Lionbackers.com

Tradition matters a lot to some people.

Wearing the C is a big deal in hockey, more so, it seems, than in other sports. It's a great honour in hockey. Even in Russia. Bure was very proud to wear the K for Russia, and rightly so.

The media reports that Kolzig was the unofficial captain of the Capitals for years. And I would say Brodeur is the same with the Devils now. Luongo is obviously the leader of the Canucks. I've got no problem with the team making it as official as the league's rules allow.

Not leaving the crease, ceremonial dropping of the puck, discussions with officials, etc. Those reasons make enough sense to justify the league's position about goalies not wearing the C. Off the ice, I think it is fair to recognize who is the actual leader of the team.

I don't see the Canucks' decision as bush league. Gillis said from the start he was going to challenge some of the older ways of doing things. This is one more example. I would not be surprised to see it happen more often now. Goalies are oftentimes the most valuable player on a team, and, sometimes, they are great leaders as well.

Well said... and I'd challenge anyone to provide citation of anyone (other than rambling fan-boys) calling it "bush league" the other 6 times an NHL goalie has been named captain.

Soundy wrote: The rest of the team disagrees with you.

The rest of the team? I'm not on the team! :P

Well what else are they going to do but publicly support it? They may all love Luongo and this move, I still think it's a gimmick. Reminds me of when Dan Quinn, Linden, and one other guy that "rotated" the Captaincy year back.

WestCoastJoe wrote:Tradition matters a lot to some people.

Wearing the C is a big deal in hockey, more so, it seems, than in other sports. It's a great honour in hockey. Even in Russia. Bure was very proud to wear the K for Russia, and rightly so.

The media reports that Kolzig was the unofficial captain of the Capitals for years. And I would say Brodeur is the same with the Devils now. Luongo is obviously the leader of the Canucks. I've got no problem with the team making it as official as the league's rules allow.

Not leaving the crease, ceremonial dropping of the puck, discussions with officials, etc. Those reasons make enough sense to justify the league's position about goalies not wearing the C. Off the ice, I think it is fair to recognize who is the actual leader of the team.

I don't see the Canucks' decision as bush league. Gillis said from the start he was going to challenge some of the older ways of doing things. This is one more example. I would not be surprised to see it happen more often now. Goalies are oftentimes the most valuable player on a team, and, sometimes, they are great leaders as well.

Nobody debates the honor of the C in hockey.

So make Luongo the unofficial captain, instead of this kooky made-up three way deal. Someone please justify Mitchell and Ohlund sharing duties. I have no problem with the team acknowledging Luongo as a leader, they just should have dealt with it like it was with your examples of Broduer and Kolzig.

Soundy wrote:Well said... and I'd challenge anyone to provide citation of anyone (other than rambling fan-boys) calling it "bush league" the other 6 times an NHL goalie has been named captain.

60 plus years ago, the last time a goalie was named captain, the league thought so highly of it, they changed the rules.

I never said anyone called it bush league. It's the NHL! Many believe nothing is ever bush league about the NHL, but will grab onto anything to claim that the CFL is.

bclions16 wrote:If something similarly creative and wacky was done in the CFL, there would be a chorus of voices saying "bush league CFL."

So lots of people think they Canucks did great with this move. Good on the Canucks. I for one still see a gimmick, and believe this is the most entertaining thing that team will do all year.

Illogical move aside, I find myself more interested in the Canucks, and more hopefull, than I have been since Bure left.

bclions16 wrote:Well what else are they going to do but publicly support it? They may all love Luongo and this move, I still think it's a gimmick. Reminds me of when Dan Quinn, Linden, and one other guy that "rotated" the Captaincy year back.

Minnesota rotates their captains regularly... is that a gimmick too? Other teams have done so in the past as well.

Soundy wrote:

bclions16 wrote:Well what else are they going to do but publicly support it? They may all love Luongo and this move, I still think it's a gimmick. Reminds me of when Dan Quinn, Linden, and one other guy that "rotated" the Captaincy year back.

Minnesota rotates their captains regularly... is that a gimmick too? Other teams have done so in the past as well.

Rotating captains isn't nearly as goofy as this Luongo thing, but still kinda weak. These are men we're talking about, name a captain, but make sure the alternates understand their leadership roles too (why does this always seem too hard for hockey players to get?). This stuff seems to be done by people trying too hard to be smart, or for the benefit of Bobby Clobber type players that are too prone to jealousy or that might collapse under the tremendously overestimated weight of that C on their jersey. Of course Luongo won't have any extra stitching to weigh him down.

Luongo is captain of the Canucks sort of like the Queen is the head of state for Canada. So Luongo is Queen Elizabeth, Willie Mitchell is Governor General Michaëlle Jean, and Ohlund is her husband Jean-Daniel Lafond.

bclions16 wrote:

Soundy wrote:

bclions16 wrote:Well what else are they going to do but publicly support it? They may all love Luongo and this move, I still think it's a gimmick. Reminds me of when Dan Quinn, Linden, and one other guy that "rotated" the Captaincy year back.

Minnesota rotates their captains regularly... is that a gimmick too? Other teams have done so in the past as well.

Rotating captains isn't nearly as goofy as this Luongo thing, but still kinda weak. These are men we're talking about, name a captain, but make sure the alternates understand their leadership roles too (why does this always seem too hard for hockey players to get?).

Was this not done? The captain was named (Luongo), the alternates were named (Mitchell, Ohlund and Kesler), and each has been given a clearly defined role. It's a little early to tell, but somehow I don't see any of them having a problem forgetting their roles. Regardless of whether anyone actually gets the little 'C' on his jersey, the Alternate roles haven't changed, and the official Captain's duties have been assigned elsewhere. Sounds pretty simple, I'm sure even a dumb hockey player can get it.

This stuff seems to be done by people trying too hard to be smart,

Too smart for you, maybe... did you read Vigneault's comments on the decision?

“I had a meeting with (Gillis) on the first day I came back and we discussed the captaincy and I talked about the different characteristics that all captains have. As I was going through my list, I noticed Mike had opened to a page in his book of notes and thoughts that had all the reasons I had written down as well.

“I then told him that, while I felt we had quite a few players on our team that possessed these characteristics to a certain degree, there was just one individual who had all these characteristics to a very high degree and that was Roberto. That’s why I felt we should name him captain.’’

Doesn't sound like something that was arrived at lightly. Try reading the entire article: http://canucks.nhl.com/team/app?article ... rvice=page

or for the benefit of Bobby Clobber type players that are too prone to jealousy or that might collapse under the tremendously overestimated weight of that C on their jersey.

And who would that be on the Canucks?

Of course Luongo won't have any extra stitching to weigh him down.

Good thing, if you consider the extra weight of those massive flaps on his pads!

Ok this is a long one, but doesn't get good until the middle...

Soundy wrote:

bclions16 wrote: Rotating captains isn't nearly as goofy as this Luongo thing, but still kinda weak. These are men we're talking about, name a captain, but make sure the alternates understand their leadership roles too (why does this always seem too hard for hockey players to get?).

Was this not done? The captain was named (Luongo), the alternates were named (Mitchell, Ohlund and Kesler), and each has been given a clearly defined role. It's a little early to tell, but somehow I don't see any of them having a problem forgetting their roles. Regardless of whether anyone actually gets the little 'C' on his jersey, the Alternate roles haven't changed, and the official Captain's duties have been assigned elsewhere. Sounds pretty simple, I'm sure even a dumb hockey player can get it.

Yes, I'm just saying they should have named a real captain, real alts, and have Luongo continue to be a leader without this gimmicky invisible C, and stand-in captains.

This stuff seems to be done by people trying too hard to be smart,

Too smart for you, maybe... did you read Vigneault's comments on the decision?

“I had a meeting with (Gillis) on the first day I came back and we discussed the captaincy and I talked about the different characteristics that all captains have. As I was going through my list, I noticed Mike had opened to a page in his book of notes and thoughts that had all the reasons I had written down as well.

“I then told him that, while I felt we had quite a few players on our team that possessed these characteristics to a certain degree, there was just one individual who had all these characteristics to a very high degree and that was Roberto. That’s why I felt we should name him captain.’’

So Luongo is a leader. No one said he wasn't. One thing he is not though, is the captain of the Canucks from what I can read:
http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule14.html
Essentially Luongo is not recognized by the league or other teams in any way whatsoever as the captain of the Canucks. That's why it's a gimmick, in my view anyway.

He is a pretend captain that can fulfill ZERO official duties of an NHL captain. It's not much different than saying I'm Jessica Alba's husband, but some other guy walked down the aisle for me, consummated the marriage for me, and got her pregnant for me. But hey, I'm her husband!!! Oh ya, I don't get to wear a wedding ring either!

Exaggeration sure, but you know where I'm coming from.

Yes I still think this shows they are trying too hard to be smart and clever. Management is so smart yet they fail to realize Luongo can be the dressing room leader without the pretend captaincy, or they think their players are too dumb to accept him as a leader without this pretend C.

Soundy wrote: Doesn't sound like something that was arrived at lightly. Try reading the entire article: http://canucks.nhl.com/team/app?article ... rvice=page

I already read it. Nice sentiments, but doesn't add up to making a goalie the captain, again especially in light of the rules (http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule14.html). No, I don't think the Canucks have arrived lightly at this or any of their other silly decisions over the years.

Since they obviously don't care about the official duties of a captain, or about the rules of who can be a captain, they should REALLY think outside the box! Name Trevor Linden captain! I know he's retired, but it doesn't matter, he can do the exact same pretend "captain" job that Luongo is doing! Of course he will have no actual captain's duties (just like Luongo), but he could just spend all his time in the dressing room and be a leader during the intermissions! He could probably help out the trainers or equipment guys if he gets bored. Actually, Jeopardy is on most nights at 7. Trev will be fine.

or for the benefit of Bobby Clobber type players that are too prone to jealousy or that might collapse under the tremendously overestimated weight of that C on their jersey.

Soundy wrote: And who would that be on the Canucks?

Oh that was just a wild generalization, but it's Canucks management that must not think much of their players, since they can't come up with any ELIGIBLE player than can handle a real captaincy.

Of course Luongo won't have any extra stitching to weigh him down.

Soundy wrote: Good thing, if you consider the extra weight of those massive flaps on his pads!

We can agree to disagree. But after all of Gillis' tough talk about bold moves, looks like this is it?

Sorry I wrote so much, I started to have fun with the absurdity of this

bclions16 wrote:

Lionheart wrote:Lemme join the crowd....

bash ...bash ...bash

stupid...stupid...stupid

bash ...bash ...bash

stupid...stupid...stupid

I'm sensing sarcasm? I

It's not really that hard.

The thing is there are many on this board who resent (and therefor hate) the Canucks because they garner the majority of media attention in this city. So, whenever a thread about the Canucks happen along it's all those people who will bash at whatever is/was announced. Whether it be naming of the new Captain Luongo, switching practice times.. switching airlines...socks.. trades whatever. Just the same *poop*.

Lionheart wrote: It's not really that hard.

The thing is there are many on this board who resent (and therefor hate) the Canucks because they garner the majority of media attention in this city. So, whenever a thread about the Canucks happen along it's all those people who will bash at whatever is/was announced. Whether it be naming of the new Captain Luongo, switching practice times.. switching airlines...socks.. trades whatever. Just the same *poop*.

For sure, I agree. I'm not a Canuck basher, but gotta call this one they way I see it. I still believe if a CFL team wanted to do something equally weird, tons more people would say the familiar "only in the CFL," calling it hokey or bush league.

bclions16 wrote:So Luongo is a leader. No one said he wasn't. One thing he is not though, is the captain of the Canucks from what I can read:
http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule14.html
Essentially Luongo is not recognized by the league or other teams in any way whatsoever as the captain of the Canucks. That's why it's a gimmick, in my view anyway.

There's nothing there prohibiting a goaltender from being the captain... only from performing the captain's duties. It may be a fine hair to split, but it's there nonetheless.

I'd think if the league had a problem with it, they would have said so by now, and insist that another be appointed. They haven't, and from the lack of any action or statement on their part, I think it's safe to assume that they accept the situation, regardless of what some fans think.

or for the benefit of Bobby Clobber type players that are too prone to jealousy or that might collapse under the tremendously overestimated weight of that C on their jersey.

And who would that be on the Canucks?

Oh that was just a wild generalization, but it's Canucks management that must not think much of their players, since they can't come up with any ELIGIBLE player than can handle a real captaincy.

Your whole argument is nothing but wild generalizations. Maybe you missed the part of that article, where they had several players in mind, and decided that Lu filled the criteria the best? “I then told him that, while I felt we had quite a few players on our team that possessed these characteristics to a certain degree, there was just one individual who had all these characteristics to a very high degree and that was Roberto. That’s why I felt we should name him captain.’’

But I guess you have a better idea of what's going on in AV's head than AV does?

bclions16 wrote:For sure, I agree. I'm not a Canuck basher, but gotta call this one they way I see it. I still believe if a CFL team wanted to do something equally weird, tons more people would say the familiar "only in the CFL," calling it hokey or bush league.

Such a move WOULD be "weird" in the CFL. In the NHL, it's rare, but it's not unheard-of, and hardly "weird".

Hockey and football, apples and oranges. The position of "team captain" carries a whole different weight and connotation in hockey than it does in football.

Soundy, we're boring the hell out of people here! :lol:

Soundy wrote: There's nothing there prohibiting a goaltender from being the captain... only from performing the captain's duties. It may be a fine hair to split, but it's there nonetheless.

I'd think if the league had a problem with it, they would have said so by now, and insist that another be appointed. They haven't, and from the lack of any action or statement on their part, I think it's safe to assume that they accept the situation, regardless of what some fans think.

In the past several teams have gone without a captain, and in this case the league is accepting the Canucks as a team without a captain, Luongo has absolutely nothing to do with it as far as the league is concerned. I say this because a team is allowed one captain and two alternates, or three alternates and no captain. The Canucks have named three alternates, AND a captain? So two choices:

a) The Canucks are cheating by having one more alternate than is allowed by the NHL, or;
b) The Canucks do not have a captain.

They should have just said Luongo is our leader, rather then make up all this stuff.

Soundy wrote: Your whole argument is nothing but wild generalizations. Maybe you missed the part of that article, where they had several players in mind, and decided that Lu filled the criteria the best? “I then told him that, while I felt we had quite a few players on our team that possessed these characteristics to a certain degree, there was just one individual who had all these characteristics to a very high degree and that was Roberto. That’s why I felt we should name him captain.’’

But I guess you have a better idea of what's going on in AV's head than AV does?

I very clearly and obviously know how to count alternates and captains better than AV. I also understand the rules better too!

I make some generalizations for humour, but there is no generalization when it comes to the FACT that by rule, Luongo is not the captain.

Soundy wrote:

bclions16 wrote:For sure, I agree. I'm not a Canuck basher, but gotta call this one they way I see it. I still believe if a CFL team wanted to do something equally weird, tons more people would say the familiar "only in the CFL," calling it hokey or bush league.

Such a move WOULD be "weird" in the CFL. In the NHL, it's rare, but it's not unheard-of, and hardly "weird".

Hockey and football, apples and oranges. The position of "team captain" carries a whole different weight and connotation in hockey than it does in football.

I didn't mean to compare CFL captains to an NHL one, I understand the difference. I meant that if a CFL team dreamed up something, anything, just as silly and made up as this, and expected people to buy it, they would be called out and laughed at.

Oh well, best of luck to the Canucks.