Roberto Luongo Relinquishes the Captaincy

It looks like the horse is finally dead. After Twitter erupted with news of Luongo giving up the captaincy of the Canucks, the official press release has sealed the deal. Luongo closes the door with some patented Ryan Walters corporate leadership-talk regarding focusing on the "ultimate goal."

Qris and Harrison accurately depicted my stance on the issue with their two posts, so I won't go into it too much, other than to say that it wasn't a necessary change from the team's standpoint, but it may have been a necessary change from a PR standpoint.

The Captain C (captaincy): In Response to Qris, Continuing to Beat That Horse

First things first: Qris, Skeeter, whichever one of you added the "necroequinicide" tag deserves to be patted on the back, hard, and then have that backpatting transition into a solid beating on par with the one the horse is getting. That is hilarious and absolutely unforgivable. Don't do it again. But do. Always do it.

This post is in response to Qris's post. I was originally going to leave it as a comment, but then I kept having things to say. My brain is on fire. This is a rant:

You're right, Qris. Up until now, Skeeter and I have avoided the captaincy talk because we feel similarly. But now that the box is opened, I'm going to rant about the captain's C and about leadership.

What frustrates me is that this whole debate is because we haven't been able to beat the Blackhawks these last two seasons. I'm frustrated that we haven't been able to beat the Blackhawks, too, and I'm especially frustrated because anybody with half a brain will recognize that the Canucks were not better than the Blackhawks the last two seasons. Yes, they lost to a better team. Two years in a row. That will likely continue to happen if the Blackhawks continue to be better than us. That should be the story because that's the only fact that matters. But, if you refuse to face the facts, there's a lot of moronic stories about why it is that this team can't get past the second round. One of the worst is that it's not the talent assembled; it's leadership.

Is it leadership? It's leadership, right? It's probably leadership. It couldn't possibly be that we aren't a good enough hockey team. That would be ludicrous. We've had the best defense in the NHL for the past seventeen seasons! (And seriously, the Vancouver media says that every year.)

Remember the European captain debate? Remember how hard the press beat that horse before Lidstrom won the award? Well gosh darn it, it turns out a European captain can win the Stanley Cup! Of course, it never had anything to do with whether or not the captain was European. It was a stupid, bizarrely racist angle, and a non-story.

The media loves these bogus captaincy stories. Hell, the media loves these status quo non-stories. They love to question anomalies, as though there's a set formula for winning championships (why don't the Canucks just adhere to that?) outside of being the best. My theory: there are some stupid people in the media, and until somebody does something in a way that's never been done, their most oft-repeated line is that it can't be done that way. Again, this is because they are stupid.

Leadership, too, is such an intangible quality. I know a few people who have a Master's in Leadership. It seems to me like this degree might be like having a Master's in Acting. Does it make them better at it? No, natural ability and actual practice does. Does it make them think they're better at it? Frustratingly, yes. Everybody wants to believe there's a formula for this, but, in truth, the formula they're sold on is usually just copying what's worked in the past.

I work for Human Kinetics department of a university. I heard a guy tell me the worst thing about coaching seminars is that the coaches typically just talk about players they've coached, rather than teaching how to be the best coach ever. I'll tell you why that is: there's no formula. It's just experience. So they talk about their experiences.

The sports media forgets this. When we lose, it's because the team leaders weren't leading the right way. Again, there is no right way. For all we know, Luongo has not been leading the wrong way. We just seem him play hockey. The truth is that nobody really knows the right way to lead, but when a team succeeds, we chalk it up to good leadership. If Luongo keeps the C and the Canucks win the Stanley Cup, then it was the right decision to keep the C with him, right? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he's not the best choice. Maybe that's not why we win. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the abilities of the team, could it?

One problem is that we're so influenced by sports movies. We've all seen that kid quote the monologue from "Miracle", inspired as he is. It's an inspirational piece. But come on, is that really why the USA won the gold medal in 1980? It seems that's what the media would have us believe. It's like the players playing the game are secondary to the guy who stands on a soapbox and delivers the pregame speech.

Is it a wonder that the captain is usually the best player on the team? No. It's because playing well is leading. Contributing to a game win is leading. Maybe that's why, when a team is ahead in points, people say they're "leading". Leadership is natural and it has more to do with playing the game well than anything else.

Here's the kicker: for me, leadership has nothing to do with "The C", and ergo, the captaincy means very little. Are you telling me that other team leaders are stifled because they didn't got a little letter stitched onto their jersey? Right. We want Henrik as captain, we want Kesler as captain. Why? Because they'll be the best leaders? No, it's because they play the best. Last season, they were arguably more important to the team than Luongo. That's more than enough leadership.

"The C" hardly matters, other than as an honour to a certain player. Personally, I wish the team would just do it in private. Let the team pick a captain, keep it to themselves. The media doesn't need to know. Don't stitch a C on anybody's jersey. I hate the C. In Vancouver, and other hockey cities, it's a huge well of bogus stories, but, in truth, it means very little. So thanks, Qris, for pointing this out.

Gonna Kill that Horse Dead. Again.

I am so very tired about the captaincy debate. It’s the argument that just won’t die. There’s no end to the people reanimating this horse just to beat it to death again.

But this argument isn’t like the other arguments that won’t die, like abortion, gay marriage, free speech, the Bible or gun control. In this argument, one side is completely oblivious to a fundamental truth that makes most of the discussion seem moot, short-sighted or intellectually dishonest.

Actually, in that vein, it’s EXACTLY like those other things.

So, let’s say tomorrow, August 30, 2010, Luongo is stripped of the captaincy. The C is then given to, for the sake of the argument, Henrik Sedin. Let’s discuss what happens after.

First of all, let’s look at the immediate inane questions asked by the media to Luongo:

“Did you want to keep the C?”
“So are you unsatisfied with the decision by management?”
“Do you think this will give you more time to focus on stopping the puck?”
”Will this affect your role as a leader on the team?”
“Do you believe Henrik will do a good job as a Captain?”
“Do you believe this represented a stance by management on your performance in the playoffs the last two seasons?”
And probably by someone, the dumbest question of all – “Are there any hard feelings between you and management or Henrik?”

Of course, then the season starts. For the first few weeks, it’ll be, “How is Henrik’s captaincy working out?” That will be bad enough. What about the first losing streak, though? General questions by the media and fans:

“Do you feel Henrik’s speaking out enough as Captain?”
“Has the loss of the C negatively affected Luongo’s performance?”
“Was Luongo a better Captain than Henrik?”
“Does Lungo worry that his captaincy is being compared to Henrik’s?”

But then, it was a well-documented fact for the first two seasons that Luongo was here that he was a voice in the dressing room on occasion. He’d speak up when he felt he had to. What happens when he does so after losing the captaincy to Henrik?

“Is Luongo still trying to be Captain?”
”Is Luongo undermining Henrik as Captain?”
“Does Luongo not think Henrik is speaking up enough?”
“Luongo resentful of new Captain?”

It’s just a matter of time before the media starts pretending there’s an internal struggle between new Captain and old.

But no, you say! No, the Vancouver sports media are well known for their responsibility and for their refusal to give in to scurrilous rumors, they’re steadfast guardians of truth who would never go for the sexy scandal yeah you feel stupid even finishing the sentence don’t you?

Don’t believe the Vancouver media would stir up such a ridiculous story? Look into the stories they ran when Naslund and Linden were still teammates from 2006-2008. As soon as Naslund’s scoring went down, the real serious criticism about his captaincy began, and with it, there was supposed friction between Naslund and Linden. Of course, these rumors never amounted to anything but a distraction.

This time, you’d have one player actually stripped of the C, where it’s given to another player. This story is more than just a team with two Captains, it’s got intrigue! It’s so sexy, how can you NOT make it up?

But wait, you say! This is only a one-to-two-month story! No way this would come out in the playoffs, where it counts!

Of course it will. As soon as the Canucks make it to the third round, it’ll be all about how Luongo couldn’t lead the Canucks this far, but Henrik did. Even if Luongo is lights out in the playoffs, it’ll only prove to some people that taking the C away was a good thing, and how easy can it be to concentrate when the better you do, the more justified people feel about talking smack?

But wait, you say! Why should the potential mumblings of some disingenuous news sources and idiot fans affect the decision, anyway?

Oh, I don’t know, maybe because that’s the whole basis of taking the C away from Luongo? No one with any real intelligence questions the man’s leadership, integrity, dedication or sheer will. The only reason people have suggested removing the C is because it “poses too much of a distraction” and makes him lose focus.

By that logic, discovering that removing the C would cause MORE of a ridiculous media storm and cause MORE of a distraction completely destroys the argument that we’re doing it for his mental acuity. And of course, the people who argue he doesn’t deserve the C by merit are just jerks.

But wait, you say! Luongo is a dedicated professional, and has the ability to shut all this out! Why are you acting like he won’t be able to handle the media himself, and we have to protect him from the mean things they might say about him?

There we have it. That, right there, is my point. When Luongo said he wasn’t talking to any of the media pregame anymore, the reaction by sportswriters was to throw a tantrum, because they would have less material. Of course, they lambasted him, and spun it like he was unable to handle the duties of Captain.

Really, what it meant, though, was that he’s more than capable of managing his own psyche. Right there, we were seeing an instance of him dealing with a situation, and he didn’t need any help from anyone else.

Can anyone see him do that, and seriously say, “Luongo wouldn’t admit if the captaincy was too much of a burden, and wouldn’t know how to handle the distractions?” Absolutely not.

Of course, if you disagree, and you think that the media ARE so much of a concern that their constant hounding him is negatively affecting his game, then what makes you think that losing the captaincy would mean he doesn’t have to talk to the media anymore? The media always found him before he was Captain, and they always will after. Removing the C will just make them ask more stupid questions, which, in your mind, will hurt his game.

When it comes down to it, no one can statistically or logically back up the claim that Luongo’s captaincy has negatively affected his game, and there certainly isn't any way to claim that losing the captaincy would improve his game. And when you understand that, it’s a short leap to say that the man works hard, is dedicated, and has earned the C. He certainly doesn’t deserve to lose it.