So do you want Horvat to captain this team, or do you want to draft a generational player?

[Chris12345]

4 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

Dahlin is supposed to be the next generational D following doughty. Karlsson fits that mold dispite being drafted late. Ekblad that had potential. Hedman as well I suppose. 

 

I'd put doughty and Karlsson ahead of ekblad and Hedman though at this stage. Hedman is creeping into the discussion. Dahlin is said to be like Hedman/Lidstrom hybrid type player. Just better all around then Hedman. The comps seem to constantly shifting though each month. Hedman seems to be the common comparison throughout.

I've never seen so many generational players in one generation. I guess one could argue the time frame is 10 years but in my mind there aren't that many generational players. There's a single generational player.

[Rush17]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

No, but he will be 'one of' the best players, but he's also an attitude setter, he's going hold all the other regular dudes to account with his work ethic. 

Bo will be one of the better players. Not sure if I would use "best" but non of us know his true value long term. But we can probably all agree he will be a strong leader in the room in some capacity and will lead by example in the teams fitness testing and physical training. I'm curious who will take over as the leader of fitness testing. 

 

Typically it's the twins but they never share who is behind them.  One would think Bo would be a favorite. Maybe someone sneaks in like Jake. Or Edler of a vet blows off the doors. Hard to say.

[Rush17]

4 minutes ago, Chris12345 said:

I've never seen so many generational players in one generation. I guess one could argue the time frame is 10 years but in my mind there aren't that many generational players. There's a single generational player.

Yeah it's pretty funny how the media hypes them all up.  Button was like Matthews is like a Ron Francis he will be a generational players the year following the next generational player.

 

I believe they have expanded the term now to generational C, Winger, and D. We seem to get one of each now. Ovi, Crosby, karlsson/Doughty. Then McDavid, Dahlin. Etc . We haven't had a generational goalie in a while lol.

[Baggins]

29 minutes ago, tas said:

the opening sentence of the post addressed that very thing. 

I apologize for your lack of humour.....

[tas]

You guys are so stuck on this definition of generational. Define it how you want. For the sake of this discussion, since it's my thread, it means "the very best players of a significant, definable time frame. The players who, when you look back 20 years later and think about that time frame, they're who you think of as dominating the league during that time."

[naslund.is.king]

On 2018-04-16 at 9:18 PM, Roger Neilson's Towel said:

Some of the responses in this thread remind me of this scene from Billy Madison. 

 

 

post of the year

[coastal.view]

5 hours ago, tas said:

Which of those was a Canadian media market?

well it is a well know tactic to move the goalposts

so that your unreasonable first post

suddenly is modified to become more reasonable

by you yourself shifting from what you originally posted

and then claiming that is what you meant all along

but it was not what you in fact posted

 

you lose even more credibility with tactic in my view

it is a pretty weak and obvious tactic

 

[LowerMainLander18]

Out of the 16 teams that made the playoffs in 2018, 

 

Avs - Ladeskog

CBJ - Foligno

Wilds - Koivu

Preds - Josi 

LVGK - No Captain (6 A's tho and 5/6 of them don't get paid "Top end")

NJ - Greene

Jets - Wheeler

Leafs - No Captain (well.. I ll exempt this since Matthews will prolly take on the role soon at highest AAV)

 

Well that's about half the team who had success this year having a "C" on a non-highest paid, marketable, "star" player on the team. 

 

Just sharing the info. 

[tas]

12 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

well it is a well know tactic to move the goalposts

so that your unreasonable first post

suddenly is modified to become more reasonable

by you yourself shifting from what you originally posted

and then claiming that is what you meant all along

but it was not what you in fact posted

 

you lose even more credibility with tactic in my view

it is a pretty weak and obvious tactic

 

I didn't move the goalposts at all, I just didn't explicitly outline every detail. Was it not obvious that I was talking specifically about the Vancouver Canucks?

[tas]

2 minutes ago, LowerMainLander18 said:

Out of the 16 teams that made the playoffs in 2018, 

 

Avs - Ladeskog

CBJ - Foligno

Wilds - Koivu

Preds - Josi 

LVGK - No Captain (6 A's tho and 5/6 of them don't get paid "Top end")

NJ - Greene

Jets - Wheeler

Leafs - No Captain (well.. I ll exempt this since Matthews will prolly take on the role soon at highest AAV)

 

Well that's about half the team who had success this year having a "C" on a non-highest paid, marketable, "star" player on the team. 

 

Just sharing the info. 

I'm not drawing any correlations between success and captaincy, and furthermore, I'm not expressing an opinion on what the right strategy is at all. This is about the reality that generational players end up captaining their teams. 

[Darius]

40 minutes ago, tas said:

You guys are so stuck on this definition of generational. Define it how you want. For the sake of this discussion, since it's my thread, it means "the very best players of a significant, definable time frame. The players who, when you look back 20 years later and think about that time frame, they're who you think of as dominating the league during that time."

So basically your position is to hold off giving Bo a "C" incase we draft a generational player (of your definition above)?

 

[Down by the River]

2 hours ago, tas said:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/generational

 

which definition am I changing?

You're not changing any definition, you're just showing that you don't understand what the definition is. In fact, the site you linked to is even more conservative in their definition of generational. By that definition, we would need to wait 30 years before finding a generational player. So, if you want to go by that definition, Bo might be around 45-50 years old before we have to worry about getting a generational talent. 

[Down by the River]

There are certainly arguments for not giving Bo the C. The 1 in 300 chance that the Canucks' first round pick next year becomes a generational talent is not one of them . 

[tas]

16 minutes ago, Darius71 said:

So basically your position is to hold off giving Bo a "C" incase we draft a generational player (of your definition above)?

 

I feel like waiting until training camp 2019 to name a captain is the most prudent choice, for that reason among others. 

[tas]

7 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

You're not changing any definition, you're just showing that you don't understand what the definition is. In fact, the site you linked to is even more conservative in their definition of generational. By that definition, we would need to wait 30 years before finding a generational player. So, if you want to go by that definition, Bo might be around 45-50 years old before we have to worry about getting a generational talent. 

The problem is that the term is and always has been meaningless and open to interpretation. It was never used in this context in a way that fit with any dictionary definition, really. It's slang created by the talking heads. Many (most, probably) interpret it as "once in a generation." Others use the term interchangeably with "elite" or "franchise." The way I've chosen to interpret it has been explained more than once in this thread. 

[Adarsh Sant]

3 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

You must be from the generation who celebrates the victim.

Survivors of abuse unite, all shall wear a pink shirt...!

 

They did not impact the game unless it was on their sticks. You can’t have a captain like that, as far as my point goes. 

 

It is one thing to absorb punishment, it’s quite another to have a capacity and the desire to administer it yourself. 

 

Anyone who suggests that Naslund/Sedin hockey is an epitome of playoff hockey is insane, sorry. 

You haven't understood the off-ice contributions of the Sedins to their teammates then. That's ok.

 

 

 

And who is the epitome of playoff hockey then? A bottom 6 veteran guy who has nothing to contribute except intangibles?

[Darius]

25 minutes ago, tas said:

I feel like waiting until training camp 2019 to name a captain is the most prudent choice, for that reason among others. 

Fair enough.  

 

For me Bo is the choice because he represents the start of a new chapter for this organization.  Drafted a couple years after their cup (loss) and the year that many realized that the current core probably wasnt going to get it done.  He represented the new hope.  In essence the choice for me is sentimental because if we based it on the potential to be an impact player alone Brock would probably be the best candidate for C.  To me Bo has payed his dues through some ugly times, has worked his way up the lineup, and was around long enough to be mentored by H. Sedin.

 

Also, Naslund was named Captain the year after the Sedins were drafted and during a time when it was quite conceivable other better players may emerge. Using your line of thinking they should have waited a few more years to give him the C incase a better option came along.

 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion though!  It will be interesting to see how things roll out here in the next year...

 

 

[tas]

12 minutes ago, Darius71 said:

Fair enough.  

 

For me Bo is the choice because he represents the start of a new chapter for this organization.  Drafted a couple years after their cup (loss) and the year that many realized that the current core probably wasnt going to get it done.  He represented the new hope.  In essence the choice for me is sentimental because if we based it on the potential to be an impact player alone Brock would probably be the best candidate for C.  To me Bo has payed his dues through some ugly times, has worked his way up the lineup, and was around long enough to be mentored by H. Sedin.

 

Also, Naslund was named Captain the year after the Sedins were drafted and during a time when it was quite conceivable they could get subsequent top 5 picks.  Using your line of thinking they should have waited a few more years to give him the C incase a better option came along.

 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion though!  It will be interesting to see how things roll out here in the next year...

 

 

The NHL has changed a lot in 20 years. 

 

Keep in mind my angle on this whole topic is far more focused on optics and team politics than it is on what's genuinely best for the team. 

[Darius]

Just now, tas said:

The NHL has changed a lot in 20 years. 

 

Keep in mind my angle on this whole topic is far more focused on optics and team politics than it is on what's genuinely best for the team. 

Yup..i respect your opinion.

 

Also, i made a correction to my post above.  I didnt remember that the Canucks were on a pretty good upswing during the early 2000s when the Canucks named Naslund captain. Point being that its quite possible that the Canucks pick top 5 next year but it was unlikely that they picked top 5 when Naslund was named captain.

 

But...like someone else in here said...if you are weighing optics heavily then Brock should be your man.  Charasmatic, looks like a movie star / Prince ( ask my daughters lol), super talented,a dreamboat for a marketing department....no need to wait to see who emerges...the C is right in front of you...

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, Rush17 said:

Horvat could be captian with Dahlin. I think he meant it as a. What would you rather have? I'm guessing because so many are clammering for Bo as the next captain?  I don't know his intent. Would of maybe been better if he added a timeline but I think it's more of a fun hypothetical I have no idea tho.

That's a more polite way to react to the OP, and I think your probably right, he or she just needed a rewrite and a few more minutes before posting.

 

Boeser is also in the mix, was considered a leader before the NHL, and I've read Pettersson has leadership qualities too.  Personally I'm fine with either of these guys, there is no hurry to fill those huge boots Henrik left behind.