MarkusNaslund19
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2005
- 5,478
- 7,855
PR is a secondary factor in selecting a captain save possibly for Montreal where they deal with the albatross of wishcasting leadership traits onto random francophones.I mean, PR is a big thing in choosing a captain. Horvat seemed to be mostly a PR decision. It was very fan and media driven.
Miller got attacked vehemently for his 'attitude' when the team was struggling. Honestly, I haven't seen a player attacked by Canucks fans like he was for a long time. It was something else.
It's entirely possible that Miller (who seems to be a very prototypical Tocchet guy) wouldn't be considered because of the bad press that would surround it. He is clearly a major leader in the room, by most accounts.
I would love to see it because it would be entertaining. This year is pretty much a "do or die" year, and I want the team to throw all its chips into one basket, including trading the 1st if need be. Miller, I feel, would be the perfect captain for that.
The idea that a team is going to neglect a competitive edge in order to appease fans who will buy tickets anyway is just out there.
Further, yeah the vitriol towards Miller was a bit much, but it was also terrible leadership and horrific body language.
From the outside looking in, I like Miller but he's far too mercurial to be a captain. He has a difficult time controlling his emotions by his own admission and a captain, even an emotional one, needs to have a handle on when to play the emotion cards and how to express them.
You'll never see a guy like Landeskog act petulantly or quit on a back check and that matters because a captain is a culture-setter.