bottom sixer has to be used as a PP specialist.)
Most importantly though, it means that your top line gets murdered by actual top lines and on top of it, they can't exploit lesser matchups as good as other top lines.
If thats not a problem with a team, then f*** me.
Our top line is not getting murdered, and even DoMi is +1 ON A MINUS TEAM so he is not being "murdered" either.
By all means let us find one or even two better centers than Danault, even those of us who think he is a good player are not opposed to that!!
No matter how many posts you make about Kopitar on our team, I never see it happening.
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Plus minus is a terrible stat.
Its not indicative of anything, because a plus against McDavid is worth the same as a plus against Jake Evans.
In reality, top lines score more both against our top line and our depth lines than the Danault line scores against other top lines and other depth lines.
Even if the Danault line went one for one against Bergeron, which doesnt happen anyway, the latter would score more on the PP and against other lines.
Plus-minus is a terrible stat except the league uses it at the end of each game to determine who won the game.
The team with more goals wins.
The Danault line is NOT GETTING "MURDERED". Just stop.
We are losing more than we should because our D gives up way too many chances, and we lack a game-breaker like young Kovalchuk or another star like that.
Not because Danault at +21 is getting murdered.
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
And because our first line doesnt outscore the other teams first line, regardless of what you think plus minus indicates.
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
1909
Registered User
- Jul 6, 2016
- 21,237
- 11,777
We all know that there would be no threads (and criticism) about Danault IF he was NOT a French Quebecer player....
Trying to convince some folks that he is a very good (not great) and very useful player is like trying to convince Flat-Eathers that the planet is a sphere. Just a waste of time.
Trying to convince some folks that he is a very good (not great) and very useful player is like trying to convince Flat-Eathers that the planet is a sphere. Just a waste of time.
habdynasty
Registered User
- May 26, 2008
- 7,601
- 3,197
Danault to me is what the Habs have been for the last couple of decades. So so. They just never have star forwards, no guys at the top of the scoring race. Lafleur the last star.
CristianoRonaldo
Registered User
Yeah, the great Danault turned Tatar into a 70-point player and Gally into a 30-goal scorer.
CristianoRonaldo
Registered User
Pourtant @Mrb1p et moi sommes francophones. Donc selon toi, on critique Danault, parce qu'il est québécois francophobe comme nous ? Brillante analyse mon cher.
ECWHSWI
TOUGHEN UP.
- Oct 27, 2006
- 28,604
- 5,423
100% WRONG
if that was the case, teams with a higher +/- would automatically be higher in the standings...
No, I was saying that (if I follow the logic of some here) maybe they are all third liners.
There were literally people calling Gallagher that in 2017.
There were many people calling Tatar a cap dump.
My point is NOT that Danault turned them from third liners into first liners.
My point is that the pattern seems to be to devalue and denigrate our own players.
What I'm trying to say is that TEAM plus-minus (including man advantages) decides each game.
Individual plus-minus is a stat to HELP assess the usefulness of players within the team. Admittedly, there are caveats and circumstances that make the stat open to interpretation for any given player. I'm ok with that. But the stat still has some value. It is still true that guys with hugely positive +/- are almost always fantastic players (Orr, Robinson, Lidstrom, etc.) , and guys with hugely negative +/- are usually evaluated as risky players and their teams usually lose a lot.
Ironically, many of the people who criticize the use of +/- for ES goals put a lot of stock into Corsi stats, which are....... +/- for ES SHOTS!!!!!
To me, if +/- has to be taken with a grain of salt (and I agree it does), then Corsi should be taken with four grains of salt.
Patccmoi
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2010
- 1,572
- 248
Well, according to you he's dragging down superstars Tatar and Gallagher (which they would clearly be if you give them 5-10 extra points for playing with an "actual 1st line center").
So... Danault is +19, being sent against opposition's top line as often as possible. And yet he's getting murdered? This would make sense if Danault's line was being sheltered and only sent against weak lines in the offensive zone, but it's the total opposite of how he's being used in games.
Also, scoring a goal against an opposing team's 4th line gives as much to your team as scoring against their first... If he's not being sheltered and he's at +19, he's just doing good if not great at ES, that's it. I don't care if he gets his +19 by scoring against 4th lines while preventing 1st lines from scoring, or by scoring against 1st lines and failing to do so against 4th lines. Either way helps the team just as much.
The "actual" reality is that (most) opposition's top lines score more on the PP against us than we do against them.
Danault is too weak on the PP for what people call a 1st line C (there isn't really such a thing as 1st line on the PP, but whatever). Fine. But everything else being said against him is laughable at best. His wingers are all producing at their best and he's middle of the pack of 1st line C offensively at ES and above-average defensively. His weakness is the PP. That's it. And yes, we WOULD be better off with an elite 1st line C like McDavid or Bergeron than Danault, he isn't that and never will be and hopefully we can get one from somewhere. He will also never be paid like one.
This is backwards. The problem is not "players being played too high on the depth chart". The problem IS lack of top end talent. Players being played too high on the depth chart is the result. And there's no reason to whine about it or blame the coach for doing the best he can to win games with the players he has (not that I'm a big fan of Julien, but I wouldn't blame him for keeping a 1st line that's actually performing very well together). But there is all reasons to blame the GM for being unable to get top-end talent in 8 years and ending up in a situation where our best 1st line C at ES isn't skilled enough to play on the PP and where our 2nd line wingers are just not producing much at all.
CristianoRonaldo
Registered User
If you can't understand why a centreman who can't pass the puck well, can't score goals and has stone hands is dragging down his wingers, I can't help you.
gillyguzzler
Registered User
Imagine if Danault was - 21 even though he always plays against the other team's top line. He'd surely get bashed for that too.
Archijerej
Registered User
Based on real life stats, Danault passes better than you claim. He is 20th this season so far for total assists by a centreman, and 9th in ES assists.
His 31 ES assists are just two less than McDavid.
If he is 20th in assists overall, how do you say "he doesn't pass the puck well"?
What he actually does not do that well is score goals, but passing is pretty decent. Certainly top-6 level.
Last edited:
- Status
