Bryz, Bryz, Bryz. WHY?

[albertaflyer]

Best part of the whole night was during warm up this guy had a sign, it was a full size Flyer ice girl with a Husky face on her body with caption "my husky is like a hot girl". When Bryz came out he saw it and started shaking his head. I think he might of had a little grin going. Couple of the Flyers got a kick out of it.

[OH1FlyersFan]

LOL, Al

[albertaflyer]

Mr. Coburn made the worst play in that 2nd goal and Briere was at fault too. That was a great scoring chance and if Bryz would have saved it, it would have been a huge save. Coburn on the other hand could have cleared the puck out of the zone rather than pass to a guy's (Briere) skates, who was standing around like a pylon back against the rink/wall.

I really think people have just got enough of Bryz and are now blaming him of every game and giving a pass for everyone else. That's ok, but last game was a lack luster effort from the whole team and Bryz was maybe the best Flyer on the ice.

I'm pretty sure Bryz is the reason I didn't win the 50/50 draw last night. I have to blame somebody.

[canoli]

And that to me, righgt there, more than anything, underlies the root of the frustration we are all having with him.

I would be willing to overlook stinker games – that always happened and will happen to the best of goalies in the world. Nobody is immune to bad games.

I would even be willing to overlook the fact that he had multiple games in which he was the sole reason the team lost.

Hell, I *even* can look the other way when it comes to the fact that he has been dreadful ALL SEASON LONG. Well, maybe not quite look the other way, but OK.

But what frustrates me the most is the goalie of his caliber *should* be winning games by himself, or at least put the team in a position to win games where they were outplayed by an opposing team by a countrymile.

I don’t remember a single game where Bryzgalov had a jaw-dropping performance and absolutely stole the victory. Can you? An opening night against Boston - maybe. But that was the first game with so many story lines. I am sure he was excited and really wanted to put his best effort forward. And the whole team was solid. But after that, can you recall at least one game in which he was absolutely sensational? One stinking game? I can’t. Was Bryzglaov named a #1 star in any games this season? I know he had 2 shutouts this season, but again, was he really the reason for that or the whole team just locked down on defense?

And that’s the issue. BIG issue! I probably sound like a broken record, but Esche, Chechmanek, Niitty, Biron, Boucher….. even terrible Leighton, had those games where they were phenomenal, where they were a reason the team won the game. How can a goalie of his statue not have a single game in which he carried his team? How can he not have a single save which would be a momentum changing play and turn the game around? How can he not pull a victory in a game where the team had no business winning?

That to me is the root of the problem; not so much the fact that he’s been bad.

Wow. Talk about nailing it. From the rhetorical "has he ever..?" type of questions, the comparisons to [supposedly] weaker goaltenders this post sums it up, the frustration, the disappointment, the irony...all of it.

Not much to say after that... Unless (and until) he goes the rest of the way without giving up more backbreaking softies, while actually stealing us some wins...

If he does then the storyline will change and MadDog's post will be obsolete. But...does anyone think there's even a remote chance it will happen?

[canoli]

My main point, to address @canoli valid and "likeable" post I got while writing this, is *not* at all to absolve Bryzgalov or whitewash his "effect" on the lockerroom or on the ice.

The point is that the focus on one guy - the goalie - can lead to a myopic fixation on that being the problem when, as noted above, it's a team game and the team wins or loses as a team.

Okay. I'm with you. I'm guilty of the myopic fixation. But in team sports some positions are just more prominent, that's the way it is. The QB, the pitcher and the goaltender. "Myopic fixation" is necessary because the position demands close scrutiny. Its influence on the outcome of the game is disproportionate to the other players. Certainly we can take it too far, as fans, as coaches. But there's a reason why the goalie gets the lion's share of the blame and the credit; his play is by far the single biggest factor in the outcome. Yes it is.

[Mad Dog]

"Not a single game" - well, he opened the season with a 2-1 win over Boston and shutout the Devils. At the end of October there were three stright wins over Carolina, Buffalo and Columbus with the tight 3-2 win over Buffalo and blowouts over the other two masking that he didn't give up more than two goals a game. A six-game win streak in December including a tough 5-4 win over the Sabres that was the only game in the stretch where he gave up more than two masked again by he offensive juggernaut that never scored less than three goals a game and had five in three of them. The 37-save 3-2 win in Ottawa we might forget about for the 6-4 loss at home that followed it.

Did Bryz help "win" any of those games or did the offense just blow them out?

Even now he's 3-2-1 against the Division despite being 2.28/.909. He's 2-0, 0.40/.983 against the Devils. Yes, the Rags and Pens numbers are a cause for concern. Who does have good numbers against the Rags?

Fair enough. And I am already giving him credit for the opening night and the two shutouts. I am even giving him credit for being "decent" in those games you are referring to, irrespective of whether it was the entire team effort. But my whole point, Rad, is while I am not disputing the fact he was solid and effective in a handful of games (which were measley), was he actually sensational? I am not even talking about being sensational ALL YEAR, because, clearly he was not and was just the opposite, and secondly, I, for one, didn't even expect him to be the savior. But why is it so much to expect the goalie of his caliber to win at least... AT LEAST.... 4-5 games on his own when the team has not given him much of a support? Why is it so much to expect him to make saves at least every 4-5 games that he was not supposed to be making? If he is incapable of doing that, why not have Bob and Boucher splitting the duties in the first place? What was the reason for bringing him in? To just play solid net? We already had that (not counting playoffs).

And who knows, maybe he'll prove us all wrong in the playoffs. He still has time and the team still has time. It's only February. Hey, Jagr made a beleiver out of me, so anything's possible. And I will be the first one who will admit I was wrong, but something tells me he will falter big time in the playoffs. Hope I am wrong...

The fact that neither of us can recall those jaw-dropping saves suggests he didn't have any. And that's the problem.

[radoran]

Okay. I'm with you. I'm guilty of the myopic fixation. But in team sports some positions are just more prominent, that's the way it is. The QB, the pitcher and the goaltender. "Myopic fixation" is necessary because the position demands close scrutiny. Its influence on the outcome of the game is disproportionate to the other players. Certainly we can take it too far, as fans, as coaches. But there's a reason why the goalie gets the lion's share of the blame and the credit; his play is by far the single biggest factor in the outcome. Yes it is.

Goalie is, for me, the most important position on the ice. The only person who can stop you from losing a game.

But in the last two games we've had a game they won in which Bryz "didn't play well enough" and then a game in which they didn't score in which it's "Bryz, Bryz, Bryz"

And Bob, who's 4-6, 3.62, .822 since January 1 is "the new #1" while Bryz (7-4-3, 2.46, .913 over the same stretch) "isn't good enough."

This isn't directed specifically at you, but at a fanbase (of which I am a card carrying member) that ALWAYS likes the backup better than the guy who's playing.

We have people calling for LEIGHTON, for Pete's Sake!

*Should* Bryz's play be good enough to beat the Islanders, Jets and Oilers? Yes. And, you know what? It has been.

[radoran]

The fact that neither of us can recall those jaw-dropping saves suggests he didn't have any. And that's the problem.

In no way do I think he's worth the contract or the hype.

But his deficiencies get magnified and his successes get diminished.

[Phillygrump]

but once again a bad goal doubles their lead, at a time when the period was up for grabs.

He made some HUGE saves though that kept this from being a 3 or 4 goal deficit on a night when the team in front of him decided to phone it in.

Not Bryz's night to be the goat. Yes that was a tough goal to give up, but the Flyers didn't do a thing to help him out at all.

[aziz]

But his deficiencies get magnified and his successes get diminished.

your statement in a previous post that the position is the most important on the ice coupled with the length and size and movement-restricted nature of bryzgalov's contract magnify the deficiencies and diminish the successes in the eyes of the fans. which, frankly, i find entirely appropriate. i will not be impressed that a goalie making over $5mil -to whom my team is chained for the better part of the next decade- has a game where only allows one kinda soft goal, and i will be very upset when he gives up 2 or 3. he damned well better get through 60 minutes without multiple OMGhowdidthatgoin moments. given the impact goaltending has on the team and the roster impact of his contract, anything less than top 5 in the league is unacceptable, and should be reacted to as such. the young backup goalie who gets occasional spot starts and is still on what could be seen as an audition contract naturally won't be held to the same standard. the idea that the young backup goalie can continue to improve and mature while the 31 yearold vet is as much as he will be says that identicle performances out of the two will be judged differently. and appropriately so.

the flyers lost last night because they couldn't score goals. even so, bryzgalov's performance was suspect. an extra save here or there in a losing effort doesn't change anything in the standings, but that doesn't have anything to do with my reaction to watching almost 10% of the flyers' cap space allow unscreened wrist shots fired right into him dribble under his arm. if bob does that, i say, "ok, learn from that, the team didn't lose because of it, but take that and work on it." bryzgalov does it, and i say, "good lord, how much money are you making? seriously, that shot gave you and your enormous paycheck trouble? ******* great."

[radoran]

your statement in a previous post that the position is the most important on the ice coupled with the length and size and movement-restricted nature of bryzgalov's contract magnify the deficiencies and diminish the successes in the eyes of the fans. which, frankly, i find entirely appropriate. i will not be impressed that a goalie making over $5mil -to whom my team is chained for the better part of the next decade- has a game where only allows one kinda soft goal, and i will be very upset when he gives up 2 or 3. he damned well better get through 60 minutes without multiple OMGhowdidthatgoin moments. given the impact goaltending has on the team and the roster impact of his contract, anything less than top 5 in the league is unacceptable, and should be reacted to as such. the young backup goalie who gets occasional spot starts and is still on what could be seen as an audition contract naturally won't be held to the same standard. the idea that the young backup goalie can continue to improve and mature while the 31 yearold vet is as much as he will be says that identicle performances out of the two will be judged differently. and appropriately so.

the flyers lost last night because they couldn't score goals. even so, bryzgalov's performance was suspect. an extra save here or there in a losing effort doesn't change anything in the standings, but that doesn't have anything to do with my reaction to watching almost 10% of the flyers' cap space allow unscreened wrist shots fired right into him dribble under his arm. if bob does that, i say, "ok, learn from that, the team didn't lose because of it, but take that and work on it." bryzgalov does it, and i say, "good lord, how much money are you making? seriously, that shot gave you and your enormous paycheck trouble? ******* great."

So you're saying 1.95/.919 just isn't good enough to beat the Jets, Isles and Oilers? What else would you have liked him to do? Take away the second goal last night? Fine. Now you're at 1.62/.932. And the Flyers STILL just score 1.67 goals per game and scored ZERO against Dubnyk and the 29th ranked team in the league. He lost a SHUTOUT, for Pete's sake. The Flyers couldn't score for 65 minutes plus two shootout rounds.

I hate the contract, I hate the play, I hate watching Bryz still on his knees on one side of the goal when play has gotten back to the other side, I hate the softee between the legs, I hate the goal off the glove, I hate watching Bryzgalov stare up at the ceiling with a red glare on the back of his neck.

I hope they buy him out or he decides to go back to Russia.

I think they're idiots for making the deal and I have little confidence in those SAME PEOPLE to make the right choice next time...

None of that means I'm not willing to look at a game in which the Flyers scored zero goals and correctly identify that the goalie's play was anything but the deciding factor in the loss.

[aziz]

So you're saying 1.95/.919 just isn't good enough to beat the Jets, Isles and Oilers? What else would you have liked him to do?

i didn't say that. as a matter of fact, it was good enough to beat the jets. of course, it took 5 goals scored by the flyers to make it so, and not one of the goals bryzgalov allowed were anywhere near what i'd call "good goals", but the poor effort had a positive result, so chalk it up any way you want.

and that is my point. a goalie's performance is to some extent detached from the w/l result. a goalie can be evaluated outside of the end result of the game. bad games by the goalie can be won, good games by the goalie can be lost. and yes, games that were lost for reasons other than the goalie can still have involved a bad game by the goalie. i said it in my last post: the flyers did not lose last night because of bryzgalov. no goals scored means there was nothing the goalie could have done to change the result. he was still bad.

the winnipeg win should have been a blow out, except pavalac stood on his head and bryzgalov kept handing the jets gifts. last night should have been a 1-0 nailbitter to the finish, rather than the fiat accompli it became with the flyers down by a pair late, but bryzgalov couldn't handle a poorly aimed shot from an unscreened shooter above the hashmarks. making that save wouldn't have won the game, but it still should have been made, and the fact the offense was impotent doesn't change that.

the flyers have other problems than goaltending; not everything is on bryzgalov's shoulders. the only thing on his shoulders are the goals against, which continue to be subpar on an almost nightly basis. the 18 save shutout loss to the isles notwithstanding.

[canoli]

@Everyone

and I say Bryzgalov did contribute to the loss last night - probably. In case you didn't see the 1st, our offense was sensational. They did everything but score. So okay, just shy of "sensational." Schenn's line was particularly strong, creating chances - good chances - every shift, and the rest of the lines were generating nearly as much. Dubnyk had the answers but the offensive pressure was there; we owned the first 20 by getting the puck deep, forechecking and by giving the Oilers almost no time near Bryzgalov.

Then came the 2nd and the early turnover by Coburn and a 1-0 game. Minutes later Bryzaglov lets in a 35-footer for no discernible reason - nothing prevented him from making an easy save. But he didn't so it became 2-0.

After that goal the Flyers' play deteriorated to the point where today folks have forgotten the first 20 and are saying the team was "flat" all night and "why can't we work for 60 minutes?" etc.

So I've been wondering, did the soft goal hurt the team's chances [for a win] more than just its obvious effect, doubling the Oilers lead?

Unfortunately I can't seem to get you guys to comment on it. Maybe you feel it's a useless topic or that it's not a concern. But to me it's a lot more interesting than accusing each other of "blaming it all on 'Bryz'," followed by variations of "No I'm not, let me tell you why."

Edited February 24, 2012 by canoli

[radoran]

So I've been wondering, did the soft goal hurt the team's chances [for a win] more than just its obvious effect, doubling the Oilers lead?

Unfortunately I can't seem to get you guys to comment on it. Maybe you feel it's a useless topic or that it's not a concern. But to me it's a lot more interesting than accusing each other of "blaming it all on 'Bryz'," followed by variations of "No I'm not, let me tell you why."

I've been clear in saying that Bryz played a part in the defeat. He was the goalie. They scored twice. There was a bad goal.

For me, he wasn't the primary reason they lost. I don't even think he was the secondary reason they lost.

Once we get into tertiaries I have flashbacks to people talking about Primeau's "third assists".

Does the bad second goal have the potential to "deflate" a team? Yes. Does a season of questionable goals possibly lead to a team questioning everything they do? Yes.

Now, my question: Does that excuse a team going down 2-0 against the 29th ranked team in the league with more than half the game to play and still not scoring one blessed goal?

I'll go with "no" - your mileage may vary.

If a team is so deflated by a bad goal that they fold up the tents and skulk away against the 29th ranked team in the league when they went into the game as one of the top point-getters in the league and talking about how important two wins in a row was to them, then they're not probably going to amount to much anyway.

[The Quigster]

Bryzo is always the prime reason the Flyers lose. Bryzo inhibits their ability to go full tilt on offense,due to his total imcompetence in net. Hockey is a game of chance and risk like all sports Bryzo squashes all that.

[canoli]

If a team is so deflated by a bad goal that they fold up the tents and skulk away against the 29th ranked team in the league when they went into the game as one of the top point-getters in the league and talking about how important two wins in a row was to them, then they're not probably going to amount to much anyway.

all true, and well-said. But of course it's not "a bad goal" it's a hundred+ and counting bad goals. You keep talking about last night's game and how much longer do we beat the dead horse? The Flyers offense didn't get the job done. Granted.

Now...is there anything else we can learn about a team who skates in front of a sieve like Bryzgalov? Go ahead, post his fabulous January numbers again if you want but we all know he's The Weakest Link. Goodbye. (i wish)

[radoran]

Bryzo is always the prime reason the Flyers lose. Bryzo inhibits their ability to go full tilt on offense,due to his total imcompetence in net. Hockey is a game of chance and risk like all sports Bryzo squashes all that.

Good point.

They've only scored the most goals in the league (197) and have the highest GFA (3.24). Who knows what could happen if this team's offense wasn't "squashed" by a goalie.

[radoran]

all true, and well-said. But of course it's not "a bad goal" it's a hundred+ and counting bad goals. You keep talking about last night's game and how much longer do we beat the dead horse? The Flyers offense didn't get the job done. Granted.

Now...is there anything else we can learn about a team who skates in front of a sieve like Bryzgalov? Go ahead, post his fabulous January numbers again if you want but we all know he's The Weakest Link. Goodbye. (i wish)

I'm just looking at the glass half full.

Of whiskey, granted. But half full nonetheless.

When Bryz gets hot in the playoffs and lea... cough, cough, ack, erp... ahem...

couldn't even finish typing it.

[canoli]

hehe I know, that's what's so sad. We can't even pretend there's much chance he'll turn it around. There's no real hope anymore that Bryzgalov will be a solid backstop for us, that he'll win us some [PO] games 1-0, 2-1. Maybe he won't give away multiple soft goals in a game anymore. Maybe he'll even turn in a few games where he doesn't let in any (we can dream right?). But the most likely scenario is he continues to play the way he has been all year - pretty bad most nights with an occasional good game or two once in awhile.

It's really crazy. As bad as most of our goalies have been over the years, all of them had some outstanding games, great saves, dominating performances. All of them had us hoping, at least for a little while that maybe...maybe this is the one. [edit: okay I guess that's not really true. There were plenty of guys along the way we knew were probably incapable of winning us a Cup. I guess I meant "supposed #1s we brought in"]

With Bryzgalov...I don't recall even one game this year where afterward I said to myself, "Okay, if he plays like that we've got a good chance at the Cup."

Anyway, thanks for continuing to post the facts, the numbers. There isn't much comfort in them but at least they remind us of a few stretches where he didn't completely suck (!).

Edited February 25, 2012 by canoli

[eurofly]

you're right, of course, that goal starts with a bad choice by coburn, continues with a bad effort by briere, and ends with a legitimate scoring opportunity from 35 feet out. that goal, all things said, is not on bryzgalov.

BUT

it turned out to be a savable shot. he needs to get those. the play in general: not his fault. the wrist shot that squeeked between his leg and arm: his fault.

if goalies were only expected to stop the shots that come off of plays where the defense was perfect, there'd be no reason to ever pay a goalie more than the league minimum. most junior goalies are going to stop shots that come from the parimeter with no screen and no deflection, and a perfect defense only allows those. the reason some guys get paid a bunch of money is because they can offer more than that, they can handle the broken plays and deal with shots where the other team has gotten the upper hand on the defense. had eberle picked a corner on bryzgalov there, then hey, that goal is on coburn and briere. the shot was from a perfect shooting area and the shooter was able to put it exactly where he wanted it. in this case, though, eberle basically put it right into bryzgalov. he threw the play away with a bad shot and handed the flyers a break. except he scored anyway.

it doesn't matter, the flyers didn't score a single goal, so that kind of by definition takes the heat off the goalies. it's not like bryzgalov let the oilers run the score up to an insurmountable total, and he did make some pretty decent saves. i'm just saying those kind of making-up-for-defensive-lapses saves are what makes a goalie worth more than $450k or whatever the min is these days. they are the saves that we are seeing the other team's goalies make, and the ones flyers goalies just, well, aren't.

last night's loss wasn't on bryzgalov, but he did his part in it.

I think no one would say anything about the goal, if Bryz didn't have the recent history/performances he does with the Flyers. But his recent history with the team is making this individual incident and game bigger than what it actually would be without the history. I agree, that kind of goal can be a back breaker, if the goalie doesn't enjoy the confidence within the team. But in this case, no one is seeing those several times, when he bailed out the defense with a very good save in that game. His history/recent performances are blurring many fans' (and most probably players') vision in this case. If this really was a back breaker for the team, then his experiment should be cut short as soon as possible. If it means trading 1st or even JVR with him, then that is what must be done. The sooner it is done, the better. With the new CBA, it's just wishful thinking it would offer us a loop hole to get rid of Bryz. There is no other solution, if the goalie is not enjoying the confidence of his team mates.

Also with your logic the same could be said about Coburn. He really doesn't deserve the money he gets.

[doom88]

Goalie is, for me, the most important position on the ice. The only person who can stop you from losing a game.

But in the last two games we've had a game they won in which Bryz "didn't play well enough" and then a game in which they didn't score in which it's "Bryz, Bryz, Bryz"

And Bob, who's 4-6, 3.62, .822 since January 1 is "the new #1" while Bryz (7-4-3, 2.46, .913 over the same stretch) "isn't good enough."

This isn't directed specifically at you, but at a fanbase (of which I am a card carrying member) that ALWAYS likes the backup better than the guy who's playing.

We have people calling for LEIGHTON, for Pete's Sake!

*Should* Bryz's play be good enough to beat the Islanders, Jets and Oilers? Yes. And, you know what? It has been.

Misleading goalie stats. Bob was bad in Feb - part thanks to that relief appearance Pit game the team left him out to dry in, and part of the week of the backdoor goals against. Seriously, those were not possible saves, but they count against Bob.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/players/4901/gamelog;_ylt=AulhuKFDpUJxpNADvd9iMYZivLYF

His Jan wasn't bad at all. 11 goals against in 5 games (2.2 GAA) with 3 wins and a 92.9 save %.

[Mad Dog]

It's really crazy. As bad as most of our goalies have been over the years, all of them had some outstanding games, great saves, dominating performances. All of them had us hoping, at least for a little while that maybe...maybe this is the one. [edit: okay I guess that's not really true. There were plenty of guys along the way we knew were probably incapable of winning us a Cup. I guess I meant "supposed #1s we brought in"]

Actually, I don't know if it's entirely true. Bouch was pretty darn good when the team went to the Conference Finals in 2000 and lost to those stinking Devils 1:3. He had some unreal performances along the way and the save he made on Elias was just sick.

Esche had a phenomenal performance in 2006 and followed that with a huge playoff. I remember he made something like 46 saves in one game against Tampa in which the Flyers won 4:3. And the series against Toronto was when he was just shining. He was making one save under another. He was an MVP of that series and without him, there is no way they advance to the Conference Finals.

Granted, it was hard to see Boucher beating Brodeur – as amazing as he was that year. And Esche had, what I think, an anomalous performance that year. In fact, just about every player on that depleted, exhausted, injured, but not defeated team, was a hero (which is why that particular playoff loss to Tampa, even till this day, is so hard to take). Hell, even Tony Amonte played the way I didn't think he was capable of.

But it was not out of the realm of a possibility to actually see both Bouch and Esche take the team to the Cup Finals at the very least. At least their respective plays made the Flyers fans proud. Neither has anything to be ashamed of.

They both had commendable regular seasons and followed that up with an exceptional playoff.

Bryzgalov is not even close – not right now anyway. Bouch and Esche were fighting like crazy. They were raising their bar to the limit and were winning games they had no right winning. They were making stops that made you screaming in front of your TV and refuse to believe your own eyes. Bryzgalov, at least in my recollection, did not have a *single* game this year which he stole or won by himself. He had decent games or actually good games. But he didn’t *steal* any games. I don’t remember him making saves which were in a ‘wow’ category. Like that save Bouch made on Elias in 2000 - that save is something that people will remember for years. Bryzgalov hardly distinguished himself with an unbeleivable save or an unbelievable game so far.

Again, many things can change between now and April. And I for one don’t have an explanation for why he is being *that* bad. But to be honest, I have a very little hope that much can change with him.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Mad Dog

[Spinorama]

BUT

it turned out to be a savable shot. he needs to get those.

and oh how many of "those" that we've seen this season.