Speculation: Quinn Hughes to be named Captain

[Peter Griffin]

I’m fine with naming Quinn, it just seems a bit rushed to me.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Pettersson probably doesn't want it and you sure as Hell don't give it to Miller given his antics, so they don't have much of a choice. Guess they could wait.

I'll go with what Tocchet says...EP isnt comfortable speaking up in the dressing room, and isnt ideal to speak to the media.

QH comes across like he has been groomed for years on how to deal with the media, and looks totally at ease with it.

 

[Petey O]

Miller would have been a better choice imo. But it would have gotten backlash from the casual crowd who were angry with him slamming his stick on the net and yelling that one time.

 

[EpochLink]

I’m fine with naming Quinn, it just seems a bit rushed to me.

I think this was already set in stone last season when Hughes gave us the last season thank you.

I’m good with Hughes though.

 

[credulous]

for me captain's are like coaches: you hire them to fire them. put the c on a veteran you can trade or whatever if things aren't going well. putting the c on a star player just ties your hands

 

[Peen]

would have preferred no captain for the year. i lean optimistic on how the season will go, but in the event things go bad, im not sure what this roster looks like in 12 months (including qh)

buuut if it has to be someone then qh is the right call

 

[Canucker]

I'm fine with Hughes, in a vacuum, I just don't get why it's necessary to name a Captain at all, let alone right now.

This. There is no overwhelming reason to have a captain, unless your team has some kind of void of leadership and there is an obvious choice to make to fill that void, why bother?

 

[F A N]

Captaincies literally don't matter. Lots of teams have done great without captains. Teams have won Cups without captains. It's mostly a PR thing for casual fans to latch on to. Just name a senior leadership group who wear the As and avoid putting unnecessary pressure on any one player.

I can't really think of recent Cup winners that won without a captain. Can you name the last two teams that won a Cup without a captain?

Almost one third of the league doesn't have a captain: Ducks, Coyotes, Bruins, Flames, Blackhawks, Flyers, Kraken, Blues, Canucks, and Jets.

Well I don't think that list means anything. The Blackhawks, Bruins, and the Canucks have their captains recently retire/traded. The Flames say they are going to name a captain this year. But really that's not really a list of Cup contenders at the moment. The Kraken is the only team on that list who we could consider as a "good team without a captain" last season.

Specifically, Hughes always looks like he's about to cry and I find that funny. I don't think it'll go well if the team sputters though.

You know what? It's just the way Hughes looks. Previously he looked more like an awkward teenager but he is the older brother in his family and he's probably like Henrik where he's just even keeled emotionally. At least from what has been reported Hughes has grown as a leader. Like it or not, we've heard him speak out about Pride Night and the Pearson situation. Quite frankly, if there weren't concerns about upsetting Petey, is there even a discussion here? While I am concerned about the captaincy affecting a player's performance, I don't think we should go about worrying about that with Hughes. He's clearly our best Dman on the team and one of the best in the entire league. If the captaincy is going to sink a player who you expect to be one of the leaders on the team then so be it and you deal with it later.

 

[Peter Griffin]

for me captain's are like coaches: you hire them to fire them. put the c on a veteran you can trade or whatever if things aren't going well. putting the c on a star player just ties your hands

Has me wondering what their plan will be if/when EP doesn’t re-sign. Do you trade EP and continue to try build “brick by brick” at that point around your captain Quinn? With this season being so pivotal in terms of the future direction of the team I would’ve preferred they held off on naming a captain but they probably didn’t want to add another distraction to the mix. My gut feeling is that EP will sign an extension that lines up with Quinn’s, but we’ll see.

 

[MS]

I can't really think of recent Cup winners that won without a captain. Can you name the last two teams that won a Cup without a captain?

Calgary 1989 off the top of my head. I still think of Vegas not having a captain because they didn't for several years including their first Finals but yeah, Stone is officially the captain now.

 

[Bgav]

Calgary 1989 off the top of my head. I still think of Vegas not having a captain because they didn't for several years including their first Finals but yeah, Stone is officially the captain now.

1970 Boston but they had Orr and Esposito

 

[sting101]

Don't care about Captains. Name Cole for all i care.

What I do care about is that Hughes gets burdened with the ecpectations and media attention/responsibilities that come with it and that he might get negatively affected.

Not sure why they need to force it. Reminds me of pandering to Luongo to keep him happy and wanting to stay.

Let it happen organically or not at all

 

[Vector]

Calgary 1989 off the top of my head. I still think of Vegas not having a captain because they didn't for several years including their first Finals but yeah, Stone is officially the captain now.

What?

 

[MS]

What?

View attachment 741765

They had 3 rotating captains - McDonald, Jim Peplinski, and Tim Hunter.

 

[Bgav]

What?

View attachment 741765

Yeah i think its only boston since 1970

 

[Vector]

They had 3 rotating captains - McDonald, Jim Peplinski, and Tim Hunter.

That's the opposite of having no captains!

 

[MS]

That's the opposite of having no captains!

I guess, but really it's just having the set of alternate captains take turns wearing the C and it's the same effect as having no 'named' captain.

I'd have no problem if they wanted to do that this year with Pettersson/Hughes/Miller or whatever. The whole thing that I have a problem with is the huge extra responsibility/distraction for one player.

 

[Zaddy91]

Meh.

 

[Vector]

Well I don't think that list means anything. The Blackhawks, Bruins, and the Canucks have their captains recently retire/traded. The Flames say they are going to name a captain this year. But really that's not really a list of Cup contenders at the moment. The Kraken is the only team on that list who we could consider as a "good team without a captain" last season.

You know what? It's just the way Hughes looks. Previously he looked more like an awkward teenager but he is the older brother in his family and he's probably like Henrik where he's just even keeled emotionally. At least from what has been reported Hughes has grown as a leader. Like it or not, we've heard him speak out about Pride Night and the Pearson situation. Quite frankly, if there weren't concerns about upsetting Petey, is there even a discussion here? While I am concerned about the captaincy affecting a player's performance, I don't think we should go about worrying about that with Hughes. He's clearly our best Dman on the team and one of the best in the entire league. If the captaincy is going to sink a player who you expect to be one of the leaders on the team then so be it and you deal with it later.

I don't actually think it means a whole lo0, eithert. Some teams have not had a captain longer than I thought they would. The main trend is definitely towards younger captains that have signed long-term.

Oh yeah, Hughes just has that sort of face. I like everything I've heard and read about Hughes. He just has a face that is perpetually about to tell you something sad about his life.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

Like I said in the other thread, Henrik is the only guy in the last 30 years where it's ended well. And that's because he was a Hart winner and an absolute saint of a human being made out of teflon.

The Bertuzzi thing made things worse but he was already struggling with things in that 2003 'choke'. He wasn't a good captain or a natural leader and would have been far better just wearing an A.

It just doesn't matter and I have no idea why you'd needlessly put it on a 23 y/o who should be continuing to focus on improving as a player.

This is complete conjecture.

Until you are in the locker room, you have zero idea, and you are stating it here, as fact. Weird.

 

[Canuckle1970]

I'm surprised at how much negative reaction there is to the idea of making QH captain this year, IF it happens.

A few things come to mind when I think of Quinn as the possible captain:

- when he was drafted by Vancouver (and not, surprisingly, by Detroit) he said he was glad to be going to a team with a passionate fan base
- he had a struggling sophomore season, but knuckled down and improved every single year thereafter
- showed, along with Petey, that he could handle the rigors of physical playoff hockey in the bubble
- how he handled the end of season press conference when Boeser broke down about his dad's illness and Tanner Pearson's injury.
- not afraid to speak up respectfully, and doesn't bullshit the media and fans
- he is a very competitive guy, driven to win. That could explain his "unhappy" facial expressions.

I believe that Quinn, more than any other player on our team, welcomes the challenge of being the captain in this tough market.

 

[MikeK]

I'd rather they give it to Demko.

 

[logan5]

I’m ok with it, but Hughes does not give off that captain vibe. He always looks and sounds like he just rolled out of bed - even between periods.

 

[Jyrki21]

I'm fine with Hughes, in a vacuum, I just don't get why it's necessary to name a Captain at all, let alone right now.

It does accomplish one thing, namely to snuff out the constant questions as to who the next captain will be.

I’m largely of the view that it doesn’t really matter regardless, but I do have some sympathy to @MS’s point that it can bring problems with no real upside (ahem, kind of like national anthems before games).

 

[bossram]

It does accomplish one thing, namely to snuff out the constant questions as to who the next captain will be.

I’m largely of the view that it doesn’t really matter regardless, but I do have some sympathy to @MS’s point that it can bring problems with no real upside (ahem, kind of like national anthems before games).

I am also more sympathetic to MS's argument, though I personally am not that invested in this issue.

But are people actually constantly questioning who the next captain will be? As we're on this board, we follow the Canucks news cycle quite closely and IMO it doesn't really seem like the captaincy issue was ever that much of a topic of conversation. Until now...when they decided to name one.