The Split "Captain" Thread

[jammer2]

@ruxpin Just touching on Stevie Y, growing up right across from the river and all, Stevie was not always a great leader, it was a very questionable call (albeit the correct call) at the time. Fortunately for the Wings, Stevie evolved and became one of the best Captains ever. A lot of it was maturity and in general, putting the team before himself and his pt totals...he didn't think that way all the time. He was never selfish per say, but he became much more team and defense orientated as time went by.

Stevie was given the C cause he was the best player (which has been established as the incorrect way to name a leader), and it just happened to work out for the best.

[Polaris922]

@aziz

Crosby did what in the Bruins series?? What series were you watching? They weren't misbehaving at all, just losing. Did you mean the series with your Flyers from the year before? That would make more sense...

[radoran]

@aziz

@jammer2

@radoran

They all go through growing pains. There have been no locker room melt downs, no troubling news or allegations, and teammates publicly support him 100%. He shoulders responsibility when they lose and gives others credit when they win. He's young, yes, and not perfect, but he's also the youngest captain to win a Cup in history. You can't condemn him for team failings with veteran players then give credit for team success to everyone else in the same process.

Honestly I'll take him over most other captains in the league right now despite his learning curve. The point remains that young captains go through ups and downs as well as anybody, your own Giroux no different. Not giving him the C when they did would've been a joke. Anybody else handed the letter would've been a false leader, as Giroux established himself that season as the focal point of your squad. He was your best player and leader on the ice.

So last season was tough for several reasons, but in my opinion, none of them Giroux's fault or things he could change. I think questioning his appointment after one sour half season is ridiculous, but its what I've learned Flyers fans like to do to pass the time.

Crosby is a tangential point in this discussion.

The fact that his Cup-favorite team melted down in consecutive postseasons, not as much

[ruxpin]

@radoran

You've been around these parts long enough to know I am NOT defending Richards (or Carter for that matter).

And you know I didn't like him for captain from the get go.

My only point is that it wasn't about age or about experience (I would have preferred a year or two more of wearing the A but I don't think that was ultimately the problem).

[radoran]

You might not "actually" know what would have happened with a team the second season after a Stanley Cup final with a goalie who just might be able to put up a Vezina caliber season.

It's a lot to think about, but just think if they didn't trade Richards and Crater to sign Bryzgalov and kept Bob.

Hmmmm....

Is Pronger even on the same place on the ice at the same time he got injured?

FIRE UP THE TARDIS, AMY!

[Polaris922]

Crosby is a tangential point in this discussion.

The fact that his Cup-favorite team melted down in consecutive postseasons, not as much ;)/>

They clearly played the wrong Flyers team two years ago... Which other postseason did they melt down in that you're referring to? Surely not this past season...

[radoran]

@radoran

You've been around these parts long enough to know I am NOT defending Richards (or Carter for that matter).

And you know I didn't like him for captain from the get go.

My only point is that it wasn't about age or about experience (I would have preferred a year or two more of wearing the A but I don't think that was ultimately the problem).

Jeebus, man, if you don't watch out HockeyFan and I will be in your area for brunch on Monday...

AND YOUR LITTLE DOG, TOO

[radoran]

They clearly played the wrong Flyers team two years ago... Which other postseason did they melt down in that you're referring to? Surely not this past season...

Don't call me Shirley

[Polaris922]

Don't call me Shirley

Haha! Laverne?

[jammer2]

I'm assuming "the big Ragu" is acceptable?

[aziz]

Crosby did what in the Bruins series?? What series were you watching?

the one where the penguins, as led by sid crosby, decided the best way to play the bruin was to be tougher than boston and focus on physical play rather than constructing anything resembling offense. complete with crosby acting like he wanted to fight chara (and then going to the press after the series to talk about how chara punched him and how uncool that was). you know, play to the opposite of their strength.

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin Just touching on Stevie Y, growing up right across from the river and all, Stevie was not always a great leader, it was a very questionable call (albeit the correct call) at the time. Fortunately for the Wings, Stevie evolved and became one of the best Captains ever. A lot of it was maturity and in general, putting the team before himself and his pt totals...he didn't think that way all the time. He was never selfish per say, but he became much more team and defense orientated as time went by.

Stevie was given the C cause he was the best player (which has been established as the incorrect way to name a leader), and it just happened to work out for the best.

You don't think "just happened to" is an absurd leap of happenstance? Or is it pissible the organization saw something they stuck by and had patience with? When did we decide the best player shouldn't be captain? When the Oilers won their cups it sure wasn't McSorely that wore the C. Lemieux wore the C. Messier on the Gretzky-less Oilers and the Rangers. Yzerman on the Wings. Clarke on the Flyers. Sure, there's examples to.the contrary.

Again, the point is that hard abd fast rules are being tossed around that simply don't bare themselves out when tested.

[ruxpin]

Jeebus, man, if you don't watch out HockeyFan and I will be in your area for brunch on Monday...

AND YOUR LITTLE DOG, TOO

If your serious, we need to meet up

[radoran]

the one where the penguins, as led by sid crosby, decided the best way to play the bruin was to be tougher than boston and focus on physical play rather than constructing anything resembling offense. complete with crosby acting like he wanted to fight chara (and then going to the press after the series to talk about how chara punched him and how uncool that was). you know, play to the opposite of their strength.

I have yet to see a Crosby team "set it's will" on another team. They have, quite frankly, not imposed their will on other teams. They have won. Once.

Crosby/Malkin should win more championships. If I had those players 1/2, it would be an absolute dream.

But they are in the toughest division in organized sport, that just got tougher.

[jammer2]

@ruxpin Oh sure, the Wings saw all the right things/traits in Stevie, and those traits certainly went into the decision making process. Stevie just had this calm cool demeanor even at a young age, by doing things the right way and not taking short cuts, he commanded respect. He was very stoic and in general, went to bed early, got the proper amount of sleep.....all the little things that lead to success. In short he lived his life the right way and geared all his energy into winning. Sorta the opposite of Richards.

In the end, I still contend the Wings got a tad lucky with him, despite all the right character traits, he evolved into being an elite captain. Devellano was a very loyal guy, and he stuck by "his" guys. Sometimes, to a fault, if you can even say something like that about a legend like Jimmy who has one of the most impressive resume's in pro hockey to this day.

Who Stevie was as a person was every bit as important as his God given talent....and yeah, you can spot that stuff a mile away.

[radoran]

@ruxpin Oh sure, the Wings saw all the right things/traits in Stevie, and those traits certainly went into the decision making process. Stevie just had this calm cool demeanor even at a young age, by doing things the right way and not taking short cuts, he commanded respect. He was very stoic and in general, went to bed early, got the proper amount of sleep.....all the little things that lead to success. In short he lived his life the right way and geared all his energy into winning. Sorta the opposite of Richards.

In the end, I still contend the Wings got a tad lucky with him, despite all the right character traits, he evolved into being an elite captain. Devellano was a very loyal guy, and he stuck by "his" guys. Sometimes, to a fault, if you can even say something like that about a legend like Jimmy who has one of the most impressive resume's in pro hockey to this day.

Who Stevie was as a person was every bit as important as his God given talent....and yeah, you can spot that stuff a mile away.

When I think "captain" I tend to think Sakic, Yzerman and Messier. None were ever the best players on their teams, but they were good players who were great leaders.

Gretzky, for example, was always "the captain" but the NHL named the "leadership award" after Messier.

[ruxpin]

i'm just saying, i see no reason to ever be in the position to assume one way or the other. maybe its just my thing, though. i think a great captain has a minor positive effect on an otherwise well-constructed team...while a bad captain has a major negative effect. a great leader is going to be a great leader whether he has a C on his chest or not. either way, the team will reap the benefit of his leadership. a bad leader with a C on his chest suddenly gets authority with which to lead poorly. towes is a good captain, but i don't know that is any particular reason the hawks won cups...and pronger was doing his thing to full effect with a piddly little A. crosby, on the other hand, inspired his team to act like 4 yearolds for the bruins series, and richards dragged the team through his bunch of self involved drama.

See, I agree with everything here but would draw a different conclusion. I guess because IF he were a bad captain, they wouldn't have won (if one agrees with your premise, which I do). My point being that you really wouldn't know until afterward--largely because his good/bad will have been defined BY the result.

that's how it works to my mind, anyway. and that being the case, with little possible upside but a lot of downside, a team should only gamble when the game is pretty well fixed and you know your guy can do the job well.

I guess my point is that every captain ever made captain was a gamble on day one. What temperature do you think makes a good beer?

and, like i've said, a guy who earnestly wants to do a great job but has his plate pretty well full trying to elevate his personal game to elite level, there's a good sized risk of some try-hard that can be less than great for everyone.

This last part is a trumping piece to me, and one that bothered me then and now. It wasn't age. It wasn't captain experience prior to NHL. It was the fact he DID seem to be personally still trying to grow into himself when they suddenly made him captain. Regardless of age, etc., here's a guy not only trying to figure out how to be a good player, he was still trying to figure out--a little late IMO--how to be an adult. And you want him to lead a team of grown men??? That's the part of yours and Rad's argument I completely buy. Particularly in the case of Richards. And--to me--it's something that should have been utterly predictable to management. It was to some of us on the little message board. Why shouldn't it be to management?

And the above is the basis of Rad's concern regarding Giroux. And mine, for that matter. For whatever reason, Giroux seems on a better track with the learning how to be an adult thing. Maybe boarding with Briere helped in that regard. That's something that Giroux had that Richie didn't. Giroux also had a year with Jagr. And Talbot. And Timo, etc. etc. etc. I'm still concerned about Giroux, but I do think he's in a slightly better place. And now he has Lecalvier. So there may be hope for him.

[jammer2]

@radoran I think Stevie was the most talented Wing, ditto for Sakic. They were both great to me. Maybe Roy was the best player at one point on the Ave's...but apples to oranges there. Sakic over Peter anyday.

[ruxpin]

I still contend the Wings got a tad lucky with him

Absolutely. I won't argue against that.

Sometimes, I guess, you have to be willing to put yourself in a position to benefit from luck.

To yours, aziz' and rad's point, the Flyers seem to have a knack for being out of position.

[jammer2]

@ruxpin "Sometimes, I guess, you have to be willing to put yourself in a position to benefit from luck."

Not that I'm surprised or anything (LOL!) but there is some true wisdom there.

[ruxpin]

When I think "captain" I tend to think Sakic, Yzerman and Messier. None were ever the best players on their teams, but they were good players who were great leaders.

Gretzky, for example, was always "the captain" but the NHL named the "leadership award" after Messier.

Sakic was 23 when made captain. Chalk up another one for not waiting.

I disagree about Yzerman and Messier not being the best on their teams, though. Messier was by far the best Oiler on the 90 Cup team. One could make an argument for Graves, but of the skaters, I'll say Messier was the best on the 94 Rangers' team.

The 97 Wings you can make an argument for Shanahan, but I'll stick with Yzerman being the best on that team--of the forwards, anyway. If you're arguing for Lidstrom, be my guest, I won't argue. Of the forwards, I'll go with Stevie Y.

[Polaris922]

@aziz

Wow that whole series and you boil it down to checking and Crosby being upset Chara gave him a cheap shot in his recently reconstructed jaw?? You give too much disdain to Crosby and not enough credit to Boston's defense, and more importantly Rask's standing on his head.

The Pens outshot the Bruins and yes out hit them, but the Bruins defense and Rask in particular was the story of that series. Other than a bogus 5 and 10 call on Cooke penalties were fairly even, with neither team losing composure.

Aziz you usually think these things out well and I respect your posts most if the time, but you're spinning further and further out on this one.

The Bruins played better defensive hockey and won. Not shocking in the playoffs. A hot goalie always helps. Crosby was creative and played hard the whole series, as many of them did. They lost.

[jammer2]

ahhh, note to rad, was focusing on forwards, I'll give you the Wings/Lidstrom scenario....ha ha. Agree with rux though, Mess was the best Oiler after Wayne left.

[radoran]

Sakic was 23 when made captain. Chalk up another one for not waiting.

Exceptions aren't rules.

And if you make a guy a captain and then sign him to a 15 year contract and trade him three years after naming him, I think there's even MORE of a difference...

[ruxpin]

@aziz

Wow that whole series and you boil it down to checking and Crosby being upset Chara gave him a cheap shot in his recently reconstructed jaw?? You give too much disdain to Crosby and not enough credit to Boston's defense, and more importantly Rask's standing on his head.

The Pens outshot the Bruins and yes out hit them, but the Bruins defense and Rask in particular was the story of that series. Other than a bogus 5 and 10 call on Cooke penalties were fairly even, with neither team losing composure.

Aziz you usually think these things out well and I respect your posts most if the time, but you're spinning further and further out on this one.

The Bruins played better defensive hockey and won. Not shocking in the playoffs. A hot goalie always helps. Crosby was creative and played hard the whole series, as many of them did. They lost.

Polaris, I think the reality is somewhere between his assertion and your contention. I would buy your point a little better if it wasn't 4-0 and if the Pens just looked better in the process.

Like I said, I wouldn't go anywhere near as far as aziz. I'm not sure it was leadership, etc., more than simply running into a team that the Pens, for whatever reason (including the ones you mentioned) didn't matchup well against in that series. But--for me--the fact it was a sweep would leave me with a bit more concern than you *seem* to indicate.