The Captain Discussion

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Murph

Yeah - leadership isn’t a thing.

I think he means that putting a letter on someone’s chest doesn’t change the leadership hierarchy on the team.

[Murph]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I think he means that putting a letter on someone’s chest doesn’t change the leadership hierarchy on the team.

Disagree. I think it’s akin to rank insignia.

[JohnnyB]

As far as I recall, Backlund seems to show up to compete in the playoffs. That is a necessity for any leader of this team.

If Coleman hadn't bumped the puck with his skate, Backlund would have had a huge winning goal on a drive into the zone to keep the Flames in the playoffs this year. He's that kind of player.

[Northendzone]

if Hubes rolls into the room and changes the music on the stereo then he gets the C - otherwise, I feel like Tanev should be the guy.

But, I think they need to pick one this year for sure.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Murph

Disagree. I think it’s akin to rank insignia.

The only official capacity that a NHL captain has within the game is communicating with the referees. Even that is something that is also undertaken by other players on the team, which is why teams will often run only alternates in a game. Hell, the Flames did this all season last year, and it had no impact on the performance of the team. Not naming a captain will be no different from naming a captain this year, and if a captain is selected the player choice will be nearly as meaningless.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[VilleN]

I think it is pretty hard for fans to gauge who the captain should be - there is likely an established hierarchy in the dressing room (to some degree) and the captain is self-evident and putting the C on the jersey is just a formality.

[Huntingwhale]

Backlund for sure. He's earned it with his time here. He's respected not only with his teammates and management, but the city as well. Plays hard, plays right, not afraid to mix things up. Has aged like fine wine. He was also the head coaches personal draft pick years ago, so undoubtedly Sutter has a soft spot for him and recognizes how hard Backlund has worked.

Very easy choice IMO for a player I hope retires here.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

I think they go without a Captain again this season, and will announce next summer.

We don't necessarily need one. There are many other teams without captains.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Murph

Disagree. I think it’s akin to rank insignia.

But it isn't a rank, and there is no chain of command among players. Hockey players do not take orders from the captain of the team. They take orders from the coaches.

[Vinny01]

I am just not a fan of a short term captain or a player in a bottom role so Backlund is just not the guy for me. If it is a player who has been around for a while and has a long term future here I lean toward Lindholm as the captain but I can also see either Huberdeau or Kadri being considered. Mangiapane is a dark horse as well.

[Calgary4LIfe]

When the coach and the team (or individual players) are having a disconnect, it falls on the captain to mitigate the issues. Captains keep players in-line. They help to ensure that all the players are following the coach's direction. When there are issues, the captain often has the responsibility of sitting down with the players. There is a lot of leading that a captain actually does.


Flames (and other teams) can definitely get the job done by committee. I think it is preferential to have a good captain, but when there isn't one, the committee approach certainly can be enough. Flames and Rangers both didn't have captains, and neither one of them seemed to skip a beat. However, why have captains at all then? Tradition? Obviously there is something more to it than just having some irrelevant figurehead for the media to pounce on after a bad game.


Monahan, Gaudreau and perhaps especially Tkachuk were all huge parts of that leadership group, and now they are all gone. Gudbranson apparently became an important piece of that room as well. Maybe the Flames didn't name a captain last season because they wanted to see where Monahan was health-wise, or if Tkachuk would sign long-term.



I think they name a captain this season. I think they would be fine without one, but I do think they name one this season.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

...why have captains at all then? Tradition? Obviously there is something more to it than just having some irrelevant figurehead for the media to pounce on after a bad game.

Why is it so hard to grasp that we continue to do silly things on the basis of tradition? We still employ a Governer General to represent the interests of a foreign monarchy in this country, despite the fact that both of these institutions have been completely neutered for many decades, and serve no purpose at all beyond fabled tradition. If tradition can dictate national policy then it sure as hell can persist in entertainment.

If there is "obviously something more to" the existence of NHL captaincies, then what is it? If it is obvious, then how do teams effectively function without them? Virtually everything you indicated as part of a team captain's job description does not require the donning of a letter on his jersey.

Now, having said that, I do think that there can be situations in which naming a specific player as the team's captain is beneficial. Pittsburgh did this with Crosby when he was not even of legal drinking age to send a message about the direction of their team. Edmonton tried to do the same thing, but without the desired results. But this doesn't detract from my point that NHL captaincies are exceptionally unimportant, and make virtually no difference to the outcomes of games.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Why is it so hard to grasp that we continue to do silly things on the basis of tradition? We still employ a Governer General to represent the interests of a foreign monarchy in this country, despite the fact that both of these institutions have been completely neutered for many decades, and serve no purpose at all beyond fabled tradition. If tradition can dictate national policy then it sure as hell can persist in entertainment.

If there is "obviously something more to" the existence of NHL captaincies, then what is it? If it is obvious, then how do teams effectively function without them? Virtually everything you indicated as part of a team captain's job description does not require the donning of a letter on his jersey.

Now, having said that, I do think that there can be situations in which naming a specific player as the team's captain is beneficial. Pittsburgh did this with Crosby when he was not even of legal drinking age to send a message about the direction of their team. Edmonton tried to do the same thing, but without the desired results. But this doesn't detract from my point that NHL captaincies are exceptionally unimportant, and make virtually no difference to the outcomes of games.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

Let's just agree to disagree here. I grasp things just fine, thank you. Lots of traditions are without merit, lots of traditions do serve a purpose. Not sure a discussion on the relevance of the Governor General today - especially as it pertains to hockey - is a worthwhile tangent to go on.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Let's just agree to disagree here. I grasp things just fine, thank you. Lots of traditions are without merit, lots of traditions do serve a purpose. Not sure a discussion on the relevance of the Governor General today - especially as it pertains to hockey - is a worthwhile tangent to go on.

That's fine, but I do question your grasp of things when you hand-wave at the perfectly apt analogy I have drawn for comparison sake to the persistence of another outdated and irrelevant institution on a much m9re consequential scale.

We can agree to disagree, although I have yet to see any case mounted as to the necessity and team-performance-value of NHL captaincies.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Why is it so hard to grasp that we continue to do silly things on the basis of tradition? We still employ a Governer General to represent the interests of a foreign monarchy in this country, despite the fact that both of these institutions have been completely neutered for many decades, and serve no purpose at all beyond fabled tradition. If tradition can dictate national policy then it sure as hell can persist in entertainment.

If there is "obviously something more to" the existence of NHL captaincies, then what is it? If it is obvious, then how do teams effectively function without them? Virtually everything you indicated as part of a team captain's job description does not require the donning of a letter on his jersey.

Now, having said that, I do think that there can be situations in which naming a specific player as the team's captain is beneficial. Pittsburgh did this with Crosby when he was not even of legal drinking age to send a message about the direction of their team. Edmonton tried to do the same thing, but without the desired results. But this doesn't detract from my point that NHL captaincies are exceptionally unimportant, and make virtually no difference to the outcomes of games.

I agree with everything... including the Governer General analogy... at least before the 1982 Canada Act, the Queen (Monarch) had some say (sort of, if you squint hard enough)... but after 1982.... the Prime Minister hires someone to be her/his boss, and can fire that person as well... then who is the boss and what oversight does the title perform - NOTHING.


As far as the Flames are concerned - if the there is a particular leader in the room and the team feels they need to put a letter on his chest, then so be it, but there are leaders in that room and the letter is only symbolic. Sometimes, having management pick a captain can cause issues, just look up north (they named McDavid captain just so they can add another banner to their ceiling - having the youngest Captain in league history - but it's meaningless, where is the title of youngest captain to win the Stanley Cup - it's NOT in Edmonton).

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That's fine, but I do question your grasp of things when you hand-wave at the perfectly apt analogy I have drawn for comparison sake to the persistence of another outdated and irrelevant institution on a much m9re consequential scale.

We can agree to disagree, although I have yet to see any case mounted as to the necessity and team-performance-value of NHL captaincies.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

I guess you don't agree to disagree.


No, you did not provide a pefectly apt analogy here. You just assume that you did based on your own biases. We are debating leadership on the performance of a team. Don't you for a second think that it is much more nuanced than what you are claiming it to be? No, it is not just entertainment - the NHL is NOT the WWE where outcomes are known beforehand. NHL hockey is a competitive sport, and captains can have a positive impact, and also a negative impact... and probably no impact at all. Depends on the captain, the situation, and the fit IMO.


But that's where it lies - IMO. I am giving you my opinion here, but you don't seem to realize that you are doing the same. Sorry, but your opinion is not fact, and drawing comparisons to other notable figureheads neither proves your point nor disproves it.


I think this is why I said agree to disagree. I have just as much interest in your argument as you do in mine.


Edit: And nice double-down on the 'grasping' comment. Stop being a bully on these forums with people who don't agree with you. People who don't agree with you aren't always stupid and unable to grasp different concepts.

[Jay Random]

Textcritic is actually quite right that the role of captain on an NHL team is mostly a matter of tradition. I’m afraid I have to break out another boring old-timey story to explain why.

*BORING OLD-TIMEY STORY ALERT*

(Timelines are approximate. The steps in this process overlapped to some extent.)

In the earliest days of hockey, when it was strictly an amateur game, the captain was the boss of his team. He recruited other players, decided who got ice time at what position, ran the practices, talked to the officials, booked the skating rink, collected the team's share of gate receipts, paid the bills, and represented his team at league meetings – among other things. It's lucky that teams played only 8 to 10 games a year in those days, or that would have been far too much work for an athletic hobby.

When professional hockey started, the business part of the game was taken over by owners. Some owners were ex-players who had made enough money to bankroll a team, some were arena owners who wanted an anchor tenant, and some (just like now) were rich men who wanted a neat toy. The captain still assembled the team and ran it on the ice, but the off-ice business became someone else's job.

A bit later on, as the game grew more popular and teams became larger, competition for talent became a big deal. Team owners hired managers to take over the job of scouting and recruiting players. The captain was now responsible for making his team perform, but putting the team together was someone else's job.

Another few years on, the game got faster, rosters got bigger, and line changes were invented. The captain could no longer be on the ice for the whole 60 minutes. Running the bench (and the practices) became a specialized job in itself, sometimes done by the team manager, but most often by a hired coach. The captain was now responsible for leading his players and talking to officials, but coaching the team was someone else's job.

Rosters got still bigger, shifts grew shorter, and teams had to have alternate captains so there would always be someone on the ice with the authority to talk to the referee. For some years there was a rule that each team had to have a captain or alternate on the ice at all times, but that rule was eventually discarded. The job of communicating with the officials was largely taken over by the coach. (There's a reason why we have coach's challenges and not captain's challenges.)

At this point, there was very little left for a captain to do, except set an example for his teammates. The ‘C’ on the jersey became something like a medal – a way for the coach to give recognition to a player for playing the game the way he, the coach, wanted it played.

The captain's role is almost entirely ceremonial now, because all the other functions have been stripped away one by one.

[mile]

Posted today:

[Murph]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That's fine, but I do question your grasp of things when you hand-wave at the perfectly apt analogy I have drawn for comparison sake to the persistence of another outdated and irrelevant institution on a much m9re consequential scale.

We can agree to disagree, although I have yet to see any case mounted as to the necessity and team-performance-value of NHL captaincies.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

Jesus… arrogant much? How’s this?

https://roneringa.com/leadership-lessons-sports-teams/

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

We are debating leadership on the performance of a team.

Yes, but leaders lead whether or not they are wearing a letter. The "C" on the jersey does not make a player a leader, and you certainly hope that the player wearing the "C" is a competent leader. At the NHL level it is a good bet that it's a job that nearly every player can do; they have all grown up in the game; have all played it at the highest levels growing up; have all feel the best players on their teams all the way to the NHL.

Don't you for a second think that it is much more nuanced than what you are claiming it to be?

Not really, no. Most of a team's leadership in today's game stems from the coach, and as noted above players will exercise various acumen for leadership whether they are wearing a letter or not. I sincerely believe that this part of a player's slillset matters very little to the success of the team. It is much, much more important that the coach is setting the tone, taking the lead, and ensuring that players are effectively doing their jobs.

No, it is not just entertainment - the NHL is NOT the WWE where outcomes are known beforehand. NHL hockey is a competitive sport, and captains can have a positive impact, and also a negative impact... and probably no impact at all. Depends on the captain, the situation, and the fit IMO.

Seriously? Professional sports is entertainment—plain and simple. It does not exist without the spectacle it creates, which is precisely the definition of entertainment. And while I concede that a team's captain can potentially have positive or negative impacts I thi k these are miniscule, and I maintain that the designation itself is completely unnecessary and obsolete.

But that's where it lies - IMO. I am giving you my opinion here, but you don't seem to realize that you are doing the same. Sorry, but your opinion is not fact, and drawing comparisons to other notable figureheads neither proves your point nor disproves it.

Right, but analogies can be helpful and illustrative in how they change our perspectives to see things that we might otherwise have missed. If you feel so strongly that my analogy us flawed, then demonstrate it. Oh, and I have no illusions about the value of my own opinion. But when I disagree with something (especially things that fall into the fascinating realm of hockey voodoo) you better believe I am going to say something.

I think this is why I said agree to disagree. I have just as much interest in your argument as you do in mine.

Speak for yourself. I am actually quite interested in opinions that I disagree with. I just don't find your's remotely convincing.


Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk