Bruins, Why no captain from 1967-1973?

[ForsbergForever]

Bucyk had the C for 66-67 but lost it until 1973 when he resumed the captaincy. So my question is why were they without a captain for the bulk of their glory days. I can understand Bobby Orr being too young/shy to want it that early in his career but if Bucyk wasn't the guy why not Esposito or Mackenzie or another vet?

 

[Killion]

Bucyk had the C for 66-67 but lost it until 1973 when he resumed the captaincy. So my question is why were they without a captain for the bulk of their glory days. I can understand Bobby Orr being too young/shy to want it that early in his career but if Bucyk wasn't the guy why not Esposito or Mackenzie or another vet?

Boston didnt have an "Official Captain". Three Assistants. Bucyk however as the Elder Stateman was the first to grab the Stanley Cup, afforded such as the most Senior of the 3 Assistants. He took Ceremonial Face-Offs, was generally the "face of" the Bruins. Orr shunned leadership roles period or perhaps more accurately any role that put an 'A' or 'C' on his jersey. Different era, times. He led by example. Same with Cheevers. A quiet team.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Orr shunned leadership roles period or perhaps more accurately any role that put an 'A' or 'C' on his jersey. Different era, times. He led by example. Same with Cheevers. A quiet team.

Different time and era, but I have a lot of respect for Orr's choice. The "C" is often handed out too quickly these days to the best player on the team no matter their age or experience. However, its also not the be all end all. Many players have been leaders without ever wearing a C or A and led because of their work ethic, dedication and experience. I think its more difficult these days to give a grizzled veteran the C because they are often moving from team to team for playoff runs, especially if they are still good players. Better to give it to the younger franchise player who will be around for awhile.

 

[Big Phil]

Still love the story told by Orr the first time he met Bucyk. He said: "Hello Mr. Bucyk." Johnny responded by: "You don't call me Mr. Bucyk, you call me John or Chief." That tells you the respect he had. While he didn't have a number Bucyk was the captain unofficially. Of course Esposito and Cheevers and such had great roles as leaders too.

 

[Crosbyfan]

All posts seam accurate from my recollection, but I never did understand the missing "C" given Bucyk's stature on the team. If I had to guess it would have been Bucyk's choice but don't know what the thinking was behind it.

Orr of course was a leader, almost from day one and despite the shyness as that disappeared when he stepped on the ice.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Boston didnt have an "Official Captain". Three Assistants. Bucyk however as the Elder Stateman was the first to grab the Stanley Cup, afforded such as the most Senior of the 3 Assistants. He took Ceremonial Face-Offs, was generally the "face of" the Bruins.

Alternate captains. Alternate.

This doesn't really answer the question, though. If Bucyk had the C before and after this period, and was considered the senior A during this period, and did the things the C would generally do during this period, why was he not the C with two alternates, rather than the team having three alternates?

 

[Killion]

Alternate captains. Alternate.

... yes yes, Alternates' it is. And no idea why. Ive looked for backfill, explanations, cant find a thing. Just that Johnny Bucyk talks of the team being stacked with stars, veterans & leaders so perhaps it was a case of Equality, Fraternity & Liberty in pursuit of their Dynastic Ambitions. However unlike Napolean, those ideals were strictly adhered to hence the 3 Alternates as opposed to one transcendent leader.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Bucyk quoted on HOF site

"Although I was wearing an 'A', I was still the captain because we had three assistants that year and I was the number one. I don’t know what the difference was except I had an 'A' instead of a 'C', but I was presented the Stanley Cup on behalf of the team in Boston. In those days, the captain took the Cup and skated around the rink and I got the opportunity to do that, right in my home rink. It was a thrill I’ll never forget. It was a big honour. In those days, you couldn’t take the Cup home with you but just to have a picture of me with the Stanley Cup was outstanding."

It seems he was not sure either.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

... yes yes, Alternates' it is. And no idea why. Ive looked for backfill, explanations, cant find a thing. Just that Johnny Bucyk talks of the team being stacked with stars, veterans & leaders so perhaps it was a case of Equality, Fraternity & Liberty in pursuit of their Dynastic Ambitions. However unlike Napolean, those ideals were strictly adhered to hence the 3 Alternates as opposed to one transcendent leader.

Seems as reasonable an explanation as any. I guess the question might be, was this setup the desire of the players, or was it determined by the coaching staff?

 

[pappyline]

Very strange. Bucyk played the role but wasn't given the C.

Bruins are not the only team to go without a captain for long periods. Blackhawks also did it. Pilote was captain from 61-68. No captain in 68-69. Stapleton in 69-70. No captain from 70-75. Martin and Mikita were co-captains in 75-76. Martin, Milita and Magnusson in 76-77. It seemed they just wanted to piss off Hull & Mikita. Hull was the logical choice to replace Pilote and was the leader of that team even without the C but they even took away his "A" when he held out for more money in 69-70. Mikita was the next obvious choice but they gave it to Stapleton in 69-70 but took it away from him in 70-71. Weird management of that team.

 

[DJ Man]

Stapleton lost his captaincy during a contract holdout as well.