Does It Matter Who Wears the "C"?

[doniceage]

By Jamie Fitzpatrick

Hockey people love to drone on about leadership, and the game's mythology insists that a team captain must be a great leader of men (or women).

Sure, leadership is important – even if we’re not always sure what it looks like. But sewing “C” or “A” on a sweater doesn’t identify leadership, or quantify it.

http://proicehockey.about.com/b/2009...ears-the-c.htm

[gregmal05]

Not really. Leaders will be leaders regardless of the letter they wear. Not too mention todays trend seems to be to just give the C to the best player/most marketable guy on the team even if he is not fit for the job. Hence guys like Crosby and Toews.

[RGM81]

There is a bit of a mythology to it in some quarters. When you look at the long list of names that have worn the C for Les Glorieux, there can be no denying that it definitely matters in Montreal. Ignore the Keane-Damphousse-Turgeon era, as those were some truly dark times for the Canadiens, but it is something of an inheritance of a legacy of leadership and success. Of the 27 men to wear the C, how many have led the team to a Stanley Cup? And of those, how many had raised Lord Stanley's grail on multiple occasions? It will go down as one of the great tragedies in team history that Saku Koivu never won a championship in Montreal - the second-longest serving captain of the Habs was a warrior thick and through but never had enough of a supporting cast around him to ascend to the ranks of the Richards, Beliveau, Savard, Bouchard, etc. He endured so much and was a testament to the legacy of what it means to be captain of the Montreal Canadiens. His successor will have figuratively large skates to fill.

[07mears07]

Look at Yzerman.

[30ranfordfan]

You make a few great points, especially about the legacy of the Captains in Montreal.

I have to disagree about the tragedy / Koivu though. I've got a lot of respect for the man, and no doubt he gave it his all while in Montreal. Deserving of the 'C'?? No question in my mind. The problem with Koivu, and his legacy in Montreal is that he was, well, mediocre.

Saku, for all the hard work, will never be remembered as an all time great. He just simply isn't one. Building the team around him, I think, set Montreal up for failure over the last decade. He played great for many of those seasons, but he was never a talented enough player to put that team on his back and carry it. He's not a talented enough player to elevate the play of his teammates.

I think the tragedy in Montreal is that they hedged their bets on him for as long as they did. Gainey made the right choice, IMO, in letting him walk away this off season. How the new talent pans out is a completely different matter though.

There is a bit of a mythology to it in some quarters. When you look at the long list of names that have worn the C for Les Glorieux, there can be no denying that it definitely matters in Montreal. Ignore the Keane-Damphousse-Turgeon era, as those were some truly dark times for the Canadiens, but it is something of an inheritance of a legacy of leadership and success. Of the 27 men to wear the C, how many have led the team to a Stanley Cup? And of those, how many had raised Lord Stanley's grail on multiple occasions? It will go down as one of the great tragedies in team history that Saku Koivu never won a championship in Montreal - the second-longest serving captain of the Habs was a warrior thick and through but never had enough of a supporting cast around him to ascend to the ranks of the Richards, Beliveau, Savard, Bouchard, etc. He endured so much and was a testament to the legacy of what it means to be captain of the Montreal Canadiens. His successor will have figuratively large skates to fill.

[RGM81]

An all-time great, probably not. An essential prerequisite for any discussion about Habs all-time greats is, of course, a minimum of one Cup ring. But that said, he has always been an above-average player often surrounded by mediocrity. Remember that in only his second year in the NHL, he was very near the top of the League in scoring before being injured. His injuries have always hampered him and we never truly got to see Saku play a full year at 100% - prior to the bout with cancer he was just a shave under being a point-a-game player on teams that were pretty bad. One could argue with with a stronger supporting cast and no injuries, he may well have been a 100pt. man on more than one occasion. But that's really neither here nor there.

In the era of lowered expectations, Saku Koivu remains the greatest of all Habs post-Patrick Roy. None played harder or was as prolific at the same consistent level. He always elevated his game in the playoffs, putting up 53 points in 60 games, not too shabby a figure, and was clutch in the latter stages of the Boston series in 07-08. One can plausibly argue that he never should have been more than a second-line centre - that having him in the spotlight as a first-liner was more than he could carry - but he never once complained or said, "This is too much." He simply stepped up and did his best with what was given to him by some pretty bad GMs.

[devilshockey1967]

This topic make me wonder something. Did Eric Lindros deserve to wear the C? I have had mixed feeling on that for a long time..........

[MatsSundin13Rocks]

There is a bit of a mythology to it in some quarters. When you look at the long list of names that have worn the C for Les Glorieux, there can be no denying that it definitely matters in Montreal. Ignore the Keane-Damphousse-Turgeon era, as those were some truly dark times for the Canadiens, but it is something of an inheritance of a legacy of leadership and success. Of the 27 men to wear the C, how many have led the team to a Stanley Cup? And of those, how many had raised Lord Stanley's grail on multiple occasions? It will go down as one of the great tragedies in team history that Saku Koivu never won a championship in Montreal - the second-longest serving captain of the Habs was a warrior thick and through but never had enough of a supporting cast around him to ascend to the ranks of the Richards, Beliveau, Savard, Bouchard, etc. He endured so much and was a testament to the legacy of what it means to be captain of the Montreal Canadiens. His successor will have figuratively large skates to fill.

Not only did Kovui not have the supporting cast you also have to look at the fact that there were only 6 teams when many of those legends won multiple Stanley Cups. Koivu and the Canadiens now had to try and beat 29 other teams while the others had to beat 5 other teams. Same with the Leafs. Sundin was a great captain for the team and it is a shame he didn't win a Stanley Cup with the Leafs just the same as it is a shame Koviu didn't win it in Montreal. Koviu is one of the classiest and most respected players ever even as a Leafs fan I always respected Koviu. However Koviu definitely isn't as talented as those Montreal legends.

[30ranfordfan]

I like that paragraph :)

I don't think our perceptions of the man are all that different, I'm just more inclined to put a negative spin on it.

No question he is the best that team has offered fans, in the post-Roy era of the team.

I'm not a Montreal fan..... but I've got a ton of respect for that franchise. Montreal doing well never upsets me. I just think the post-Roy era in Montreal has been nothing but dissapointment.... and Koivu is player #1 that I'll always associate with it.

In the era of lowered expectations, Saku Koivu remains the greatest of all Habs post-Patrick Roy. None played harder or was as prolific at the same consistent level. He always elevated his game in the playoffs, putting up 53 points in 60 games, not too shabby a figure, and was clutch in the latter stages of the Boston series in 07-08. One can plausibly argue that he never should have been more than a second-line centre - that having him in the spotlight as a first-liner was more than he could carry - but he never once complained or said, "This is too much." He simply stepped up and did his best with what was given to him by some pretty bad GMs.