What the Hell just happen?

[Jam1986]

Again? WHY? WHAT?

[ruxpin]

They got beat by a better team that went to a higher gear. Flyers stopped skating a bit, which didn't help, but the Ducks are clearly better. Still, if Hiller isn't terrific early, maybe it's a different story.

[Howie58]

They got beat by a better team that went to a higher gear. Flyers stopped skating a bit, which didn't help, but the Ducks are clearly better. Still, if Hiller isn't terrific early, maybe it's a different story.

Rux:

 

This game made me ask if we were a) emotionally spent; b) physically drained; or c) talent challenged?  I guess all of the above. I agree Anaheim was better. But I wonder if events and changes of the last three weeks have begun to bite. They are better than a month ago for sure. But against a top-tier team, the weaknesses show. But we really hurt ourselves with bad turnovers. 

 

Best,

Howie

[ruxpin]

Rux:

This game made me ask if we were a) emotionally spent; b) physically drained; or c) talent challenged? I guess all of the above. I agree Anaheim was better. But I wonder if events and changes of the last three weeks have begun to bite. They are better than a month ago for sure. But against a top-tier team, the weaknesses show. But we really hurt ourselves with bad turnovers.

Best,

Howie

Yeah. The Grossman turnover--was it the first or second goal?--wasn't so much about a better team. It was about a lazy, dumb play.

I don't know. Anaheim is clearly better, but they actually had the chance to beat a better team and choked it away.

[hf101]

@ruxpin

 

The sad thing was Rux the Ducks weren't that much better.  The Flyers quit taking the puck to the net after the first period.  They quit skating the puck into the zone.  They tried too many passes instead of putting pressure on Hiller.  

 

They should have had two points tonight.  They let it slip away trying to defend a lead.

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin

The sad thing was Rux the Ducks weren't that much better. The Flyers quit taking the puck to the net after the first period. They quit skating the puck into the zone. They tried too many passes instead of putting pressure on Hiller.

They should have had two points tonight. They let it slip away trying to defend a lead.

This is my upvote since I can't on my phone.

But all of that, frankly, is one of the reasons the Ducks are a better team. Things weren't going Anaheim's way early but they kept skating and kept doing their thing. The Flyers started well and then did exactly what you said.

[King Knut]

They've been demonstrating throughout the season that even when they are good in the first they get progressively worse as the game goes on. They lose focus. Make bad decisions. React slower.

Penalties hurt them too.

Rux:

This game made me ask if we were a) emotionally spent; b) physically drained; or c) talent challenged? I guess all of the above. I agree Anaheim was better. But I wonder if events and changes of the last three weeks have begun to bite. They are better than a month ago for sure. But against a top-tier team, the weaknesses show. But we really hurt ourselves with bad turnovers.

Best,

Howie

[aziz]

They've been demonstrating throughout the season that even when they are good in the first they get progressively worse as the game goes on. They lose focus. Make bad decisions. React slower.

 

 

this.  i don't know where the clearly better thing comes from, one team dominated the first, another dominated the third, and they split the second.  i mean, the flyers really did kind of run the ducks over in the first.

 

that said, the flyers just...unraveled in the third.  i thought b schenn was the biggest example of it, he was a force in the first, fast, smart with the puck, tenacious.  and then completely random and empty headed in the third.  scattered and ineffectual.  the whole team, but schenn seemed to really embody the fall-off.

 

upside, coburn and grossman (bad pass notwithstanding) had really great games.  if those two can continue that kind of play, that's a for-real second pair.  and meszaros didn't look terrible.

 

that third period collapse.  what is that all about?  is it still conditioning?

[krasy]

this.  i don't know where the clearly better thing comes from, one team dominated the first, another dominated the third, and they split the second.  i mean, the flyers really did kind of run the ducks over in the first.

 

that said, the flyers just...unraveled in the third.  i thought b schenn was the biggest example of it, he was a force in the first, fast, smart with the puck, tenacious.  and then completely random and empty headed in the third.  scattered and ineffectual.  the whole team, but schenn seemed to really embody the fall-off.

 

upside, coburn and grossman (bad pass notwithstanding) had really great games.  if those two can continue that kind of play, that's a for-real second pair.  and meszaros didn't look terrible.

 

that third period collapse.  what is that all about?  is it still conditioning?

 

This game was exactly like the first game of the season against the Leafs.

Same effort, different coach.

[Samifan]

it would also help if our defensemen could hit the net when shooting from the point.

 

Anyone else think Giroux was going to break his hand when he was punching the glass in the penalty box after being called for "Crosby-ing", oops I meant diving?

[The Quigster]

It seemed when the Ducks got a little more physical the Flyers tanked!

[Mad Dog]

They simply decided to stand around and stop playing after 2 periods. It's unexplainable and inexcusable. And the problem is, this particular Flyers team with this makeup can ill-afford to do that. The Lindros's Flyers could do it especially against so-so teams because they were better than most of the teams.

 

This team is not.  And when they stop skating and give up the red line so easily, the defense can't keep up with the play and succumb to chaos.  Why this team just cannot compete for the whole 3 periods is inexplicable. I would our head coach to give some explanations.

[ruxpin]

this.  i don't know where the clearly better thing comes from, one team dominated the first, another dominated the third, and they split the second.  i mean, the flyers really did kind of run the ducks over in the first.

 

that said, the flyers just...unraveled in the third.  i thought b schenn was the biggest example of it, he was a force in the first, fast, smart with the puck, tenacious.  and then completely random and empty headed in the third.  scattered and ineffectual.  the whole team, but schenn seemed to really embody the fall-off.

 

upside, coburn and grossman (bad pass notwithstanding) had really great games.  if those two can continue that kind of play, that's a for-real second pair.  and meszaros didn't look terrible.

 

that third period collapse.  what is that all about?  is it still conditioning?

 

My "clearly better" statement came from exactly what you just said.   Good teams don't do that; bad teams do.

 

"Good" clearly better than "bad."

 

It would be different, aziz, if it wasn't nearly every single game.  They disappear in the third period (let's be honest, this particular disappearing act started slightly after halfway through the second).   I do not think it's conditioning at this point, although it's certainly possible.   I suspect it's mental, but it's also possible that they start out playing a bit over their heads and simply can't keep it going.  

 

In this particular game--possibly others--I would contend it's mental because their game seemed to fade away almost immediately with the first Ducks goal.   The Ducks ramped it up and the Flyers disappeared.   

[radoran]

this.  i don't know where the clearly better thing comes from, one team dominated the first, another dominated the third, and they split the second.  i mean, the flyers really did kind of run the ducks over in the first.

 

that said, the flyers just...unraveled in the third.  i thought b schenn was the biggest example of it, he was a force in the first, fast, smart with the puck, tenacious.  and then completely random and empty headed in the third.  scattered and ineffectual.  the whole team, but schenn seemed to really embody the fall-off.

 

upside, coburn and grossman (bad pass notwithstanding) had really great games.  if those two can continue that kind of play, that's a for-real second pair.  and meszaros didn't look terrible.

 

that third period collapse.  what is that all about?  is it still conditioning?

 

The better team dominates the third period - or at least survives it. Just like the Ducks survived the first.

 

Then there's the whole 9-3 vs. 3-7 thing...

[aziz]

My "clearly better" statement came from exactly what you just said.   Good teams don't do that; bad teams do.

 

sure, but the ducks were unraveled to start the game.  presumably good teams don't do that, either.

[radoran]

sure, but the ducks were unraveled to start the game.  presumably good teams don't do that, either.

 

The better team dominates the third period - or at least survives it. Just like the Ducks survived the first.

 

Good teams have bad starts all the time. Bad teams come out with jump in their step on occasion, too.

 

Good teams win those games. Bad teams lose them.

[aziz]

The better team dominates the third period - or at least survives it. Just like the Ducks survived the first.

 

??

 

the ducks gave up 2 goals in the first, the flyers gave up 2 goals in the 3rd.  the flyers "survived" the 3rd to the exact same degree the ducks survived the 1st.  in this particular game, the winner of the 2nd period took the game, as the two teams essentially spotted each other the 1st and 3rd.

[ruxpin]

sure, but the ducks were unraveled to start the game.  presumably good teams don't do that, either.

 

Maybe.  But a good team--on the road--can come out flat or "weather the storm" from the home team, regroup, get it back together, and take it to a new level.

 

Good teams don't play at home, get a 2-0 lead, and disappear.   Maybe once in awhile a good team does that.  But repeatedly disappear as the game goes on?  I mean, the 2 goal lead is new because they haven't even been doing that.  But the starting out okay and then fading is becoming habit.  Clearly, that's not the definition of a good team.

 

C'mon, you're a smart guy.  Are we really having this discussion or are you simply playing devil's advocate and trying to make my head hurt?

[aziz]

Good teams have bad starts all the time. Bad teams come out with jump in their step on occasion, too.

 

Good teams win those games. Bad teams lose them.

 

 

good teams have bad starts all the time.  good teams have bad middles all the time.  good teams have bad ends all the time.  pick the one that best applies to a given game and *poof*: instant wisdom.

[ruxpin]

@aziz

 

I'm guessing, though, that the crux of your argument maybe isn't that the Flyers are a good team.  Are you just saying the Ducks aren't either?  I may actually be willing to agree with that.  At least I don't think they're as good as some of the "national" media seems to give them credit for.

[radoran]

??

 

the ducks gave up 2 goals in the first, the flyers gave up 2 goals in the 3rd.  the flyers "survived" the 3rd to the exact same degree the ducks survived the 1st.  in this particular game, the winner of the 2nd period took the game, as the two teams essentially spotted each other the 1st and 3rd.

So, "moral victory" then.

 

Good to know.

 

How many points do they get for those?

 

None.

 

good teams have bad starts all the time.  good teams have bad middles all the time.  good teams have bad ends all the time.  pick the one that best applies to a given game and *poof*: instant wisdom.

 

Good teams win games.

 

Bad teams lose them.

 

The Flyers lost.

 

There's no "wisdom" - there's fact.

[OH1FlyersFan]

Flyers stopped skating a bit,

 

Totally agree.  They stopped skating in the third period.  Stopped passing too.  Well, I take that back -- stopped accurately passing.  In a way, I thought they were over-passing.  Again.  Just shoot the puck.  They try to get into the most perfect shooting position by trying to make the most perfect passes to ensure the most perfect finish but all the passing, all the setup goes for nothing because they're trying to get into the most perfect shooting position by trying to make the most perfect passes......and on and on.  They are trying way too hard and forcing things.  Just fire the puck at the net, already.  Something will stick.

 

You could see things changing towards the end of the second.  The first period and the first half of the second, they actually looked really good.  They totally took it to the Ducks.  I think it wasn't so much a better Ducks team as it was the Flyers lagging late.  We could have/should have won that game. They're falling into the trap of the last few seasons -- they just can't keep the momentum going and play a full 60 minutes.  It's maddening.

[OH1FlyersFan]

Just read through the rest of the posts in this thread and you know what I found particularly encouraging???  I don't think I read one post about the goalie or goaltending.  That's awesome!  Not being facetious or sarcastic, either.  I think Mason did everything asked of him and everything he could to try to keep the Flyers in the game and give them a shot to win.  He made some pretty amazing saves.  Saves Bryz wouldn't have been able to make.  If we could just score more than two or three goals a game, we might be on to something.

[hf101]

I still think the change from the first period to the third was a change in approach - coaching - gameplan. 

 

In the first period the Flyers were skating the puck into the zone, generally there was at least one forward or two forwards pushing into the zone at the same time.  Opened up some 2 on 2 or 3 on 2 chances.  The Flyers outshot the Ducks.

 

Second period that all stopped! They started waiting at the blue line for the play to enter the zone.  Anaheim was all over that, causing several turnovers.  There were a couple of really dumb shifts one in particular was the fourth line with Rosehill completely lost tripping over his own teammate causing a chance on net at the other end.  The other was on a scoring chance for the Flyers as they had the puck deep....and 4 players come off for a line change.  wtf?  - of course they turned the puck over and the Ducks moved it up ice for a scoring chance.

 

Third period - more of the same.  Short shifts with dump-ins at the blue line by the Flyers.  One player would go after the puck losing it to 2 - 3 ducks.  This happened over and over with very few shots on net.  The shifts were very short.  They sat back and hoped to contain the Ducks to the perimeter. 

 

The Ducks were missing several key players, they didn't dominate.  The Flyers quit skating and stopped shooting the puck on net. The Flyers really quit bringing the play to the net once they had the lead 2-0 lead.

 

I blame the coaching strategy!

[fanaticV3.0]

They got beat by a better team that went to a higher gear. Flyers stopped skating a bit, which didn't help, but the Ducks are clearly better. Still, if Hiller isn't terrific early, maybe it's a different story.

 

That's what it is when it boils down to it. Frankly, I'm surprised they were up 2-0 at all.