The Split "Captain" Thread

[radoran]

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.

It's the other side of the state.

Odd year. Goalie's fault.

[ruxpin]

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...

I already clicked "agree."

Definitely a difference. But the point is the difference is largely in hindsight. There was little the Nordiques could have known --for sure--when they gave Sakic the captaincy. I think they had better opportunity given he had 4 years under his belt, though. But he was still young.

Look, clearly Richards didn't work out. No one's arguing that, so I'm not sure saying 3/15 says too much. There was claim that the Flyers SHOULD have known.

If the "SHOULD have known" sticks to the idea that Richards was still learning 1) to better his game and) to be a "grown up" when suddenly made captain with better interim choices on the roster, I think the argument stays on point. When it strays to age, foresight, earning stipes, yadd yadda, I think the argument weakens significantly. Because the 23-25 year old thing really isn't uncommon enough to brush it away as "an exception."

Edited August 20, 2013 by ruxpin
EDIT: Four of the last five Stanley Cup champions had captains 27 years old or less. Just saying is all.

[ruxpin]

It's the other side of the state.

Odd year. Goalie's fault.

LOL!!!

[Polaris922]

@ruxpin

@radoran

The first two games the Pens did what @aziz felt they should and focused on offense. They were defensively outplayed and lost lopsided games because they refused to accept they needed to play defense themselves.

The second two games they focused on Defense, and lost in a double overtime then a 1-0 game where Rask was clearly a difference maker.

I don't show more concern because what's done is done. I don't think the loss to the Bruins had anything to do with player leadership but had everything to do with coaching leadership. They adjusted for games 3 and 4, but Rask was phenomenal, as was widely agreed at the time.

As for @radoran and its the goalie's fault... Nice try but credit where do. Rask played great.

[ruxpin]

The first two games the Pens did what @aziz felt they should and focused on offense. They were defensively outplayed and lost lopsided games because they refused to accept they needed to play defense themselves.

The second two games they focused on Defense, and lost in a double overtime then a 1-0 game where Rask was clearly a difference maker.

This is true.

I don't think the loss to the Bruins had anything to do with player leadership but had everything to do with coaching leadership.

I could certainly argue right along side you on that. Remains to be seen, but I'm suspicious of both. It's a Philly thing.

[Flyskippy]

Crosby is the youngest captain to win a Cup for a reason.

The Pens did everything they could to make sure there was a "veteran presence" (a la Bill Guerin) around him at all times. And he accepted that.

Richards, with Pronger, apparently did not.

There might also be a reason the Pens haven't won a Cup without Crosby having a "veteran presence" around him.

That reason just might be... Crosby.

"The truth hurts doesn't it, Hapsburg. Oh sure, maybe not as much as jumping on a bicycle with the seat missing, but it hurts."

[fanaticV3.0]

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?

Well I guess they are f-cked, because we all know once you've made one mistake, you'll never make another good decision again.

That age is irrelevant. Said that a few times now.

[fanaticV3.0]

I've never played on a team consisting of members who didn't care about wins. And, popularity has nothing to do with the choice of Captain. Like most people I know, I've always voted for the guy I thought would give us the best chance of winning.

It shouldn't, but your high if you think players would never choose the most popular guy to lead them.

[radoran]

I already clicked "agree."

Definitely a difference. But the point is the difference is largely in hindsight. There was little the Nordiques could have known --for sure--when they gave Sakic the captaincy. I think they had better opportunity given he had 4 years under his belt, though. But he was still young.

Look, clearly Richards didn't work out. No one's arguing that, so I'm not sure saying 3/15 says too much. There was claim that the Flyers SHOULD have known.

If the "SHOULD have known" sticks to the idea that Richards was still learning 1) to better his game and) to be a "grown up" when suddenly made captain with better interim choices on the roster, I think the argument stays on point. When it strays to age, foresight, earning stipes, yadd yadda, I think the argument weakens significantly. Because the 23-25 year old thing really isn't uncommon enough to brush it away as "an exception."

It's not like the Flyers have a history of giving the C to players to early in their careers, or anything.

Learning from experience is an important thing.

The point isn't "they shouldn't have chosen Richards" - the point is that there were other options available that, at the time as well as in hindsight, made more sense.

When they made Crosby captain, there weren't two other, experienced veteran captains already on the roster (with a third having just departed). When Toews got it in Chicago, there weren't other obvious options there, either.

Quebec and Sakic? Who are you picking over Sakic in 1992? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992%E2%80%9393_Quebec_Nordiques_season

And each team made the "go youth" commitment (with a few obvious exceptions - Hossa, Guerin). The Flyers went with the "youthful" captain and then brought in veteran leadership that was, quite frankly, bound to clash with that setup. Let's face it, Chris Pronger wasn't playing second fiddle to Mike Richards. Scott Neidermeyer? Sure. Mike Richards? Hell no.

Bill Guerin? Happy to be a "support" for "The Next Next One." Hossa? Never a "line up behind me, boys" kind of guy - nor the kind of guy that guys are lining up behind.

[radoran]

That age is irrelevant. Said that a few times now.

It's not "the age" it's "the player." You don't make hard and fast decisions based on one factor like "no captains before the age of 26." You make it based on the players you have.

Richards was a bad pick at the time. He was a bad pick when he had the C. And they confirmed he was a bad decision when they sent him packing.

And none of this is "hindsight" - it was obvious when they made the decision and I was quite clear, you may recall, at the time.

Well I guess they are f-cked, because we all know once you've made one mistake, you'll never make another good decision again.

You put someone "in charge" and give them a huge pile of money to cover up their bad decisions and, occasionally, they may stumble into a good decision.

That doesn't mean the bad decisions weren't bad decisions and didn't have serious repercussions for the organization.

Because they did. And they'll be paying for at least one of them for the next 14 years.

[fanaticV3.0]

Sorry if I'm taking this line out of context; I haven't read the whole thread. I saw the "split captain" thread and thought it was referring to Giroux's finger.

Anyway, how does one KNOW whether a player is going to be a good NHL captain until actually making him an NHL captain and giving him the opportunity to succeed or fail? Not trying to be a smart ass; I'm seriously asking.

I mean, it's been pointed out that Crosby was a captain very young. At not quite 22, he was carrying the Stanley Cup as captain of the Pens.

The same year, on the same date, Richards was 24 and captain of the Flyers...who were golfing.

We can go through a laundry list of other young players who were captain. Some made it. Some didn't. But I think we can likely rule out age as a factor.

Maybe we can look at experience prior to the NHL.

Crosby was not captain in junior hockey, to my knowledge. This may be something Giroux has going for him. Crosby was alternative captain on the 2006 World Championships team for Canada, but not THE captain.

Richards was captain for three years on Kitchener, including the Memorial Cup winner in 2003.

Okay, so previous captain experience may not prove anything; at least not in the correlation one would expect.

So, maybe we're talking team make up. Maybe Crosby had more or less vets around to help.

Crosby had 13 players on the roster 30 or older, including Guerin, Sydor, Gonchar, Satan, Sykora and Adams, among others.

Mike Richards had 7, including Knuble, Timonen, and Briere. But also people like Metropolit, Asham, and Kane (only 1 game and really shouldn't count)

If there is anywhere that factors not under Mike Richards' might have contributed to his lack of success as a captain, it's here. I don't think he had ENOUGH veteran support. (As frame of reference, Yzerman was made captain of the Red Wings at age 21 in 1986-87 and had only 6 players 30 or older. 4 of them were defensemen. We know how long it took HIS teams to get it together and how many years there were whispers that maybe he wasn't a good captain).

But I don't think it should have been a killer. Maybe ultimately the Flyers (and fans such as myself) were too impatient given the Yzerman lesson.

Or maybe ultimately you have to point to Richards and simply say the guy didn't get it done when he was given the opportunity. Whatever the reason, ultimately HE failed as a captain.

I argued at the time that it was unnecessarily too early for HIM. I know there was Crosby right across state, and there's a plethora of other examples of young captains. The claim HE is too young seemed to be allayed by the fact he had been captain at earlier stages. I still think it was too young for HIM. I don't think he was as quick as some with the transition from boy to man---evidenced by the Centre City partying, the inability to face questions, etc. I really don't blame him for either part. Some have to go through a process. That's why they call'em growing pains.

But for HIM it was too early and with too little support structure. It's a shame, because clearly he's become a pretty good player.

Rad, if I mistook your context, I apologize. All this to comment that if we're referring to captaincy, being "previously good" at an earlier stage is as good an indication as any as to predicting how they'll do. Ultimately, though, you'll never know until after the fact.

It's like when you are a kid and your parents are trying to make you try some new food and you simply respond, "I don't like it." How do you know you don't like it if you haven't tried it?

There's nothing wrong with using someone's past as an indicator for how they might do in the future. It's simply the way the world looks. We look at history, track records, or even something as simple as a resume to determine how something might pan out in the future.

I'm calling bullshit on not blaming him though. If you want to blame the organIzation for naming him captain too soon, that's fine. But how can't you hold him accountable for his piss poor job as a captain? He was the one in the position making the poor decisions, not management. It's like blaming the people who voted a politician into office, but absolving him of mistakes when he/she makes them.

[radoran]

I'm calling bullshit on not blaming him though. If you want to blame the organIzation for naming him captain too soon, that's fine. But how can't you hold him accountable for his piss poor job as a captain? He was the one in the position making the poor decisions, not management. It's like blaming the people who voted a politician into office, but absolving him of mistakes when he/she makes them.

Who isn't "blaming" Richards here?

Richards is the one that did the screwing up on the ice, yes.

Flyers management put him there.

Both are culpable for the mistake. Both made poor decisions.

Only one is still here - still making poor decisions that affect the Flyers.

I'm calling bullshit on totally absolving Flyers management and putting all the blame on the player.

Because, you know, that's bull****.

[ruxpin]

It's like when you are a kid and your parents are trying to make you try some new food and you simply respond, "I don't like it." How do you know you don't like it if you haven't tried it?

There's nothing wrong with using someone's past as an indicator for how they might do in the future. It's simply the way the world looks. We look at history, track records, or even something as simple as a resume to determine how something might pan out in the future.

I'm calling bullshit on not blaming him though. If you want to blame the :organIzation for naming him captain too soon, that's fine. But how can't you hold him accountable for his piss poor job as a captain? He was the one in the position making the poor decisions, not management. It's like blaming the people who voted a politician into office, but absolving him of mistakes when he/she makes them.

I'm on my phone so bear with the wirse typing than even my usual.

I blame Richards plenty. I agree he should not be absolved. Blaming management for THEIR idiocy doesn't absolve Richards of his. The point honestly wasn't to make Richards an innocent victim, just to assign blame where I think blame is due. I blame mgmnt for picking the wrong guy at the wrong time. It was something I think should have been predicted. I blame Richards for seemingly doing as much as possible to make it abundantly clear the wrong choice was made rather than taking the opportunity to grow into the role.

[fanaticV3.0]

Who isn't "blaming" Richards here?

Richards is the one that did the screwing up on the ice, yes.

Flyers management put him there.

Both are culpable for the mistake. Both made poor decisions.

Only one is still here - still making poor decisions that affect the Flyers.

I'm calling bullshit on totally absolving Flyers management and putting all the blame on the player.

Because, you know, that's bull****.

The guy who said "I really don't blame him for either part." Just a wild theory I have.

You are free to do so. I have no idea who you'd be talking to since I don't absolve them, but I won't stop you from thinking it.

[fanaticV3.0]

I'm on my phone so bear with the wirse typing than even my usual.

I blame Richards plenty. I agree he should not be absolved. Blaming management for THEIR idiocy doesn't absolve Richards of his. The point honestly wasn't to make Richards an innocent victim, just to assign blame where I think blame is due. I blame mgmnt for picking the wrong guy at the wrong time. It was something I think should have been predicted. I blame Richards for seemingly doing as much as possible to make it abundantly clear the wrong choice was made rather than taking the opportunity to grow into the role.

Oh. Well ok then. I guess I misread the part where you don't blame him? I don't see any other way to interpret the words "I really don't blame him for either part.", but you obviously didn't mean them the way I read them.

I agree both sides made mistakes. I've said that all along. I just think he made more mistakes. Management made one mistake, they made him captain. Richards made tons. He was immature, couldn't act like an adult and allowed work to be influenced by play, and even clashed with veterans the team went out and got to help him with the pressure. Do I blame him more than management, but still blame both parties? Yup, and I won't apologize for that either, I don't think it is outlandish.

One thing I don't quite get is the idea they should have been able to predict his failure as captain? Why is that? Because he was young? There was a lot of evidence stated he was a good leader despite his age.

[radoran]

The guy who said "I really don't blame him for either part." Just a wild theory I have.

Oh. Well ok then. I guess I misread the part where you don't blame him? I don't see any other way to interpret the words "I really don't blame him for either part.", but you obviously didn't mean them the way I read them.

I agree both sides made mistakes. I've said that all along. I just think he made more mistakes. Management made one mistake, they made him captain. Richards made tons. He was immature, couldn't act like an adult and allowed work to be influenced by play, and even clashed with veterans the team went out and got to help him with the pressure. Do I blame him more than management, but still blame both parties? Yup, and I won't apologize for that either, I don't think it is outlandish.

One thing I don't quite get is the idea they should have been able to predict his failure as captain? Why is that? Because he was young? There was a lot of evidence stated he was a good leader despite his age.

Yes, you did. Going back four pages, the actual context of the quote is:

I argued at the time that it was unnecessarily too early for HIM. I know there was Crosby right across state, and there's a plethora of other examples of young captains. The claim HE is too young seemed to be allayed by the fact he had been captain at earlier stages. I still think it was too young for HIM. I don't think he was as quick as some with the transition from boy to man---evidenced by the Centre City partying, the inability to face questions, etc. I really don't blame him for either part. Some have to go through a process. That's why they call'em growing pains.

But for HIM it was too early and with too little support structure. It's a shame, because clearly he's become a pretty good player.

I just don't see how that is "absolving" or "excusing" Richards in this situation.

In fact, ruxpin seems to be saying exactly what you are saying.

[fanaticV3.0]

Yes, you did. Going back four pages, the actual context of the quote is:

I just don't see how that is "absolving" or "excusing" Richards in this situation.

In fact, ruxpin seems to be saying exactly what you are saying.

Other than saying he doesn't blame him? Aside from that, I'm not sure where I got that idea either.

[radoran]

Other than saying he doesn't blame him? Aside from that, I'm not sure where I got that idea either.

You can just keep playing Johnny One Note on the harp.

There are 46 other strings on the instrument, though.

[mojo1917]

The rumblings about MIke Richard's ability to hammer chics and whiskey that were all around the city when he was named captain should have iinfluenced the decision by management at least a little. That is i believe some of the subtext @ruxpin is alluding to with the "predicted failure" and "growing into manhood" business.

when there is that much smoke there's got to be fire somewhere.

trading him out of philly and to LA seems to be the wake up call he needed, he may never wear the C on that team but he is a big part of the leadership group and is on the ice when the game is on the line. shame we didn't reap the benefits that will come from having a mature mike richards on the team.

this thread has been an great read lots of good points made.

i appreciate also rux's memory regarding Steve Yzerman, he was frequently beleaguered as not "getting it" for what seemed like 3 or 4 years , i remember that too. He turned it around or more likely the team got better and he grew with it.

I also appreciated @radoran 's point about going with the youth movment and how when you're the best 23 year old on a team full of 24 and 25 year olds it's not that big of a deal, this was very true of Joe Sakic's situation and I don't remember too many awesome players/leaders on the Wings for Stevie Y.

Gabe Landeskog's captaincy in colorado is mirroring the Sakic situation from 15 -20 years ago. Same business with the Oil.there's a young roster there so naming a guy like Taylor Hall who is young maybe necessary and it may be necessary for him to grow with the team into his role.

[radoran]

Gabe Landeskog's captaincy in colorado is mirroring the Sakic situation from 15 -20 years ago. Same business with the Oil.there's a young roster there so naming a guy like Taylor Hall who is young maybe necessary and it may be necessary for him to grow with the team into his role.

Just to amplify this, neither the Avs nor the Oilers are sitting around talking about being "good enough to compete for the Stanley Cup" on an annual basis nor do they make huge moves or blow up the roster on a regular basis to achieve that.

That's a great place for a young captain to be.

Toews was in a much similar situation in Chicago - and Crosby in Pittsburgh. Both teams were perennial losers who set a long term course (bolstered by the draft picks they got for being abysmal) and won the Cup with it.

Moreover, having GOTTEN to the Final, the Flyers then traded away their captain and his sidekick and all of the experience (not to mention baggage) that went along with them in favor of another set of young players who are just now growing into the position they already had with Crater and Richards.

I hope that they stay the course with these players and we don't wind up selling off a Voracek to fill a "need" on defense to "make a run."

[ruxpin]

Other than saying he doesn't blame him? Aside from that, I'm not sure where I got that idea either.

I clearly didn't express myself very well and appreciate the way you took it, but I was attempting to refer to very specific aspects where I didn't blame him. I wasn't attempting to absolve him altogether.

I think we're obviously all trying to blame all parties, so I guess the devil is in "who are we blaming more?"

In the case of Mike Richards, I think 80/20 Richards' fault might be lenient to Richards but I'll place it there.

Here's the thing:

We can blame Flyers' management for a stupid decision in the first place. Somewhere, the brain trust (term used loosely) had anointed him as the Second Coming and they were hell bent on making him captain evidence be damned. But the evidence (to rad and to aziz) seemed to be specific to Richards rather than some general rule about age or pedigree or years of service whatever. That's where the finger points squarely on Richards. It was Richards who was clearly too immature to handle the situation and ultimately lead to failure.

I see it similar to this (bear in mind the analogy really only works on a very limited level): You have a kid growing up in a bad home. Maybe he's poor or maybe bad parents or whatever. He ends up falling in with a lousy group of friends and knocks of a 7-Eleven for money for liquor. On the one hand, you can say "who could blame him?" and focus on blaming the parents, economics, whatever. But ultimately, the blame lies squarely on the kid. He's the one who made the poor decisions and he's the one that knocked off the store..

So yes, management can be blamed for making a decision that put Mike Richards in a position where it was difficult to succeed--but not impossible. It was Richards who not only failed to step up to it but actually not only shrunk away from it but almost proudly shrunk away.

----

The concern regarding Giroux: I think on one level it is odd for an organization that just witnessed its young prize implode following the decision to make him captain to almost immediately do the same thing with its next young prize. But I wonder if the comparison doesn't end there. I think it's clear that the organization went with the attitude "THAT was Richards and THIS is Giroux." I think to its credit to some extent. I think there does need to be an acknowledgement that they are two separate people. The circumstances that are the same is relative age and Philly. Other than that, it's a different set of players, a different mix, a different coach (from when Mike started), etc. They ARE two separate individuals. I personally am scared of a repeat of history, but I do see that there are differences. Forever avoiding doing the young captain thing again would be little different than "well, that last goalie thing was a disaster. Let's just never do a goalie again!"

Actually, now that I think about it...

[radoran]

So yes, management can be blamed for making a decision that put Mike Richards in a position where it was difficult to succeed--but not impossible. It was Richards who not only failed to step up to it but actually not only shrunk away from it but almost proudly shrunk away.

Thing is, I really didn't have a problem with the concept that "at some point" Mike Richards was going to wear the Flyers' C.

I just felt it was a mistake to do it when they did.

And it was.

Flyers management has given the C to two young players before Giroux - Richards and Lindros.

They stripped Lindros and traded away Richards.

If anything, I'm scared for Giroux.

[ruxpin]

If anything, I'm scared for Giroux.

Yeah. I'm with you there.

For my sanity sake, I'm trying not to over blow the comparisons.

[ruxpin]

Thing is, I really didn't have a problem with the concept that "at some point" Mike Richards was going to wear the Flyers' C.

I just felt it was a mistake to do it when they did.

With you here, too. But you know from the day he arrived in town they were going to do it at the first opportunity. It had mistake written all over it. For ME, though, the mistake was Richards at that point in time, on that team, and in this city.

The captaincy wasn't the only mistake with him. The contract was, too. I just don't give my kid the keys to the BMW (if I had one--I don't) and tell him to go for a spin when the kid is still working on his learners' permit. THAT part is where I blame management. (to @fanaticV3.0 "that" was meant specifically for that portion of the discussion; not intended to be all-encompassing)

[Flyskippy]

With you here, too. But you know from the day he arrived in town they were going to do it at the first opportunity. It had mistake written all over it. For ME, though, the mistake was Richards at that point in time, on that team, and in this city.

The captaincy wasn't the only mistake with him. The contract was, too. I just don't give my kid the keys to the BMW (if I had one--I don't) and tell him to go for a spin when the kid is still working on his learners' permit. THAT part is where I blame management. (to @fanaticV3.0 "that" was meant specifically for that portion of the discussion; not intended to be all-encompassing)

Al Morganti? Is that you?

http://youtu.be/KLFRIgOW6bk