Lackluster Flyers fall to Sharks, 4-1
[Recap] - [Boxscore] - [Complete Coverage] - [SJ Reaction]
That wasn't pretty. The Philadelphia Flyers fell to the San Jose Sharks 4-1 tonight at the Wachovia Center in possibly the most boring hockey game we've seen all season. No flow, no rhythm, and an ugly Flyers loss leads to a short, boring game recap. Manny Malhotra scored two for San Jose while Jed Ortmayer and Dany Heatley added the other two. Darroll Powe scored the lone goal for Philadelphia, who put 38 shots on San Jose's Thomas Greiss. That hefty total doesn't tell half the story, though.
- San Jose just had more jump than the Flyers. While the orange and black controlled the tempo in the first period, it's like they fell asleep for the rest of the game. That's simply inexcusable.
- Give credit where credit is due: the Sharks defense just did their job and shut down the Flyers offense.
- Thomas Greiss earned a victory tonight, outplaying Brian Boucher. He didn't play lights out hockey, but he certainly stifled the Flyers successfully for his first NHL win.
- Boucher wasn't good, but he wasn't the reason the Flyers lost, either.
- The pairing of Kimmo Timonen and Braydon Coburn were the reason the Flyers lost tonight. They were each a minus three tonight, although the numbers on the NHL game summary say they were on the ice for all four Sharks goals.
- Danny Briere was physically abused like a dog at Michael Vick's house. Left and right, up and down, the Sharks just had their way with him. His lip was cut open on an uncalled high stick in the second period and that just seemed to frustrate him beyond belief. It definitely got him off of his game in the third.
- The officiating was just atrocious both ways all night long, and that's as far as we'll take that.
- As Ben Feldman lovingly pointed out in the comments, the faceoffs were terrible as usual.
- The ice looked real bad, and the bounces definitely went in the Sharks favor for most of the evening. The first two Sharks goals were both converted following bad bounces.
- The Flyers' fourth line of Darroll Powe, Mika Pyorala, and Dan Carcillo was maybe the only bright spot, but even they fell flat in the final two periods.
- Why did Arron Asham only play eight minutes?
- John Stevens again qualified his teams' performance post game by saying "I thought we did some good things" and that he "thought the guys played hard." Nobody else saw that, John.
Not the worst loss in the world, but there were certainly some problems tonight. Shake it off and win on the road in a much more important game Tuesday in Washington. After the jump, questions with answers and comment of the night.
Questions With Answers
- The Sharks have got to be tired after this long road trip. Can the Flyers take advantage? They tried in the first period but couldn't take the lead. Perhaps that gave the Sharks some jump, but the Flyers failed to capitalize on any advantage they might've had.
- Who has the advantage tonight, the Sharks offense or Brian Boucher? Well it's hard to tell. It definitely wasn't Boucher, but the three players who scored on him tonight weren't his teammates last year in San Jose.
- Can the Flyers successfully stop Heatley, Thornton, and Marleau? All three players hit the score sheet.
- Does Pronger continue to be the subject of recurring nightmares in San Jose? Pronger was even in 27 minutes of ice time. The man just does his job.
Comment of the Night
I was at a party at the Swedish embassy last night, and they had a big picture of Forsberg in a Flyers jersey on a wall of great Swedes.
0 recs |
81 comments
| Add comment
|
Comments
I disagree
The Flyers did not play as well as they could have, but some credit for that goes to the Sharks, who played outstanding team defense and kept us to the perimeter. There are going to be nights like this where the other team forces us to play their game because the other team is as good as, or better than, we are. In short, I don’t think the Flyers lacked for effort, but they could not execute because the Sharks would not let them. It also helped the Sharks’ cause that they are an excellent faceoff team and we are not. If you spend most of the game chasing the puck, you’re not going to win very often.
The three things which frustrated me the most tonight were the lousy officiating, the Flyers’ poor job on faceoffs, and what I am assuming is another injury for Simon Gagne. He played 11:44 tonight while his normal center (Richards) played about 10 minutes more. Something had to happen. He’s not the kind of guy that a coach would bench for dogging it (a la Lupul).
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Oct 25, 2009 10:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I got the feeling that allowing San Jose to pretty much dictate the game following the first period was a result of the Flyers lack of effort. Maybe they got frustrated quickly because of the Sharks’ solid defensive play and just sat back, but I got the feeling that they were just going through the motions for a lot of the latter part of the game.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Oct 25, 2009 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think they could have tried harder but it didn’t seem like they weren’t trying at all. Agree to disagree.
I’m just wondering what’s up with Gagne.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Oct 25, 2009 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I see what you’re saying. I get frustrated whenever there isn’t clear 100 percent effort, though.
Gagne only played 39 seconds in one shift at the beginning of the third, so it does look like something happened. Weird that nothing has been mentioned postgame, though.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Oct 25, 2009 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kimmo and Braydon need to be separated, put Parent with kimmo for 2nd line when he gets back. What the hell is up with Coburn this year, has he been training with Stevie Wonder on puck control. He loses the puck every time he touches it. Even his defense looks piss poor, ALWAYS out of possession.
Just a thought, how long does Stevens have with this team??? every problem we had last year is still killing us, lack of D, no effort from our top two lines, bad 3rd periods……. The addition of Pronger and Emery were supposed to help, but i see it every game that we pinch way too much!!!! We leave way too many easy shots against which is what killed us last year. I feel as though the team plays its age, immature. This is the type of game that makes me wish we had Hitch back.
Sorry for the rant, just a lil tweaked from the game.
by JpH89 on Oct 26, 2009 12:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Couldn’t agree more. Nothing has changed with this team (change being the mark of good coaching), nothing except for Coburn. He has been absolutely terrible. He’s this season’s Randy Jones. Every time you see a forward just sitting comfortably in the crease, there’s Coburn not clearing him. When you see a ridiculous turnover trying to pass out of our defensive zone, there’s Coburn. When you see someone over-commit on a totally unnecessary pinch creating an odd-man siutation the other way, there’s Coburn. Not to mention, where has the physical aspect of his game gone? He was at his best last year when he was laying people out, and I thought we would get to continue enjoying that. Either way, it’s clear he needs to be moved onto another pairing, and I don’t care with whom. If playing with Pronger will help him with his defensive errs, then fine, do it. If Carle will compliment him nicely as a partner and then can play off each other and grow together into overall better players, then fine, do it. If playing fewer minutes with OKT or Syvret will startle him into putting in a better effort or whatever, then fine, do it. Just make a change. Now. Please.
by eeeeee on Oct 26, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
27 C MALHOTRA, MANNY 12-15 / 80%
vs. 14 R LAPERRIERE, IAN 1-1 / 100%
vs. 17 C CARTER, JEFF 3-4 / 75%
vs. 18 C RICHARDS, MIKE 4-4 / 100%
vs. 27 C PYORALA, MIKA 1-2 / 50%
vs. 28 R GIROUX, CLAUDE 2-3 / 67%
vs. 48 C BRIERE, DANIEL 1-1 / 100%
Yep, good thing we didn’t sign that guy, we’re clearly all set on faceoffs here….
The Flyers beat a depleted Bruins team and a Florida team with only 10 forwards, both of those teams playing the latter end of back-to-back games.
Tonight we see their many flaws come out. Powe and Syvret are to blame for the first goal against, with Powe turning the puck over by skating into an opponent behind the Flyers’ net, leading to Syvret flipping it into the crowd and San Jose scoring on the ensuing power play. Syvret and OKT made stupid decision after stupid decision all night.
This team plays shit defense and can’t win a faceoff. These have been constants ever since the third game of the season. These were issues identified by Paul Holmgren in June, and they haven’t been addressed. What the fuck is he waiting for?
by MarioD on Oct 26, 2009 12:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
you need to remember that Betts is also an 80% faceoff guy. Just shit luck that hes hurt right now, but the defense is right on point, Stevens needs to go.
by JpH89 on Oct 26, 2009 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the problem:
If you replace Stevens, then who do you bring in? I doubt that Mike Babcock is available.
We’ve got the talent here but I think it may be a matter of the system, so I agree on that point. But I don’t know if we change the coach for the sake of changing coaches. You don’t just fire Stevens and put Berube in charge. You’ve got to have a game plan. If you plan on changing coaches after you bring in the talent to put you over the top, you want a coach who YOU KNOW will be able to get the job done.
As for Mario’s comment, I’d rather go through some struggles at the beginning of the season then later on. I’m too tired to do extensive research right now, but I remember that the 1985-86 Oilers started off the year with 13 straight wins and lost in the second round of the playoffs. The 1993-94 Maple Leafs started off with 10 straight wins and lost in the conference finals. When it comes to be playoff time, that quote from every investment firm commercial rings true: Past performance is no guarantee of future success.
I actually feel bad for Coburn because it seems that everything is going wrong for him. He seemed rejuvenated later in the game when paired with Matt Carle; the two of them looked good as last season went on. Maybe reunite them, put Timonen and Pronger together, and see what happens.
It’s still October, folks. We started 0-3-3 last year and still had a shot at first place in our division as March was coming to a close. Let’s relax a little bit.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Oct 26, 2009 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you can say its still October, but its a problem thats been going on since last October too.
by JpH89 on Oct 26, 2009 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“These have been constants ever since the third game of the season.”
Actually, they’ve been constants since the beginning of John Stevens tenure with this team. It’s the biggest part of why he isn’t a real coach- nobody ever gets better under him. If they don’t teach themselves, they’re not going to learn anything. Our defensemen still can’t pass out of our own zone, and we don’t seem to have any sort of designed plays to clear the puck- the last man back will just skate around until the forecheck descends upon them and then try to force the puck through a player or two. We still give up the blue line like it’s nothing. It amazes me that we can never, ever carry the puck into our own zone because nobody else backs up at the blue line, and yet it hasn’t occured to Stevens that if you force people to make a decision at the blue line, then the odds that they do anything but dump it or turn it over are slim. Not every forward driving into our zone is Ovechkin.
Also, while I’m on the topic of Stevens’ inadequacy- would you have chosen to give your backup his first start of the season against the worst team in hockey, or one of the top few? Me, I would have probably sent him out there against the Panthers and saved my starter for the Sharks. I guess that’s why I’m not a professional level coach, though.
by eeeeee on Oct 26, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Powe and Syvret are to blame for the first goal against
You are consistent, if not predictable. I will give you that.
by SanDiegoScraps on Oct 26, 2009 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d rather go through some struggles at the beginning of the season then later on.
Gagne struggled, Coburn struggled, Pronger has struggled at times.
I’m fine with those players.
The point is Syvret isn’t “struggling”: He sucks. This team isn’t “struggling” to play defense, they suck at defense. They sucked last year at playing defense. They sucked two years ago at playing defense. They aren’t going to buy a new batch of sticks and suddenly learn how to win a faceoff after two years of sucking at that.
They need new players to accomplish those things. That’s Holmgren’s job, not Stevens’. Holmgren identified these problems four months ago, and has done nothing to fix them.
by MarioD on Oct 26, 2009 12:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Homer got the Players(Pronger), but its the system that doesn’t utilize the players to there fullest. It seems as though Stevens is too concerned about having his defenders on offense then on defense, i.e. why is Coburn the last person to enter the defensive zone? Why do we give up so many odd man rushes? Why our Powe and Carcillo protecting Emery in front of the net while kimmo is behind the net with nobody else there and Coburn playing the point, or vise versa , Pronger and Carel are screening the goalie while Giroux is the only player playing the blue line on offense???? WE HAVE THE PLAYERS!!!! This should be a Stanley Cup team, but we play like we did 3 years ago. Pitt was the 4th worst team in the East last year, and look what happened, they brought in a tougher coach, played shut down d, and BOOM, Champs!!!! If we are in the same position by December that we are in now, then yes i say bring in someone else.
by JpH89 on Oct 26, 2009 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why our[sic] Powe and Carcillo protecting Emery in front of the net while kimmo is behind the net with nobody else there and Coburn playing the point
Because Powe and Carcillo are out of position.
Homer got the Players(Pronger)
Exactly. All he did was get Pronger, Laperriere, and Betts. Thats not enough, especially when you, simultaneously, go from probably a top five goaltending duo to two mediocre netminders.
It’s time to make a move: Richards, Gagne, Carter, Hartnell.
by MarioD on Oct 26, 2009 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can’t you say that they are trying to cover for Our out of position defenders???…. and have you watched the games at all, Emery looks amazing out there, making saves that Marty would never had made. Its the God awful D that is letting up goals, even Ward would have trouble on this team. not saying that Boosh is better then Nitty, but Emery far makes the Goalie situation better then last year.
And who else do we need, we have possibly the best top 12 in the NHL, a defense that(on paper) has 2 shut down pairs and Parent(a top 4 D) playing 6, and a starting goalie that can play 60 games with a <3.00 GOA and a save % above 90%. Homer did his job, like i said before, it comes down to the coaches exaction of the players, which they are not doing at all.
by JpH89 on Oct 26, 2009 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You complain about defense but then want to get rid of one or more of the forwards who actually do play average to above average defense?
by Ben Feldman on Oct 26, 2009 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think he meant tto say we need to do something to lite a fire under these guys to get them going. Carter, Gagne, and Hartnell are all playing poor right now and Richie may have the stats, but is not playing like a Captain at all.
by JpH89 on Oct 26, 2009 1:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s more than I am saying.
You need to give assets to get assets. This is not working. It’s not time to rebuild, but its time to blow it up. Similar to what the Sharks did this summer. I would’ve loved to have traded Gagne for Heatley.
by MarioD on Oct 26, 2009 2:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heatley will certainly solve all are defensive problems that you are whining about. Gagne is league why regarded has a top two way player, Heatley is a -1 on the year despite have 15 pts and for his career is only a plus 36 despite scoring the second most goals in the league over the last 5 years. Gagne is a career +146 and had only one year in the minus and that was two years ago with all his concussion problems.
by chrislanci on Oct 26, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Carter, Gagne, and Hartnell are all playing poor right now and Richie may have the stats, but is not playing like a Captain at all.
Carter and Richie are averaging more than a point per game. Hartnell isn’t playing great with 4 points in 9 games but poor is a bit much, Gagne hasn’t been scoring but he is 3rd on the team in +/- as a forward, and he has been getting chances the goals will come. 9 games 5-3-1 against the all playoff teams minus the Panthers and all but the Sharks and Devils failed to get out of the 1st round. Don’t go getting all crazy it is still October last year we were 4-3-4 to finish the month we have already won more games this year in October playing better competition. Last year we had the Islanders, Atlanta, and Colorado to get the easy wins against, and got smoked 5-2 but the Avs at home.
by chrislanci on Oct 26, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I watch the games and see emery refuse to leave his crease when he should be challenging shooters (see: Selanne’s first goal, Dvorak’s goal, etc.) and leave terrible rebounds all game long.
Ray Emery has a .904 save percentage, which is pretty attrocious. Right now, he’s 28th in the league amongst qualifying goaltenders in save percentage.
Parent is a solid third pairing dman, no more. And I can’t even begin to address the lunacy of arguing that the Flyers have the best group of forwards in the league…
by MarioD on Oct 26, 2009 1:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
again, with most goals against being on the Defense( on selanne’s first goal, was it not Coburn who failed to cover him, leaving a 1 v. 1? If Coburn was able to do his job, maybe Selanne doesn’t get a shot off).
and whats wrong with our forwards??? a fourth line of Powe, Betts, and Carcillo is better then most teams 3rd lines. and having a potential 30 goal scorer on each top 3 lines isn’t bad either. I won’t(didn’t) say they were the best, but they COULD be the best in terms of scoring and play above average D
by JpH89 on Oct 26, 2009 1:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Coburn forced him Selanne wide and Emery gave up the short side. Selanne was not on a breakaway, he took a snap shot from the circle. Its a save that has to be made. I do not blame Coburn for that.
Powe, Betts, and Carcillo is NOT better than most 3rd lines. It would be a mediocre fourth line.
Carcillo, Betts, and Laperriere worked well together those first few games, and it was the third line during that time. Powe-Giroux-JVR was the fourth line. Neither of those lines was better than most other teams’ third lines.
The forwards DO NOT play average D. They play terrible D.
by MarioD on Oct 26, 2009 2:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Once again Coburn didn’t force Selanne wide he force him to the left he was still inside the dots and made great shot off the post, Coburn should have been in front of Selanne and to force him wide should have been outside the dots. Coburn got caught watching the pass and was in bad position for Selanne to skate around him like a pylon. Any time the defender is chasing the play he made a mistake and that goal was basically Selanne one on one with Emery. It is not like the puck went through Emery or bounced to former 80 goal scorer ripped it off the post, it was a good scoring chance and the goalie lost the battle. Any save percentage over .900 is good enough to win we have a difficult schedule against some very good offensive teams and are defense hasn’t give up may shots just a few breakdowns lead to very good scoring chances resulting in a lower save percentage. Against the Sharks they didn’t get many really good scoring chances and we still lost because Boucher played awful letting in weak goals.
by chrislanci on Oct 26, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can continue living in whatever fantasy land it is that calls a wrist shot, when there’s no one else in the zone to pass to, from wide of the net a quality scoring chance, but keep it in your head.
by MarioD on Oct 26, 2009 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

from wide of the net
From this picture, which you posted, Selanne is closer to the hash marks than the faceoff dot that is not WIDE. I am sure you are the only person on the planet that would consider that position to be wide of that net, further cementing your status as the craziest member of the BSH.
by chrislanci on Oct 27, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
i was at that game, and everyone there was blaming Braydon. At school the next day, every one was blaming Braydon. On this site, 90% of the people were blaming Braydon. Somehow MarioD finds it OK to be out of possion, not looking at the play, letting a player skate right by you, and not even looking at the passing lanes to be solid D, bt yet its ALL jvr, powe, and Emery’s fault that Selanne was one-on-one???
by JpH89 on Oct 27, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s not out of position. He’s the only dman back taking Selanne one on one, when Selanne has a step on him because he cut across the blueline. He made the right play.
by MarioD on Oct 27, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude you have to be kidding me. your gonna tell me its OK to just let a player skate right pass you into the offense zone for an open shot? I can’t believe i need to argue defenses 101 here. You do realize that the defenseman MAIN JOB is to reduce the shots on net right???? I play defense, i know what to do, and everything that a GOOD defenseman should do Coburn is not doing. We get it, you like Coburn a lot, so do I and every one else on this site does too, but at least we have the balls to say that he is having an AWFUL year thus far. I admit the defense in general looks bad, Pronger looks bad sometimes, Kimmo is playing Lackluster, Carel worries way too much about the offense, and OKT and Syvret are a terrible 3rd D line, but Coburn is the WORST player so far by far. I hope and believe that he can turn it around, but to keep ignoring all the flaws he is making and pinning them on other players is Stupidity at its finist!
and how the HELL is he playing him one-on-one if he is 5 feet back and diving???? And what step did Selanne make to cut across Coburn, his left foot going forward then his right, because he sure as hell didn’t make an amazing move to get across Coburn, he just skated right by him.
by JpH89 on Oct 27, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Selanne cut across the blue line from the bench. Coburn had just jumped on the ice from the bench. Coburn was also the only dman in the play, as carle was up forechecking the O zone.
Coburn’s only play is to slow the play down and not allow Selanne the middle of the ice. Which he did. Selanne got a step on Coburn because Selanne was in full stride so Coburn dove and with his stick forced Selanne to take that shot, from outside the post, rather than being able to cut across net.
If the puck went anywhere but shortside, it might be a different story. But Emery had all day to cut down that angle and instead never even got there.
by MarioD on Oct 27, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not to burst you bubble, but Coburn was not just getting on the ice, i saw him standing the and letting Selanne skate right by him, and when he noticed Selanne was behind him all he could do was dive. Find me some visual proof that shows otherwise of just give up man.
by JpH89 on Oct 27, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right, he was actually at the end of his shift. He comes from the direction of the bench so I assumed he had just jumped on.
In fact, he was tired, and trying to get off, but has to go try to stop selanne one-on-one instead.
Now, I’m going to explain this one last time, using simple geometry to show how Coburn forced Selanne wide.
Coburn clearly forced Selanne wider. In those pictures, you can see Pyorala coming from the bench, completely out of the play. You can see Carle nowhere near being in the play trying to catch up.
It’s one-on-one, Selanne against a tired Coburn. Mathematically, you can see Coburn forced Selanne to go wide around Coburn, and take a shot from about 8 feet outside of the post. There is no excuse for Emery to give up the short side there.
by MarioD on Oct 27, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never questioned the fact the Selanne was forced wider, just mad at the fact that he beat him so easilly. As you can see from the first photo, Coburn had him face to face, but by the 2nd photo, you see selanne two steps ahead. Tired or not Coburn still got lazy with one of the greatest snipers of all time and If I was Emery i would have been pissed out of my mind.
And your right about Carel being in the offense zone, thats what i hate about Stevens, hes too concerned about his defenseman playing O and not D. It was our biggest problem last year was out of position defenseman and its still our problem this year.
by JpH89 on Oct 27, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re missing the precursor to the first photo. Selanne is skating hard across the blue line before receiving the puck, that’s why he has the step to turn the corner.
The dilemna for coburn was to
a) stay farther back, keeping himself between Selanne and the net, but allowing Selanne to cut to the slot
or
b) step up as he did, forcing selanne to go wide and cut down the angle for Emery.
I personally like the second one because it was a situation where no other duck was in the zone. But that relies upon Emery coming out to cut down the angle Coburn forced.
Either option is valid. But when Coburn makes the decision to force the angle, it means Emery has to come out and challenge.
Emery neither came out to challenge, nor even took the correct angle; he gave up the short side.
by MarioD on Oct 27, 2009 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
dude the puck hit the post and went in Emery didn’t give him much to shoot out instead of faulting Emery how about tipping your hat to a great shot. Also if Coburn marked Selanne before he got the puck as he cut across the ice this would have never have occured
P.S. wider is certainly not wide
by chrislanci on Oct 28, 2009 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and how much more Do you want Emery to come out to challenge, id say that he was a good distance from that photo? Do you want Emery to just skate out and tackle him?
And how is the shot force wide? Selanne is right handed isn’t he? I’d say he looks plenty comfortable taking that shot.
Again, being at the game, Selanne was not “forced wide” by Coburn. He skated straight past him. He didn’t make a move. He didn’t deek anyone out. He went perpendicular right passed Coburn, there was no forcing of anything but boo’s to Coburn from the fans after the play.
by JpH89 on Oct 27, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I want Emery to LEAVE THE FUCKING CREASE which he has never once done this season.
by MarioD on Oct 27, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you kidding me?
The post is even with the hashmarks. Selanne is shooting the puck a good five feet from the haskmark. That’s “wide of the net” and gives Emery a great angle.
Emery fucked up by giving up the shortside of the net.
by MarioD on Oct 27, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if you ever played hockey you will know that inside the dots is prime scoring position you can hit either corner from there with a good hard wrist shot before the goalie can react
by chrislanci on Oct 27, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Technically...
.904 is average. It’s not atrocious. An average goalie stops 9 out of every 10 shots he faces.
We want our goalie to be better than “average” for sure. But it’s October. I think Emery has rebounded nicely from the 5-goals-against games of Washington and Pittsburgh. Give him time. At the very worst, he’ll probably be on par with Biron, except he won’t be as easy to push off the puck.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Oct 26, 2009 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
All I'm going to say:
Coburn and Timonen were both a -3, and were on the ice for all four goals against.
Richards and Carter were a -2.
Carcillo, Syvret, Pyorala, and Tollefsen were all a +1.
Why you pick this game to slam Powe, Carcillo, Syvret, and Tollefsen is beyond me.
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Oct 26, 2009 9:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Because the first goal doesn’t happen without Powe’s turnover leading to Syvret’s penalty. Because OKT took two unnecessary lack-of-discipline penalties.
I have no problem with Carcillo.
by MarioD on Oct 26, 2009 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh my god! The first goal? It also doesn’t happen without Coburn missing the clear on the dump in, then standing in front of the net chopping away at the stick of Dany Heatley, rather than knocking him down. It doesn’t happen without three of the four Flyers PK unit between the far wall and the face-off dot, where only 2 Sharks are. It doesn’t happen for many reasons, but you choose to direct all your anger at two players who are marginally responsible for one goal in a three goal loss.
I’m not going to argue with you over this, since your opinion clearly cannot be swayed. But after a 4-1 loss, where our second D-pairing is on the ice for all four goals against, singling out players who were a +1, +1, and even (while scoring a goal) just isn’t the right time to slam them for sucking.
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Oct 26, 2009 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
MarioD do you expect the Flyers not to take a single penalty during the game. Here is an example of MarioD logic:
JVR takes a long shift in the Florida game, Powe ice time goes up a result 2 weeks later in a back to back game he is too tired to win a face-off against the great Manny Malhotra forcing OKT to ice the puck leading to anther face off loss, Flyers recover gain control but Powe turns it over, Svyvert takes a Penalty to cover for turnover leading to yet another defensive zone face off. Stevens puts out Lappy who is distracted by Emery’s orange hat on the bench and loses another faceoff to Malhotra, pucks bounces around Heatly slams it through Boucher. 1st goals fault goes to Stevens for letting Lappy take the faceoff, Homer for not signing Malhotra, OKT for icing the puck, Powe for making a turnover, JVR for taking a long shift 2 weeks ago, Lappy for losing a faceoff and Emery for wearing a orange hat.
Hockey is a team sport mistakes, turnovers, will happen you are not going to shutout every team, turnovers that lead directly goals Pronger to Ovechkin for instance you can clearly fault Pronger but all this Chaos theory crap to blame guys you clearly don’t like is utterly ridiculous. When a mistake is made someone has to make a play to neutralize it, with the last line being the goalie. The same mistakes and turnovers happend by the Sharks they got the bounces, blocked the ensuing shot or the goalie made a good key save, and they deserved that win.
We get it you don’t like Homer moves, JVR, Emery, Powe, Syvert and OKT. Every game we win comes with a condition, a depleted Boston team and we had to win in a shootout. Florida on back to back missing some forwards. I never notice you commenting during a win and certainly complained a lot during the Anaheim loss even though that loss was in a shootout, and the Florida game we had 5 d-man from the get go and haven’t played in forever. If you don’t make excuses for losses than don’t make excuses for wins. unless you don’t mind being a hypocrite.
by chrislanci on Oct 26, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about you talk about hockey instead of talking about me. Because I have no idea what all that means.
by MarioD on Oct 27, 2009 2:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
standing in front of the net chopping away at the stick of Dany Heatley, rather than knocking him down
I don’t see how turning it into a 5-3 powerplay for the Sharks would’ve made the situation better.
The power play is the result of a terrible mental mistake by Powe, and a horrible play by Syvret. The Flyers killed off three of the Sharks four power plays, and are currently ranked third in the league, so I’m certainly not going to blame the PK for giving up a single goal. The issue that this team has repeated said they need to address are dumb mistakes and bad plays that lead to penalties. Powe, Syvret, and Tollefson did those things last night.
by MarioD on Oct 26, 2009 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course. Because if you hit the guy with the puck, it’s automatically a penalty. How about Coburn knocks him off the puck without taking a penalty? It’s not hard, but with Coburn’s year so far, maybe it is. Why find fault in the PK when they make a mistake when you can just blame Powe and Syvret?

As evidenced right there, the PK effed up and is out of position.

And right there, Timonen gets spun around and takes himself out of the play. Coburn stands there doing nothing while Heatley is pounding away. Before you say he’s in position as he’s covering his man, then it’s Boucher’s fault for not hugging the post, or one of Lappy or Giroux’s job to slide down and cover the man in front, so Coburn can play the puck. Or play the man hacking away at his goaltender. Either way, I’m not blaming anybody. The PK effed up, and that happens. But you choose to blame two guys who weren’t on the ice for a goal, while the guys on the ice made just as many mistakes.
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Oct 27, 2009 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
Coburn needs to be more physical in general. And this year more than others along as we were not playing the Pens the defensemen on both teams are being given a lot more freedom to clear the front of the net, a lot more is being let go Briere was taken out a few times in this game and JVR ended up inside the Sharks net on an earlier scramble down low without a call. I like the no calls but we have to start taking advantage of that.
by chrislanci on Oct 27, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heatley never had the puck. He poked in someone else’s rebound. If Coburn had hit him, it was going to be a penalty.
And in that second photo, they are all in position…
The mistakes were made by Powe and Syvret, that’s why I blame them. Nowhere in that second photo is a mistake being made.
by MarioD on Oct 27, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just close your eyes and blame Powe and Syvret. Go ahead, I’m done arguing with you when you ignore photographic evidence of errors made by Kimmo, Coburn, Boucher, Giroux, and Lappy.
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Oct 27, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The first photo is irrelevant to the play. The second photo, the players are all in position.
Explain to me how you’d like Coburn, in that second photo, to have somehow knocked heatley down when Coburn is guarding the man in the slot and Heatley is next to the net.
by MarioD on Oct 27, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OMG, you know what? You’re completely and unequivocally right. I don’t know why I even argued with you. That first photo, you know, 3 seconds before the goal, is completely irrelevant to the play. See that guy, waving for the puck because he’s so far away from a single Flyer he’s basically standing in New Jersey? Yeah, he has nothing to do with the puck going in. Completely irrelevant to the play.
Let’s go burn Darroll Powe, Danny Syvret, and JVR in effigy.
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Oct 27, 2009 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
just because you are recovering from a turnover doesn’t mean Syvert has to toss the puck over the glass I mean jesus he got a delay of game penalty its not like he pulled someone down on a resulting breakaway, you are really stretching to play the lone goal scorer of the game
by chrislanci on Oct 26, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, what does this even mean? This entire post makes no sense.
by MarioD on Oct 26, 2009 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
in your initial post you faulted Powe’s turnover for Syvert’s penalty, Syverts bad clear had nothing to do you Powe’s turnover
by chrislanci on Oct 27, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a stupid mistake to turn the puck over. It’s a stupid mistake to clear the puck into the crowd. If either of them doesn’t do something stupid, there’s no sharks power play.
by MarioD on Oct 27, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Boucher played awful
I don’t think I can fault any players on the ice for the goals that were scored. The 1st Malhotra goal was a bad bounce the others were just simply put WEAK goals. Coburn and Kimmo were on the ice but how can you fault them on shots from outside the circles sneaking past Boucher with nobody in front. The 2nd Malhotra goal was wrist shot from way out that slipped past Boucher was a total momentum killer. I don’t expect Boucher to get a shut out and a PP to goal to Heatly is to be expected but he was in position just not strong on the puck. Same can be said for all the other goals scored he was there but someone these weak low wrist shots were getting through him unscreened. Everyone was killing Emery in the loses because he was giving up breakaway goals and guys like Malkin, Semin, Ovechkin were beating him on top shelf wrist shots with traffic, but Boucher was letting the Sharks 3rd liners look like snipers and everyone is blaming Kimmo and Coburn based on +/-. The top 2 pairings play pretty much the whole game so it is more likely than not in a 4 – 1 loss one of those pairings is going to have a high -. I watched this game and Boucher should have made those saves including the Heatly goal but I will give him a pass on that on and the 1st Malhotra goal but the others killed the momentum. Sharks played solid D and limited our second chances in a game like this our PP is going to have to carry us and it didn’t get the job down. The shots from the point were getting blocked especially during key opportunities with lots of traffic.
by chrislanci on Oct 26, 2009 10:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree. I wasn’t blaming Coburn and Kimmo, but rather pointing out that if one is to blame Powe, Syvret, and Tollefsen for ONE goal, why not the guys who were on the ice for all four?
Boucher certainly looked bad. But so did the entire team.
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Oct 26, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
From the Daily News:
“All four of them, they were awful goals to give up,‘’ Boucher admitted. "They were backbreakers. You can’t expect to win when the goalie gives up four goals like that." Even Flyers coach John Stevens put part of the blame on Boucher. “[He] just wasn’t very good,” Stevens said. “I think everybody who was at the game would agree. It’s tough to win those games when three of the goals go in like that.”
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Oct 26, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had not read that, but it doesn’t surprise me. Typical Stevens, picking a scapegoat and throwing them under the bus without a second thought. I will totally agree that Boucher let in some softies (especially that third one), but for Stevens to just call him out like that is ridiculous. If Andy Reid did that to McNabb there would be a firestorm of consequences the likes of which haven’t been seen before. But more than anything- what did Stevens expect? It was his choice to wait nine games (aka almost four weeks) before giving Boucher a start, and then he threw him straight into the lion’s den. Maybe the Sharks were just supposed to be a tightener, and Boucher is slated to start against the Caps and Canes later this week. With a hockey mind like Stevens has, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised…
by eeeeee on Oct 26, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I expect to see Emery in net Tuesday and Saturday, Boucher should start next Tuesday November 2nd against Tampa. As the backup he is going to have to learn to play without frequent starts, still not an excuse for letting in 3 or 4 bad goals the defense did its job limiting the chances goalie has to be better in not letting up those goals. If Emery did that same thing he would be getting the same blame, welcome the the position of goalie. Stevens has been pretty consistent is ripping the players he pointed out Coburn early for the Pens game and Boucher blamed himself and rightfully so.
by chrislanci on Oct 26, 2009 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously Emery will be in net Tuesday and Saturday, I suppose sarcasm really doesn’t translate well into text. Sorry.
Anyway yes, I definitely feel like Boucher is the biggest goat here, for sure (though it is annoying that Coburn now has a goal against each of our goalies), but that doesn’t mean Stevens needs to come out and say “yep, we lost because of you, and you alone,” which is what it always sounds like when he throws someone under the bus.
Also you make my point for me saying that he has consistently ripped his players. But for my money, tearing a guy down in the media for one bad game is not the way to go about motivating your squad. And if you feel like you absolutely have to rip somebody, how about go after people for having been sloppy and/or unproductive for stretches (see: Coburn, Gagne), and maybe subsequently demoting them?
by eeeeee on Oct 26, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just watched Stevens press conference and he wasn’t that hard on Boosh as it appears from that DN quote.
by chrislanci on Oct 26, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Emery's stats
To be fair Emery has the 10th best GAA at 2.57 18th in sv pct amongst goalies whom played more than 5 games. He is better statistically than the following goalies Krippursoff, Nibakov, Thomas, Giguere, Roloson, Price, LeClarie, Mason, Khabibulin and Osgood in both categories, and he is better that Ward in GAA, and he is practically tied with Luongo both having the same GAA with Luongo having 0.905 sv pct vs Emery’s 0.904. Emery is fine as a team the Flyers GA/G is 2.89 last year it was 2.83 considering how early it is and the teams we played I think we are doing good enough we room to improve, remember it is only October.
by chrislanci on Oct 26, 2009 12:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Are you just trying to be misleading? No idea where you decided on the 5 game threshold, but whatever. He’s currently 17th out of 32. Below the 50th percentile, in save percentage amongst goalies with five starts.
GAA is the hockey equivalent of pitching wins, that nonsense is meaningless.
Kiprusoff is .001 behind Emery in save percentage, and has face five more shots per game than emery, so his stats are actually better.
I have no idea who “Nibakov” is.
Thomas is overrated, he had an anomalous hot season and I think his contract was a horrible mistake.
Roloson has never been good outside of playing behind Lemaire’s trap in Minnesota.
Carey Price? He isn’t even overrated, he’s just not good.
LeClaire is a kid coming off a major injury playing for a terrible team.
Mason, don’t know which one you’re even talking about, don’t care because neither of them are exactly proven superstars.
Khabibulin is over the hill, has been for a few years, and is playing on a bad team.
Osgood is a laughingstock of a goaltender.
This entire post really only proves that you don’t understand what you’re talking about.
by MarioD on Oct 26, 2009 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who do you want to play goal for this team? Instead of ripping on Emery why don’t you make a suggestion to what you would have done in goal. Keep Marty and Nitty at about 5 million combined, Marty was 2.76 GAA worst than Emery who will improve with more starts and 0.915 sv pct not a real big improve for the extra 3.5 million dollars.
Nibakov = Nabokov spelled wrong yes but not that hard to figure out
Kiprusoff = GAA is 3.10 vs. Emery 2.57, Calgary with JBo is supposed to be solid on d as well
The list includes over a handful of stanley cups winners and multiple Veniza trophies plus a countless number of All-Star starters. I am also sure that the majority of those goalies also make a lot more money on the cap that Emery. Also Khabibulin, Price, Roloson, and Giguere were all mentioned in the offseason as potential replacements to Biron and and they are not performing better than Emery who you are constantly ripping and would have cost a lot more.
The 5 game cut-off was chosen to remove backup goalies who haven’t played half of their teams games. 1 – 2 games is not enough sample size to base statistics on.
by chrislanci on Oct 27, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Compare Roberto Luongo to Ray Emery:
Overall
S%: Luongo .905; Emery .904;
GAA: Luongo 2.57; Emery 2.57;
Even Strength
S%: Luongo .917; Emery .914;
GAA: Luongo 2.15; Emery 2.23;
Shorthanded
S%: Luongo .833; Emery .833;
GAA: Luongo 7.01; Emery 6.04;
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Oct 27, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
GAA is the hockey equivalent of pitching wins, that nonsense is meaningless.
I tend to think Goalie Wins are more like Pitching Wins and GAA is more like ERA but that is just me.
You point more value in odd ball stats like GVT and qual-comp but GAA which is the basis for the Veniza trophy is worthless. Why is that? Oh yeab because it doesn’t support you argument.
Save Percentage is just as prone problems because it doesn’t take into consideration shot quality just a number of shots, against the Sharks the Flyers managed 38 shots not many were really dangerous but Griess gets a 0.977 sv pct mostly because the Sharks D didn’t give up much.
by chrislanci on Oct 27, 2009 10:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
YOU THINK THE VEZINA TROPHY IS AN IMPORTANT QUALITATIVE MEASUREMENT! My god, I think I’m done replying to you ever again.
by MarioD on Oct 27, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
another baseball refrence here, but i like to view the Vezina trophy the equivalent to winning the Cy Young award, but i guess Cliff Lee is overrated too.
by JpH89 on Oct 27, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No I don’t but since the NHL bases the award for the top goalie on GAA I along with entire the league, GMs, coaches and former players most put some value in that statistic, even though you do not.
by chrislanci on Oct 27, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tend to think Goalie Wins are more like Pitching Wins and GAA is more like ERA but that is just me.
It’s not just you. I’m with you on that one.
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Oct 27, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Congrats on being wrong together.
ERA is actually a fairly representative measure of performance. It eliminates defensive performance of your team. It doesn’t take into account park factors or opponent strength, but its not a bad metric.
Baseball wins, goalie wins, and GAA are all terrible, worthless statistics.
by MarioD on Oct 27, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How the hell does ERA eliminate defensive performance? Go tell that to the guys at The Good Phight. Please. PLEASE. You are so wrong on that, I want to rip my hair out.
Broad Street Hockey -
Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Oct 27, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
Not all poor defensive plays are scored as errors and runs scored off stolen bases still count to ERA.
by chrislanci on Oct 28, 2009 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 


























