Is there a difference in leadership?

[wildcam]

Horvat = C

Gudbranson = A  -  Sutter = A                                                                                                                                   - There are lots of leaders on a team and not everyone needs a letter..With Beagle he does not need a letter and will lead by example, Tanev and Edler are quiet leader but respected by the young guys....Horvat will be around for a very long time, so if your going to give someone the captain its Bo.. Gudbranson and Sutter are both vocal and have respect and will be great alternates..

[Oregon.Duck]

Look at Toronto last ear and Shanahan. He played by committee until a leader emerged. Everyone thought it was going to be Matthews but it was Leo Komarov. 

 

Not or saying we’re the Leafs, but it’s not always obvious who actually is the leader. Only the players and the coach know. People may have biases for Horvat, but in truth someone else might be the most vocal in the room, who knows in the end what coaching staff observes. 

[ButterBean]

Sad to see the twins go but I think we have tons of guys who will step in to lead this team. Edler, Tanev, Sutter, Guddy, and Eriksson are all established vets. I’m expecting Horvat to take the C and Boeser will be a good leader very soon as well. You could tell the Sedins were getting very tired of losing and the game was getting too fast for them which hurt us defensively at times. Them leaving could provide the spark that this team needs as much as I hate to say it. One thing I know is that we will undoubtedly be faster and better defensively this year.

[Undrafted]

8 hours ago, Glug Datt said:

As we head into the next season, it's exciting to think about who will fill the hole Hank & Dank left in the line up.. Will the scoring output be matched?.. exceeded? New first line? second line?

 

But naturally the other loss felt will be in leadership, on & off the ice.. and I think most would agree that you couldn't ask for classier guys than the Sedins to mentor youth. But now that they're gone, who fills that gap? 

 

Edler and Tanev have obviously been around the longest, but people mention Horvat & Guddy as leaders as well.. 

Does Edler become the alpha male since he's the senior member on the team? 

 

I guess I'm wondering... is there a difference between vets who have been in the organisation for years and vets who are just place holders...? Is there a team culture that needs to be passed on to the kids that new guys aren't privy to? is there a respect for Edler that guddy wouldn't get? or a quality guy like Horvat for that matter?

 

if the kids have been around longer than any vets who come in, what's the leadership dynamic? and therefore, is it a good idea to put Eddie and Tanev on the trade block? 

Without getting into specific players too much, to answer some of your questions:

 

Total NHL experience counts for more than just team/organizational seniority.  Think of it as being analogous to tradespeople: a master electrician who's a new hire to a company will have more knowledge and experience than a fourth-year apprentice who's been with the company since he was a first-year apprentice.  For example, if you were comparing Beagle vs. Horvat, then Beagle's NHL experience is worth more than Horvat's, even though Horvat has been with the Canucks for longer.

 

As far as team culture is concerned, that really falls to management when it comes to signing players.  Again, to use Beagle as an example, I think he was targeted by the Canucks because he already fits the culture they want to maintain.

 

6 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

Any player in the league can pass on their experience to the rookies. I think some feel "leadership" is some magical skill that one is blessed with or something. Not the case. Canucks have a lot of leadership in the room, like every team in the league.  

I disagree with this.  Leadership isn't just passing down experience to rookies or younger players (or dealing with the media, as some have suggested), there's a lot more to it than that.  What's more, not every vet may be good as passing down knowledge to younger players, whether it's because they're not naturally good teachers or because they don't have the right kind of personality.

 

This doesn't just apply to hockey teams, either.  In most workplaces, regardless of trade or profession, there are some employees who lead (even if they don't hold a title like supervisor or manager) and those who just do what they're told and punch in/punch out.  So no, leadership is a genuine quality that some possess more than others.

[Kevin Biestra]

9 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

The "he who shall forever be nameless" was supposed to be the "greatest captain" but all he did was swipe the #11 and lead the Canucks into the gutter..

 

 

 

[Baggins]

15 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

I get baffled by management's comments regarding leadership, Hank and Danny were needed, then Sutter was great in the room, then Gudbranson followed by Gagne. Vanek was given many kudos and now the new vets, what the heck, are the kids that stupid that they haven't got it yet?

What leadership are they looking for? Guys to stand in front of cameras to take the hard questions? The league has that script already, never say anything negative about the game.

 

Maybe there is a real problem in the room, maybe not, but Danny and Hank did get riled up a few times before last year. They seemed to think some players were "mailing" it in.

 

I hope they don't give Horvat the C, another two/three years of losing and facing the cameras will get old real fast.

More often than not - yes.

[Glug Datt]

11 hours ago, Undrafted said:

Without getting into specific players too much, to answer some of your questions:

 

Total NHL experience counts for more than just team/organizational seniority.  Think of it as being analogous to tradespeople: a master electrician who's a new hire to a company will have more knowledge and experience than a fourth-year apprentice who's been with the company since he was a first-year apprentice.  For example, if you were comparing Beagle vs. Horvat, then Beagle's NHL experience is worth more than Horvat's, even though Horvat has been with the Canucks for longer.

 

As far as team culture is concerned, that really falls to management when it comes to signing players.  Again, to use Beagle as an example, I think he was targeted by the Canucks because he already fits the culture they want to maintain.

 

I disagree with this.  Leadership isn't just passing down experience to rookies or younger players (or dealing with the media, as some have suggested), there's a lot more to it than that.  What's more, not every vet may be good as passing down knowledge to younger players, whether it's because they're not naturally good teachers or because they don't have the right kind of personality.

 

This doesn't just apply to hockey teams, either.  In most workplaces, regardless of trade or profession, there are some employees who lead (even if they don't hold a title like supervisor or manager) and those who just do what they're told and punch in/punch out.  So no, leadership is a genuine quality that some possess more than others.

good points, I hope you're right on all counts..

I wonder if this was the problem in edm, a bunch of young studs with no quality mentoring.

 

wouldn't want to have a Lord of the Flies situation forming in van..

[Dr. Crossbar]

There are many facets of leadership beyond just age and experience. It comes in many forms.

 

Look at the evolution of Dorsett and the positive imprint he left on not only vets and young guys but also the team as a whole. Personally and professionally, he became a source of inspiration and someone players look up to and admire.

 

Edler will certainly be respected and admired by youth and vets. When healthy, he's still logging the most minutes on the team late in his career and having an impact. That's leadership both Guddy and Horvat will learn from.

 

Take a vet like Vanek who came in briefly, led on the ice, but had a positive impact on Boeser. What Brock learned from Vanek will stay with him his entire career. 

 

Even Tryamkin admitted he was glad to learn from and play with Hamhuis who helped him adjust that year.

 

Jokinen is a placeholder for us but his leadership value and experience is invaluable to our young guys. There's so much wisdom he can pass down from all the coaches and players he spent time with. He even unexpectedly led by example on the ice this season. 

 

Even Sutter has leadership in him by default. He's a guy who comes from a great respected hockey family. He carries leadership in him from family legacy. Guys will look up to him for that alone and the knowledge that was passed to him.

 

It's not so much culture that gets passed down but rather what it takes to be a pro on multiple levels on and off the ice that multiple people embody and can share. 

 

We've got guys like Brock, Bo, and Guddy who will only benefit from being around a guy like Jay Beagle. Especially since they just watched him win a Cup.

 

There's so much leadership that we don't see that's incredibly valuable.

 

 

[xereau]

This is probably going to be an unpopular, and even politically incorrect opinion on this matter. But I do not see much if any locker room culture difference moving forward.  The corporate new age happy go lucky everything is sunshine and puppies type environment is what this team has been since Naslund.  There is no brooding.  There is no snapping at the media.  There are no skirmishes at practice.  There are (mostly) emotionless automatons that spout sports cliches and are expected to tow the line.  Now, I am not calling for mayhem and insurrection, but a little LIFE once in a while sure would be nice.

['NucK™]

1 hour ago, xereau said:

This is probably going to be an unpopular, and even politically incorrect opinion on this matter. But I do not see much if any locker room culture difference moving forward.  The corporate new age happy go lucky everything is sunshine and puppies type environment is what this team has been since Naslund.  There is no brooding.  There is no snapping at the media.  There are no skirmishes at practice.  There are (mostly) emotionless automatons that spout sports cliches and are expected to tow the line.  Now, I am not calling for mayhem and insurrection, but a little LIFE once in a while sure would be nice.

No brooding seems like a plus.

Snapping at the media? That is just what the sharks here in Van want, so it's good they aren't being fed.

Skirmishes at practice again seem to me to usually be a negative, signifying teammates aren't getting along.

 

IMO, the environment this year is that the team needs to start winning hockey games; and its been made clear that the responsibility is on every individual player to better themselves to achieve this. I think it is a great culture to have especially at a time where a lot of young players are forming habits they will have their whole careers. 

[EdgarM]

3 hours ago, xereau said:

This is probably going to be an unpopular, and even politically incorrect opinion on this matter. But I do not see much if any locker room culture difference moving forward.  The corporate new age happy go lucky everything is sunshine and puppies type environment is what this team has been since Naslund.  There is no brooding.  There is no snapping at the media.  There are no skirmishes at practice.  There are (mostly) emotionless automatons that spout sports cliches and are expected to tow the line.  Now, I am not calling for mayhem and insurrection, but a little LIFE once in a while sure would be nice.

I agree 100%. If things aren't going good then I want to see some emotion, like what we seen from Kessler from time to time. If we lose then I want someone to show some emotion and show that they are not OK with it. NO EXCUSES!!!!!!! If one of own is getting manhandled then I want an answer to it no matter if it costs us a penalty or not. 

I am really hoping the culture changes now that the Twins are gone and a new type of leadership takes their place. Not another Naslund and not another Henrik Please!!

[Undrafted]

11 hours ago, Glug Datt said:

good points, I hope you're right on all counts..

I wonder if this was the problem in edm, a bunch of young studs with no quality mentoring.

 

wouldn't want to have a Lord of the Flies situation forming in van..

Well, that was only part of the problem in EDM.  Leadership also comes from the coaching staff and EDM had a revolving door of head coaches during that time.  IIRC (anyone can correct me if I'm wrong), Taylor Hall played under six different head coaches during his time in EDM.  That doesn't do a lot for consistency.

[Riviera82]

Less swedish leadership would be beneficial in my opinion. Less nice-guy, turn the other cheek, take it in the a**, beta-male mentality. We've seen how that works for almost 20 years - and it doesn't, especially in the playoffs.

[IBatch]

On 2018-07-09 at 5:09 PM, TheGuardian_ said:

I get baffled by management's comments regarding leadership, Hank and Danny were needed, then Sutter was great in the room, then Gudbranson followed by Gagne. Vanek was given many kudos and now the new vets, what the heck, are the kids that stupid that they haven't got it yet?

What leadership are they looking for? Guys to stand in front of cameras to take the hard questions? The league has that script already, never say anything negative about the game.

 

Maybe there is a real problem in the room, maybe not, but Danny and Hank did get riled up a few times before last year. They seemed to think some players were "mailing" it in.

 

I hope they don't give Horvat the C, another two/three years of losing and facing the cameras will get old real fast.

I get your concerns about losing and putting Horvat or one of our young guys in front of the camera post game and having to dodge dumb questions but I'm excited about the process because this is how new leaders emerge.  Hank was the consummate gentleman and professional for us, Naslund too but he had the media prescence of a dead fish, I'm looking forward to finding out if the next group of guys add a little fire to both the media questions and in the dressing room.  We need guys that hate losing to push the team towards winning in all situations, including calling floaters out and not just going off the script every time. 

[IBatch]

8 hours ago, Riviera82 said:

Less swedish leadership would be beneficial in my opinion. Less nice-guy, turn the other cheek, take it in the a**, beta-male mentality. We've seen how that works for almost 20 years - and it doesn't, especially in the playoffs.

My above post is similar to this, I'd rather see guys lay others out post whistle if the other players are taking liberties, than just skating back to the bench face down.  Everyone's seen Gino's spazz after Anderson poked at the puck under Whitmore against St. Louis,  this sort of thing happens too regularly with nothing but a few guys maybe saying "please don't that's not nice!" and walking away.  Just jump the guy every time and take the penalty and that sort of stuff will stop.  It only takes a couple guys to do this every time and the others will follow suit no matter their size, that's how team toughness is created.  Hughes is apparently ultra competitive, it's his highest ranking after skating (4.5 which is elite/out of 5, 3 is above average), I hope he adds some courage too the line-up too.  Push back and accountability is something I'd like to see from the next leadership group too.

 

We all hate Messier but this was one thing he had in spades.  Larry Robinson took down the broad street bullies one at a time when he came in, giving notice that his team would no longer bend over whenever PHI came to town (which they did up until then), he punched them all out, tough as nails.  After the most dominating run in NHL history they came up against the up and coming Oilers and Messier served notice to Robinson and his team that they wouldn't be pushed around the same way they used too with a generous use of lumber intimidation (went right up to Larry and cocked his stick and threatened to knock all his teeth out with it if he came after anyone on his team again).  The Oilers beat the heavily favoured still dominant habs team that series and Messier was on the path to becoming the guy that now picks the guys to win the leadership trophy.

 

Stuff of legends for sure, this is what we need from guys on our team to give everyone space and condfidence to succeed.  Would love it if Virtanen took some of this on too.

[smithers joe]

the three new guys were brought in to make the team tougher to play against. their leadership is the way they give everything they have got to win. the sedins showed the young guys the dedication to having their bodies and minds ready for each year. everyone can be a leader at some point in their careers. i don't think you can have too many good leaders. horvat is becoming a leader by his determination to each shift. there is a right way and a wrong way to play. leaders who play the right way, are teaching others how to play by their actions on and off the ice. 

[189lb enforcers?]

13 minutes ago, IBatch said:

My above post is similar to this, I'd rather see guys lay others out post whistle if the other players are taking liberties, than just skating back to the bench face down.  Everyone's seen Gino's spazz after Anderson poked at the puck under Whitmore against St. Louis,  this sort of thing happens too regularly with nothing but a few guys maybe saying "please don't that's not nice!" and walking away.  Just jump the guy every time and take the penalty and that sort of stuff will stop.  It only takes a couple guys to do this every time and the others will follow suit no matter their size, that's how team toughness is created.  Hughes is apparently ultra competitive, it's his highest ranking after skating (4.5 which is elite/out of 5, 3 is above average), I hope he adds some courage too the line-up too.  Push back and accountability is something I'd like to see from the next leadership group too.

 

We all hate Messier but this was one thing he had in spades.  Larry Robinson took down the broad street bullies one at a time when he came in, giving notice that his team would no longer bend over whenever PHI came to town (which they did up until then), he punched them all out, tough as nails.  After the most dominating run in NHL history they came up against the up and coming Oilers and Messier served notice to Robinson and his team that they wouldn't be pushed around the same way they used too with a generous use of lumber intimidation (went right up to Larry and cocked his stick and threatened to knock all his teeth out with it if he came after anyone on his team again).  The Oilers beat the heavily favoured still dominant habs team that series and Messier was on the path to becoming the guy that now picks the guys to win the leadership trophy.

 

Stuff of legends for sure, this is what we need from guys on our team to give everyone space and condfidence to succeed.  Would love it if Virtanen took some of this on too.

Leading...

 

Things will be different from now on. 

 

[EdgarM]

8 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Leading...

 

Things will be different from now on. 

 

AMEN TO THAT!!!!!! I felt like punching my TV every time this type of "Gentlemanly" play occurred. 

[MikeyD]

I hope Edler doesn't take over. It seems every d-man that enters our team he tries to coach and then runs their offensive gameplay into the ground. Hutton played amazing when he first came onto the scene and I remember watching videos on mic'd up where Edler flat out told him to not be as creative offensively. He had to play a "steady" defensive game at a cost of his offense, which helped his defensive game.

 

Hutton went from a player who confidently carried the puck up the ice to throwing out pizzas trying to make the safe play off the boards every time. 

[Riviera82]

1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Leading...

 

Things will be different from now on. 

 

Joe might as well have twisted his arm and bent him over the boards. Disgraceful.

 

"Leadership" like that gets your team nowhere as we all know too well.