Vanek looked like a captain last night
Agree with your point about varying types of leaders.Agreed, and Vanek has earned it. Yes, it's a bit of an issue that he's on the last year of a contract, but sidestepping him for captaincy would exactly help if you want to re-sign him. There were these words about him not being big on rebuild, but then Vanek himself opened the door, said some things about interesting youth and nice to be a part of it. The way I see it, you engage Vanek in the rebuild by slapping a C on him.
There's also all that talk about Vanek not being a leader. I don't buy it. You can lead in different ways. Running your mouth, trying to ignite the team with hits, that's one way. The Ott-way. But you don't need a letter to do that. Being a class act is another. Like talking to the opposing teams captain about a joint celebration of the crowd right after the Boston marathon bombing. Wearing a letter is not just about leading your own team, it's also about being the teams ambassadeur. Like communicating with refs, for example. And as much as I'd like to give the C to a sandpaper-guy as payback for refs and the league not showing proper respect, I doubt it will do us any favors.
Vanek as C and Ehrhoff, Stafford, Ott and Hodgson as home/away A. That's my prediction. Not that big on either Stafford or Hodgson as letters though.
Exactly. I love Kaleta. Probably my favorite player on the team.
No way in hell should he be the captain.
You have to admit, it would be amazing though.
not a fan of giving Vanek the C
Yes to all this.
Me either, but I can't defend my reasoning with facts. He just doesn't strike me as captain material with what I see on the ice.
Won't be upset in the slightest if he is named captain though.
Me either, but I can't defend my reasoning with facts. He just doesn't strike me as captain material with what I see on the ice.
Won't be upset in the slightest if he is named captain though.
When discussing Vanek getting the C, no one seems to be addressing the pink elephant.... what if they re-sign him... long term... it's hard to take the C away from a franchise forward locked up long term... and when new leaders start emerging, and a new core.... is that a good position to be in (as a franchise)?...
ok... "pink elephant" is overdoing it... but the question is serious.
He'll still be our best player, and by the time he's not, he'll be our most veteran player knocking on the door of some all time sabre greats in scoring, so I'd be fine with that.
A lot of the time it does.
A lot of the time it does.
Do you think Peca, Drury or Stuuuuuuuuuu Barnes was the best player while the Captain here ?
So Pominville, Rivet, and Barnes were the best players while wearing a Sabre C?
How about Ruff? How about Mike Ramsey?
And that's just the Sabres.
"a lot" of the time indicates well over 50% of the time. Not the case, when you look at all the other NHL teams as well.
Do we have a player of that caliber here?
Best player = Captain most of the time
what does that have to do with what you said ..... ?
there are several examples right on this page that isn't the case (and that is just the Sabres !)
what does that have to do with what you said ..... ?
there are several examples right on this page that isn't the case (and that is just the Sabres !)
well, a lot really means minority of the time. Too stubborn to say, "ok guys i guess that was wrong of me to say a lot. i just think Vanek should get it"
A lot means a lot. You guys are freaking lunatics. There have thousands of NHL captains. If 200 of them were the best players, that would be "a lot". Holy crap.
A lot of the time it does.
Please show me where I said that. Oh... I didn't. So you're just intentionally being an ass. Got it.