Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

should the canucks go back to rotating 4 alternates?


tas

Recommended Posts

before torts arrived, the canucks had 4 alternate captains (daniel, kesler, bieksa, malhotra), 2 wearing the 'a' for home games, the other 2 wearing the 'a' for road games.

 

the team is in a position now where they have a fair amount of budding young leadership in addition to the old. I'm wondering if it night be prudent to go back to that system, with the 4 alternates being daniel, burrows (or hansen if burrows doesn't look to be an everyday player), horvat and gudbranson. 

 

it might be a year too early. a year from. ow gudbranson would have a year with the team and burrows will be gone so hansen can have it without debate. 

 

what do people think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Type R said:

I would say give Sutter the A before Hansen, I've never seen Hansen direct traffic much, so I'm not sure how strong of a voice he would be in the room.

he has, in my opinion, very noticeably stepped into a leadership role the last 3 years, and in particular last year in the absence of bieksa. jannik is a major voice when it comes to accountability and compete level and does not mince words. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Type R said:

I would say give Sutter the A before Hansen, I've never seen Hansen direct traffic much, so I'm not sure how strong of a voice he would be in the room.

 

Actually, I think last season was Hanen's coming out party as a leader. As far as I can tell, he didn't sugar coat things when asked about the team playing poorly and according to teammates, he became a more prominent voice in the room. So would love to see him get an "A".

 

But to answer the question in the thread title, I'm of the opinion that you can't train leaders on a team. They either are or they're not leaders. And some may not even have a letter.  I say just let that happen organically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, MJDDawg said:

 

Actually, I think last season was Hanen's coming out party as a leader. As far as I can tell, he didn't sugar coat things when asked about the team playing poorly and according to teammates, he became a more prominent voice in the room. So would love to see him get an "A".

 

But to answer the question in the thread title, I'm of the opinion that you can't train leaders on a team. They either are or they're not leaders. And some may not even have a letter.  I say just let that happen organically.

 

I agree with having "a little bit of Jannik Hansen" (spoken in Cory Schneider's Hansen imitation tone) as part of the leadership group if they decide to go with 4 A's. Daniel, Hansen/Burrows, Horvat, and Gudbranson would be my choices.

 

Otherwise, I guess one of the two A's goes to Daniel. The other A should go to Gudbranson or Horvat. Gudbranson is new to the team but he is the type of player that we should be looking to keep for many years, so it's not a bad idea to give him the A now. But I guess things will sort themselves out by the end of the training camp. Hopefully someone will emerge as a leader from the backend.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's so many leaders on the team who deserve an A that even with that system there wouldn't be enough A's to go around. Eriksson and Sutter also deserve an A. Imo slap an A on Daniel and Gudbranson (he's the best candidate on D, and we want the others to follow his example), but that doesn't the others can't lead.

 

Next in line would be Burrows, then Horvat then Sutter then Eriksson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's funny is Jannik himself said in the exit interviews that he doesn't view himself as a leader, although I bet the younger fellows would disagree with that assessment. 

 

I am ok with just two alternates: Danny and Bo. The rotating four seems like a bit much. I'm sure there are five guys (possible alternates plus captain) that are legit leadership material, but enough to all represent the team like that? I'm not sold. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they should give an A to Horvat or Gudbranson. The young guys need someone that they can connect with on a more personal level. I'm not saying Henrik is a bad captain, hell I've seen him talk a ref out of a penalty before, but he's a lot older than our future core. Virtanen was still mastering making it to the toilet in time when the Sedins were drafted. That's a heck of an age gap!

 

So give it to one of our younger guys who exudes leadership ideals and I think the rest of the kids will really respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tas said:

he has, in my opinion, very noticeably stepped into a leadership role the last 3 years, and in particular last year in the absence of bieksa. jannik is a major voice when it comes to accountability and compete level and does not mince words. 

 

True, watch post game interviews with Hansen and it's easy to tell that he's very in tune with the team, the leauge, and the schedule. He knows exactly what happens during the games and even when he doesn't score, he still does what he can to help the teams win and is seldom responsible for the puck ending up in our net. 

 

Hansen is an obvious choice for an ALT A imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally prefer the more traditional way of doing it. In regards to Hansen, I'm pretty sure I've heard him say that he doesn't see himself as a leader, so I don't think he'll ever have an 'A'. Otherwise, I'd vouch for him to be an alternate for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaders don't need a letter. No, we won't go back to rotating the 'A's just to give players opportunity to practice, when they'll already do the things a leader should do, like talk in the locker room on the bench and on the ice, speak with the coaches and management on direction and planning, and interact with the officials. There's more to it than that of course, but really all the 'C' or 'A' does is the last part, where it signifies a player on the ice who should be allowed to speak with the officials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...