Does Luongo Losing The “C” Matter?ShareThis
So, the Vancouver Canucks are going to take the captaincy away from Roberto Luongo (er, he “stepped down”), which means approximately nothing (you could sum up today’s entire post with that sentence, by the way).
The fact that management – hockey people, mind you – thought that someone who has the “C” but can’t perform the “C” duties (basically the privelege of conferring with the ref) is any different from someone who just doesn’t have a “C” is mind-exploding. Was symbolism worth taking away a guy on the ice who could represent your team near the ref’s half-circle?
The only people, from what I can tell, who think that being the possessor of said imaginary letter matters, is whoever gave it to him in the first place.
For the record, I had/have no problem with him (or any goalie) having it, it’s just a bad decision. But whatever, if a team wants their goalie to be captain for some symbolic purpose, have at it.
But what was it supposed to do in tangible terms to begin with? Make it so that when he spoke in the room, people listened? That’s the type of power awarded to a high school teacher – people listen at first out of obligation – but if you can’t command respect, it doesn’t take long before people stop paying attention.
People will react to other people based on how much they like them, respect them, etc, and having an imaginary “C” wasn’t making any difference.
If Luongo was a guy who talked in the room, he’ll still be a guy who talks in the room. You don’t lose priveleges in there, as long as your words serve a purpose. Everybody in every dressing room is allowed to speak up. If he was a leader by example (or if he wasn’t) that’s not going to change.
The captaincy may allow for some extra inside-info from coach, or on him using your opinion more than he normally would, but if Luongo has earned that relationship with Vigneault, that’s not going to suddenly go away.
The only reason I could think the “C” might make a difference, is if it was making him feel like he was forced to speak to the team when things weren’t going well. That means you’re speaking when you don’t mean it, which makes it worthless and insincere. Sometimes the best speeches come from a rookie who hasn’t spoken up all year, cause you know he means it when he finally does. The “*sigh* I’m the captain and we’re getting shelled, I better stand-up and assemble a few sentences.” thing sucks. But as a “leader”, he’s still going to feel like he has to do that to some extent.
Bottom line is, the changing of the Canuck captaincy isn’t even really a “thing.” Whether you’re Team Kesler or Team Henrik or Team Burrows or Team Hamhuis, none of those guys are going to change. The team dynamic won’t change. The only thing that will change, is how the medias portray two players - Luongo for being de-captainfied, and Whoever, for being the new one.
Hey, TGIF, right on. Like I said guys, I went light and fluffy with today’s piece for Puck Daddy – it’s on why the NHL should do it’s own version of the NFL’s Hard Knocks. (Check it out over at Puck Daddy, since I probably won’t be around to chuck up the link when it posts.)
Also, if you care to check me out on TV, I’ll be on Off The Record with Michael Landsberg at 5:00 PM EST on TSN and 6:00 on TSN. I gotta be honest – after getting up at 6:00a.m. to get to the studio, and having some nice, light-hearted banter with Landsberg, I was fully unprepared to be put on the defensive about my column. But whatever, I think it went alright, so thanks to those guys for the invite.
For you newbies who are flocking to the site now that I’m Controversial Connie, here’s what you need to know: You can find my work….
Mondays (Alternating): The Hockey News/USA Today
Tuesdays: Puck Daddy
Wednesdays: Hockey Primetime
Thursdays: Puck Daddy
Fridays: Puck Goddamn Daddy.
So go check me out there, and FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER (I’m currently ranked 106th in hockey-people follower count. We can do better). Have a great weekend!