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

Team Leadership is not based on age. (Discussion)


J.I.A.H.N

Recommended Posts

After reading several posts tonight, I stated asking myself what was a leader?

 

- To me a leader is someone who stands in front of his guys

- who back checks hard every shift

- who will speak his mind straight to your face

- Is fair and just

- takes a hit to make a play....gives a hit that is felt

- shows dedication, and perseverance 

- stays late at practice to help a team-mate

 

He earns respect from his actions, which sets him apart in a positive way from his team-mates.

This is different than a person who is a community leader, or a leader in the community, all which should be respected

 

So when looking at the Sedins, I think Dan is more of a leader than Hank, he is more likely to stand up for another player. He is more willing to take the hit to make the play or take the shot. In saying that, I think Edler is closer or lesser than Hank as a leader. I think Burrows days as a leader are closing, but he still goes as far as he can, with what he has. Sutter does not show me much of his ancestry...doesn't look much like a Sutter to me. Eriksson hasn't shown me much, but it is early. And Dorsett is a plugger that we all love for their heart, but is too much of a wild card to be considered a leader.

 

That leaves Jannick and Miller, who have shown real self sacrifice this year, but one is unfortunately a goalie, who are seldom considered leaders, and Jannick who is probably the most respected and revered of all the vets........I just love the guy! But I don't think he is of captain material. although if he was an assistant I would be pretty happy!

 

Well, this sums up our veteran leadership ....... not a lot of leadership IMO

 

Now, maybe you disagree with me, and I am willing to listen and change my opinion, but as it stands right now, I think our leadership is in our younger players, outside of Jannik and Burrows

 

I am much more impressed with Horvat, Gudbranson, Tryamkin, Stecher, Hutton and Skille for the most part......honestly I just don't see and Linden's, Smyl's, or Quinns in our vets.

 

Like I say, I am open to your views, and am willing to change my mind.......so, please try!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pomorick said:

Horvat or Gudbranson are the only options and the time is not right for either to be elevated to Captain. As long as Henrik is here he is captain. Period!

 

Well, he may be our captain, but how much leadership is what I am questioning.......do you have is jersey or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, janisahockeynut said:

 

Well, he may be our captain, but how much leadership is what I am questioning.......do you have is jersey or something?

You aren't the only one who questions exactly what defines a "leader" in the context of the Canuck dressing room. What bugs me - and has for several years - is how such a premium is put on him being "good in the community", as I've read frequently in the message board at this site. Sure, it makes the world a better place. But, exactly how does that translate to what happens on the ice and in the room? I wouldn't exactly ever accuse the guy of being a leader of men, and I'd be more than surprised to find any of his teammates - past or present - who truly find inspiration from being in his presence. 

 

Hell of a player for sure. And a nice guy, too. But, as far as leadership goes, this franchise hasn't had a true "leader" since Linden. I would think they're born rather than anointed. And, not every star player is a "leader". Look at the Habs last season. I think the current Canuck captain was anointed for reasons that didn't really have much to do with what he does on the ice, but rather more to do with how he carries himself off it. 

 

Personally, I would be ok with rotating A's, post-Sedins, until someone truly steps up and makes it obvious that he is unquestionably without a doubt "leading" the team. If the title of captain is indeed as important and hallowed in hockey as much as the old guard say it is, the worst thing in the post-Sedin era will be to hand it over to someone just because he's popular and been deemed the new face-of-the-franchise. Again, the MTL example.

 

If the guy wearing the C hasn't really shown much of any actual leadership capabilities or qualities, what's the point in giving the letter out in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in our 2011 run Hank showed a lot of leadership, played through injurys showed how tough he really is. He earned the c. Until someone can take this team away from him and earn it themselves who else deserves it. The only other person who I could see who could have had it was Kes. But who knows how that would have turned out now knowing his reputation. I still see Bo taking it from him. He's hungry. We just need a cup run and let him sore I swear it so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the OP has come up with some anecdotes but they don't necessarily combine to define leadership.

 

If they're intended to exclude Henrik as a leader, fairly arbitrary.

 

There are all kinds of different forms of leadership.  Henrik's may not be as conventional or stereotypical, but when your fittest athletes are your 36 yr old leaders, that's an anecdote that might belong in that checklist.

 

One thing I do agree with -  Honey Badger is a boss - and some of the young players like Gudbranson and Horvat certainly exhibit some strong traits you'd want in a future leadership group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, pomorick said:

Horvat or Gudbranson are the only options and the time is not right for either to be elevated to Captain. As long as Henrik is here he is captain. Period!

As long as Henrik is here he is captain. Period!

 

Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

I think the OP has come up with some anecdotes but they don't necessarily combine to define leadership.

 

If they're intended to exclude Henrik as a leader, fairly arbitrary.

 

There are all kinds of different forms of leadership.  Henrik's may not be as conventional or stereotypical, but when your fittest athletes are your 36 yr old leaders, that's an anecdote that might belong in that checklist.

 

One thing I do agree with -  Honey Badger is a boss - and some of the young players like Gudbranson and Horvat certainly exhibit some strong traits you'd want in a future leadership group.

 

I  agree with you on this and I appreciate your adding to the list..........being prepared to play every night and in excellent shape are great qualities, but not exclusive to being a captain, but a leader yes, I would agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think Bo COULD be our next leader but I am still no entirely convinced on his willingness for example to stand up for a team mate and I'm sorry but after the Twins I just don't want the team to be led by another player who stands off and does not get physically involved.

 

I see a lot of the things I want from a leader in Hutton. He never stands off and he also leads by example. He makes mistakes but he doesn't let them impinge on his game. I liked what I heard on the mic'd up video. He is good in front of the camera and he seems to have the right community spirit.

 

My 3rd choice is a bit left field and I have to admit shaded slightly by how he arrived in pre season. I think Tryamkin could have all the qualities we need from our next leader. He seems intelligent, speaks his mind, is not afraid to stand up for himself or team mates and leads by example.

 

I make no apologies for my desire to have our next Captain one who is more Iginla than Sedin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, alfstonker said:

 

I think Bo COULD be our next leader but I am still no entirely convinced on his willingness for example to stand up for a team mate and I'm sorry but after the Twins I just don't want the team to be led by another player who stands off and does not get physically involved.

 

I see a lot of the things I want from a leader in Hutton. He never stands off and he also leads by example. He makes mistakes but he doesn't let them impinge on his game. I liked what I heard on the mic'd up video. He is good in front of the camera and he seems to have the right community spirit.

 

My 3rd choice is a bit left field and I have to admit shaded slightly by how he arrived in pre season. I think Tryamkin could have all the qualities we need from our next leader. He seems intelligent, speaks his mind, is not afraid to stand up for himself or team mates and leads by example.

 

I make no apologies for my desire to have our next Captain one who is more Iginla than Sedin.

 

Great post bro, and you brought up some interesting players and rationale in your choices. 

 

Hutton could be a great Assistant Cap, seems to always be smiling and happy, probably keeps the guys relaxed and excited to come to the rink. Trymak could also be another assistant, although he seems to have language issues at the moment, but I sure would want him to step up and be a leader, an absolute steal by JB. 

 

I too have longed for a great leader like Iginla. Calgary was lucky to have him, he did everything: score, fight, hit, stand up for his teammates and he was a great guy off the ice as well. I am hoping Bo is like that, after all his junior career had Captain written all over it. Love the Sedins, but as captain you need to sometimes take charge physically or verbally with opponents who break the code of honor. Linden was great this way, so was the steamer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all let me say love hank and believe he should stay captain till his time is up. No point in taking that from him now.

There are a whole array of qualities that go into leadership. Lots. And I'm of the opinion that everyone can lead in one capacity or another. But as far as being captain of an NHL hockey team goes there is one aspect of our last two Swedish captains that has really been something that I think is a quality that would make them not team captains and that's they are really soft spoken meek approach.

I remember when the Canucks were struggling on an extended losing streak. A reporter asked Marcus what he thought the reason was and he softly replied " I think we are really fragile right now". 

Later on they asked Bmo what he thought of naslunds comment about the team being fragile. He appeared annoyed and said " we can't afford to be fragile right now" in a very pronounced tone.

There's just that quality where you have a lot of strength and determination to inspire that I think is needed in a captain.

 

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...