The Split "Captain" Thread

[aziz]

Like winning at every previous level and even serving in a leadership capacity in some of them?

no, not like that. "every previous level" was playing with children. extremely skilled children, no doubt, but children. we're talking about a leadership position of a group of men. having been an awesome captain for your pee-wee team means pretty much nothing.

you see a guy who has been through the ups and downs of the NHL, gone through grueling seasons, maintained focus through the trench warfare of the playoffs, has been a consistent source of stability and perseverance when the team struggled, is looked to for inspiration and guidance in the lockerroom and on the ice by his teammates, good times and bad....you make HIM the captain. not some kid who led the team in scoring when he was 12. for the vast vast majority of players, it takes more than 3 seasons to see all of that. it takes more than 3 seasons to know all of that.

it isn't about a player being too young to be captain, it is about not knowing how a young player will react when the heat is on, not knowing if he is really who you want to be your captain. there shouldn't be risk when you give someone a C. you give it to a player you already know can carry its weight. if the thought "sometimes you gotta take a chance" comes up in your thought process when considering someone, to me that immediately disqualifies that player.

because, again, what is the payoff? you take that chance, the risk that your up-and-coming star player can't handle the additional responsibility and his game stalls out, risk your team looking to someone who can't fill the shoes of a captain and ends up leaderless...for what? it doesn't help richards or giroux in any particular way to be the captain, at best they wear the job easily and don't miss a step, at worst they end up distracted and their play drops off..in neither case are they better players in any way. at his most effective, a captain keeps a team on an even keel, and makes sure everyone is pulling their weight. how is it worth rolling dice on a young player for that understated benefit, a benefit that several veteran players could undoubtedly bring, and bring with considerably less risk?

ok, i'm getting long winded, and don't actually care enough to keep going. i just think that the captaincy is a thing that can hurt a young player way more than it helps, and having an ineffective captain does far more damage than a good captain can do good. i have never seen the risk/benefit of experimenting with the C making any sense at all. look for the most obvious guy who has been around the block, a guy who everyone respects and who gives his all for the team every night, and hand the letter to him. no reason to play games with it. let the kids keep honing their game, keep learning to be NHL players.

[jammer2]

@aziz "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? "

I agree with this. Even in the case of the young Landeskog, I think the Ave's moved to quick. The one thing about Lands, he had a man's body at 18, just ripped for a kid, and broke into the NHL with ferocious physicality, so they don't have to worry about the ***** part....but they have never seen him play a playoff game, and that is odd. You want to make sure your captain does not wither against the inevitable pressure the playoffs bring. Plus, they named him so quickly, they don't know if say a McKinnon becomes the natural team leader, so that puts them in the awkward position of taking it away from a core player and giving it to a young star to replace him....that is super awkward. In the Ave's spot, you name a respected vet to take the reigns until you know what you are dealing with.

[fanaticV3.0]

no, not like that. "every previous level" was playing with children. extremely skilled children, no doubt, but children. we're talking about a leadership position of a group of men. having been an awesome captain for your pee-wee team means pretty much nothing.

you see a guy who has been through the ups and downs of the NHL, gone through grueling seasons, maintained focus through the trench warfare of the playoffs, has been a consistent source of stability and perseverance when the team struggled, is looked to for inspiration and guidance in the lockerroom and on the ice by his teammates, good times and bad....you make HIM the captain. not some kid who led the team in scoring when he was 12. for the vast vast majority of players, it takes more than 3 seasons to see all of that. it takes more than 3 seasons to know all of that.

it isn't about a player being too young to be captain, it is about not knowing how a young player will react when the heat is on, not knowing if he is really who you want to be your captain. there shouldn't be risk when you give someone a C. you give it to a player you already know can carry its weight. if the thought "sometimes you gotta take a chance" comes up in your thought process when considering someone, to me that immediately disqualifies that player.

because, again, what is the payoff? you take that chance, the risk that your up-and-coming star player can't handle the additional responsibility and his game stalls out, risk your team looking to someone who can't fill the shoes of a captain and ends up leaderless...for what? it doesn't help richards or giroux in any particular way to be the captain, at best they wear the job easily and don't miss a step, at worst they end up distracted and their play drops off..in neither case are they better players in any way. at his most effective, a captain keeps a team on an even keel, and makes sure everyone is pulling their weight. how is it worth rolling dice on a young player for that understated benefit, a benefit that several veteran players could undoubtedly bring, and bring with considerably less risk?

ok, i'm getting long winded, and don't actually care enough to keep going. i just think that the captaincy is a thing that can hurt a young player way more than it helps, and having an ineffective captain does far more damage than a good captain can do good. i have never seen the risk/benefit of experimenting with the C making any sense at all. look for the most obvious guy who has been around the block, a guy who everyone respects and who gives his all for the team every night, and hand the letter to him. no reason to play games with it. let the kids keep honing their game, keep learning to be NHL players.

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.

Edited August 14, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[aziz]

@fanaticV3.0

Now knowing how somebody will react to a leadership position of authority has nothing to do with age

no. but it has a whole whole lot to do with having seen the somebody in question go through a wide variety of situations, having seen how they respond and how teammates respond to them. how they handle losing streaks, how they handle media scrutiny, how they handle pressure situations, how they deal with roster changes, how they relate to teammates, how they take criticism, how they take praise. etc etc etc.

knowing all of that is not directly a function of age, but it is a function of time and exposure. you look at a guy with three years in the league and you know a lot less about him than you do a guy with ten years. do you really not see that?

[canoli]

@aziz

I guess the upside to "sometimes you gotta take a chance" is that Giroux or any young captain will grow into the role and be a better all-around asset for the team. That's not exactly unheard of, putting extra pressure on an employee in the hopes they'll excel and deliver above and beyond what he would've contributed without the additional responsibilities.

just playing devil's advocate here. I think they should've waited 2 or 3 more years before naming Giroux captain.

[fanaticV3.0]

@fanaticV3.0

no. but it has a whole whole lot to do with having seen the somebody in question go through a wide variety of situations, having seen how they respond and how teammates respond to them. how they handle losing streaks, how they handle media scrutiny, how they handle pressure situations, how they deal with roster changes, how they relate to teammates, how they take criticism, how they take praise. etc etc etc.

knowing all of that is not directly a function of age, but it is a function of time and exposure. you look at a guy with three years in the league and you know a lot less about him than you do a guy with ten years. do you really not see that?

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.

Edited August 14, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[aziz]

of course you can find examples where it didn't work, just like you can find examples of kids who turned out to be great captains. forsberg was chosen for that worst of all reasons: he was the best player on the team... which doesn't have anything to do with being the best leader in the team. forsberg is actually a good example of what I'm talking about, the guy was around long enough that management should have known that his leadership qualities fell way way short of his point scoring qualities. unfortunately, he was also a great example of management looking at things backwards and making decisions based on what they want to be true, rather than what is demonstrably true.

desjardins was a whole other kind of mistake. he refused the captaincy, but management persisted until he gave in. there isn't a much worse formula for choosing your captain than that.

so, yeah, a team bent on making mistakes can make them in all sorts of ways. that doesn't mean we should sit here and encourage them to keep on making them. I can at least wish they'd do it right once in a whole.

[fanaticV3.0]

of course you can find examples where it didn't work, just like you can find examples of kids who turned out to be great captains. forsberg was chosen for that worst of all reasons: he was the best player on the team... which doesn't have anything to do with being the best leader in the team. forsberg is actually a good example of what I'm talking about, the guy was around long enough that management should have known that his leadership qualities fell way way short of his point scoring qualities. unfortunately, he was also a great example of management looking at things backwards and making decisions based on what they want to be true, rather than what is demonstrably true.

desjardins was a whole other kind of mistake. he refused the captaincy, but management persisted until he gave in. there isn't a much worse formula for choosing your captain than that.

so, yeah, a team bent on making mistakes can make them in all sorts of ways. that doesn't mean we should sit here and encourage them to keep on making them. I can at least wish they'd do it right once in a whole.

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

Edited August 15, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[radoran]

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

But actually leading is a better indication, is it not?

Why does management need to "predict" who will be a good leader and "project" them into the role?

Why not let the players choose who their "leaders" are rather than having management pick their "leaders" for them?

When you look at Forsberg, Smith, Richards, Pronger, Giroux - what is it about the previous four that gives you any confidence in the fifth? Pronger, perhaps - but, again, a reflection that the choice before that (Richards) was a clear and abject failure.

To be clear, I have confidence that Giroux can work out and do not predict his failure.

I have no confidence in the system or the people that chose him.

[blocker]

I think Captains should always be chosen by the players. The most-gifted player is often not the most respected. IMHO, young players should never be Captains. That puts extra pressure on the kid. And, it sometimes causes resentment from his teammates.

[aziz]

I think Captains should always be chosen by the players.

i don't know about that. you have a couple lupuls and upshalls and carcillos on the team and i'm not sure i'd have a lot of confidence in who they'd point at as captain. it shouldn't be a popularity contest, not really.

that said, to me the choice for captain should be...obvious. they guy who is functionally filling the role should be given the role. there are some players who act and are looked at as the leaders of a team, with or without a letter on their chest. management should wait for that guy to step forward and shoulder the burden, and only then give him management's endorsement in the form of the C. pronger is a recent example: richards had the C, but pronger acted and was seen as the guy moving things forward. he was the obvious choice. that's how it happened with towes, yzerman, they were obviously the calming influence who the rest of the team fell in behind, they were the obvious choice for captain.

richards and giroux, as rad said, were *projected* to be that guy. well, really, richards was projected and giroux...giroux was the best player and so they gave him the C just 'cause. i dunno. i don't think there are going to be any problems, but the logic was wrong and the choice made for the wrong reasons. as the roster stands right now, it seems to me the flyers ought to be doing some kind of rotating captain-by-committee thing until someone -maybe giroux, maybe not- emerges as the guy. i'm not sure what the benefit was to forcing the issue.

[radoran]

richards and giroux, as rad said, were *projected* to be that guy. well, really, richards was projected and giroux...giroux was the best player and so they gave him the C just 'cause. i dunno. i don't think there are going to be any problems, but the logic was wrong and the choice made for the wrong reasons. as the roster stands right now, it seems to me the flyers ought to be doing some kind of rotating captain-by-committee thing until someone -maybe giroux, maybe not- emerges as the guy. i'm not sure what the benefit was to forcing the issue.

I think, personally, it was all a PR move coming off the lockout. It was meant to be a feel-good thing.

The thing I've always heard about Timonen is that, when asked, he took the stoic Finn "well, if that's what you'd like me to do" approach and didn't really say "yes, give it to me I want it."

I think, personally, that is one of the best reasons to have given it to him.

[doom88]

I think, personally, it was all a PR move coming off the lockout. It was meant to be a feel-good thing.

The thing I've always heard about Timonen is that, when asked, he took the stoic Finn "well, if that's what you'd like me to do" approach and didn't really say "yes, give it to me I want it."

I think, personally, that is one of the best reasons to have given it to him.

Devils advocate, why assign captaincy to someone who doesn't want it?

I would have chosen Timonen too actually, without hesitation. Or, no captain and just alternates.

[Howie58]

Greeings:

I haven't posted much this summer given the paucity of "excitement" but I see some venom in this thread that draws me in. Folks, I agree with one side here that management may have rushed the prior captain along too fast. But I don't fault them for that too much. I fault them for not allowing a group of young players to gel. And on that score, we are seeing some hopeful signs that management's outlook is changing. And for better or worse, it took at least some courage to admit they made a costly mistake with Bryz.

From my vantage, Giroux is a bit more mature and level-headed than our Richards. Only time will tell where their career trajectories pan out. But for the time being, I'd prefer to keep some Eisenhower-style guarded optimism about the squad and hope that our new goaltending duo pans out, our nucleus of young forwards delivers on their promise, and that the patch quilt defense develops better than expected. I think Giroux is our captain. But who are the alternates. And if I were Lavy or Homer I would hope that Vinnie wears an A, Nobody could argue with that, and Giroux would have a good sounding board and mentor.

Peace, and I still wonder about a major deal before the start of the season.

Best,

Howie

[blocker]

<br /> it shouldn't be a popularity contest, not really.<br />

As usual, you make sense. But, the best judges of a Captain are teammates. They know who are the real leaders. Management is apt to choose a Captain from marketing considerations. Coaches choose whomever bests promotes their particular style of hockey.

All in all, the sanest and fairest way to choose a Captain is by a vote of all the team members.

[radoran]

Devils advocate, why assign captaincy to someone who doesn't want it?

I would have chosen Timonen too actually, without hesitation. Or, no captain and just alternates.

Not saying "doesn't want it" - said "willing to take whatever role assigned." Timonen, the ultimate good soldier, is trusting the people in positions of influence to make the right decisions.

For better or, in this case, worse.

Best time would have been Timonen over Smith, with a changeover at the end of his tenure to Richards - who would at that point have been an A instead of a focal point with the Philly media.

They allegedly went with Smith to encourage Smith to sign for another 2-3 years and provide that bridge to Richards without pushing off their press release for an additional 2-3 years. .

[jammer2]

Worth noting that Richards will probably never be a captain again, both Mike and Dustin Brown are signed long term in LA, so unless something whacky happens, he'll be an A for at least the rest of his Kings career. Unless some weird injury takes out Brown.....and even then, it's highly possible Mike would get passed up for captain for Drew Doughty. I do think Mike get's the nod over Kopitar though, he's not captain material.

[canoli]

...that said, to me the choice for captain should be...obvious. the guy who is functionally filling the role should be given the role. there are some players who act and are looked at as the leaders of a team, with or without a letter on their chest. ....

i'm not sure what the benefit was to forcing the issue.

Maybe "the benefit to forcing the issue" is the wrong way to look at it. With Giroux the Flyers didn't force anything they just gave the best player the C, like it's been done so many times before. And really...how big a deal is it anyway? The captainship (if that's a word). Like you said there are always guys on the team who are seen as leaders whether they wear a letter or not. Plus, if you look at the Flyers it's hard to see them as anything but Giroux's team. As Giroux goes so go the Flyers.

and you've always got the hope, the expectation that giving a younger guy more responsibility will bring out his best...

[aziz]

And really...how big a deal is it anyway?

well. it can be a big deal. a crappy captain can cause pretty serious problems. and a player who has enough on his plate getting his own game together can be distracted by the perceived responsibilities of the captaincy to the point of both his on-ice effectiveness and the team's leadership suffering.

[fanaticV3.0]

But actually leading is a better indication, is it not?

Why does management need to "predict" who will be a good leader and "project" them into the role?

Why not let the players choose who their "leaders" are rather than having management pick their "leaders" for them?

When you look at Forsberg, Smith, Richards, Pronger, Giroux - what is it about the previous four that gives you any confidence in the fifth? Pronger, perhaps - but, again, a reflection that the choice before that (Richards) was a clear and abject failure.

To be clear, I have confidence that Giroux can work out and do not predict his failure.

I have no confidence in the system or the people that chose him.

Yes, it is. I agree. But I also think that's why Richards was chosen. He showed in the past he can be a leader. Turned out not to be true at the NHL level.

The players are arguably the least objective source for choosing leadership. I'm with aziz on this one. Players choose people who are popular.

I think Giroux was chosen because he is the best player on the team. That's not the way to choose a captain. I also happen to think he's a fairly calm guy. The team sucked last year and he wasn't throwing hissy fits in post-game interviews like one of our other recent captains. He might suck as a captain, but as of now I don't see any major concerns.

[fanaticV3.0]

I think Captains should always be chosen by the players. The most-gifted player is often not the most respected. IMHO, young players should never be Captains. That puts extra pressure on the kid. And, it sometimes causes resentment from his teammates.

So, you tell the players they can pick their captain...as long as he's not a young guy?

[radoran]

Yes, it is. I agree. But I also think that's why Richards was chosen. He showed in the past he can be a leader. Turned out not to be true at the NHL level.

The players are arguably the least objective source for choosing leadership. I'm with aziz on this one. Players choose people who are popular.

I think Giroux was chosen because he is the best player on the team. That's not the way to choose a captain. I also happen to think he's a fairly calm guy. The team sucked last year and he wasn't throwing hissy fits in post-game interviews like one of our other recent captains. He might suck as a captain, but as of now I don't see any major concerns.

Daigle was a huge scorer in Junior. Jody Shelley was named the Halifax Mooseheads number one player of all time.

Turned out not to be true at the NHL level.

Maybe waiting until a guy shows it at the NHL level is better than basing the decision on "he was good in Juniors!"?

I don't care if a guy led his Mite team to victory in the Showcase Shootout between the second and third periods. I care if he scored the game-winner in overtime.

So, you know, keep saying you have no concerns about Giroux. Not the point at all.

Just because a guy might have made one good decision after four bad ones doesn't make him a great decision maker.

[fanaticV3.0]

Daigle was a huge scorer in Junior. Jody Shelley was named the Halifax Mooseheads number one player of all time.

Turned out not to be true at the NHL level.

Maybe waiting until a guy shows it at the NHL level is better than basing the decision on "he was good in Juniors!"?

I don't care if a guy led his Mite team to victory in the Showcase Shootout between the second and third periods. I care if he scored the game-winner in overtime.

So, you know, keep saying you have no concerns about Giroux. Not the point at all.

Just because a guy might have made one good decision after four bad ones doesn't make him a great decision maker.

Like Forsberg and Desjardins? They were awesome leaders.

Edited August 19, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[radoran]

Like Forsberg and Desjardins? They were awesome leaders.

As I have noted previously in this very thread Forsberg was a "mistake" - made by the same guy you think just made a great decision in Giroux.

I have also noted, incessantly, that Holmgren was nothing more than Clarke's protege. Who made the Lindros/Desjardins mistake?

Clarke.

So, aside from proving my point, what was yours?

[blocker]

We've all been on teams with weak captains. To the best of my memory, those individuals have never been voted to that position. I can think of a couple duds who were given the job as a kind of carrot to improve their character. Didn't work.

Takes judgement to know when to be a buffer or a ramrod for the coach. You need to be able to judge which players require pats or prods. Those duties are less complicated for a Captain who was chosen by his teammates.

Edited August 19, 2013 by blocker