ruxpin

I can agree with this. But to you and, more to aziz, it's not just the number of shots faced. It's the number vs. the number the flyers have had. As I'm watching game 4, the flyers are being outshot 35-14. They were heavily outshot in game 3, as well. If the game ends right now, 35 doesn't go down as much on the score sheet, but the 35 vs. 14 pretty clearly shows which way the ice is tilted. Game 3 was similar. I can agree with you, Canoli, that the two are not mutually exclusive (because you're right that they're not). It's just that for me when the team is clearly outplayed for several games in a row now to come on and point out the goalie---on a night when he actually kept them in the game--is a little strange.

I think you mention something key here. I don't think the Flyers have adapted very well to the puck-handling goalie. It's back out before our forecheck can get set up, and often it's due to Brodeur.

Agreed. Nice job on taking the obvious, no-kidding vague plan thing and putting a reason to it. I disagree about the less than stellar thing with Bryz, though. He kept them in that game. You keep letting the other team come at you like the flyers did and they're going to get some in. The Devils didn't get over a hundred points this year by accident. (By the way, I spent quite a bit of time on the Pens' boards on the HFBoards during our series with them. If you took out "Penguins" and made it "Flyers" and took out Fleury and put in "Bryz," it read pretty much like this board during this series.)

I had to smile when I saw this thread because objectively, if not for Bryz playing largely out of his mind, game three is 7-2 Devils. The third goal cited was a very quick play behind the net. It was NOT due to Bryz being too slow. I'm not trying to go out of my way to defend Bryz, but to come on here with such a thread after a game where Bryz singlehandedly kept the team in it is just beyond absurd. As for the "we haven't had a goalie since Pelle" thing: I have absolutely no doubt that had the guy not died, the people who still praise him would absolutely have hated him...the thread originator included. He played for all of two or three years. At some point, the team in front of him would have sucked and it would have been entirely his fault, according to some clowns.

Agreed. And Ovechkin looks like Kovalchuk when he first went to Jersey. Like he's out of place and not sure how to adapt. --- I don't really relish the idea of having to play the Rags in the playoffs, but if Washington beats them, it's not like I really want to play them either at that point. On the other hand, it could make them this year's Canadiens (i.e., do all the Flyers heavy lifting because of a hot goalie who then falters against the Flyers). Wouldn't that be nice?

I really think Overchicken blows that team up if he keeps getting such little ice time.

Lol. Wouldn't it suck if we're all here cheering the Caps and it's them that end up beating us

Yay no Rags next. Go Sens. Give us home ice!

It's just comparing the current great to past greats. But I agree it's a really stupid article.

I didn't expect him to win it, but he should definitely be a finalist.

It certainly matters. But McKenzie was hammering away at it over like 10 tweets. While there were people asking him questions that I thought were really pertinent, he is correcting his time by hundredths of a second. ("it was actually .087 seconds, not .086") Just felt it was a little obsessive.

Well, it was written before the series began. So, can't blame the hometown writer for being a hometown writer. National writers were equally wrong.

If they don't do it EVERY game, they suck!

Carter and Richie both <-2> in G2. In a Kings 4-2 win. If Carter and Richards don't play, maybe the Kings get a shutout.

Mission Accomplished.

@aziz I don't remember. Did I think then, too, that Downie didn't even touch him?

I don't think so. I don't recall, anyway. What about Price was it about?

Completely agree. As for the "defense of the goalie" thing, you made me laugh because I was specifically thinking of you ("aziz is going to have an aneurysm reading this") when I wrote it.

Yeah, I haven't seen the play since the game. I saw it live and the one, maybe two replays. I didn't get the sense it was a knee and also thought "kind of like a slew foot." I thought it was more of a flop than what the hit was, but that's not a Pitt thing. That's a goalie thing (to try to draw the ref's attention for a call). I think that's an ingrained goalie move they teach in peewee. For Simmonds' part, it was definitely sneaky and probably fairly called dirty. But smart, too. It's something Kennedy (or Talbot) would do. And yeah, some on here would be yelling about it. (For the record, B21, I know you're not yelling about it. You only happened to mention it.).

So many thoughts, so I'm going to ramble a bit. First, even watching it live, I was saying out loud to the TV as Briere was taking the puck "how was he onside?!" It really didn't even look close live. I don't know how a linesman misses that unless he wasn't on the line there and gave the "benefit of the doubt" thing you mention in the non-icing call. The missed icing call was fairly clear, I thought, but not as crystal, "no doubt about it," clear as the missed offsides. I don't know if the offsides was "worse" or not. I will say, though, that there is a difference between a fought-for puck in the corner eventually coming out and having to go through a team that is supposed to be defending and a blown offsides call that sends a sniper 60 feet in alone on a goalie who was probably thinking, "what the ****?" No, one goal does not make a game when a team is up 0-3 with a period and a half to play. But you are very right that it does change the feel and the momentum. On the Flyers' side of things, psychologically 1-3 feels a lot better than 0-3. It at least gives you the sense that you're chipping away. It also came in a game when Fleury, until then, had stoned the Flyers on some pretty good opportunities and they had to at least have it creep into their minds that "well, it's one of those games where we're just going to run into a goalie who's going to will it." That goal broke that feeling, and they were able to get to work. On the Pens' side of things, there's no real excuse for blowing a 3-0 lead like that. I have to imagine at least some players had the unshakeable feeling "hey, we got screwed!" That has to be hard to shake off. When you add that to the fact that we're talking about a team that has had some issues clamping down and especially considering they were playing against a team that HAD come back on them a few times, there had to be that feeling of "here we go again. Circle the wagons!" It's a shame for Pitt, but obviously I'll take it. It was a nerve-wracking, fun game to watch, but it's a shame it took a play that even the blind woman in the nosebleed section could see was wrong to change the tilt of the game. Well, 6 more games to go.

What were you saying about offsides again?

LOL, yeah. 32 years later and it still stings a little. Probably not as much as Hull's foot in the crease would bother someone from Buffalo, though.

I've seen Flyers fans react to a missed offsides that led to a goal and COST them a Stanley Cup. They're probably a little punchy on that particular subject. I think you go on every single team's board and you have a vocal contingent that insist that the refs, the league and the Easter Bunny are out to get them. The "traditional" targets of favoritism are Detroit and Pittsburgh (unless, of course, you're a fan of either Detroit or Pittsburgh. Then it's the other one of those and maybe a Canadian team or Phoenix or something). I do think there's a little bit of a uniformed perception among fans of other teams NOT in Pitt or Detroit that this is the case. I would imagine if I were a fan of either team I would kill myself (no, that's not it) argue pretty strongly against it. And I think I'd be right. While there is enough circumstantial and anecdotal evidence to really run with the claim, of course there isn't bias, but it's the consensus target, so it's easy to go with. Just like Philly is the consensus target as the fan base that is unruly, mean, vicious, hates Santa, and cheers when wide receivers get hurt. Again, some anecdotal evidence, and it's certainly convenient. But it is belied by tons of anecdotal evidence elsewhere. And as a Flyer fan, the claim ticks me off. I don't buy the bias stuff and I don't buy that Pitt was handed a cup. They worked hard for it. Now, I'll never quite understand the circumstances surrounding the lottery for the Crosby draft...it smells a little, but even that...if anything nefarious is true...was more about the league being successful and remaining in an established city than a bias toward an organization.

If you don't like whining, OrangeJulius must have made your head hurt while puking your guts out.

This is already the reason I'm not allowed IN the local rink. You push one Amish guy on skates and suddenly you're a pariah.