Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Poll: Your choice for Captain


H_T_L
 Share

Poll: Your choice for Captain  

37 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is your choice to replace Max?



Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Graeme-1 said:

The NFL season has just started and it's interesting that they have captains, and no one (at least the media/fans) really cares who they are. The NHL seems pretty unique in the amount of stock given to a pretty meaningless distinction.

And given all the extra noise and media attention the captaincy generates in the NHL, it's no wonder it sounds like the Leafs may go yet another season without a captain (despite an obvious choice in Tavares).

The whole thing is interesting, but I also feel like I'm wasting my time even thinking about it. Name x captain, name y captain, name nobody captain, is it really going to change this season?

The NFL splits playing time between offence, defence, and special teams, so they designate several "captains" to talk to the refs. It's mainly more symbolic though. Hockey tends to make a bigger deal about attitude, grittiness, character, etc. and have required leaders on the ice. In Montreal, I think it matters, because people want a guy who goes out and speaks to the media and holds the other players accountable, and I think it's a good thing when you have a guy who can carry the team emotionally and rally the fans and players.

3 hours ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I'm unsure about Danault. He's signed for three years and is then an unrestricted free agent. It's entirely possible he leaves the organization in 2021 because we don't want to pay him 5-6 million per season. I think it's better to just go without a captain for the season.

All players become free agents eventually. I wouldn't hold a 3-year term against Danault. He'll either earn his money or he won't and you pay him accordingly. I still think you pick the best guy for the job.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

The NFL splits playing time between offence, defence, and special teams, so they designate several "captains" to talk to the refs. It's mainly more symbolic though. Hockey tends to make a bigger deal about attitude, grittiness, character, etc. and have required leaders on the ice. In Montreal, I think it matters, because people want a guy who goes out and speaks to the media and holds the other players accountable, and I think it's a good thing when you have a guy who can carry the team emotionally and rally the fans and players.

Right, my point is that system seems to work just fine and I'm just not sure the captaincy is this big deal that the NHL media/team/fans make it out to be. I also think the NHL somewhat abandoned the old idea of who should get the captaincy when it switched to generally going to the best player, even if that's a 19 year old kid.  The rallying fans and players, leadership, etc will happen regardless of who wears the letters.

But in markets like Montreal and Toronto, it's definitely true fans want that player. I'm just not sure if it's good for the player to be in that position when things are going poorly. Perhaps Max's temperament was just less well suited to those expectations than Koivu or Gionta, but honestly there's no one on the roster right now I feel would be immune from the added noise and apparent "responsibility".

I actually think we're going to see less and less captains in big markets (just go with a bunch of "A"s). Toronto's really interesting in that they just brought in the perfect candidate and are expected to be good, yet they seem to be setting expectations for another year without anyone wearing the "C". I suspect this is because they see the risks outweighing the benefits, especially given JT will be a strong leader in the room anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graeme-1 said:

Right, my point is that system seems to work just fine and I'm just not sure the captaincy is this big deal that the NHL media/team/fans make it out to be. I also think the NHL somewhat abandoned the old idea of who should get the captaincy when it switched to generally going to the best player, even if that's a 19 year old kid.  The rallying fans and players, leadership, etc will happen regardless of who wears the letters.

But in markets like Montreal and Toronto, it's definitely true fans want that player. I'm just not sure if it's good for the player to be in that position when things are going poorly. Perhaps Max's temperament was just less well suited to those expectations than Koivu or Gionta, but honestly there's no one on the roster right now I feel would be immune from the added noise and apparent "responsibility".

I actually think we're going to see less and less captains in big markets (just go with a bunch of "A"s). Toronto's really interesting in that they just brought in the perfect candidate and are expected to be good, yet they seem to be setting expectations for another year without anyone wearing the "C". I suspect this is because they see the risks outweighing the benefits, especially given JT will be a strong leader in the room anyways.

The other thing about captains becoming younger though is that it's clearly becoming a younger man's game. The speed of the game is tens time greater than it was 30 years ago. With the cap, you just can't overpay veterans forever, so you need to rely on cheap skill jumping into the NHL at a younger age. And with the league opening up to more international players, you simply have more younger guys pushing out veterans. So, I think you've seen a proportional shift in who the captains are (which is not to say it's a good decision), as teams decide this is the guy they're going to build around for 8-10 years.

I think having a captain like Saku or Gainey or Beliveau or so on gives you a guy who really leads the team not only on the ice but in the room. They rally the troops behind them, they are the first ones to face the media and the tough questions, and I think they do do a job of keeping the younger guys in line and being the one to step up when the going gets tough. So I think if you choose right, you can have a positive influence in the room.

I just have serious doubts about Gallagher, based on some of his antics on things like 24/7 and twitter and interviews, as well as his childish behavior in his dealing with Subban in the Nashville game. I just don't think he's mature enough to be captain, and I don't really want a captain who's still facewashing opponents and laughing at guys he's poking at. Weber's the opposite: he's mature, but he doesn't seem to show much emotion or passion on the ice. You never seem to see him getting upset or playing like he really really wants it. Doesn't mean he doesn't feel it, but he just doesn't show it, and I find that hard to accept in a captain. Was the same for Pacioretty, I just wanted to see more emotion on the ice. So I'd rather go no captain than the wrong captain, but I think there's value in the role if the Habs pick a guy who can unify the team and lead with emotion and performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know,,, IMO, the next captain should be chosen and not voted on for this reason. Management should look at the players and say to themselves "Who will be with us long term, has heart, gives his all on the ice, and knows what to say and what not to say ". Long term meaning 5 years or more. Voting on a captaincy is primarily a popularity contest. For example, Gallagher gives his all on the ice, but, maybe you wouldn't want to invite him to your backyard BBQ. On the other hand, a player in the room and off-ice might be a great guy at your backyard BBQ, but doesn't give his all on the ice. He also must know how to talk to the media, because after EVERY game, he will have to explain what happened. "If" there's a captain this year,,, I don't believe that Weber would be chosen as he will have missed too many games..

Only twice have we had no captain.

With this mish-mash of players, I'm not sure who will be picked as the captain but, Gallagher should be by default.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kinot-2 said:

Ya know,,, IMO, the next captain should be chosen and not voted on for this reason. Management should look at the players and say to themselves "Who will be with us long term, has heart, gives his all on the ice, and knows what to say and what not to say ". Long term meaning 5 years or more. Voting on a captaincy is primarily a popularity contest. For example, Gallagher gives his all on the ice, but, maybe you wouldn't want to invite him to your backyard BBQ. On the other hand, a player in the room and off-ice might be a great guy at your backyard BBQ, but doesn't give his all on the ice. He also must know how to talk to the media, because after EVERY game, he will have to explain what happened. "If" there's a captain this year,,, I don't believe that Weber would be chosen as he will have missed too many games..

Only twice have we had no captain.

With this mish-mash of players, I'm not sure who will be picked as the captain but, Gallagher should be by default.

 

Management doesn't know who is gonna be there next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weber never was a real Hab, if he was here at a younger age I would consider him.

Gallagher was drafted by the habs, and plays his heart out every single shift every single night. Does he irritate people you bet he does. But he also wants to win at all costs and that is what a leader should be.

I loved Subban and would of voted for him as captain if he was still here. Like Gallagher he could be quite childish with his antics on the ice. But both of those players play to win no matter what people think of them.

I would certainly want Gallagher to be our captain going forward..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, caperns61 said:

Weber never was a real Hab, if he was here at a younger age I would consider him.

Gallagher was drafted by the habs, and plays his heart out every single shift every single night. Does he irritate people you bet he does. But he also wants to win at all costs and that is what a leader should be.

I loved Subban and would of voted for him as captain if he was still here. Like Gallagher he could be quite childish with his antics on the ice. But both of those players play to win no matter what people think of them.

I would certainly want Gallagher to be our captain going forward..

 

1 hour ago, tony5775 said:

As long as they do not do a player vote. That was how Max got the job and it was a mistake right from day one. 

Coach should pick the captain. Sad that the coach is Claude, but he should pick the guy.

 

Not sure if player vote or coach's choice is better... in Subban's case, I am 100% sure Therrien wouldn't have chosen him either. Subban was definitely the fan choice, but fans don't get a say.

This time around, I get the love people are showing Gallagher. I'm just surprised so many people are voting for him instead of others. I thought Weber would have had a larger percentage of the vote, and I think he would be the coach's choice if he were healthy and maybe even if he isn't.

To me, Gallagher and Subban are very different leaders. Yes, they both play hard every shift and get in your face. But Gallagher spends most of his energy trying to get the other team riled up, and I don't recall him doing a lot to encourage his teammates, at least not on the ice. With Subban, he was constantly patting guys on the back and shouting encouragement at them, and he was the first guy to celebrate another players's goals and so on. He seemed to go out of his way to play cheerleader, whereas Gallagher kind of just does his own thing. I don't doubt Gallagher's heart or toughness, I just wonder about his leadership and maturity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

 

Not sure if player vote or coach's choice is better... in Subban's case, I am 100% sure Therrien wouldn't have chosen him either. Subban was definitely the fan choice, but fans don't get a say.

This time around, I get the love people are showing Gallagher. I'm just surprised so many people are voting for him instead of others. I thought Weber would have had a larger percentage of the vote, and I think he would be the coach's choice if he were healthy and maybe even if he isn't.

To me, Gallagher and Subban are very different leaders. Yes, they both play hard every shift and get in your face. But Gallagher spends most of his energy trying to get the other team riled up, and I don't recall him doing a lot to encourage his teammates, at least not on the ice. With Subban, he was constantly patting guys on the back and shouting encouragement at them, and he was the first guy to celebrate another players's goals and so on. He seemed to go out of his way to play cheerleader, whereas Gallagher kind of just does his own thing. I don't doubt Gallagher's heart or toughness, I just wonder about his leadership and maturity.

It's a moot point for me actually, because this team will suck IMO. Better to have NO captain than to have any player be a scapegoat and take the blame and shoulder the responsibilities for this GM's ineptitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Habs=stanleycup said:

It's a moot point for me actually, because this team will suck IMO. Better to have NO captain than to have any player be a scapegoat and take the blame and shoulder the responsibilities for this GM's ineptitude.

You know Bergevin is gonna blame the players regardless there being a captain or not. He's done it for 6 years. I think he's narcissistic. Or arrogant. Take your pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this. agree with no captain.

1. Weber....supposedly we fell apart because of cocky selfish subban, and with webers humble leadership that would never happened. and then it happened like immediately.  you know what I think? I think this guy did not want to come here and really does not want to be here at heart. Not saying this affects his play, dont think it does. But I dont think his intangibles...inasmuch as they have any real effect anywhere.....have literally NO effect here.  Hes beyond making much of a difference with his on ice play...its pretty much a no across the board. And I think we should be trading him asap on top of that

2. Gallagher....definitely does have that quality of the guy leading with on ice effort and intensity in a visible way,but like many of you have mentioned I really soured on him after that game where he ran around like an idiot after subban. and truly , objectively,not because it was subban. because it was ridiculous and selfish. Subban for all the criticisms of being selfish and pulling antics never came close to doing anything like that.  Now I watch him and I like the effort but I dont like the smarmy side.  And I also think we should trade him asap.

Lets play the year,see who emerges and give it to DRUM ROLL PLEASE .........Max Doooooooooooommiiiii  my early darkhorse pick for the new fan favourite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jeff33 said:

How about this. agree with no captain.

1. Weber....supposedly we fell apart because of cocky selfish subban, and with webers humble leadership that would never happened. and then it happened like immediately.  you know what I think? I think this guy did not want to come here and really does not want to be here at heart. Not saying this affects his play, dont think it does. But I dont think his intangibles...inasmuch as they have any real effect anywhere.....have literally NO effect here.  Hes beyond making much of a difference with his on ice play...its pretty much a no across the board. And I think we should be trading him asap on top of that

2. Gallagher....definitely does have that quality of the guy leading with on ice effort and intensity in a visible way,but like many of you have mentioned I really soured on him after that game where he ran around like an idiot after subban. and truly , objectively,not because it was subban. because it was ridiculous and selfish. Subban for all the criticisms of being selfish and pulling antics never came close to doing anything like that.  Now I watch him and I like the effort but I dont like the smarmy side.  And I also think we should trade him asap.

Lets play the year,see who emerges and give it to DRUM ROLL PLEASE .........Max Doooooooooooommiiiii  my early darkhorse pick for the new fan favourite

< blink, blink >

:P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for no captain, but if I had to pick I'd go with Weber (but would also be okay with the Danault or Petry suggestions, probably).  Personally, I feel that as far as leadership in the room goes, the people who are going to lead are going to do it with or without a letter.  If a young player is getting out of line or whatever, do you think someone like Weber or Plekanec would be more likely to stay quiet just because they don't have the C?  Does missing a letter somehow negate your ability to play hard or to say something inspiring?  I really don't think it matters.

So in practical terms, that leaves the captain with two jobs: talk to the refs, and face the media (without becoming overwhelmed).  Gallagher is the absolute worst choice on the team when it comes to the first one.  As much as I like the guy, there's no way his childish smarminess is going to do anything but further agitate a bad situation.  He's already on every referee's black-list when it comes to making calls against him - frankly, the less the refs even think about this guy the better it is for him and the team.

As for the second qualification, neither Petry nor Danault has ever had to take many burning media questions (at least to my knowledge).  Would they be cut out for it?  I honestly have no way of knowing.  Weber seems like he could handle it just fine, though, so although he might be the 'safe' choice he's still the one I'd go with if pressed for a decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another factor in picking a captain is you need to pick someone who the captain position is going to make him a better player. As opposed to Max who became a lesser player.

That is the main reason the coach should pick the captain. If the coach does not know his players, then you are in trouble. But Claude has been around long enough to know who can not only handle it but thrive from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2018 at 1:26 PM, BigTed3 said:

Surprised at how little support there is for Weber and how much there is for Gallagher.

I think a lot of people (myself included) would be fine with Weber as captain (he did with the Messier award so one has to assume that players around the league think highly of him) but the hope is he isnt here long-term.   If he's only on the roster this year, it would be silly to make him captain.  

I would probably put good odds on him being the next captain because i dont think MB has any intention of trading him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2018 at 6:10 AM, Manatee-X said:

So in practical terms, that leaves the captain with two jobs: talk to the refs, and face the media (without becoming overwhelmed).  Gallagher is the absolute worst choice on the team when it comes to the first one.  As much as I like the guy, there's no way his childish smarminess is going to do anything but further agitate a bad situation.  He's already on every referee's black-list when it comes to making calls against him - frankly, the less the refs even think about this guy the better it is for him and the team.

Good point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2018 at 9:10 AM, Manatee-X said:

I voted for no captain, but if I had to pick I'd go with Weber (but would also be okay with the Danault or Petry suggestions, probably).  Personally, I feel that as far as leadership in the room goes, the people who are going to lead are going to do it with or without a letter.  If a young player is getting out of line or whatever, do you think someone like Weber or Plekanec would be more likely to stay quiet just because they don't have the C?  Does missing a letter somehow negate your ability to play hard or to say something inspiring?  I really don't think it matters.

So in practical terms, that leaves the captain with two jobs: talk to the refs, and face the media (without becoming overwhelmed).  Gallagher is the absolute worst choice on the team when it comes to the first one.  As much as I like the guy, there's no way his childish smarminess is going to do anything but further agitate a bad situation.  He's already on every referee's black-list when it comes to making calls against him - frankly, the less the refs even think about this guy the better it is for him and the team.

As for the second qualification, neither Petry nor Danault has ever had to take many burning media questions (at least to my knowledge).  Would they be cut out for it?  I honestly have no way of knowing.  Weber seems like he could handle it just fine, though, so although he might be the 'safe' choice he's still the one I'd go with if pressed for a decision.

I agree with your points to some degree, but I'd expand on what role a captain can/should play:

1. Yes to dealing with the refs

2. Yes to dealing with the media/fans

But I'd add that a good captain will

3. Lead the players both on and off the ice. Your point about not needing a letter to do that is well-taken, and you need more leaders than just your captain, but there's still a certain authority associated with being captain that gives you permission to lead. As long as you're doing your own job, it allows you to call other players out (privately in an ideal world) and ask more of them. And it gives a responsibility to unite the team. We've seen how locker rooms can become divided by factions (the Theodore-Ribeiro-Dagenais one for example, or the pro-Subban/anti-Subban ones or the Russian clique or so on). A good captain will use that letter to take it as a mandate to organize the team around him and make sure everyone's included and responsible for their performance to the group. Sure, you can do it without a letter, but then you have those players who turn around and say "who are you to call me out when we're on equal rank?"...

4. Be a line of communication to the coaching staff. Some players, especially younger ones, might not feel comfortable speaking to the coaches about certain things, and a captain will take those guys under his wing and be a voice of guidance and a bridge to the coaches.

5. Carry the emotional weight of the team at key moments. Especially in a hockey-hungry city like Montreal, this is so important. The team will feed off of its leader, the fans will feed off of its leader. You look at Koivu as a recent example and when the going got tough, you could often see him kick in another gear. When he did that, other guys followed. Subban was pretty similar, in that he would often times be a rallying point in terms of intensity and stepping up, but then you saw guys get upset by that - maybe if he had have been captain, there would have been more uniform acceptance of those efforts. Gainey same thing, and I can't speak from personal experience, but historically other guys like Beliveau had the same reputation.

I'll come back to what I like about Danault as a choice, which is something similar to what I liked about Eller (and why I had proposed Eller a few years back instead of Pacioretty)... he's a calm player on the ice, his effort his always there, he plays with intensity but it's controlled and never out of hand like what you see with Gallagher, yet he seems to play with more emotion than you demonstrably get from a guy like Weber. Yes, he'd have to grow into the role, and I absolutely think you surround him with alternates like Weber who have experience and clout. But Danault's a pretty well-respected guy in the room and by media/fans/coaches from what I can tell. I think he's a guy who has the maturity to grow into the role and who will be here for more than a season or two.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

I agree with your points to some degree, but I'd expand on what role a captain can/should play:

1. Yes to dealing with the refs

2. Yes to dealing with the media/fans

But I'd add that a good captain will

3. Lead the players both on and off the ice. Your point about not needing a letter to do that is well-taken, and you need more leaders than just your captain, but there's still a certain authority associated with being captain that gives you permission to lead. As long as you're doing your own job, it allows you to call other players out (privately in an ideal world) and ask more of them. And it gives a responsibility to unite the team. We've seen how locker rooms can become divided by factions (the Theodore-Ribeiro-Dagenais one for example, or the pro-Subban/anti-Subban ones or the Russian clique or so on). A good captain will use that letter to take it as a mandate to organize the team around him and make sure everyone's included and responsible for their performance to the group. Sure, you can do it without a letter, but then you have those players who turn around and say "who are you to call me out when we're on equal rank?"...

4. Be a line of communication to the coaching staff. Some players, especially younger ones, might not feel comfortable speaking to the coaches about certain things, and a captain will take those guys under his wing and be a voice of guidance and a bridge to the coaches.

5. Carry the emotional weight of the team at key moments. Especially in a hockey-hungry city like Montreal, this is so important. The team will feed off of its leader, the fans will feed off of its leader. You look at Koivu as a recent example and when the going got tough, you could often see him kick in another gear. When he did that, other guys followed. Subban was pretty similar, in that he would often times be a rallying point in terms of intensity and stepping up, but then you saw guys get upset by that - maybe if he had have been captain, there would have been more uniform acceptance of those efforts. Gainey same thing, and I can't speak from personal experience, but historically other guys like Beliveau had the same reputation.

I'll come back to what I like about Danault as a choice, which is something similar to what I liked about Eller (and why I had proposed Eller a few years back instead of Pacioretty)... he's a calm player on the ice, his effort his always there, he plays with intensity but it's controlled and never out of hand like what you see with Gallagher, yet he seems to play with more emotion than you demonstrably get from a guy like Weber. Yes, he'd have to grow into the role, and I absolutely think you surround him with alternates like Weber who have experience and clout. But Danault's a pretty well-respected guy in the room and by media/fans/coaches from what I can tell. I think he's a guy who has the maturity to grow into the role and who will be here for more than a season or two.

 

To my mind, the Shea Webers and Saku Koivus of the world are able to do (almost*) all of the things you mentioned with or without a 'C'.  If someone of Weber's age/experience/reputation calls them out on something, I think that there are very few players who would come back with a "who do you think you are?" response.  The same may not be true of someone younger and less well-known like Danault, so I can see how maybe getting the official captaincy could maybe be helpful then, but even so... particularly if he were to be appointed (as opposed to being voted in) I'm still not sure if I see the captaincy as something that would change the respect level towards a person much one way or another.  But maybe.

The asterisk in my above paragraph is because I think we'd both agree that Weber does not seem to be a very emotional player on the ice (your point 5).  And while being calm has its advantages as well, generally I agree with you that I would rather the captain show a bit more heart.  That's actually the main reason why I don't even want a captain this year (in addition to the fact that I'd like to see Weber traded).  If we had a Koivu or a Gainey on this team I don't even think there would be much of a conversation here, and certainly there would be fewer 'no captain' votes.  But we don't really have a guy that fits all of the criteria.  So as it stands, if I HAD to pick, I'd probably go with Weber as a calming presence in what's sure to be a difficult season.  I could easily be convinced of a Danault or a Petry as well, but I honestly don't know enough about them to know whether they'd be up for the media side or the social/leadership/dressing-room aspects.  Presumably the coaches/players/management do know them better, though, so if one of them was picked I'd be on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's important to remember when Saku was named captain, he was only 24 and was not viewed as the front-runner for the position. He really grew into the role as he aged, and the team grew with him. Unfortunate that he was never given a very good roster to work with, but in terms of emotional leadership and respect from his peers, he had it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • H_T_L locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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