I don't think Eakins gives 2 ***** about that. An Oiler is an Oiler.
Then why even have a captain, let alone one that "understands" what it takes to be a good leader.
It's one thing to promote team unity, it's another to be blind to important realities. Referees are going to listen closer to players with a long, solid history of leadership and rules-following play, for example.
For example, the best coach I ever had (he was my hockey coach for 2 years) as a young person who competitively played upwards of 5 sports in my teens, always stressed that "if you were good enough to make the team, you were good enough to play"...but in reality? If we needed a goal in the last minute and were losing, I knew that I'd be pulled (goalie, obviously) and that one of our best offensive players would be sent out. NOT a solid defensive d-man.
Same principle applies here. There should not be a hierarchy in the dressing room, but obviously players with leadership experience are going to hold a premium (just as certain players were going to be played in certain situations despite my coach's proclamations). Smid certainly has more than RNH, and players have made statements about his leadership (and we've also seen it in things like "Oil Change").
That said, a coach needs to be cognizant of what makes players tick. For example, with RNH, perhaps he felt like giving him an 'A' would motivate him more, whereas Smid already knows that he is and an 'A' is less important. Or perhaps he didn't think Smid would speak to refs with enough deference or whatever.
There are a legion of questions, but for me, I would want an equal balance between younger vs. older experience and leadership skills, and I don't think that necessarily creates a division in the room. Otherwise teams wouldn't follow that as a regular model.