I feel like these takes are very naive.
Being a captain in a Canadian market is a miserable task at the best of times and we've seen it eat guys alive here, Horvat most recently. It's not right or fair but as soon as this team hits any sort of bump in the road, there is a massive Rock'em Sock'em portion of this fanbase who are going to zero in on 'soft American no-hit captain' as the reason for everything that's wrong. And what exactly is being gained from putting the player through this?
As for whether he's a good leader in a vacuum, I have no idea. If he is, great. Just let him be and keep working on improving as a player.
I've felt like NHL captaincies are stupid and pointless for a long, long time dating back to the Messier/Linden fiasco and I utterly fail to see what is gained by hanging this albatross on a young player.
You have a strong opinion that is not based on experience.
Do you think that basically all NHL teams name captains merely because of tradition and formality and they just lack the courage, conviction, or clarity to see it your way?
Leadership is important in any group with a goal and delegating forms of that leadership is helpful, that's not only true in hockey but it
is certainly true in hockey.
Further, when teams start making moves to appease joe sixpack they have already lost. "What if Joe sixpack thinks it's stupid to have a forward on the point on the powerplay? If we give up a breakaway he will make fun of the forward on the point".
And...? Who gives a f***?
Being a captain on a Canadian team that is incredibly dysfunctional from ownership on down is a difficult task in a Canadian market. I don't think it was the C that 'ate Horvat alive'. I'm not even sure what you mean by him being eaten alive.
I think it was being on a team that handled the financial effects of Covid in an appallingly shortsighted and stupid way that broke our team's culture.
Not knowing when to move off of the old GM. Hamstringing the new leadership team with a coach they didn't want and then failing to act for far too long when that drama played out publicly.
You literally admit that you don't know if he's a great leader, but you're certain that the captaincy hinders him and won't help him.
It's funny the hindsight bias that occurs in this fanbase.
For example, a lot of people point at Markus Naslund as a failed captain while failing to note that he absolutely rose to the occasion of being captain. That responsibility and respect helped take him from a decent top 6 'star' to a superstar who was in the running for almost all trophies he was eligible for (not the selke).
Then, the same people who spout out of one side of their mouths that we have a team composition problem because we have a bunch of wingers and not enough elite centers or D, will then blame one of the best wingers in our history (Naslund) for not being able to elevate a team that was built around 2nd pairing D, 2nd line centers, two elite wingers, and a goalie who frequently choked when it counted.
-
Why do people so often need to be the smartest person in the room with a strong ready opinion about things they don't understand.
If we see a ton of dysfunction over the next 3 years then by all means, you can tell us that Hughes wasn't a good pick.
But for someone in an arm chair 50 miles away from Rogers Arena to be dead certain that this is stupid, captaincy is dumb, he's the wrong pick etc etc just seems like noise for the sake of noise.
