fanaticV3.0

This could be because I named the thread "Lines", but there's one position nobody addressed. Dare I open this can of works and ask who is in net? I mean we all know it'll be both of them - and likely even a 3rd guy since Emery will probably get hurt - so I guess I should ask, "Who will be in net...the most?"

I know I can. That's because age is irrelevant when it comes to predicting one's ability to lead

Didn't matter for **** when it came to Forsberg and Desjardins. These guys had been around forever. You pretty much knew what they were at that point in their careers and they were still ineffective-to-bad leaders. Choosing guys in their situations (meaning wily old vets who were usually important parts of their clubs) didn't help the team at all. You don't know how someone is going to react in a situation until you put them in that situation.

Now knowing how somebody will react to a leadership position of authority has nothing to do with age. Brown, Crosby, and Toews were all better and more successful as captains than say.....Forsberg or Desjardins. You could be born a great leader or play 10 years and never acquire that x-factor. You name your captain based on whether you believe he has what it takes to do the job, not his age. It's the same thing with the payoff. You are naming somebody the captain, because you believe they are the best person for the job. Age is not relevant to the goal (or result sometimes). Truthfully, I think there was probably more merit to naming Richards captain than there was Giroux. I'm not worried about Giroux (right now), but I can think of more reasons why Richards was given the C than why Giroux was.

Like winning at every previous level and even serving in a leadership capacity in some of them? I don't think you have to wait a set amount of time as a rule of thumb. I think you name whoever you think is the best man for the job. You are always taking a chance when you name a new captain regardless of the players age.

I like him. I know he's older, so Schenn and Coots could still grow, but I like where he's at already. He's barely played 100 games, but he's just looked poised since the beginning. He came out his rookie year, put up good numbers, and does some really good little things. One might even say he busts his ass and scores a little. In terms of earning playing time, he's surpassed some of the kids imo.

Yeah, it seems like coaches are under more pressure in today's world. You think the Flyers have had a lot of coaches, I just heard on the news that the sixers had some ridiculous number of coaches recently. Something like 8 in 10 years? I also heard good old Uncle Charlie might be getting fired any day now. The guy is in the last year of his contract, he has some truly terrible players on his team, he's 70, and they're going to fire him? That's just pointless imo. Sends a bad message to the players too.

I hear what you are saying, but how do you know he isn't going to be a big whiny *****? You don't. Sometimes you just got to take a chance and based on his growth in the NHL (I think he broke out the previous year), his success in the AHL and juniors, naming him captain wasn't exactly out of left field. I think naming Smith - not because he was a bad leader - was a worse decision. You sign a guy for one year and name him captain?! That just instills no confidence in your roster. If Giroux flops, he flops. Right now, I'm not worried about it just because he's young and so was Richards.

Teams name young players captain all the time. Vinny, Brown, Crosby, and Toews are some of the recent ones I can think of. Joe Sakic was like 23 when he was named captain. I think Yzerman was even younger than him. Most of these guys were around the same age, if not younger, than Richards. I'm sure there are more out there. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. I'm not for or against it as a whole. I don't think you should name a young player a captain just because you plan on having him around and I also don't think you should avoid naming someone a captain just because they're young. If you want to say they made him captain too soon, I don't completely agree, but I wouldn't fight that point. I don't have a real issue with it. I can see the point behind it. I just think there's more blame with him than the organization (meaning they still have some, but not as much). He came from a winning background, was given a lot of veteran help, and was just a big whiny ***** when it came down to pressure situations. He failed more than the organization did in their choosing of him.

I agree. I think he's earned it a little more than Schenn. He's been a good all-around player and nice surprice for us. That being said, his skillset might suit a 3rd line role the best.

That's an awful lot of finger pointing at management and ignoring the players individual actions/contributions. I mean, you just blamed management for just about every captain they've had in this millenium. That's not to say there hasn't been some bad calls by management, but Christ bro. As jammer and I have both noted, Richards probably had more reasons for being named captain than just about anyone in recent memory. It was a hell of a lot better than the "he's our best player" logic they used for Forsberg or even Lindros (though there were times he carried the team, so it was warranted in that sense). My opinion could always change, but I don't have many concerns about Giroux right now. He's the closest thing we've had to a superstar in ages, seems to want to be given the ball, and hasn't shown any signs of cracking.

Are you sure? It seems like they kicked you out, but are still around http://wearethedorks.com/

Hey, some people like basketball. I don't care about it all that much, but NTTAWWT.

The shortened season aside (kinda of hard to judge against a full year anyway), his stats have gone nowhere but up every season he's been in the league. His breakout season was followed up by not only a better one, but a significantly better one. He established himself as one of the best players in the league. When people talk about the top players in the league, it's not uncommon for Giroux's name to be thrown in the mix. He's talked about as if is a superstar (or at least a budding one). Richards ain't at that level, especially now. Maybe, you could have made the argument he was on his way because of his two-way play during those couple of really impressive seasons here, but he's just along for the ride now. He's a good player, but he isn't a leader. He couldn't lead here and was lucky enough to end up on a team that has good leaders and an awesome goalie. The pressure is off him now. I'm not, but making a guy in his 4th year (not exactly a rookie) captain, who just came off of a career year, helped your farm team win a championship, and was known as a leader in juniors, isn't exactly throwing him to the wolves. He showed something before having the captaincy given to him. You could even say he "earned" it in a sense. It's not like they drafted him and were like, "Here, it's all yours." If you want to say they shouldn't have made him captain at such a young age, I won't really put up much of a fight, but let's be fair. It's not like they put him in some totally unfair situation that was completely without merit. They didn't draw straws, pick a name out of a hat, or throw darts at board. Mike Manaluk had more pressure on him than Richards did. One good season in the AHL and they put the poor guy with the teams two best players. Sheesh. Talking about rushing to judgement.

You know what else I've heard that kind of baffles me? Gargano, Macnow, Cataldi, and some callers from both of their shows have expressed this opinion. They are all outraged that he hasn't been interviewing coaching candidates in Philly. Apparently, he's been interviewing them in NY? This is something worth wasting energy over?

I could definitely see them doing it. They're the same guys who traded the other AI because the fans wanted to run him out of town and didn't do their homework on Bynum.

This would be hysterical. Coffeey, Hawerchuck, Pronger (though he could still play, but injuries played a factor) would be nothing compared to getting Brodeur of all people in his golden years. It would actually be a sign of the apocalypse.

Honestly? Management, fans who follow juniors, websites that give a damn about hockey. They were all pumping him up. Truthfully, I don't care about hype. I care about results and after being really impressed with him initially, I'm glad he's gone. The second things got just a little though he wilted. And he didn't just falter, it's one thing to struggle, but he bitched and moaned, lashed out at the media, his teammates. Good riddance. I don't worry about that with Giroux because he is a better player. He broke out sooner than Richards or Carter could ever hope to. He's a little higher caliber than they are both physically and emotionally. I literally cannot think of one example of a time where he did something that makes me worried about a future problem (like the whining, I know all players are going to struggle). Plus, he's not surrounded by a bunch of douchers like Richards was. That group was just a bad combination. There is no fate, but what we make for ourselves. Or some bullshit like that.

The board police? Really? Ok dork.

I agree with the both of you. I'm not against doing it, but it seems like if you don't score a goal in 10 minutes, the lines change, and each change comes with a shorter span of time.

Richards. He was the one who failed as a captain. Plus, it's not like this was some random choice out of the blue. All we heard about his kid was that he has won at every level. He won in juniors, played a big role in helping The Phantoms win, and it's not like they made some rookie a captain. He was enterting his fourth year and all the stuff I just mentioned had already happened. Was it a little soon? Yeah, I don't object to that, but it's not like the thought process behind it was without merit. He had won at every level prior to that and was progressing as a pro (just came off his best year). He was given plenty of time here. He showed a lot of growth in his first couple of years, broke out in years 3 and 4, but had regressed in others. Management has its issues and this was one of them, but the majority of that situation was on him and some of the other players who have been shipped out. I'm glad they are gone. Ever single one of them.

Exactly. There's a positive side people aren't factoring into this whole thing.

I'm with you. I don't give a **** about basketball, but it's more than that. I simply don't have a problem with this one bit. It's his money, outside of using it to hurt somebody, what do I care? I was listening Macnow and Gargano on the way home from work yesterday when the story broke. They were all up in arms about this. I'm talking legitimate anger. They were the same way when Pappelbon was saying he didn't come here to lose, but openly defended another player with a longer stint here throwing the team under the bus. He may be an a-hole, but he's right, the Phillies blow this year. I don't care how long he's been here, it doesn't negate whether he's right or not .To puff your chest out over one guy doing it, while excusing another, is bull****. I heard some callers, saw some people on Good Day Philly, and have since heard other hosts express the same anger Macnow and Gargano did. I just don't get the mindset that goes into this. All this talk of it being a "violation" or "betrayal" just makes me think the people acting that way are big f-cking dorks (and not very bright either).

Then don't bring them into the conversation.

That's why they put people like Pronger and Timonen around him and you even noted he didn't respond well to it. I'm not into this blaming the management crap. That's not to say they can't have haven't made mistakes, but rather that it goes both ways. You want to blame them for giving him the keys to the car, that's fair, but it's also up to him and he does when give the keys. At first, he seemed just fine, but when things got just a little difficult he was pathetic. Instead of trying to right the ship he spent his time arguing with the meadia, complaining how mean they were to him, and brushing off guys like Pronger and Timonen. Whether the same thing happens to Giroux or not, I don't know. Right now, I say now, because he seems mentally tougher. He's also matured as a player much faster than Richards.