|
|
Post by WhiteTyAffair on Sept 10, 2017 14:24:01 GMT -4
Wildcats are featured on the league website today. They're doing a preview of each team leading up to the season. Interviews with Nic Welsh and Coach Rumble plus a couple other articles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cats75 on Sept 10, 2017 18:37:16 GMT -4
I know team isn't set in stone but does anyone have a captain they would want to start the season or just have Assiant rotating? I'm going to guess Welsh will get the C |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Sept 11, 2017 9:03:15 GMT -4
Normally I don't like having a newcomer be the Captain as I believe it should be somebody that has come up through the system and lived through the highs and lows of the team. However, the team is mostly newcomers this year so one of the 20 YO should probably be the guy. Dunda is not familiar with the Q so he is probably not the best option, but could very well be the best Captain ... Desjardins is in his 4th year ... Welsh is in his 5th year so is the likely choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Sept 11, 2017 9:56:53 GMT -4
Normally I don't like having a newcomer be the Captain as I believe it should be somebody that has come up through the system and lived through the highs and lows of the team. However, the team is mostly newcomers this year so one of the 20 YO should probably be the guy. Dunda is not familiar with the Q so he is probably not the best option, but could very well be the best Captain ... Desjardins is in his 4th year ... Welsh is in his 5th year so is the likely choice. I am with you - ideally you build your culture from within and choose a captain to represent that culture - a great example of that was Christian Gaudet, who in my mind was probably our greatest captain (would be a good thread of its own). That said, the 2016/17 debacle has basically stripped the team to its foundation, with very little leftover of veteran presence from which to maintain any sort of positive culture. Probably looking at outside guys for the C and most of the As this year as we try and re-establish an identity. |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Sept 11, 2017 10:19:27 GMT -4
Normally I don't like having a newcomer be the Captain as I believe it should be somebody that has come up through the system and lived through the highs and lows of the team. However, the team is mostly newcomers this year so one of the 20 YO should probably be the guy. Dunda is not familiar with the Q so he is probably not the best option, but could very well be the best Captain ... Desjardins is in his 4th year ... Welsh is in his 5th year so is the likely choice. I am with you - ideally you build your culture from within and choose a captain to represent that culture - a great example of that was Christian Gaudet, who in my mind was probably our greatest captain (would be a good thread of its own). That said, the 2016/17 debacle has basically stripped the team to its foundation, with very little leftover of veteran presence from which to maintain any sort of positive culture. Probably looking at outside guys for the C and most of the As this year as we try and re-establish an identity. Great Captains we have had over the years were guys like Christian Gaudet as you say, and Dan Hudgin. Stephen Johnson also did a very good job as Captain. IMO, a good Captain is a guy who can go out and change a game when it is needed ... change momentum. Whether it is with a timely goal (Johnson was good at that) or a high energy shift ... or an excellent penalty kill blocking countless shots (Gaudet, Hudgin) ... or big hits. I have never been a believer that your best player should be your Captain ... it should be the guy that gives you 100% every night. There have been a few teams where the Captain was a poor choice. Simon Jodoin was a poor Captain ... and it forced him to do things he wasn't good at ... like fighting. Stephen Johnson also had to a fight a few times when he didn't really want to ... but he was a good captain. Thierry Douville was a poor Captain ... he wasn't a very good Dman ... and all he was really good at was fighting and he wasn't as good as his legend said he was at fighting. He didn't have enough tools to be a Captain, and he was one of those newcomers that was given the Captaincy. Morehouse was a very greasy player that the fans liked but was not a good example of how you play the game ... but he did give you his all every shift. Ettinger was a good captain in that everybody looked up to him and he had everybody's back ... but like Douville, he wasn't a great Dman so had limited skill A guy like Zach Sill was an ideal Captain ... but he was passed over for Matt Eagles ... and Scott Brannon (I think). Both of those guys were decent Captains but not up to what Sill brought. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Sept 11, 2017 16:33:55 GMT -4
I am with you - ideally you build your culture from within and choose a captain to represent that culture - a great example of that was Christian Gaudet, who in my mind was probably our greatest captain (would be a good thread of its own). That said, the 2016/17 debacle has basically stripped the team to its foundation, with very little leftover of veteran presence from which to maintain any sort of positive culture. Probably looking at outside guys for the C and most of the As this year as we try and re-establish an identity. Great Captains we have had over the years were guys like Christian Gaudet as you say, and Dan Hudgin. Stephen Johnson also did a very good job as Captain. IMO, a good Captain is a guy who can go out and change a game when it is needed ... change momentum. Whether it is with a timely goal (Johnson was good at that) or a high energy shift ... or an excellent penalty kill blocking countless shots (Gaudet, Hudgin) ... or big hits. I have never been a believer that your best player should be your Captain ... it should be the guy that gives you 100% every night. There have been a few teams where the Captain was a poor choice. Simon Jodoin was a poor Captain ... and it forced him to do things he wasn't good at ... like fighting. Stephen Johnson also had to a fight a few times when he didn't really want to ... but he was a good captain. Thierry Douville was a poor Captain ... he wasn't a very good Dman ... and all he was really good at was fighting and he wasn't as good as his legend said he was at fighting. He didn't have enough tools to be a Captain, and he was one of those newcomers that was given the Captaincy. Morehouse was a very greasy player that the fans liked but was not a good example of how you play the game ... but he did give you his all every shift. Ettinger was a good captain in that everybody looked up to him and he had everybody's back ... but like Douville, he wasn't a great Dman so had limited skill A guy like Zach Sill was an ideal Captain ... but he was passed over for Matt Eagles ... and Scott Brannon (I think). Both of those guys were decent Captains but not up to what Sill brought. You're measuring it by changing momentum in games and protecting teammates, that's a very minute part of the game, even more so today. We only see about 25% of what a captain does going to games. we don't see what happens on road trips, dressing room and practice. I look at great leaders in the NHL, they are not necessarily the most physical guys or the ones to drop the gloves to protect teammates. Sill might have done the right things on the ice but been an ass to rookies off the ice(just using him as an example), this would make him a poor leader regardless of physical game or defending teammates... |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Sept 12, 2017 8:07:28 GMT -4
Great Captains we have had over the years were guys like Christian Gaudet as you say, and Dan Hudgin. Stephen Johnson also did a very good job as Captain. IMO, a good Captain is a guy who can go out and change a game when it is needed ... change momentum. Whether it is with a timely goal (Johnson was good at that) or a high energy shift ... or an excellent penalty kill blocking countless shots (Gaudet, Hudgin) ... or big hits. I have never been a believer that your best player should be your Captain ... it should be the guy that gives you 100% every night. There have been a few teams where the Captain was a poor choice. Simon Jodoin was a poor Captain ... and it forced him to do things he wasn't good at ... like fighting. Stephen Johnson also had to a fight a few times when he didn't really want to ... but he was a good captain. Thierry Douville was a poor Captain ... he wasn't a very good Dman ... and all he was really good at was fighting and he wasn't as good as his legend said he was at fighting. He didn't have enough tools to be a Captain, and he was one of those newcomers that was given the Captaincy. Morehouse was a very greasy player that the fans liked but was not a good example of how you play the game ... but he did give you his all every shift. Ettinger was a good captain in that everybody looked up to him and he had everybody's back ... but like Douville, he wasn't a great Dman so had limited skill A guy like Zach Sill was an ideal Captain ... but he was passed over for Matt Eagles ... and Scott Brannon (I think). Both of those guys were decent Captains but not up to what Sill brought. You're measuring it by changing momentum in games and protecting teammates, that's a very minute part of the game, even more so today. We only see about 25% of what a captain does going to games. we don't see what happens on road trips, dressing room and practice. I look at great leaders in the NHL, they are not necessarily the most physical guys or the ones to drop the gloves to protect teammates. Sill might have done the right things on the ice but been an ass to rookies off the ice(just using him as an example), this would make him a poor leader regardless of physical game or defending teammates... This is the only view that I have ... I don't get to go into the dressing room. All I can see is what is happening on the ice. And so my opinion is based on that ... what I see. From what I saw ... some were good ... some were bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Sept 12, 2017 8:21:16 GMT -4
You're measuring it by changing momentum in games and protecting teammates, that's a very minute part of the game, even more so today. We only see about 25% of what a captain does going to games. we don't see what happens on road trips, dressing room and practice. I look at great leaders in the NHL, they are not necessarily the most physical guys or the ones to drop the gloves to protect teammates. Sill might have done the right things on the ice but been an ass to rookies off the ice(just using him as an example), this would make him a poor leader regardless of physical game or defending teammates... This is the only view that I have ... I don't get to go into the dressing room. All I can see is what is happening on the ice. And so my opinion is based on that ... what I see. From what I saw ... some were good ... some were bad. That's exactly my point. You might see a guy as a great leader but the other 75% he is terrible. Same for the other way around. |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Sept 12, 2017 8:46:39 GMT -4
I agree ... but all I want to see is how he is on the ice and can he go out and change the game if he needs to. I don't care so much if he is nice to the young guys ... or an inspiring dressing room presence. The game is played and won and lost on the ice. What he says in the dressing room between the 2nd and 3rd has little to do with what is needed in the last five minutes of the game when his team is down by two. It is what he does at that point in the game that matters to me. It may even be in the middle of the game when the team is down 5-0 ... I want him to be able to have a shift that turns the tide ... sparks his team.
To me ... 75% of it is on the ice. If he leads on the ice and his team follows him and is inspired by him ... he is probably doing a good job all around. Most players won't get inspired by a guy that is a dick to them off the ice.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Sept 12, 2017 9:33:12 GMT -4
I agree ... but all I want to see is how he is on the ice and can he go out and change the game if he needs to. I don't care so much if he is nice to the young guys ... or an inspiring dressing room presence. The game is played and won and lost on the ice. What he says in the dressing room between the 2nd and 3rd has little to do with what is needed in the last five minutes of the game when his team is down by two. It is what he does at that point in the game that matters to me. It may even be in the middle of the game when the team is down 5-0 ... I want him to be able to have a shift that turns the tide ... sparks his team. To me ... 75% of it is on the ice. If he leads on the ice and his team follows him and is inspired by him ... he is probably doing a good job all around. Most players won't get inspired by a guy that is a dick to them off the ice. I get what you are saying and agree that on ice contribution is part ... but I think 75% is too high ... way too many factors in being a good captain that we can never see ... now obviously at some point if the player can't pull his weight on the ice, constant turnovers, bad penalties, etc his effectiveness as a leader will be undermined ... |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Sept 12, 2017 10:27:36 GMT -4
I agree ... but all I want to see is how he is on the ice and can he go out and change the game if he needs to. I don't care so much if he is nice to the young guys ... or an inspiring dressing room presence. The game is played and won and lost on the ice. What he says in the dressing room between the 2nd and 3rd has little to do with what is needed in the last five minutes of the game when his team is down by two. It is what he does at that point in the game that matters to me. It may even be in the middle of the game when the team is down 5-0 ... I want him to be able to have a shift that turns the tide ... sparks his team. To me ... 75% of it is on the ice. If he leads on the ice and his team follows him and is inspired by him ... he is probably doing a good job all around. Most players won't get inspired by a guy that is a dick to them off the ice. What happens on the ice is in large part driven by what goes on off the ice. You have a bunch of teenagers far from home, having a good captain(and obviously other good leaders also) plays a big part in creating an atmosphere where they feel part of something and are in the right frame of mind each night. Part of that is team social activities, veterans including 16-17 year olds in the group or groups. Another part is how those veterans treats rookies in front of the team, I have heard of certain teams where the leaders crapped on the young guys to the point where they were afraid to make mistakes and made then ineffective. Leadership is also showing the work ethic off ice that leads to wins on the ice...curfew the night before a game and no drinking(the night before games) as well as doing the work in the gym, putting in the effort in practice. That all shows up on the ice, sooner or later. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 14:17:45 GMT -4
Sill would have been the perfect Captain. He was a warhorse on the ice, he defended his teammates he hit from first shift to last and never took a shift off. But you don't need to wear the C to be a leader...
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Sept 12, 2017 14:47:03 GMT -4
Sill would have been the perfect Captain. He was a warhorse on the ice, he defended his teammates he hit from first shift to last and never took a shift off. But you don't need to wear the C to be a leader... Sill had off ice issues at the University of Maine, that might be why he was never made captain... |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Sept 12, 2017 15:00:22 GMT -4
I agree ... but all I want to see is how he is on the ice and can he go out and change the game if he needs to. I don't care so much if he is nice to the young guys ... or an inspiring dressing room presence. The game is played and won and lost on the ice. What he says in the dressing room between the 2nd and 3rd has little to do with what is needed in the last five minutes of the game when his team is down by two. It is what he does at that point in the game that matters to me. It may even be in the middle of the game when the team is down 5-0 ... I want him to be able to have a shift that turns the tide ... sparks his team. To me ... 75% of it is on the ice. If he leads on the ice and his team follows him and is inspired by him ... he is probably doing a good job all around. Most players won't get inspired by a guy that is a dick to them off the ice. What happens on the ice is in large part driven by what goes on off the ice. You have a bunch of teenagers far from home, having a good captain(and obviously other good leaders also) plays a big part in creating an atmosphere where they feel part of something and are in the right frame of mind each night. Part of that is team social activities, veterans including 16-17 year olds in the group or groups. Another part is how those veterans treats rookies in front of the team, I have heard of certain teams where the leaders crapped on the young guys to the point where they were afraid to make mistakes and made then ineffective. Leadership is also showing the work ethic off ice that leads to wins on the ice...curfew the night before a game and no drinking(the night before games) as well as doing the work in the gym, putting in the effort in practice. That all shows up on the ice, sooner or later. So then all of those teams we had where the Captain was unable to get his teammates to respond or couldn't do anything on his own to spark the team ... was just a guy that nobody was willing to follow. I don't care how they did it or what they said in the dressing room ... or on bowling night ... it is the results on the ice that matter. That is where you see who is the good captain and who isn't. As long as the players are following and responding on the ice ... thats all that matters. I get the whole off ice thing of making the young guys feel welcome and important ... but if you can't do something on the ice that makes everybody stand up on the bench and take notice ... when it is needed ... then you aren't a good Captain. You may be the best of what we have to choose from ... but that doesn't make you a good captain. I don't know that we have a good choice for Captain in our group ... don't know much about Welsh and Dunda and Desjardins ... time will tell. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Sept 12, 2017 15:23:50 GMT -4
What happens on the ice is in large part driven by what goes on off the ice. You have a bunch of teenagers far from home, having a good captain(and obviously other good leaders also) plays a big part in creating an atmosphere where they feel part of something and are in the right frame of mind each night. Part of that is team social activities, veterans including 16-17 year olds in the group or groups. Another part is how those veterans treats rookies in front of the team, I have heard of certain teams where the leaders crapped on the young guys to the point where they were afraid to make mistakes and made then ineffective. Leadership is also showing the work ethic off ice that leads to wins on the ice...curfew the night before a game and no drinking(the night before games) as well as doing the work in the gym, putting in the effort in practice. That all shows up on the ice, sooner or later. So then all of those teams we had where the Captain was unable to get his teammates to respond or couldn't do anything on his own to spark the team ... was just a guy that nobody was willing to follow. I don't care how they did it or what they said in the dressing room ... or on bowling night ... it is the results on the ice that matter. That is where you see who is the good captain and who isn't. As long as the players are following and responding on the ice ... thats all that matters. I get the whole off ice thing of making the young guys feel welcome and important ... but if you can't do something on the ice that makes everybody stand up on the bench and take notice ... when it is needed ... then you aren't a good Captain. You may be the best of what we have to choose from ... but that doesn't make you a good captain. I don't know that we have a good choice for Captain in our group ... don't know much about Welsh and Dunda and Desjardins ... time will tell. First, a lot of winning and losing in junior has to do with talent on the ice. At this level that's 75-80%. Leadership and coaching can get you the other 20-25% IMO. So you can't equate leadership purely in terms of winning and losing. Obviously a leader that is great off but can't do his part on the ice can't be a great leader... |
|
