The Split "Captain" Thread

[ruxpin]

I've avoided opening this thread because I couldn't believe there were 85 posts about trading for St. Louis--a dumb idea if there ever was.

Glad to see it's evolved from there.

[fanaticV3.0]

Well, you see, in many ways I agree with you. He did straighten up the team.

But, again - and this isn't at all "hindsight" - it goes back to pushing Richards into a "leadership" role and then the captaincy too quickly. They wrote the script for Richards as "the next Bobby Clarke" practically in their press releases about the draft. They had created a young core, complemented it with veterans and could make a run.

Putting the young core in charge was the problem.

So, if they don't make the mistake of putting Richards in that position they don't have to make the move to bring in Pronger. They can continue to complement their team with the assets they have to deal to bring in a Pronger. But they don't. They make another mistake and sign Bryzgalov.

And then they almost immediately put the C on Giroux. Who then misses the playoffs in his first year.

And they press the reset button again.

Reset buttons don't win championships. They put you in a position to win in the next 3-5 years.

I do believe that they are in a solid position. I do believe that this roster - pending how the defense gels and the goalies play - can win and make the playoffs.

But I'm still looking not next year but the 2-3 year period after that as the real time this team can make some serious noise again.

Yet here we are saying how much need to hold onto youth and built the team around them. Ain't that somthin'?

And I'm sorry, but scapegoating the organIzation for his shortcomings as a leader doesn't float with me. I agree they put him in that position too soon, but after that it's up to him to decided how to respond. He had a few good seasons (as a leader) where I was perfectly happy with him, but when it got just even a little hard, he whined like a baby. It didn't stop there either, when Pronger and Timonen spoke out (without directly naming anyone) he simply whined some more. He handled himself VERY poorly.

[radoran]

Yet here we are saying how much need to hold onto youth and built the team around them. Ain't that somthin'?

And I'm sorry, but scapegoating the organIzation for his shortcomings as a leader doesn't float with me. I agree they put him in that position too soon, but after that it's up to him to decided how to respond. He had a few good seasons (as a leader) where I was perfectly happy with him, but when it got just even a little hard, he whined like a baby. It didn't stop there either, when Pronger and Timonen spoke out (without directly naming anyone) he simply whined some more. He handled himself VERY poorly.

Again, there is a difference between having a young core you are building around and putting the young core in charge too soon.

For example, early in his captaincy, the Pens went out of their way to bring in "experienced vets" to balance out the leadership (Guerin, etc.). Crosby was big enough to accept that. Richards, less so.

Yes, I do believe they have potentially just made the same mistake with Giroux they made with Richards.

Whether it turns out the same way remains to be seen - I hope it doesn't - it doesn't indicate to me that they have really learned a lot from their past mistakes.

They had Timonen tanned, rested and ready both times and, quite frankly, blew it.

[fanaticV3.0]

Again, there is a difference between having a young core you are building around and putting the young core in charge too soon.

For example, early in his captaincy, the Pens went out of their way to bring in "experienced vets" to balance out the leadership (Guerin, etc.). Crosby was big enough to accept that. Richards, less so.

Yes, I do believe they have potentially just made the same mistake with Giroux they made with Richards.

Whether it turns out the same way remains to be seen - I hope it doesn't - it doesn't indicate to me that they have really learned a lot from their past mistakes.

They had Timonen tanned, rested and ready both times and, quite frankly, blew it.

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.

[fanaticV3.0]

Again, there is a difference between having a young core you are building around and putting the young core in charge too soon.

For example, early in his captaincy, the Pens went out of their way to bring in "experienced vets" to balance out the leadership (Guerin, etc.). Crosby was big enough to accept that. Richards, less so.

Yes, I do believe they have potentially just made the same mistake with Giroux they made with Richards.

Whether it turns out the same way remains to be seen - I hope it doesn't - it doesn't indicate to me that they have really learned a lot from their past mistakes.

They had Timonen tanned, rested and ready both times and, quite frankly, blew it.

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.

[radoran]

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.

Right. He wasn't the right guy for the responsibility when they gave it to him and there were more than a few people who questioned it when it happened.

If you don't "blame management" for putting him in this situation - and they were 100% the only people involved in the decision - who do you blame?

I don't absolve Richards or his tetchy nature and his pricky responses to being asked to take the responsibility he accepted.

But Mike Richards is 3,000 miles away and is among the least of my problems.

The people who made the error are still running the team.

[fanaticV3.0]

Right. He wasn't the right guy for the responsibility when they gave it to him and there were more than a few people who questioned it when it happened.

If you don't "blame management" for putting him in this situation - and they were 100% the only people involved in the decision - who do you blame?

I don't absolve Richards or his tetchy nature and his pricky responses to being asked to take the responsibility he accepted.

But Mike Richards is 3,000 miles away and is among the least of my problems.

The people who made the error are still running the team.

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.

[radoran]

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.

Who did we hear this from? Management. They were doing "leadership by press release" from the jump with Richards.

And they just did it again with Giroux. I hope it turns out differently.

Again, I do not absolve Richards in any way, shape or form. He's just not involved with the Flyers any more. He has tons of issues.

And the Flyers still have the same guys in charge, making the same decisions.

I worry about the Flyers - today. The Past informs that opinion.

The future is unwritten.

[flyercanuck]

The future is unwritten.

That's awesome! (Where've I heard that before...hmmm)

[fanaticV3.0]

Who did we hear this from? Management. They were doing "leadership by press release" from the jump with Richards.

And they just did it again with Giroux. I hope it turns out differently.

Again, I do not absolve Richards in any way, shape or form. He's just not involved with the Flyers any more. He has tons of issues.

And the Flyers still have the same guys in charge, making the same decisions.

I worry about the Flyers - today. The Past informs that opinion.

The future is unwritten.

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.

Edited August 9, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[radoran]

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.

That's just a ridiculous statement.

Carter scored 23 goals as a rookie. Took Giroux two and a half seasons to do that.

Giroux broke out with 76 points (25/51) in his third season. Richards broke out with 75 points (28/47) in his third.

You can continue to make excuses and apologize for the failings of management all you like, it doesn't change the facts.

[fanaticV3.0]

That's just a ridiculous statement.

Carter scored 23 goals as a rookie. Took Giroux two and a half seasons to do that.

Giroux broke out with 76 points (25/51) in his third season. Richards broke out with 75 points (28/47) in his third.

You can continue to make excuses and apologize for the failings of management all you like, it doesn't change the facts.

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.

Edited August 9, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[radoran]

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.

I am not saying and have not said that there weren't "reasons" for making Richards captain. I said it was a bad decision. I said it then. I say it now.

And it was.

It followed the bad decision to make Forsberg the captain and the bad decision to make Smith the captain. Hell, making Lindros captain when they did was a bad decision - for many of the same reasons Richards was a bad decision.

I actually have fewer reservations about Giroux than I did about Richards, but I still have reservations.

But the point is that the same people who made the Forsberg/Smith/Richards decisions are still making the decisions.

[jammer2]

@radoran I thought making Richards captain was a sound decision at the time. He had tons of experience, he captained the Kitchener Rangers, probably the best WJC team Canada ever iced, Pee-Wee, Midgit, Travel....all the way up he was captain. So there was some viable proof he was a born leader. Even on the Flyers, when he was named captain, he acted and looked the the emotional leader of the team. It seemed like a solid decision at the time, but as we know, the NHL is a different animal than the lower leagues. I don't think he was mature enough to handle it. I'll respect Richie as a player, but sadly, he wore out his welcome.

I think over time, it will become clear that he plays the game bigger than his slight frame can handle. I believe the shoulder problems will rear their ugly head over time, just a hunch. I always said, he will hoist the cup, he proved me right.

[radoran]

@radoran I thought making Richards captain was a sound decision at the time. He had tons of experience, he captained the Kitchener Rangers, probably the best WJC team Canada ever iced, Pee-Wee, Midgit, Travel....all the way up he was captain. So there was some viable proof he was a born leader. Even on the Flyers, when he was named captain, he acted and looked the the emotional leader of the team. It seemed like a solid decision at the time, but as we know, the NHL is a different animal than the lower leagues. I don't think he was mature enough to handle it. I'll respect Richie as a player, but sadly, he wore out his welcome.

I think over time, it will become clear that he plays the game bigger than his slight frame can handle. I believe the shoulder problems will rear their ugly head over time, just a hunch. I always said, he will hoist the cup, he proved me right.

It was a decision that didn't need to be made when they made it. It was the press release they wrote when they drafted him and they just couldn't wait any longer.

There were other, better options available that a team that isn't just reactionary would have made - Timonen or Briere instead of Smith, for starters.

I can certainly respect disagreement over the decision - there was disagreement at the time.

But there are few who would disagree that the decision was a mistake in retrospect.

One of a pretty long list that just keeps growing...

As we've discussed, I hate the concept of management telling the players who their leaders are - for reasons which at this point should be abundantly clear.

[jammer2]

@radoran I don't know exactly how many teams management groups dictate the captain to the players. I don't think a lot of them do it, if I had to venture a guess, I'd say 4 or 5 teams do that, I've read it's not many anyways. It's a piss poor way to do things, like the players are not capable of making that decision for themselves? This is where Ed comes in IMHO, he runs the ship the way he sees fit, and part of that, unfortunately is dictating the captain to the players. It's not like they have done a bang up job of it either, Jason Smith was a poor choice considering the other options.

[radoran]

@radoran I don't know exactly how many teams management groups dictate the captain to the players. I don't think a lot of them do it, if I had to venture a guess, I'd say 4 or 5 teams do that, I've read it's not many anyways. It's a piss poor way to do things, like the players are not capable of making that decision for themselves? This is where Ed comes in IMHO, he runs the ship the way he sees fit, and part of that, unfortunately is dictating the captain to the players. It's not like they have done a bang up job of it either, Jason Smith was a poor choice considering the other options.

Exactly, which is why the point has nothing to do with Richards but, rather, with the people who made the decision.

[fanaticV3.0]

I am not saying and have not said that there weren't "reasons" for making Richards captain. I said it was a bad decision. I said it then. I say it now.

And it was.

It followed the bad decision to make Forsberg the captain and the bad decision to make Smith the captain. Hell, making Lindros captain when they did was a bad decision - for many of the same reasons Richards was a bad decision.

I actually have fewer reservations about Giroux than I did about Richards, but I still have reservations.

But the point is that the same people who made the Forsberg/Smith/Richards decisions are still making the decisions.

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.

Edited August 12, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[ruxpin]

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.

This is a difficult discussion for me because there are very good points on both sides.

I shared rad's concern about Richards at the time, and I do think particularly in retrospect that it was a bad idea to make him captain. But you and jammer are definitely right that he certainly had the pedigree.

In the decade or more that I've seen you post, you have remained consistent on the "personal responsibility" of the players thing. I appreciate that and respect it. And for the most part, I agree with it. Ultimately, whether Richards succeeded or failed at being captain is on him. He DID have the pedigree, and management provided him with veteran presence to help him. He seemed, from the outside looking in, to fight against that help rather than to embrace it and use it to his benefit. I didn't follow him in juniors or prior to his arrival in Philly, but I wonder if that was a very different dynamic for him (having people that were senior to him. I'm wondering if in his previous captaincies if he was in the "older" set himself and was able to lead from that perch...I don't know).

But I do see the systemic organizational problem that rad is talking about. I think there was a rush to anoint him as the next Bobby Clarke when patience might have been a better road. I thought that at the time, anyway, although it was a very minority view. I realize this statement is somewhat contradictory to my previous one, but hopefully you'll understand I'm on the fence on this one.

On the one hand, the positive was that the organization showed confidence in him AND gave him veteran help. On the other, it was simply arguably too soon.

I think, and thought, that Smith was a bad choice of captain if they didn't intend to bring him back. For the time he was here, though, I thought he was probably actually a good influence on Richards. I can't fault the job Smith did as captain. It was just weird they did it with the time frame with which they seemed to be working.

I couldn't begin to say what it is, but there has to be a reason why they have continually passed over Timonen for captain. But I think it's clear there IS a reason. Maybe he doesn't actually want it. I don't know.

For Giroux, I am concerned about the same things as I was with Richards. He seemed to struggle this year, but it's difficult to confidently argue that it was the captaincy when the whole team stunk. It could be simply growing pains or simply an off year. I think I would have waited on him if it were up to me. But one thing Giroux might actually have going for him -- in an admittedly odd way--is that he DOESN'T have the captain pedigree. He's never been one and that fact MAY make him more willing to learn and to take advice from those around him who have been captains.

For now, I guess I'm suspicious but hopeful.

But I get rad's point that this organization seems stuck in a groundhog day mode. They do seem to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Here's to hoping it actually eventually works, if just by dumb luck.

As an aside, I do think it might be better for the captain to be organically produced, meaning either by player vote or by recognizing who truly has the "voice" and commands attention in the room.

[fanaticV3.0]

This is a difficult discussion for me because there are very good points on both sides.

I shared rad's concern about Richards at the time, and I do think particularly in retrospect that it was a bad idea to make him captain. But you and jammer are definitely right that he certainly had the pedigree.

In the decade or more that I've seen you post, you have remained consistent on the "personal responsibility" of the players thing. I appreciate that and respect it. And for the most part, I agree with it. Ultimately, whether Richards succeeded or failed at being captain is on him. He DID have the pedigree, and management provided him with veteran presence to help him. He seemed, from the outside looking in, to fight against that help rather than to embrace it and use it to his benefit. I didn't follow him in juniors or prior to his arrival in Philly, but I wonder if that was a very different dynamic for him (having people that were senior to him. I'm wondering if in his previous captaincies if he was in the "older" set himself and was able to lead from that perch...I don't know).

But I do see the systemic organizational problem that rad is talking about. I think there was a rush to anoint him as the next Bobby Clarke when patience might have been a better road. I thought that at the time, anyway, although it was a very minority view. I realize this statement is somewhat contradictory to my previous one, but hopefully you'll understand I'm on the fence on this one.

On the one hand, the positive was that the organization showed confidence in him AND gave him veteran help. On the other, it was simply arguably too soon.

I think, and thought, that Smith was a bad choice of captain if they didn't intend to bring him back. For the time he was here, though, I thought he was probably actually a good influence on Richards. I can't fault the job Smith did as captain. It was just weird they did it with the time frame with which they seemed to be working.

I couldn't begin to say what it is, but there has to be a reason why they have continually passed over Timonen for captain. But I think it's clear there IS a reason. Maybe he doesn't actually want it. I don't know.

For Giroux, I am concerned about the same things as I was with Richards. He seemed to struggle this year, but it's difficult to confidently argue that it was the captaincy when the whole team stunk. It could be simply growing pains or simply an off year. I think I would have waited on him if it were up to me. But one thing Giroux might actually have going for him -- in an admittedly odd way--is that he DOESN'T have the captain pedigree. He's never been one and that fact MAY make him more willing to learn and to take advice from those around him who have been captains.

For now, I guess I'm suspicious but hopeful.

But I get rad's point that this organization seems stuck in a groundhog day mode. They do seem to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Here's to hoping it actually eventually works, if just by dumb luck.

As an aside, I do think it might be better for the captain to be organically produced, meaning either by player vote or by recognizing who truly has the "voice" and commands attention in the room.

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.

Edited August 12, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[ruxpin]

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 hoim. 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.

Well, can hardly argue with any of that. Very true.

[aziz]

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 think that's the thing, though. i agree, you don't not name a guy captain just because he's young...but you don't name him captain until you are pretty sure he isn't going to be a big whiny ***** when it comes to pressure situations, you know?

you also don't give a guy the C while he is still figuring his game out. i think that was part of the problem with richards, but more relevant, it worries me with giroux. while giroux is working on elevating his game to the level of the truly elite, he is also learning how to put a team on his back. and i don't know that was double duty the flyers had to put on him. giroux, as talented as he is, isn't a natural phenom like crosby, or a natural leader like yzerman or toews. we could argue about what harm it may or may not be doing, but to me, the question is what benefit is it bringing? does it specifically help the team to have giroux carry the C right now, or would they be at least as well off having someone who already knows exactly what his game is about dealing with that? if so, why put it on the kid?

i dunno. i don't think it's the worst thing in the world, but i don't think it's the best thing, either. that being the case, why make his job more complicated so soon? richards failed as a captain and ultimately as a player in philly, but he seems worlds more comfortable out of the direct spotlight in LA. i think most players in their early/mid twenties are better off focusing on their game first, the team's comportment second. related: i think most teams are better off having someone who already knows the ropes steering the on-ice ship.

[fanaticV3.0]

i think that's the thing, though. i agree, you don't not name a guy captain just because he's young...but you don't name him captain until you are pretty sure he isn't going to be a big whiny ***** when it comes to pressure situations, you know?

you also don't give a guy the C while he is still figuring his game out. i think that was part of the problem with richards, but more relevant, it worries me with giroux. while giroux is working on elevating his game to the level of the truly elite, he is also learning how to put a team on his back. and i don't know that was double duty the flyers had to put on him. giroux, as talented as he is, isn't a natural phenom like crosby, or a natural leader like yzerman or toews. we could argue about what harm it may or may not be doing, but to me, the question is what benefit is it bringing? does it specifically help the team to have giroux carry the C right now, or would they be at least as well off having someone who already knows exactly what his game is about dealing with that? if so, why put it on the kid?

i dunno. i don't think it's the worst thing in the world, but i don't think it's the best thing, either. that being the case, why make his job more complicated so soon? richards failed as a captain and ultimately as a player in philly, but he seems worlds more comfortable out of the direct spotlight in LA. i think most players in their early/mid twenties are better off focusing on their game first, the team's comportment second. related: i think most teams are better off having someone who already knows the ropes steering the on-ice ship.

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.

[aziz]

I hear what you are saying, but how do you know he isn't going to be a big whiny *****?

well, you wait. and see. let the guy get 7 or 8 NHL seasons under his belt. see how he reacts to the ups and downs of season-to-season NHL play.

my rule of thumb: don't give the C to 23 yearolds unless something about him REALLY says he is ready and deserves it. i.e., steve yzerman.

Sometimes you just got to take a chance

but...why? why do you have to take a chance? what was the overriding benefit that said it was something that had to be done? the team had two former captain vets who were under contract for another 6 years, why did the team *have* to "take a chance" and hand the C to a guy just starting his second pro contract?

water under the bridge, richards is gone and giroux has the letter, so it's done. i just don't understand the "had to" idea. and i don't see the upside that made the choices worth the risk.

[fanaticV3.0]

well, you wait. and see. let the guy get 7 or 8 NHL seasons under his belt. see how he reacts to the ups and downs of season-to-season NHL play.

my rule of thumb: don't give the C to 23 yearolds unless something about him REALLY says he is ready and deserves it. i.e., steve yzerman.

but...why? why do you have to take a chance? what was the overriding benefit that said it was something that had to be done? the team had two former captain vets who were under contract for another 6 years, why did the team *have* to "take a chance" and hand the C to a guy just starting his second pro contract?

water under the bridge, richards is gone and giroux has the letter, so it's done. i just don't understand the "had to" idea. and i don't see the upside that made the choices worth the risk.

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.