100%.
I'm of the unpopular opinion that "The C" hardly even matters.
Then you simply do not understand the culture of a hockey team. 20 guys in a room, there is a pecking order. Sure, guys break into sub groups due to various age, nationality and experience levels, but there is always a unified expectation presented to and understood by the team from its leaders. The "c" is the symbol of the designated voice and approach set to be followed.
It's honestly an extremely limited view to compare the current team only to the 12-14 era of the Kings. Every era is different, every team is different. Cup winning shouldn't be the only definition of success. We just heard from an abundance of players that "this year felt different" compared to the last few years. They felt they were a better team and STILL collapsed in on themselves.
Compare this team to the various other teams around the league and ask why the Kings couldn't do what Winnipeg and Dallas just did. The Kings actually had greater tactical advantages over the Oilers than those teams had over their opponents, yet those teams exhibited a self-belief that allowed them to overcome adversity and not just say "well, obviously we have to do better".
These Kings always fail in the heart department. They don't rise from being knocked down, they don't overachieve. They just think they are prepared, show up and do their best until they get punched in the mouth, then they fly their white flag.
"If everybody is good then nobody has to be great." That’s a much maligned comment that folks have tried to excuse for years as a throwaway line, a non-speak. But look at what happens to this team every stinking year and ask yourself if that isn't actually this entire organizations goddam ethos.
They have lost because they thought they were good, got challenged, then never dared to be great. There is always next year. That comes from within them, its their DNA from some sacred cows respected for soooooo long that it's almost become a religion here.
Leaders are always born, you cannot make them. Its been proven here that you do not learn that skill via osmosis. You can buy as many self-starting team first guys as you can to limit the amount of players that need active leadership. You can break the asset bank to bring in captains from other teams to mitigate that gap. But you can't bring in kids, especially talented ones from a rebuild that likely come with larger egos, or tax the shit out of your Leadership group with acquisitions like Fiala and Dubois, without requiring somebody to do the work.
We have seen so many occasions were new players and kids have had a lot of difficulty assimilating here. Players just admitted that they felt closer this year - likely due to the "right" kinds being brought in with former Cup winners and team first guys making MUCH bigger splashes than the over-priced big fish. Why? They didn't need somebody to lead them.
Is Kopitar a terrible captain? I don't know. But sure as shit everyone of his teams fails the same way for the same reasons, and it's always heart and character. Those are the most obvious intangibles whose absence you can perceive from losers. Coming back from behind, finding new ways to win and overcoming obstacles are the most obvious intangibles you see in winners, and they do not happen here.
Whether anybody refuses to criticize Kopitar or not, it would take somebody with very limited understanding to say that it does not matter and that a total overhaul of the leadership group wouldn't be the best possible outcome here.