Is Gary Rocking a Jersey Foul?

This is Gary. We met him down by the glass in San Jose, before the Canucks came out for their warmup. You'll notice that Gary is wearing a Roberto Luongo jersey with the C on it.

Gary spawned a hearty debate amongst our group (a group which included myself, Skeeter, our wives, San Jose fan Art, and Kari, our Worst Contest Ever winner) over whether or not this was a foul. If you're wearing a player's jersey with a C on it, and that player never wore the C, that's a foul. There's actually a square on Jersey Foul Bingo for this exact foul. But Luongo is a special case, right? You see, while Roberto Luongo was the captain of the Canucks last year, he was forbidden by the NHL from actually wearing the C on his chest because he's a goalie. By the letter of the letter law, he never wore the jersey Gary is wearing, and that's a foul. That said, Luongo was the captain, and probably should have been able to wear the C on the ice. And, as Art pointed out, he actually did, once: in the 08-09 team photo. Is that enough to give this one a pass?

I've never cared for the practice of sneaking pictures of jersey fouls, because I don't like taking sneaky photos of people and putting them on the Internet in order to make fun of them. Doesn't seem right. With that in mind, I approached Gary for a fully honest pic, his opinion on the matter, and to find out whether or not he put the C on the jersey himself, perhaps as some sort of protest against a silly league rule. Unfortunately, he couldn't remember if he bought the jersey that way or not.

Gary was a good sport about the whole thing. He told me that he thought it wasn't a foul (he was biased). His friend Sandeep, however, agreed with me. "Dude," Sandeep said, "You're a foul."

Maybe he is. What do you guys think?

Roberto Luongo's Return to Form

The captaincy mitigated Luongo's ability to take the overserious Vancouver media lightly.

Last Wednesday, Roberto Luongo appeared on the Team 1040 morning show with Scotty Rintoul and Jason Botchford. Among other topics, he talked about winning streaks, shootouts, and first star salutes. It was innocuous. Then, towards the end of the telephone interview, Jason Botchford asked an interesting question. "I find that you're having a lot more fun," he said, "Do you feel that way as well?"

Luongo's response was fascinating to me:

"I try to have fun every time I go out there. You know, maybe I try to have more fun with you guys, that might be a difference. But, I mean, playing the game has always been fun for me. That's not gonna change or has changed this year. I think I'm trying to be more loose in the locker room around the media, and not take it so seriously as I have in the past."

It's interesting that, in his response to a much more open-ended question, Luongo zeroed in on his approach to the media. I think it speaks to a few things:

First, as much as we think we know these guys, we really don't. We piece together our picture of athletes like Roberto Luongo from soundbytes and speculation, long articles drawn from short statements (much like this piece). And that's not to say that anyone is being dishonest--only that we're not getting the full picture. How can we? Outside of games, we only see Luongo in his interaction with the media, which is a little like only seeing somebody in their interaction with the department of motor vehicles. Seeing how someone deals with a necessary nuisance will only give you a limited perspective, and if you're not careful, you'll mistakenly assume it's a larger picture than it is. In this case, Luongo appears to have fully changed because his interactions with the media--the only interactions we see--have changed.

Second, I was wrong. The captaincy really did affect Luongo negatively. That said, it's not for the reasons you might think. He wasn't burdened by the responsibility of leadership, and by all accounts, he did a fabulous job. He remains a vital part of the leadership core and definitely has the tools to lead that room. However, he wasn't prepared for the sudden change in his relationship with the media. Suffice it to say, he didn't like it.

I Watched This Game: Canucks vs. Kings, October 9, 2010

Canucks 1 - 2 Kings (SO)

I Watched This Game is a recurring feature on Pass it to Bulis that records the insights and observations of two guys that watched a hockey game (sometimes with other guys).

The Canucks kicked off their fourtieth season with a ceremony that was unlike any other ceremony. How so? Well, for one thing, I really enjoyed it, and for another, it wasn't too long. So kudos to them for that. I'm not nearly old enough to recognize most of those players (save Orland Kurtenbach, but that's mainly because of a certain "blog" run by certain "bloggers"). I watched the ceremony with my father-in-law, however, and he seemed to recognize everyone. This is because he is the age of the universe. The ceremony was perfectly sentimental, perfectly aware of history, and perfectly timed to hold peoples' interest, especially considering they just want to watch some frickin' hockey.

Speaking of hockey, there was an NHL regular season game tonight. I watched it. I watched the Hell out of it. And, even though we lost in a shootout (I hate shootouts when we lose them), I was so hecka pumped to watch a game that mattered that the final score barely did. Here are some things:

• What a way to unveil the captain. I thought it might happen exactly like that, but, since I didn't tell anyone, I can't brag that I predicted it. But I did.
  
• Henrik was the right choice. Before the game, CBC cut to Henrik and Daniel in their dressing stalls and they both had As. I nearly lost my mind when I realized Kesler might be chosen captain, and not because I don't like him--because he's a turd. Everybody knows it. When the Euro guys are cheering against you in the Olympics because they know you'll be unbearable if you win, you're probably a turd. Kes is, therefore, a turd, and while he's our beautiful turd, well, you don't make a turd captain. If it's awesome enough, you try to show it to your wife, but that's all you do.
  
• Best moment of the ceremony: when Henrik seemingly forgot he was supposed to go become the captain.
  
• The Canucks defense was more physical tonight than I've ever seen them. Ballard and Hamhuis both came across the blue line for incredible open-ice hits. Edler was hitting like in last year's playoffs, and Bieksa and Alberts were taking the body on a regular basis. This top-six looked good together, and they looked mean. The best hit goes to Hammy, who leveled Ryan Smyth on a 2-on-2.
  
• On Alex Edler's headshot: it was a headshot. But, if you're reaching like that, you leave yourself wide open to get hit. It's stupid and you're going to get hurt. Keep playing that way, Edler.
  
• I thought Kopitar's chance was a sure goal, too. I remember David Backes scoring that exact goal twice against us last year. This year, with Luongo playing deeper, he got across, and Kopitar had nothing to shoot at.
  
• Speaking of Kopitar... oh my goodness his face. The shot of the trainer down on his knees, picking up teeth was unlike anything I've ever seen. I cringed all the cringes.
• On Henrik's player bio, the CBC misspelled Kurtenbach as Kurtenback. At the exact moment I pointed it out, the K changed to an H and everybody treated me like I was a big dumb goofus. Not cool, CBC.
  
• My brother-in-law, a diehard Flames fan and [lovable] loudmouth, drafted Roberto Luongo in his fantasy pool. Hearing him cheer for Canuck saves was a little like getting a backrub from Satan.
  
• More from my brother-in-law: "Kesler's good. Imagine how good he'd be if he was Canadian. He'd be a gold medallist, for instance."
  
• The Ehrhoff goal resulted from one of the most unique power play formations I've ever seen. Rather than having two defensmen at the point, Ehrhoff planted right between the dots, and the other four players formed a diamond around him. It gave everybody room to operate, because the Kings' players had to collapse in to respect Ehrhoff's threat, especially with the Sedins so obviously planning to pass it to him. They totally did.
  
• Mason Raymond's ability to gain the offensive zone and win board battles has gone from unremarkable to remarkable in two short seasons, which is the exact opposite of what happened to The Office.
  
• If you think this year's Canuck team is too similar to last year's, consider that 2 of the 3 guys out on that 4-on-3 penalty kill were acquired this offseason. Hamhuis and Malhotra were incredible on that kill, with Malhotra pressuring the point, and Hamhuis smartly protecting the crease. I don't even remember who the 3rd guy was. Edit: turns out it was Ballard, which only furthers my argument.
  
• I can tell you who it wasn't: Kevin Bieksa. While his minor penalty in overtime didn't cost the Canucks the game-winning goal, it did cost them the chance to play for it. That, coupled with a bad shift in the first period in which he got beat by Anze Kopitar for a scoring chance, then took his first boneheaded penalty of the season (he's on pace for 164), and it's clear that Kevin Bieksa is going to be this season's whipping boy. Whip.

Skeeter here. I wasn't able to watch the full game due to being on a soccer team. Who the heck schedules soccer games during the Thanksgiving long weekend on Canucks opening night? Seriously?

Couple quick thoughts.

• With the caveat that I missed the last half of the game, I thought Bieksa and Hamhuis looked rock solid together. I really like that pairing: Juice and Hammy. I'm also intrigued by Henrik picking Bieksa as one of his alternate captains. As much as Harrison has labelled him the new whipping boy (one game in, Harrison, really?), I'm a Bieksa supporter. I think he'll have a good season and Henrik obviously believes in him.
• I've been pointing out the work of Newell Brown all preseason and Harrison is absolutely right about Ehrhoff's goal being the result of a new and possibly never-before-seen formation. The Sedins weren't actually huge producers on the powerplay last season, but this new set-up (which seems to change from game to game to keep opponents off-balance) seems to really suit their style of play.
• Johnny Quick looked sharp in his old-school pads and mask. In fact, the entire retro look of both teams was fantastic; the only way it could have been more authentic is if they played without helmets.
• One of the only substandard elements to the Canucks season last year was the penalty killing, which hit its low point against the Kings in the playoffs. Take a look at who played the most minutes on the PK tonight, which went a solid 5 for 6, including two minutes of 4-on-3 in overtime. Dan Hamhuis and Manny Malhotra led the way, with 6:45 and 6:30 each, followed by Keith Ballard with 4:24. Peter Schaefer also chipped in 3:36 of penalty killing time. All new arrivals in the off-season because Mike Gillis saw the need and filled it.
• However, one of the main reasons those PK minutes were so high is because the Canucks took too many penalties. Pretty typical for a season opener, actually, as the play will be a little chippy and sloppy until they get into mid-season form.

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.