Last night, Union and Blue’s own Lindsay Wilson wrote an article explaining why Brandon Dubinsky should NOT become the captain of the Columbus Blue Jackets. The piece took me aback because, as far as I was aware, most of Columbus was on board for Dubinsky wearing the “C.”
When I opened the article I was skeptical. After writing two articles on Dubinsky myself, I thought nothing would sway me away from that argument. Hell, I was about to hand-stich the “C” on his sweater myself. But as I read it, I started to think. I started to question.
On my ride home, I began to take in consideration Lindsay’s argument. She had made some valid points.
Why would Dubinsky risk suspension and negatively impacting the team over a clean hit? Why would he continue to hit Volchenkov when he was already down. A captain does not do these things. A captain represents the team and that is not the way the Columbus Blue Jackets should be represented.
I wanted to brush it off, throw it away as garbage. But something kept bringing me back to the idea that she was right. I couldn’t shake the feeling. Her article forced me to question my own stance, one I had thought was iron-clad.
After I did, I never felt stronger about it.
Lindsay’s main argument insists that captains don’t make dumb, reckless decisions like Dubinsky did when he engaged in a fight. Was he wrong for doing so? Yes, probably. She says that captains shouldn’t make the kind of decisions that would hurt their team in the long run. She’s right when she said Dubinsky should have gotten suspended.
So why do I insist her points were so well thought out if I disagree with them? It’s not so black and white. Just because you think somebody makes a good point doesn’t mean you have to agree with it. If a writer makes you think, they’ve done their job. Even if you think they’re wrong. They’ve made you question your beliefs and if in the end you still feel the same way, your beliefs are that much stronger. Because you’ve tested them. Because you’ve questioned them.
Lindsay states that Dubinsky’s fight could have been detrimental to the team and was not very captain-like of him. I agree. But I think she’s missing point. You see, the main difference between Brandon Dubinsky and Rick Nash is that Brandon Dubinsky was actually willing to do what he thought necessary, even if it was wrong.
Because it doesn’t really matter what Dubinsky did. It’s that he did it. And I think that’s what Lindsay was missing in her analysis. There were so many times when Captain Nash should have done something, even if it was the wrong thing. So many times an opposing player hit a Jacket, and Nash just stood there, watching.
Rick Nash never stood up as a captain. It’s not about whether what they’re doing is right or wrong, it’s the fact that they’re doing it. And Nash never did anything. How many fights did he get in? How many times did he put his foot down when we would rattle off cringe-worthy losing streaks? He never did anything.
Dubinsky is the anti-Nash. Whether what he did during the New Jersey game was right or wrong, (and for the record, it was probably wrong), it’s that the fact that he did it. He felt, at that time, that it was necessary for the team. So instead of hiding, Dubinsky has emerged as somebody to take action, somebody that is willing to do what it takes (whatever he thinks is necessary), to be the leader, the captain of the team.