Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
OBXer

New Captain Poll

The New Captain Poll  

43 members have voted

  1. 1. Who WILL be chosen as the Hurricanes Next Captain

    • Justin Faulk
      1
    • Elias Lindholm
      0
    • Victor Rask
      0
    • Jeff Skinner
      8
    • Jaccob Slavin
      3
    • Jordan Staal
      3
    • Justin Williams
      28
    • Other
      0
  2. 2. Who SHOULD be the Hurricanes next Captain?

    • Justin Faulk
      1
    • Elias Lindholm
      0
    • Victor Rask
      0
    • Jeff Skinner
      11
    • Jaccob Slavin
      7
    • Jordan Staal
      0
    • Justin Williams
      22
    • Other
      2


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, remkin said:

 However, when it was pressed a different way, as in was Williams being so ultra new to this squad vs. Jordan and Faulk having been here, toiling and missing playoffs year after year being a factor, he indirectly said that did play into it.

Meanwhile, Jordan got an instant "A" the moment he was traded here, just because of the last name :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I respond to a quote, I want to say that our friend RyaZan from the Russian Federation deserves a lot of credit for his courage in posting here.  I challenge anyone here with French as a second language to go post on one of their Fromage sites.  You'd be melted, shredded, coddled, split and puked up.  :)  I think Ryan does a great job with his English

 

That said, on to the quote...

 

20 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

One "side effect" of Williams not being named might be to lessen any disappointment a young player like Slavin might feel at being bypassed this go round.  The decision might not have hurt Slavin's morale anyways (or his morals ;)), but I can't see how the kid could be disappointed after seeing Williams not named, yet going about his business in a positive fashion, which is how I'm sure he will handle it. 

 

Slavin is fine.  He just got paid.  He needs to concentrate on living up to that contract, and I think he will.  There is plenty of time for him.

 

The co-captaincy thing is still strange to me.  However, I think if they decide to change captains next year (whatever that means), there is a built in reason to do so.  Even if it means a completely new third guy.

 

I also think it is unfair to pile on any of these guys since we are not in the room. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OBXer said:

Addition by subtraction is always confusing

4 A - 1A = 2C +1A = x

What's funny is that when you actually work out the math for that equation the result is: A = C. :lol:

Edited by LakeLivin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll never know how this perplexing decision was made. Does Peters have this much indecision when drawing up a last minute play during a timeout when we're 1 goal down? I don't think its an issue for this team right now. These were 2 of our "leaders" the last few years. But barring one being traded, what if management decides it should go only to one person next year? Now you have to demote a captain, which could definitely cause some friction. Its probably not a big deal, but I think we should have done what 30 other teams are doing and what every team I've been aware of as long as I've followed hockey has done and pick one guy. I guess its done, so we just move on. Outside of many on this board, and Luke DeCock, I'm not too sure anyone is thinking much about it.

 

BTW, I think it was Vancouver, not Florida, that gave the C to Luongo. That departure from tradition lasted one year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, bluedevilcane said:

BTW, I think it was Vancouver, not Florida, that gave the C to Luongo. That departure from tradition lasted one year.

That is my recollection too. 

 

You perfectly summarize my concern with this. Once Cs are out there it is very hard to take them back--on most teams, in most media markets. That being said, BP has made a habit of passing around recognition when earned (the ax, the fire helmet). So there may have been some discussion to the effect of, "We intend to appoint Captains at the start of each year. That doesn't mean you can't earn it two years running. But getting it now is no guarantee of keeping it."

 

I think that even in this vanilla media market (for hockey), pulling it away from either next October is going to be hard and potentially cause problems, unless that kind of caveat was enunciated up front.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, top-shelf-1 said:

That is my recollection too. 

 

 

 

I remember it was indeed Vancouver that gave him the "C."

 

This was an awful decision unless J Willie just came out and said he wouldn't accept it.  Given the type of upstanding person he is that wouldn't surprise me either.  

 

We've seen what giving a "C" to a person in hopes they grow-in to it can mean (E Staal) and frankly it wasn't very impressive watching our "C" glide skate back on defense and overextend himself on shifts and careless penalties. Funny, I don't ever remember Roddy or Ronnie Franchise doing that.  I have nothing against Faulk or Jordan, but is there really anyone that legitimately thinks they are captain material more than J. Willie?  Let the head scratching begin.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, one-timer said:

Funny, I don't ever remember Roddy or Ronnie Franchise doing that. 

Amen, and watching Our Former Captain play against Detroit the other night, I was struck by the fact that he struck more people in that one game - and went to the front of the net more often - than he did either of those things in all his time in Raleigh.

 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, top-shelf-1 said:

Amen, and watching Our Former Captain play against Detroit the other night, I was struck by the fact that he struck more people in that one game - and went to the front of the net more often - than he did either of those things in all his time in Raleigh.

 

 

He was hit or miss.  There were nights where he dominated the game here in Raleigh.   I expect him to come out in full force tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RF on leadership during the pre-game show: "I think the game's changed somewhat too, it's not one guy anymore that's kind of the focal point of your leader.  I think we have a great locker room."   He then mentioned Williams and also Kruger, Nordstrom, and Ward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 9:02 PM, top-shelf-1 said:

BP has made a habit of passing around recognition when earned (the ax, the fire helmet).

 

They even doing any of that stuff this year? Not sure how other teams have handled it but it seems to me that this type of stuff is better coming from/initiated by the players than coaches. Either way...just win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raleighcaniac said:

 

They even doing any of that stuff this year? Not sure how other teams have handled it but it seems to me that this type of stuff is better coming from/initiated by the players than coaches. Either way...just win.

I have no idea, but I hope the novelty has worn off and morphed into WHATEVER IT TAKES. Why that was not made this org's permanent motto after the Cup win, I have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we saw a glimpse of what our former C has morphed into Saturday night, but if you didn't, go back and watch his ethics unfold there on the last goal. No call for that, and must say, I was shocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, KJUNKANE said:

I think we saw a glimpse of what our former C has morphed into Saturday night, but if you didn't, go back and watch his ethics unfold there on the last goal. No call for that, and must say, I was shocked.

You mean his attempted mugging of Slavin? I'm guessing Boudreau told him he has to cut out the lazy stick penalties. So he's gone to the lazy clutch and grab instead.

 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, KJUNKANE said:

Was that Slavin top, I thought it was Kruger he hit in back of head and held him down? Someone should have taken him out.

I thought you meant how the play started in our end. On our last goal, Staal could have been called for holding Slavin; he wrapped him up but Slavin shook him off and got the puck up the ice. I guess you meant their last goal? 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, KJUNKANE said:

Was that Slavin top, I thought it was Kruger he hit in back of head and held him down? Someone should have taken him out.

Kruger certainly wasn't innocent on that play. Kruger had a lock on Eric's stick so he could not be part of the play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slapshot02 said:

Kruger certainly wasn't innocent on that play. Kruger had a lock on Eric's stick so he could not be part of the play.

That whole scrum was a total cluster. But still not as awful as the refs' determination of a good goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ, it was a good goal.  Darling put himself out of position to get back and then the scrum started. Our players were pushing guys all over the crease as well, limiting his chances to get back even if he could.  A team just isn't going to get that call of goalie interference in that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, coastal_caniac said:

I beg to differ, it was a good goal.  Darling put himself out of position to get back and then the scrum started. Our players were pushing guys all over the crease as well, limiting his chances to get back even if he could.  A team just isn't going to get that call of goalie interference in that situation.

The call I saw wasn't goalie interference (although it certainly could have been; the goalie leaving the crease doesn't give other players carte blanche to impede his return). From the NHL Officials Association:

Quote

Rule 78 - Protection of Goalkeeper
The revised crease rule is intended to implement a "no harm, no foul, no video review" standard. The rule is based on the premise that an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed - i.e., goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates more than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

So for starters, it should not have been video reviewed; the refs had to make a decision without visual aid.

 

Regardless of the interference call or non-call, the call I saw missed was the Wild being in the crease before the puck.

Quote

"no attacking player may enter the goal crease with a stick, skate, or any body part before the puck." 

The Wild had guys in our crease after the puck had gone out, meaning they had to get out too. But they were still in it when the biscuit came back through and the goal was scored. And if the Canes had done the same thing, I'd see it the same way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have it on DVR still watch the replay of the last 4 sec of regulation, view facing the goal.  You'll see 12 enter from the left side and repeatedly hit Kruger in the back of the head.  That is what he is talking about.  Had no effect on the play except maybe keeping Kruger nowhere near the crease.

 

Different culture in Minn is what I attribute that to.  I didn't like it but its not something we haven't seen before.  Just not from him, certainly not when he was here.

Edited by hag65

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not replying to anyone specifically here just a general comment - this is the big leagues where there are many games within the game. Calling out Staal for what he did? So what. These are big boys playing for big bucks. This is how the game is played whether anyone approves or not. Now Kruger can't wait to play MN again. Thats as it should be.

Edited by raleighcaniac
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hag65 said:

If you have it on DVR still watch the replay of the last 4 sec of regulation, view facing the goal.  You'll see 12 enter from the left side and repeatedly hit Kruger in the back of the head.  That is what he is talking about.  Had no effect on the play except maybe keeping Kruger nowhere near the crease.

 

Different culture in Minn is what I attribute that to.  I didn't like it but its not something we haven't seen before.  Just not from him, certainly not when he was here.

If I was Staal I would of done the same thing. There was no brutal or vicious attack by Staal other than pushing Kruger's head with his hands. Kruger was holding Staal's stick and wouldn't let go, Fast forward to the 3'10 mark and replayed several times.Nothing vicious there.Kruger and Staal could of had penalties called but more so on Kruger. https://www.nhl.com/hurricanes/video/recap-min-4-car-5-fso/t-277443700/c-53291003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...