radoran Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Given that I am ranting about this in other threads.. Rosehill played nine shifts, 5:42 of ice time and managed one hit on his way to -1 against the Ducks. Yes, in the 5:42 Jay Rosehill was on the ice, the Ducks scored a goal. On the plus side, he didn't take a penalty. On the minus side, the purpose of having Jay Rosehill is to take penalties. Who is Anaheim's "goon"? What is his purpose in that game? Flyers had 12 players with 20 or more shifts to Anaheim's 11. Flyers had two players under ten minutes ice time (Rinaldo 7:04, Rosehill). Anaheim had one (Smith-Pelley 9:50). Want a reason the team might have looked a little sluggish in the third? Because they're covering for not one but two guys the coach doesn't have any faith in playing on the ice, but puts in the lineup anyway. I'd be quite happy to have a guy making half what Jody Shelley made serve popcorn in the press box. I'd be happier if we just got the cap space back. It's more than the empty space Rosehill occupies on the ice and the bench. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I'd agree if I were a Flyers fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 @radoran My only explanation for Berube to play Rosehill, was because this was a home game. Rosehill looked lost out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Dude... Rosehill is a sniper! Just what this team needs in the lineup... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratskull Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) I agree 100%. There is absolutely no reason to have Rosehill in the lineup. If this team is serious about winning, they need to lose that dead weight.If they need someone who cannot score on the fourth line, put Hartnell there and bring back McGinn for the second line. Edited October 30, 2013 by ratskull 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I'm not sure why, but that's not the real problem with the team. if you want to single out a guy, the finger should point right at Giroux. He's stinking up the place with way more TOI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 G had been terrible... Rosehill should not need on the ice. No onene is saying he is the reason we suck but certainly there is a better option within the org... He brings nothing to this team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 · Hidden by brelic, October 31, 2013 - Duplicate Hidden by brelic, October 31, 2013 - Duplicate G had been terrible... Rosehill should not need on the ice. No onene is saying he is the reason we suck but certainly there is a better option within the org... He brings nothing to this team. Link to comment
radoran Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 I'm not sure why, but that's not the real problem with the team. if you want to single out a guy, the finger should point right at Giroux. He's stinking up the place with way more TOI. G had been terrible...Rosehill should not need on the ice. No onene is saying he is the reason we suck but certainly there is a better option within the org... He brings nothing to this team. Actually, I am saying that having him on the bench is a contributing factor to the suckage. Yes. We have a young team that is struggling. And all of the struggling players are being asked to work extra for the benefit of two players the coach clearly has little faith in them as on-ice players. That just doesn't make sense. If you have guys you can reliably put on the fourth line and play 9-12 minutes a night - and I would submit that Adam Hall is a prototypical player of that type - why do you have your goon dressed against a team who has no actual enforcer? Again because they are taking extra shifts and being asked to do more when they haven't yet been capable of doing less, they find themselves having a difficult third period and a 2-0 lead at home turns into a 3-2 regulation loss. And Rosehill was on the ice for one of the three goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Quigster Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Maybe its time for for Giroux to spend a little time in the press box? The guys are a bunch of wimps! The third period in the "Duck's" game should be a good example. What do you think Clarkie? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerrod Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 If you have guys you can reliably put on the fourth line and play 9-12 minutes a night - and I would submit that Adam Hall is a prototypical player of that type - why do you have your goon dressed against a team who has no actual enforcer?Adam Hall should be the guy dressing on the 4th line. He can take face offs, is defensively responsible and can actually play on the PK, and he IS NOT Rosehill. I think you ht it on the head about them carrying the 2 players. It was especially obvious the 3 rd period of the Ducks game that every guy on the ice was just plain tired. I am not sure why Rinaldo's time is being reduced unless it is just fear of penalty calls (not necessarily penalties mind you) as he continues to be the target of weak and just plain wrong calls. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 Adam Hall should be the guy dressing on the 4th line. He can take face offs, is defensively responsible and can actually play on the PK, and he IS NOT Rosehill. I think you ht it on the head about them carrying the 2 players. It was especially obvious the 3 rd period of the Ducks game that every guy on the ice was just plain tired. I am not sure why Rinaldo's time is being reduced unless it is just fear of penalty calls (not necessarily penalties mind you) as he continues to be the target of weak and just plain wrong calls. Believe it or not, the Ducks game was the most minutes for Rinaldo since the Penguins game - his biggest minutes of the year under Berube. Yes, Rinaldo's biggest minutes under Berube came against the Penguins. His minutes were cut when Berube took over and they've never recovered. Rinaldo only has minors in 3 of 11 games this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Okay, which goal was Rosehill on the ice for? I do agree that Hall belongs over Rosehill, but to imply he's the problem is scapegoating in my opinion. I don't buy the forwards got tired because of him, but rather because they're still getting in game shape. Thanks Lavy. How many teams truly roll 4 lines, despite personnel suggesting they could or could not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 Okay, which goal was Rosehill on the ice for? I do agree that Hall belongs over Rosehill, but to imply he's the problem is scapegoating in my opinion. I don't buy the forwards got tired because of him, but rather because they're still getting in game shape. Thanks Lavy. How many teams truly roll 4 lines, despite personnel suggesting they could or could not? Um, the Ducks? So, all the actual "evidence" aside, it's perfectly fine to dress a guy who you don't feel can play more than six minutes and another guy who can't play more than eight and expect the other players to pick up the slack? Why does it matter which goal Rosehill was on the ice for? That's how you get a minus - you're on the ice at even strength when the other team scores.Rosehill isn't "the problem" - Rosehill is A problem. And one of the easiest problems to immediately address. You have players on the roster who are better choices. Period. 12 games into the season, they're still "getting into game shape" and that's the fault of the coach that was fired nine games ago? What was the assistant coach - now the head coach - doing while the team was fat and happy under Lavy? There comes a point at which you can no longer blame the play of guys who are paid millions of dollars to be professional athletes on the departed goalie who was the reason that they were playing bad or the departed coach who was the reason they were playing bad. They're still playing bad. Not in game shape? Not "Lavy's fault" - the professional athletes' fault. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerrod Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 They're still playing bad.For 2 periods, no they were not. The 3rd period was like watching a different team on the ice and that points directly at players playing too many minutes because 1 or 2 players can't skate a regular shift. One of the other reasons is the Ducks are a pretty solid team and they deserve a little credit for stepping up their game too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 For 2 periods, no they were not. The 3rd period was like watching a different team on the ice and that points directly at players playing too many minutes because 1 or 2 players can't skate a regular shift. One of the other reasons is the Ducks are a pretty solid team and they deserve a little credit for stepping up their game too. OK, I think if a team isn't playing 60 minutes, they are playing "bad" Playing "good" for 40 minutes gives you a 3-2 loss. Are there "good things" to take away from that Ducks loss? Things to build on? "Moral Victories" to be had? (Team is 8-3 in moral victories this season and will be in the Moral Stanley Cup Playoffs if they keep it up) Yes, there are. One of which is that Rosehill shouldn't be on the ice. That would be a moral victory right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerrod Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 One of which is that Rosehill shouldn't be on the ice. That would be a moral victory right there. I don't even think Rosehill would argue that with you.......and I damn sure won't..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 I don't even think Rosehill would argue that with you.......and I damn sure won't..... Jus' keepin' it "on topic" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 @radoranSimple. If his -1 was the awesome Grossmann turnover, Rosehill could have been Datsyuk and it wouldn't matter.Also, Getzlaf and Perry played more than all Flyer forwards. They didn't run out of gas, and they were on the road. That's "evidence". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 @radoranSimple. If his -1 was the awesome Grossmann turnover, Rosehill could have been Datsyuk and it wouldn't matter.Also, Getzlaf and Perry played more than all Flyer forwards. They didn't run out of gas, and they were on the road. That's "evidence". Right, but we're not talking about two people, we're talking about the team. Individuals can certainly play more minutes, and your $8M first line guys are expected to play more when you are trying to come from behind on the road. It's why I started out by laying out the relevant statistics:Flyers had 12 players with 20 or more shifts to Anaheim's 11. Flyers had two players under ten minutes ice time (Rinaldo 7:04, Rosehill 5:40). Anaheim had one (Smith-Pelley 9:50). If they were getting 9:50 out of either Rinaldo OR Rosehill, we'd be in a different place. Again, not the sole factor, but IMO certainly a contributing one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Didn't we agree about contributing but not sole factor earlier? I just think he's an irrelevant issue compared to the bigger problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 Didn't we agree about contributing but not sole factor earlier? I just think he's an irrelevant issue compared to the bigger problems. You're spending a lot of effort to say that an "irrelevant issue" should remain on the active bench. If it's "irrelevant" - why do you care so much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I care because I'm a fan of the Flyers. I think there are bigger issues than if and/or how much Rosehill plays. Why aren't pros in shape? Claude Giroux? How to best develop Couturier, the Schenns, and Raffl? What are the top 3 things Berube needs to bring to the team to breed long-term success? Is this all a huge fluke? Why is the NHL allowing so much obstruction again? Why isn't the NHL calling more diving, and at the right guys?Basically, who really gives a **** about Rosehill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 @radoran This is one of Homer's fundamental flaws, he's stuck in that 80's mentality of *needing* a goon, and it automatically puts the Flyers behind the 8 ball before the puck is dropped in some games. Sure, against the Rags or a team with a boat load of tough guys, he may be a necessary evil....but for the most part, he's a waste of a roster spot and cap space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) I care because I'm a fan of the Flyers. I think there are bigger issues than if and/or how much Rosehill plays. Why aren't pros in shape? Claude Giroux? How to best develop Couturier, the Schenns, and Raffl? What are the top 3 things Berube needs to bring to the team to breed long-term success? Is this all a huge fluke? Why is the NHL allowing so much obstruction again? Why isn't the NHL calling more diving, and at the right guys?Basically, who really gives a **** about Rosehill? I agree that there are other, "bigger" issues. HOWEVER (comma) the Rosehill issue and can be fixed with the stroke of a pen on a scratch sheet. Berube seems to give a **** about Rosehill - which does bother me. And you do, too - which, quite frankly, puzzles me. Edited October 31, 2013 by radoran Because I didn't know Chief in high school Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.