Why is captaincy determined by skill?

It usually seems this way. Giroux is a perfect example of a good mix of leadership and ability, but there are to many captains out there who shouldn't have a A on their jersey, let alone the C. Rick Nash and Ovechkin are perfect examples of poor captains. One wants to get out of town and the other has a rockstar diva complex, great leaders.

It's the coach's responsibility to find who he believes can lead the team not just by example but to motivate the locker room. Maybe coach's feel that if the captain scores, it will make the rest of the team more motivated (yah like that worked in Buffalo this year)? Lead by example.

It could also be that since they are the star, by making them captain, it takes less pressure off the rest of the team if they have a bad game (who does the media put the most pressure on usually? The star and captain).Although this would probably be more of a support to his decision than a deciding factor.

But not every team makes the bad choice of star as captain: Rangers, Jets, Coyotes (unless you really want to consider Doan a star).

Well I disagree with you when you say Giroux's only leadership is scoring. I mean it takes a true leader to go to his coach, basically demand that you should start, and then go out and on your first shift crush Crosby 5 seconds in and later score 30 seconds later.

Why other teams base it on skill, I don't know. I still believe that the captain for the Sabres should have been Paul Gaustad instead of Jason Pominville, although he had a career year.

BQ: I think both series will be finished tonight

Senators win 3-2 in OT

Coyotes win 4-1

obviously if you think giroux doesn't show leadership, then you obviously don't watch the games and don't follow the Flyers. since pronger's injury giroux has basically been the captain, with some help from timonen. Captains is not usually based on skill, but most of them do have good skills as well as leadership.

The Avalanche captain Milan Hejduk is an example of what you think should determine captaincy. He has been with the Avalanche his whole career, he was on the 2001 championship team, he is a leader by example and is just a good guy. Not to mention he is a shootout magician and his wrist shot is as sick as it gets, plus he had a few 30+ goal seasons back in his day,

Fun fact: Hejduk is one of only two remaining active players who were drafted by the Quebec Nordiques. The other is Tim Thomas.

Chris Pronger called him out to step up, and according to various sources from within the team, he did. His on ice performance has been unmatched, and he plays the way his team needs him to. By my accounts, that's what a captain is. You don't have to be vocal, you have to lead (you know, that thing Crosby doesn't do at all).

That's why I think he should be captain, and why so many people believe he will be captain, it has only a little to do with his skill.

BQ Coyotes of course, and Rangers.

Not always true (especially in Edmonton with Horcoff). I think it works out that way because the better players are always on the ice, meaning they can be counted on to raise the rest of the team and answer ask the questions to the ref when needed.

Since we aren't in the locker room we have no idea who might have leadership skills as well as playing skills. We don't really know if it's just their playing skills. But, you're right, it sure appears that way for some teams, though.

BQ: I have the Rangers and the Blackhawks.

Darcy Tucker was way better than Mats Sundin if anybody should be captain it was him actually the only 1st line that is worse than Sundin was Carlo Colaiacovo but he was a rookie and hes way better now

it's not always in pitsburg sidney crosby is a leader not just some stuck up puck hog like ovechkin an for example zedeno chara is a great leader and has not skill but power speed and determination thats wat makes a leader

It's not always that way.