The Next 'C' - Vote for your choice.

[Grizzly]

My original thoughts were Kessler ... great team guy, wears his heart on his sleeve and all that ... my final choice was Henrik

Saw a panel on tv the other week with Bob MacKenzie ... panel was unanimous for Henrik ... some of the comments ...

- Henrik very involved in the community - $$
- calm, good with media etc.
- says what he needs to to the team, leader on the ice

When the panel came to Kessler ... the comment about him was his edge and possible inability to control his emotions when addressing the public or media. As a player that maybe good in the dressing room and on the ice ... from a PR perspective maybe his maturity isn't there quite yet ... I believe that because this is "sport" and it should be all about the fans who support the team with merchandise and tickets etc. the PR side of things is the utmost important ... interesting nonetheless ... still love Kessler ... would take either of those two to lead our guys ... !!

Grizz

[Arachnid]

Calm posted viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7220

Linden, as Captain, would go to battle with the worst the NHL had to offer. Henrik would not.
And I didn't think Trevor had the edge we needed to get us the Cup...Young Ryan does...

[Madcombinepilot]

Linden, as Captain, would go to battle with the worst the NHL had to offer. Henrik would not.
And I didn't think Trevor had the edge we needed to get us the Cup...Young Ryan does...

While I disagree with the Linden comment, this line of thinking is why I vote for Bieksa... I really don't want Kesler or Henrik to change the way they play the game(too much a chance that the change would be negative) Bieksa has good hockey hate, is good with the media, does a ton of charity around the community, and is used to the fans and media blaming him for a loss... his game wont change at all.

and if its a spectacular failure, his contact is up at year end, and next year, Hamhuis has a year under his belt.....

[dondo]

I know its early, early in the season, but the Canucks are looking very rudderless right now. Part of that is (imo) Henrik wearing the C -- he's not a motivator and not the kind of player to gut it out, drop the mitts or step it up for his team. Naslund wasn't either. Smyl was, Linden was.

Linden most certainly had the edge and came very close to being the sole reason the Canucks almost own the cup that year, he could not have done much more in that game himself. Anyway Captains need to be motivators and willing to step into any role. Henrik did not seem to be a team choice either, just a management choice and that is never good. It was a politically motivated choice and in my mind very wrong and from what I have seen so far it has created a team divided.

[jchockey]

Paraphrasing from another former NHLer but the captaincy loses it's meaning when management picks them rather than the players voting.

I like Kesler as captain because he plays with an edge and is more like a Mike Richards-type captain but I can't fault the team's logic for picking Henrik. I think a lot of times teams take on the personality of their GM, coach, and captain. Expect a very, very skill-based team in the years to come without much of the attitude that Kesler could've brought. Whether Henrik's the right choice remains to be seen but he's certainly producing and saying the right things. What the Canucks don't need is another leadership issue.

[WpgJets]

So, I know I'm reviving an older thread, but I'm wondering what people think now.

I originally voted for Henrik with the rationale that I didn't want an emotional Kesler talking to the refs, but that's not really a concern anymore with the "new" attitude.

Given the results in the standings, though, would things have been different had Kesler been chosen (better? worse?)? Or are the Canucks truly led by committee?

[BingoTough]

So, I know I'm reviving an older thread, but I'm wondering what people think now.

I originally voted for Henrik with the rationale that I didn't want an emotional Kesler talking to the refs, but that's not really a concern anymore with the "new" attitude.

Given the results in the standings, though, would things have been different had Kesler been chosen (better? worse?)? Or are the Canucks truly led by committee?

I don't know about you but every team I've ever been a part of has been lead by its leaders, whether they were the captain or not. The Canucks' leaders seem to be doing a fine job imo.

[woodhog]

I don't know about you but every team I've ever been a part of has been lead by its leaders, whether they were the captain or not. The Canucks' leaders seem to be doing a fine job imo.

Agreed 100%. I don't think it really matters who the captain is .... as long as it's not Luongo.