My issue here isnt so much with the Flyers choosing to play Rosehill tonight.

Its with the fact that they havent found a capable player of being able to scrap when needed, but also being able to play a solid 4th line shift.
- flyer_nutter

Zac Rinaldo?

Once he got to WIP, he really got annoying...maybe he was before, but I never had much issue with him until he went to WIP and had to be a braying jackass 5 days a week.
- Jsaquella

BRING IT

They are the worst pairing on radio

I wonder what the next small rule will be. A fine for any player who throws punches with both hands in the same bout? No grabbing of the other player's jersey? No fighting during the even numbered minutes?
- BulliesPhan87

1. automatic 10 minute misconducts
2. two fights and it's a game misconduct
3. refs step in if either play removes his helmet

Zac Rinaldo?
- BulliesPhan87

He means for the rest of the game after zac gets ejected

To a degree, I am all with you on that.

Where we differ I think, is my heat is directed at Holmgren for finding such one dimensional fighters, who do nothing but that.

Edit: You want to have a player that is ready to drop the gloves at any time? Or carry that tradition? By all means, but make sure the guy can play a regular (frank)ing shift. Not the trash of Cote, Shelley and Rosehill.
- flyer_nutter

Nope, that's definitely a valid criticism of Holmgren. He's failed to find a Travis Moen.

I actually watched like 30 seconds of Michael Barkann & Philly sports talk because I thought the game was at 7...
- Jsaquella

wait ... what?

poop.

THEN WHAT IS THE (frank)ING POINT?

That's the question I want answered. If an enforcer isn't going to stop it and protect the skilled players, then what purpose does it serve to dress one?

If a player on the bench can wait a shift or two to stick up for his teammate, then he can skate away when a goon wants to fight him. Both come down to picking your spot and doing what is needed to win a game.
- Jsaquella

I'll tell you what the point is again! And this will be the last time I discuss it with you, because you're obviously unwilling to look at it objectively and see the other side of the argument. I've stated multiple times, even saying on the other thread, that I won't tell you that the arguments you make are wrong.

So for the last time, I'll make my point. To be blunt, the fact that you're bringing up player like Kaleta, shows that you don't understand my point, or are just unwilling to see it. Or in my opinion, the point of why the Flyers want an enforcer on the roster, and sometimes in the lineup.
Hockey is a physical game. There are players such as Kaleta, who are aggressive physically, and skate around looking in inflict body checks to create energy and separation from the puck. We have a similar player in Rinaldo on the Flyers. It is part of the game. You don't have an enforcer in the lineup to stop the game of Hockey from being played! That is the disconnect.
The player that is being protected, isn't the player that is being run by a player like Kaleta. That is not my idea of why you play an enforcer, or why I think the Flyers play an enforcer. You play an enforcer, simply to counter the other team's enforcer. If it's just a player like Kaleta, then players like Simmonds, Hartnell, and Rinaldo can get in his face. It's the Colton Orr's that you have to worry about. And the players that you are protecting, by playing Rosehill to counter Orr, is Simmonds, Rinaldo, and Hartnell. So they don't feel the need to have to stand up to him. The so called goon that you state is only in the League because he can fight. Who do you want tangling with him? Your top players or your own goon who is only in the League because he can fight, that is expendable?
Which player do you want having to mess with a Colton Orr, those 3 players or the expendable Rosehill? Who do you want to risk falling on their face like Parros did in a fight with a much bigger and strong Orr. Simmonds and Hartnell,or Rosehill? The answer is obvious. Most nights, nothing will happen. That's why a guy like Rosehill shouldn't play a lot. But heaven forbid the Flyers waste a roster spot or a 4th line spot for a game to make sure other players don't get hurt! And if the opposition doesn't have an enforcer, then Rosehill sits. And Laugton or another player in in the lineup. I think it's ridiculous that this brings so much ire. It's a simple part of the game. You may not like or want it eliminated, which I agree with. But it still is part of the game sometimes. And don't give me that turtle and skate away crap, and take the PP. Because that's not going to happen all the time. Players are only going to put up with so much before they feel a need to respond.
Why do you think Montreal felt the need to sign Parros? Because Prust was getting into too many fights. Now I don't necessarily agree with that, because chances are they're not going to fight the same people. But that's why they did it.
Now you may not agree with it, or feel that they should go in a different direction with that roster spot. But don't tell me the point of view I have here isn't reasonable. Because it is. And there are NHL teams, including the Flyers, that have the same viewpoint in my opinion. And it's valid.

YOU'RE MY BOY, BLUE!!!

My issue here isnt so much with the Flyers choosing to play Rosehill tonight.

Its with the fact that they havent found a capable player of being able to scrap when needed, but also being able to play a solid 4th line shift.
- flyer_nutter

Hi there! Zac Rinaldo, nice to meet you...

I never said goons would deter cheap shots. I said the only argument I ever halfway accepted is that by banning fighting you might see a corresponding increase in cheap shots. There will always be a player or two who is looking for payback.
- FlyerGuy

Okay, I've heard that, sure. Not sure I agree with it and I'm not saying ban fighting. I'm saying if something happens and there's a fight there better be a good reason and the two guys fighting need to know they won't see the ice for the rest of the game at least.

I just don't want to watch two guys fighting to keep a pay check when they have little else to offer.

Most of these guys will be sitting in the press box in February and March when the hockey really counts and if they aren't good enough for a roster spot then I don't need to see them in October either.

I'll tell you what the point is again! And this will be the last time I discuss it with you, because you're obviously unwilling to look at it objectively and see the other side of the argument. I've stated multiple times, even saying on the other thread, that I won't tell you that the arguments you make are wrong.

So for the last time, I'll make my point. To be blunt, the fact that you're bringing up player like Kaleta, shows that you don't understand my point, or are just unwilling to see it. Or in my opinion, the point of why the Flyers want an enforcer on the roster, and sometimes in the lineup.
Hockey is a physical game. There are players such as Kaleta, who are aggressive physically, and skate around looking in inflict body checks to create energy and separation from the puck. We have a similar player in Rinaldo on the Flyers. It is part of the game. You don't have an enforcer in the lineup to stop the game of Hockey from being played! That is the disconnect.
The player that is being protected, isn't the player that is being run by a player like Kaleta. That is not my idea of why you play an enforcer, or why I think the Flyers play an enforcer. You play an enforcer, simply to counter the other team's enforcer. If it's just a player like Kaleta, then players like Simmonds, Hartnell, and Rinaldo can get in his face. It's the Colton Orr's that you have to worry about. And the players that you are protecting, by playing Rosehill to counter Orr, is Simmonds, Rinaldo, and Hartnell. So they don't feel the need to have to stand up to him. The so called goon that you state is only in the League because he can fight. Who do you want tangling with him? Your top players or your own goon who is only in the League because he can fight, that is expendable?
Which player do you want having to mess with a Colton Orr, those 3 players or the expendable Rosehill? Who do you want to risk falling on their face like Parros did in a fight with a much bigger and strong Orr. Simmonds and Hartnell,or Rosehill? The answer is obvious. Most nights, nothing will happen. That's why a guy like Rosehill shouldn't play a lot. But heaven forbid the Flyers waste a roster spot or a 4th line spot for a game to make sure other players don't get hurt! And if the opposition doesn't have an enforcer, then Rosehill sits. And Laugton or another player in in the lineup. I think it's ridiculous that this brings so much ire. It's a simple part of the game. You may not like or want it eliminated, which I agree with. But it still is part of the game sometimes. And don't give me that turtle and skate away crap, and take the PP. Because that's not going to happen all the time. Players are only going to put up with so much before they feel a need to respond.
Why do you think Montreal felt the need to sign Parros? Because Prust was getting into too many fights. Now I don't necessarily agree with that, because chances are they're not going to fight the same people. But that's why they did it.
Now you may not agree with it, or feel that they should go in a different direction with that roster spot. But don't tell me the point of view I have here isn't reasonable. Because it is. And there are NHL teams, including the Flyers, that have the same viewpoint in my opinion. And it's valid.
- MJL

"To be blunt..."

[wall]



tl;dr

Okay, I've heard that, sure. Not sure I agree with it and I'm not saying ban fighting. I'm saying if something happens and there's a fight there better be a good reason and the two guys fighting need to know they won't see the ice for the rest of the game at least.

I just don't want to watch two guys fighting to keep a pay check when they have little else to offer.

Most of these guys will be sitting in the press box in February and March when the hockey really counts and if they aren't good enough for a roster spot then I don't need to see them in October either.
- mayorofangrytown

1000000000% agreed.

Zac Rinaldo?
- BulliesPhan87

Exactly.

Although a bit under-sized and to be honest I think you are (frank)ing the guy over asking him to continously also play that role. These players exist around the league. That can play good hockey and drop when need be.
-

It seems to me they mostly just fight each other and when they don't someone gets seriously hurt or it looks like the clown show with Toronto and Buffalo. I don't see what other situations they effectively address.
- mayorofangrytown

They do mostly fight each other, and the majority of time an enforcer is not needed. That's part of the valid argument for not having one. But there are occasionally situations where one is needed. and I want an enforcer, simply to counter with the other team who has an enforcer in the lineup.

Nope, that's definitely a valid criticism of Holmgren. He's failed to find a Travis Moen.
- Jsaquella

Sometimes I think he really has this Nodl Syndrome going on.

Playing guys who are just warm bodies, that dont really excel in an area, but fill a roster spot.

Edit: I am off the belief that every player matters. Just ask Chicago about that with Shaw last season.

"To be blunt..."


- Giroux_Is_God[wall]



tl;dr

Except he isn't. He's not a good player, at all. If the NHL banned fighting tomorrow, Rosehill would be out of the league faster than Usain Bolt can run 100 meters.

My definition of serviceable means he could play in the NHL without being a fighter. Rosehill wouldn;t be in the NHL if he couldn;t fight
- Jsaquella

That's true. But the help wanted sign the Flyers put out, part of the job qualifications was being able to handle the enforcer role. That's what the Flyers wanted. That's like saying the only reason a guy has an Accounting job is because he has an Accounting degree. Fighting was part of the skill set the Flyers were looking for. And Rosehill met the job requirements. And in that role, Rosehill is indeed serviceable. Because he can also play a 4th line limited role in the NHL and skate a 4th line shift. As well as fight. You can't just eliminate part of a players skill set and call label him not serviceable.

Okay, I've heard that, sure. Not sure I agree with it and I'm not saying ban fighting. I'm saying if something happens and there's a fight there better be a good reason and the two guys fighting need to know they won't see the ice for the rest of the game at least.

I just don't want to watch two guys fighting to keep a pay check when they have little else to offer.

Most of these guys will be sitting in the press box in February and March when the hockey really counts and if they aren't good enough for a roster spot then I don't need to see them in October either.
- mayorofangrytown

At times its sad to me. Same with that cage fighting bullpoop. These guys do what they do, because its a job and pays damn well. The long term effects they are putting on themselves by continously throwing their brain into such trauma will be sickening.

Why can't you treat it like other sports? There's fighting in Football, Baseball and Basketball. They don't carry goons to take care of it because 1. they're more interested in getting the best players out there to win the game and 2. they punish the players who get in the fights significantly enough for it to be a deterrent.

You'll never remove fighting from competitive sports I doubt. The Mets and Yankees don't have two guys come off the end of the bench to fight because Matt Harvey threw at Derek Jetter. That would be stupid.
- mayorofangrytown

Fighting is a frequent event in NHL Hockey. You can't compare sports where a fight is a rare event.

I was hoping I have some fun for game day, but it kind of sucks in here, IMO

Only 1 more hour....

I really hope Rosehill scores tonight just (frank)ing because

They do mostly fight each other, and the majority of time an enforcer is not needed. That's part of the valid argument for not having one. But there are occasionally situations where one is needed. and I want an enforcer, simply to counter with the other team who has an enforcer in the lineup.
- MJL

We don't disagree. You're talking about the reality of the games today. I see your point and don't have an argument with it directly. I'd just like to see it gone and think getting rid of Orr and Rosehill is the way to go.

If Orr is dressing I could easily form an argument for and against dressing Rosehill. I'm just tired of the "goon" and I'm ready to see them legislated out of the game tomorrow.

They do mostly fight each other, and the majority of time an enforcer is not needed. That's part of the valid argument for not having one. But there are occasionally situations where one is needed. and I want an enforcer, simply to counter with the other team who has an enforcer in the lineup.
- MJL

Or you could ignore the other team's enforcer completely... like when Rupp skated away from Shelley and called him "irrelevant" to his face.


Let's be honest... there's only 2 reasons why there's still fighting in the game, and neither of those has to do with exacting retribution, protecting teammates, or saving teammates from having to engage guys above their weight-class:

1) There are about 10-20 NHLPA members that depend on fighting to feed their families, and they just happen to be the nicest guys in the world,

2) Fighting sells tickets and is an easy entry point into the game for casual fans.


Period.

Only 1 more hour....

I really hope Rosehill scores tonight just (frank)ing because
- Giroux_Is_God

Im sick and twisted that way too. Hope he gets the game winner. Its why I was such a Carcillo fan, I love the crazy players. Now Rosehill has not shown that kind of insanity yet, but Im hoping.

Nutter is weird, I was always a fan of:
-Downie
-Boulerice
-Gauthier
-Carcillo
-Rinaldo

Great news! I'll be joining you all for the game. Feel free to message me if you have any question.