Eastern Conference: Round 1 - #2 Pittsburgh Penguins vs. #3 Philadelphia Flyers

[nossagog]

54 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

I wish there was more hockey fans like the Pens fans we have on this board. You guys are really great debaters  without the usual rival macho crap that would normally happen. And that goes to all the Pens fans on this forum.

NOW YOU STOP THAT!!!!!    I don't want to get a bad reputation in the Yinzer's society.  I already have one strike for being here. 

[nossagog]

6 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

 I thought the game was refereed oddly as well. That first power play was a gift, no question.  

The Hornqvist/MacDonald cross check & embellishment call was questionable too, that play looked dangerous every time I watched it. I know the refs were consulting on it, I wonder which one had the angle to see 72 "dive". That was a lucky outcome for the Flyers. 72 didn't help himself by channeljng his inner Matt Cooke later in the period. He's a good player/agitator guess he got a little too involved last night.

This.   If Hornqvist hadn't been beating on Patrick earlier, maybe the dive doesn't get called.  But he was getting out of control.   Not sure if he was going after Patrick due to hit on Sheary in the first, he was not right after that and only had 8:15 of ice time for a top line wing when he averages around 16:00. Will have to see if he skates today.

[flyercanuck]

It wasn't a "dive"...it was embellishment. McDud 100% deserved a penalty. Hornquist 100% embellished it. It was a dangerous play by the Flyer...but Hornquist almost hurt himself selling it.

[intheslot]

Now they have to beat the hell outofthem in Philly ...

 Philly ...Philly ..

 

[MaineFlyFan]

Meltzer's take on the calls.....Spot on as usual. And YES...refs need to watch Hornquivst BIG TIME. He's gonna injure one of our forwards..

 

"Overall, the officiating in Game 2 was adequate. Wes McCauley did his usual strong job, and Tim Peel did his usual flighty job but they communicated well. My take on the other calls worth discussing:

* The Flyers got a gift on their first power play, which should not have been a penalty and which led to Shayne Gostisbehere's goal that opened the scoring. Zach Aston-Reese was penalized for boarding but the hit looked fine to me.

* The Travis Konecny roughing penalty was the right call and a very undisciplined play by Konecny. These types of penalties often seem to end up in power play goals, but the Flyers penalty killers and goalie Brian Elliott stepped up.

* The offsetting Andrew MacDonald and Patric Hörnqvist slashing penalties were correct. The calls were made after a retaliatory chop by MacDonald. Often, only the return shot is called. So the right decision was made here.

* The officials should have taken both Wayne Simmonds and an embellishing Evgeni Malkin off on a scrum from which only Simmonds got the gate. There was equal aggression.

* A correct common sense non-call was made to let Sidney Crosby's frustrated stick smash and after-the-buzzer discarding of his broken stick go at the end of the second period. Yes, the play was technically ongoing when he deliberately smashed his stick but the rule book is rarely called to the exact letter of the law. The frustration was understandable after he tucked a sure-fire goal through the crease instead of into the net. Not for a moment did I think the right decision would have been to call a penalty.

* Hörnqvist 100 percent deliberately launched himself at the end boards on the cross-check from MacDonald. He also protected himself with his gloves going in. Peel seemed to buy it, but McCauley recognized the embellishment. The refs talked it out to arrive at the right call.

[flyercanuck]

1 hour ago, nossagog said:

This.   If Hornqvist hadn't been beating on Patrick earlier, maybe the dive doesn't get called.  But he was getting out of control.   Not sure if he was going after Patrick due to hit on Sheary in the first, he was not right after that and only had 8:15 of ice time for a top line wing when he averages around 16:00. Will have to see if he skates today.

 

Hornquist looked the the ONE player on both sides of the ice who thought this was the 2012 series. He scored a nice goal...but the guy was out of control most of the night.

[flyercanuck]

3 minutes ago, MaineFlyFan said:

Meltzer's take on the calls.....Spot on as usual. And YES...refs need to watch Hornquivst BIG TIME. He's gonna injure one of our forwards..

 

"Overall, the officiating in Game 2 was adequate. Wes McCauley did his usual strong job, and Tim Peel did his usual flighty job but they communicated well. My take on the other calls worth discussing:

* The Flyers got a gift on their first power play, which should not have been a penalty and which led to Shayne Gostisbehere's goal that opened the scoring. Zach Aston-Reese was penalized for boarding but the hit looked fine to me.

* The Travis Konecny roughing penalty was the right call and a very undisciplined play by Konecny. These types of penalties often seem to end up in power play goals, but the Flyers penalty killers and goalie Brian Elliott stepped up.

* The offsetting Andrew MacDonald and Patric Hörnqvist slashing penalties were correct. The calls were made after a retaliatory chop by MacDonald. Often, only the return shot is called. So the right decision was made here.

* The officials should have taken both Wayne Simmonds and an embellishing Evgeni Malkin off on a scrum from which only Simmonds got the gate. There was equal aggression.

* A correct common sense non-call was made to let Sidney Crosby's frustrated stick smash and after-the-buzzer discarding of his broken stick go at the end of the second period. Yes, the play was technically ongoing when he deliberately smashed his stick but the rule book is rarely called to the exact letter of the law. The frustration was understandable after he tucked a sure-fire goal through the crease instead of into the net. Not for a moment did I think the right decision would have been to call a penalty.

* Hörnqvist 100 percent deliberately launched himself at the end boards on the cross-check from MacDonald. He also protected himself with his gloves going in. Peel seemed to buy it, but McCauley recognized the embellishment. The refs talked it out to arrive at the right call.

 

Meltzer speaks the truth...glad to have him with the Flyers.

[MaineFlyFan]

That was a fun game to watch last night....I Really needed that after game 1.

 

Pens are the "better'" team i think.....but this team has the skill (Ghost, Giroux, Coots, prov, vorachek, etc) and DRIVE to give them fits and maybe JUST MAYBE play the underdog role and topple the mighty "Juggernaut" that is the 2 time defending champs! Elliot got LUCKY LUCKY LUCKY on that first post. That goes in and that game is prob lost. Syd still getting way too many quality chances. HE WILL NOT MISS THAT EMPTY NET AGAIN. Breakaway save was HUGE.

 

I was really concerned about how that game 1 disaster would effect our young guys.....this win TOTALLY erased that hopefully and showed them the importance of MOVING ON after a big loss. ONE BAD GAME.

 

I think we have ALL the momentum going into our barn...which should be a MAD HOUSE Sunday. However....Syd usually thrives in that environment for some reason!

 

This is now a series. Thats all I know. 5 game series and we have home ice advantage now as far as I'm concerned!

 

I LOVE PLAYOFF HOCKEY!!!

 

LETS GO FLYERS!!!

[flyercanuck]

Two things other than the obvious Flyer win that I liked...

 

 Konecny making up for his dumb penalty with a beauty of a goal. I love this kids grit and literally laughed out loud when he went after Oleksiak (who I thought had a great game and also has about a foot and a hundred pounds on Konecny) this kid can be a real difference maker but he has to learn to pick his spots. I guess you can't totally neuter a guy who plays his style or you take away from it, but you can't keep giving the best PP in the league chances.

 

 Patrick coming back from that crash into the boards. He's had a lot of bad luck over the past couple of years, and it's really the only knock on him. He played a nice game last night for his 2nd ever NHL playoff, but even better was just NOT getting hurt.

[brelic]

This is from the Pens blogger on HB -

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Ryan-Wilson/Do-it-again/177/92336

 

Quote

 

Not a great result for the Penguins after their 7-0 dismantling of the Flyers. Philadelphia tied the series up with a 5-1 victory in Pittsburgh on Friday night. It was a game I would be comfortable with the Penguins playing again five more times this series and expect to win three of them. There were a few things I didn't like that the Penguins could polish up, but overall the game result was dictated by the goaltenders. Brian Elliott was great and Matt Murray was sub .800.

 

High danger chances were 7-2 in Pittsburgh's favor at 5v5. It was that kind of night. It's a great result for the Flyers, but if I'm in the Pittsburgh locker room I am not looking to change a lot. The Malkin line is doing work and Brian Elliott can't slip up at all with this kind of domination.

 

 

That sums it up pretty well. A carbon copy of last night’s game will usually end up in the Pens favour. Unless Elliott can play like this every game in the series, the Flyers need to tighten up a lot defensively.

 

Should be electric at the WFC tomorrow!

[OccamsRazor]

17 hours ago, Howie58 said:

the goals were close-up

 

 

Exactly.

 

I know it's not popular around here but you have to give Hak props for recognizing that and changing it up for the 2nd game.

 

Now i will say it would have been nice to have noticed that in game one and make the changes during the game.

 

The Pens in the 1st game were happy keeping everything to the perimeter and taking away the middle in close stuff.

 

So it's like a chess game who makes the next move.

 

Maybe it now gets down to which goaltender holds up. Flyers got the bounces the 2nd game that went to the Pens the 1st.

 

Strange stat Coots gets his 1st goal since the last time he lit it up in the playoffs for a hatty...also on friday the 13th 2012.

[OccamsRazor]

6 hours ago, MaineFlyFan said:

The Travis Konecny roughing penalty was the right call and a very undisciplined play by Konecny. These types of penalties often seem to end up in power play goals, but the Flyers penalty killers and goalie Brian Elliott stepped up.

 

I love the kids enthusiasm but he needs to cool it and play with controlled aggression...it can be done.

 

Hak will increase his ice time when he shows him what he is looking for.

 

Flyers need him and his speed with that nasty wrister he has....get it together kid the Flyers NEED YOU!!!!!!

[Howie58]

Here is Dave Hess's take, which puts Pitt as the mild favorite:

 

https://winnersandwhiners.com/games/nhl/4-15-2018/pittsburgh-penguins-vs-philadelphia-flyers-expert-prediction-8404/

 

Taking their overall bodies of work, Matt Murray has been a much better playoff netminder than the Moose.  I suspect we see an angry Pitt team.  But, we will see a motivated Flyers squad that knows it can compete with Pitt if they avoid dumb penalties and get Murray out of place through quick puck movement up close.  I don't worry about Giroux and the first line.  It's whether everybody else contributes.  

 

[Pucked in the head]

9 hours ago, pilldoc said:

 

Funny I was thinking the same thing.  I 5-1 game looks better than 4-2.  Even though the game was in hand with about 2 minutes to go ...I did NOT want the Pens to score.  Holding the Pens off the score board while they had a 6 on 5 advantage for  approximately the last 4 minutes is/was huge.

BIG momentum boost .. that was nice to see them hold them off for so long that was a 5 min major.... So hopefully we can carry that momentum through the rest of the series....

[OccamsRazor]

 

 

Go Flyes!!!!!!

[OccamsRazor]

Way to set the tone G even if it was on accident....

 

 

 

[nossagog]

2 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

Way to set the tone G even if it was on accident....

 

 

 

That was one of those accidentally on purpose things.   There was going to be a collision, but Giroux made it count with the reverse style check rising for the hit.  I was surprised that Letang was okay afterwards, that was quite the collision. 

[OccamsRazor]

23 minutes ago, nossagog said:

That was one of those accidentally on purpose things.   There was going to be a collision, but Giroux made it count with the reverse style check rising for the hit.  I was surprised that Letang was okay afterwards, that was quite the collision. 

 

Well can't fault him for bracing for the hit not sure I call that on purpose unless you count Kessel's push.

[nossagog]

9 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Well can't fault him for bracing for the hit not sure I call that on purpose unless you count Kessel's push.

That was more than bracing, but as I said, there was no doubt that there was going to be a collision and he used that to his advantage.  As you said, no fault there. 

[OccamsRazor]

10 minutes ago, nossagog said:

That was more than bracing, but as I said, there was no doubt that there was going to be a collision and he used that to his advantage.  As you said, no fault there. 

 

I think you're seeing what you want to see he gets shoved and braces for impact. He fell into a Penguin player can't think of a better way to break your fall. 

 

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

I think you're seeing what you want to see he gets shoved and braces for impact. He fell into a Penguin player can't think of a better way to break your fall. 

 

Are you kidding? He clearly saw him through the periscope in the back of his helmet and deliberately chose to butt check him. Clearly. 

[ruxpin]

What was particularly entertaining on that play was Penguins fans clamoring for a penalty. Lol. I'm not sure what they thought the call should be. 

[ruxpin]

2 hours ago, nossagog said:

That was more than bracing, but as I said, there was no doubt that there was going to be a collision and he used that to his advantage.  As you said, no fault there. 

I'm kidding at your expense in the other post, but it's plausible.  I don't think I agree, but it's certainly plausible. 

[OccamsRazor]

3 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Are you kidding? He clearly saw him through the periscope in the back of his helmet and deliberately chose to butt check him. Clearly. 

 

He was hit and was falling/stumbling trying to find his footing so he hit him.

 

Big deal, it's hockey.

[Kings Redeem LA]

14 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

 I thought the game was refereed oddly as well. That first power play was a gift, no question.  

The Hornqvist/MacDonald cross check & embellishment call was questionable too, that play looked dangerous every time I watched it. I know the refs were consulting on it, I wonder which one had the angle to see 72 "dive". That was a lucky outcome for the Flyers. 72 didn't help himself by channeljng his inner Matt Cooke later in the period. He's a good player/agitator guess he got a little too involved last night.

 

It was a strange ref one indeed. 

Flyers got a couple noticeable breaks. 

Hopefully the series works out to where 

there's no clear beneficiary from refs bumbling.