Rosehill

[Samifan]

After taking that bonehead additonal penalty that could have cost the Flyers their first points of the season, I really hope that he will be in the pressbox serving Pepsi and Popcorn to Homer and the Boys on Friday.

 

Berube spoke of holding players accountable in his promotion presser, well here's his chance.

 

 

[doom88]

I think Berube meant accountable to the team, player to player. Either way, Rosehill's roster status will depend if we need muscle in the lineup more than a single bone headed play. Now if he becomes a liability, he will be in the press box.

I'd rather see the teaching opportunity mentality over punishment for a first offense.

[Samifan]

@doom88- I understand what your saying, I am just not sure now much coaching you do for someone that plays 4 minutes a game. I am not a fan on him taking a roster spot because he serves such a limited purpose. I would rather have Newbury in the line-up.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Samifan

[PhilsFanDrew]

After taking that bonehead additonal penalty that could have cost the Flyers their first points of the season, I really hope that he will be in the pressbox serving Pepsi and Popcorn to Homer and the Boys on Friday.

 

Berube spoke of holding players accountable in his promotion presser, well here's his chance.

 

I totally agree.  If I were GM I would have released him today.   He doesn't provide anything this team needs right now.  

[Samifan]

I totally agree. If I were GM I would have released him today. He doesn't provide anything this team needs right now.

 

Drew- Mr.Snider is not interested in your opinion  

 

Per Snider, the Flyers MUST have someone on the roster that fills a role from the 70's, is a defensive liability and can't take a regular shift.

[Jmdodgesrt4]

I have no problem with what he did. He responded to what happened to kimmo. Wrong time? Maybe. But he was standing up for his team mate. That's the first time so far I saw a player going out of his way to make a point to the other team. I like it. Just wrong timing. If you noticed the team from there went after players who took liberties there after.

[jammer2]

  If any bone headed move deserved a spanking.....

[radoran]

  If any bone headed move deserved a spanking.....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4aGYq4bz10

 

[pilldoc]

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Bill-Meltzer/Meltzers-Musings-Rosehill-Rules-and-Quick-Hits/45/54691#.UlaU1xDhEnI

 

Here is the 2nd part of the article from the one I started a new thread with.  Special thanks to @fan4ever for posting in shoutbox.  Meltzer make some very valid points for which I totally agree with .

 

ROSEHILL AND THE 'ACCOUNTABILITY' ISSUE

Jay Rosehill's actions in leaving the penalty box to jump into the fray at center ice were very short-sighted and potentially hurtful to his team. His heart was in the right place -- he saw Rinaldo get outnumbered at center ice, and wanted to defend his teammate -- but his head was not. Common sense did not prevail.  (Agree.  If The Chief wants to send a message to his team, then IMO he needs to bench Rosehill for 1, 2 or 3 games)

In the aftermath, I'm sure there was no happier person in the arena than Rosehill that the Flyers killed off the four-minute penalty and went on to win the game. No player, especially one who plays Rosehill's role as an enforcer and receives sparing ice time, wants to be responsible for putting his team in the predicament that he caused.

There was a lot of postgame talk about accountability for the player. One local newspaper columnist asked Berube if he had any "punishment" planned for the player (prompting the now-famous "What do you want me to do, spank him?" response from the Chief).

Quite frankly, it was an odd way to phrase the question and a pointless one to ask. (Bold is mine, is it me but are you guys getting sick and tired of the beat writes and media that cover this team?)  Rosehill knows what he did wrong and that, as someone who rides the cusp of being the 12th forward or a healthy scratch on any given night, he can ill-afford to take bad penalties (especially blatant ones after he's already put his team shorthanded for two minutes on a marginal call that went against him due his role on the ice).

What is the proper way for the coaching staff to handle the situation? It needs to be handled internally, as I am sure it was. Neither Berube nor new assistant coach Ian Laperriere are hesitant to deliver a straight-to-the-point message to a player.

Both Laperriere and Berube understand what happened and can relate to similar situations in their own role-playing careers where they acted before thinking. Berube was a tough-as-nails enforcer and Laperriere as a physical-and-gritty checking liner who was never shy about dropping the gloves. In their combined NHL playing experience of over 2,000 regular season games, there were most certainly many situations where they overstepped their bounds and took extra minor penalties they soon regretted.

The number one rule for hockey tough guys is that it's fine to drop the gloves and fight, but just don't leave your team shorthanded if at all possible.

It was sufficient for one of the coaches (more likely assistant coach Laperriere) to privately speak to Rosehill, saying he understands why the player did what he did but the coaching staff never again wants to see him leave the penalty box if and when a similar situation arises. After reiterating the team's expectations of the player, the coach most likely closed the short discussion with a word of encouragement.

Rosehill knows that he owes it to his teammates not only to put his own body on the line to defend them physically but also to be trustworthy in picking his spots when to do so. He has to look his teammates in the eyes after the game and the next day at practice.

To expect Berube or a member of his coaching staff to publicly humiliate his own already-embarrassed player shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of management dynamics, much less the way hockey coaching works. Even if Berube planned to fine Rosehill or scratch him next game as a direct result of the incident, he wasn't about to announce it publicly (nor should he).

To be honest, Rosehill probably should not have been playing at all in the Florida game. Panthers enforcer Krys Barch was scratched for the game. Kris Newbury, who acquitted himself pretty well in limited ice time in the Carolina game on Sunday, probably should have been dressed for the Florida game.

Furthermore, unless Paul Bissonette (who has completed his three-game NHL suspension) dresses for Friday's game, there is not a compelling reason for the Flyers to dress Rosehill against the Coyotes. While Rosehill -- contrary to what some have said and written about him -- is capable of skating a few non-fighting shifts per game on the fourth line without hurting the team, Newbury is the more versatile player of the two. Additionally, while he's not a heavyweight or as proficient of a fighter like Rosehill, Newbury is another player who is not the least bit reluctant to get involved in fisticuffs.

Scratching Rosehill for Newbury has nothing to do with "establishing accountability" for what happened in the third period on Tuesday. It's simply the better lineup decision from a hockey standpoint, at least in my own opinion.

 

I think Meltzer is spot on here.  Very good article.  Again @fan4ever....thank you for sharing.  Hope you don't mind I posted it in a thread for ya.

[CoachX]

@Jmdodgesrt4

 

I agree. Kimmo was practically getting his head slammed into the ice earlier and I saw this the same way. Yeah it was bad timing but at least he was doing something.

 

I wonder what happens if you punish a guy like Rosehill for this? Does the rest of the team think twice before defending one another?

 

 

"Never worry about legal consequences when it is time to go to guns"

[radoran]

@Jmdodgesrt4

 

I agree. Kimmo was practically getting his head slammed into the ice earlier and I saw this the same way. Yeah it was bad timing but at least he was doing something.

 

I wonder what happens if you punish a guy like Rosehill for this? Does the rest of the team think twice before defending one another?

 

 

"Never worry about legal consequences when it is time to go to guns"

 

Now that it has been made an issue, they will make every effort to not have any "punishment" be obvious.

 

I expect Rosehill to dress and Berube may even start him.

 

That said, you don't need guys being a Clarkson or a Rosehill in that situation "defending" their teammates. Getting a suspension and/or an extra penalty kill for your team is almost always a bad thing.

[CoachX]

That said, you don't need guys being a Clarkson or a Rosehill in that situation "defending" their teammates. Getting a suspension and/or an extra penalty kill for your team is almost always a bad thing.

 

you are probably right, but I will almost always disagree with you on this point. I am of the opinion that you let the opposition know that you don't take liberties with your skill players. I'm sure there are smarter ways to do it and i hope that it doesn't cost the team. When the crucial part of the season comes, and your opponent knows your skill players are open targets, bad things happen.

[radoran]

you are probably right, but I will almost always disagree with you on this point. I am of the opinion that you let the opposition know that you don't take liberties with your skill players. I'm sure there are smarter ways to do it and i hope that it doesn't cost the team. When the crucial part of the season comes, and your opponent knows your skill players are open targets, bad things happen.

 

The best revenge is winning the game. If taking that action puts the other team in a position to tie and/or win the game - and this did - it's worse for the team than not "stepping up" for teammates.

 

If Rosehill's double minor had cost them - thankfully it did not - he'd be in the press box without a second thought.

[CoachX]

@radoran

 

I have no doubt....

 

But what if it had been Schenn or Simmonds that stood up for a teammate and took a stupid penlaty?

[radoran]

@radoran

 

I have no doubt....

 

But what if it had been Schenn or Simmonds that stood up for a teammate and took a stupid penlaty?

 

What if Rosehill had a hat trick?

 

What's the point of your hypothetical? Should Schenn and/or Simmonds see "discipline" for taking a stupid penalty? Sure. And they would.

 

But nobody questions whether they should be on the ice because both of them are productive members of the team, not borderline players.

 

Rosehill has 16 penalty minutes on the season. He has three hits in 13:50 of ice time over 20 shifts in three games. Zero shots.

 

Brayden Schenn had a goal on four shots, 19 shifts and 16:59 of ice time against Florida.

 

Wayne Simmonds 11 PIM, 12 hits, six shots on 78 shifts in over 60 minutes of ice time this season.

[aziz]

When the crucial part of the season comes, and your opponent knows your skill players are open targets, bad things happen.

Does it really, though? More and more that seems like one of those assumed truisms that don't hold up when you really look at it, that feel right until you start looking at how things actually work. I mean, Detroit hasn't dressed a tough guy to protect their stars since Darren McCarty. and even he was a 40 point player at one point. Chicago had one guy last season with more than one PIM per game, while the Flyers had nine. Who is doing the protecting out in LA?

I'm having a tough time finding an actual correlation between this protector thing and a team's success. It feels like something that should be important, that should have real impact... Except datsyuk and zetterberg don't actually spend their nights getting beat down by opposing teams who know Detroit has no specific answer. Kane and toews don't seem to have to dedicate a lot of attention to fending off thugs looking to take liberties. It just doesn't seem to work like that. From there, guys like Rosehill are literally and entirely a wasted roster spot, the Flyers effectively deciding to only dress 17 skaters. And any time Rosehill spends in the box on a non coincidental call is PK time the team has volunteered to take to no particular benefit.

I can't make it add up.

[intheslot]

With Detroit in the east now just maybe they will have to pick up a goonish type player.just saying !!

[ruxpin]

What's the point of your hypothetical? Should Schenn and/or Simmonds see "discipline" for taking a stupid penalty? Sure. And they would.
 
But nobody questions whether they should be on the ice because both of them are productive members of the team, not borderline players

 

Maybe--not sure--the point is that if it had been Schenn or Simmonds it's unlikely that a reporter asks "Are they going to be punished?"

 

They're NOT borderline players, as you point out, so I think the answer to this question is fairly obvious.   I think the reporter's question almost implies, "what the hell is that guy even doing here?"   

 

If that's the implied question, I would prefer that the reporter simply ask it.  I'd like to hear the answer to that.  But Meltzer's right that the "punishment" question was a bit silly.

[radoran]

Maybe--not sure--the point is that if it had been Schenn or Simmonds it's unlikely that a reporter asks "Are they going to be punished?"

 

They're NOT borderline players, as you point out, so I think the answer to this question is fairly obvious.   I think the reporter's question almost implies, "what the hell is that guy even doing here?"   

 

If that's the implied question, I would prefer that the reporter simply ask it.  I'd like to hear the answer to that.  But Meltzer's right that the "punishment" question was a bit silly.

 

I'll bet, because there's no way of knowing, that Sielski would have asked the same thing if someone else had caused the Flyers to endure a four minute power play in the third period of a 2-1 hockey game in the first appearance of a coach who's primary attribute for taking the job was "holding players accountable."

 

It's called "the story" because the team made it "the story" by, once again, insinuating that the previous coach wasn't "holding players accountable." Berube then becomes the accountabilibuddy for the team.

And in his first game there is an accountabilibuddy moment - will Rosehill be accountabilibuddiable? It's a stupid question to ask because it's never going to be answered publicly, not because there's no "story" there to back it up.

 

Hell, Seravalli used the same incident as the lead to his story.

[ruxpin]

It's called "the story" because the team made it "the story" by, once again, insinuating that the previous coach wasn't "holding players accountable." Berube then becomes the accountabilibuddy for the team.

And in his first game there is an accountabilibuddy moment

 

Yeah, you make a very good argument put in that context.   

[radoran]

Yeah, you make a very good argument put in that context.   

 

It's really a problem with how the organization* knee-jerk operates.  Listening to the (Flyers-paid) announcers, one gets the impression that if Berube is "bringing" all the things they say to the table - accountability, someone the team "wants to play for" - that Laviolette was sitting in the corner with a pacifier and a rattle with absolutely no control over "the room."

 

They said Berube's idea was to get more pucks on net and have pressure in front. What the hell was Laviolette's plan, then?? They say Berube will "hold players accountable". What the hell was Laviolette doing?? They say players won't come back to the bench after "taking a shift off" and have to face Berube - who was on the exact same bench they came back to after apparently taking shifts off before. For that matter, WHO WAS TAKING SHIFTS OFF!?!?

 

The only problem I have with Laviolette's dismissal is that it came either five months too late or about a month early.

 

But one can say "it was just time for a change" without over'splaining. For a team owned by one of the largest media companies in the world, they seem to have precious little idea how to deal with the media.

 

 

* term used loosely

[ruxpin]

For a team owned by one of the largest media companies in the world, they seem to have precious little idea how to deal with the media.

 

Given the fact they're owned by Comcast, I'm a little surprised they didn't tell Lavi

 

"We'll be by to fire you sometime between 10:30 am and 4:00 pm on November 4.   Please be there at that time."