Flyers Shut Out In Atlanta, Lose 1-0
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 28, 2009 10:52 PM EST
in 09-10 Game Recaps
50 comments
Speechless. The Flyers got shut out by Johan Hedberg and the Atlanta Thrashers, losing to Atlanta for the first time since a shootout loss on November 18th, 2005. Their last regulation loss to Atlanta was still further back, on December 21st, 2003. Getting shut out by the Thrashers is even more unusual, since the last time Atlanta did that was January 14th, 2000. Getting shut out by anybody itself is pretty rare, as the Flyers have scored in each of their last 50 games, last putting up a goose egg on March 1st, 2009.
So this outcome was atypical. An exercise in futility, one might say. One might assume the Flyers didn't show up tonight, but that surprisingly wasn't the case. They didn't lose because they made mistakes, they didn't lose because of poor goaltending either. Once again, Brian Boucher was solid in net, stopping 17 of 18 shots. However, Hedberg was better as he stopped all 34 Flyers shots.
There isn't much to say about this game. Rich Peverly scored the only Thrashers goal on the power play, after a Ryan Parent tripping penalty was assessed on top of Claude Giroux's slashing penalty. Parent got beat and got called for a trip. These things happen. Either way, when your goalie only gives up one goal, you should win. The Flyers didn't. They've been losing a lot lately, but it hasn't been for a lack of effort.
After the jump, Random Thoughts, Questions with Answers, Highlights, and Comment of the Night.
Random Thoughts:
- There has been a lot of talk about faceoffs around here since the off-season, yet Mika Pyorala's name has yet to come up. Mike Richards lost the faceoff that led to the only Thrashers goal - and the team was only 2 for 6 on draws while shorthanded - but Pyorala took the third most draws on the night and finished winless in 5 tries. Richards finished at 50% and Carter at 61% on the night.
- Oskars Bartulis impressed me yet again. An overall strong game, with two hits and two blocked shots. I only noticed him once - which is always a good thing for a stay-at-home defenseman - and it was when he stood his man up along the boards, took the puck away from him, and started the breakout.
- Brian Boucher had another great game. There won't be a goalie controversy, but he's clearly outplaying Ray Emery of late. Particularly amazing was his save on Bryan Little in the second period.
- Colby Armstrong took an unnecessary run at James van Riemsdyk which scared a lot of people, if only for a second. Undisciplined play by Armstrong and he deserved the 5 minute charging penalty, the game misconduct, as well as the beating Arron Asham gave him. He does not however, deserve a suspension.
- On a related note, the instigator rule needs to be eliminated. Immediately. In back-to-back games, the Flyers have had players get dangerously run at, both hobbled off the ice, and both led to game misconducts being called against the opposition. Both times, a Flyers tough guy immediately stood up for his teammate, and negated a 5 minute PP into a 3 minute PP. I cannot even tell you how stupid it is. Cassie from Raw Charge agrees with me.
- Riley Cote got his first fight of the year! As such, he also got his first beat down. Congratulations. Thanks for being on the ice for 2:52 tonight Riles.
- Ice time tonight was definitely interesting - as always. Five players finished with less than 10 minutes; four players had between 10 and 15 minutes; and four had more than 24 minutes. Love the balanced attack.
- The story of the game - besides Johan Hedberg - was the Flyers power play: 0 for 4 in nine minutes. They got off shots - 9 to be exact - but struggled with the man-advantage the entire game.
- The officiating was pretty bad tonight, but no worse than normal and not the reason they lost. In other words, just a typical night in the NHL. At least we aren't the Detroit Red Wings: Evidence.
Questions with Answers:
- Can the Flyers get out of their special teams slump? No. Penalty kill was 3 for 4 - not bad, but not good enough - and the power play was atrocious.
- Do the Flyers limit Ian Laperriere's ice time just a day after his upper lip split in two thanks to a Jason Pominville slap shot? A little, but not really. He got 13:20 of ice time which is fairly typical for him, especially considering the team spent 9 minutes on the PP.
- Can Boucher keep up his hot play? Definitely. Not much else to say. Boucher has played great his past two and a half games.
- Do the Flyers beat Atlanta for a unbelievable 15th straight time, or can the Thrashers get their first win against Philadelphia since 2005? Even Niittymaki couldn't have stolen this game for us.
Highlights:
Comment of the Night:
I’m running out of things to say about this team.
0 recs |
50 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
Grrr
Saw the second half of the game tonight at a friend’s party. Literally. I started watching a few minutes before Atlanta took the lead. The Flyers seemed to gradually rebound from the goal and took over. Atlanta, quite frankly, had no business winning that game. However, they were due to beat us I guess.
The only really frustrating thing about losing this game is all of the losing that’s gone on before it. If we lost every game the way we did tonight – where we clearly outplayed the opposition – then it would be easier to feel like things would HAVE to go our way sooner than later.
The silver lining here is that it’s not as if this is happening with a completely healthy club. If we had all of our regulars dressed and this was happening, I’d be worried.
Bartulis is my main man right about now. If he continues his solid play throughout the rest of the season, then Holmgren just might dodge the Jones-contract bullet after all.
Because life is ironic, we will follow up our shut out at the hands of Moose with a 10-1 drubbing of Luongo and the Canucks this Thursday. But that’s only if we get the power play going.
Go Flyers.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Also this:
From the game thread:
Funny moment: Stevens is talking to Richards during the timeout, when Pronger grabs Richie’s jersey and pulls him into the meeting around Berube. Stevens continues talking to Richards, despite Richards not listening.
Maybe I am only saying this because it’s late and I’m tired. Maybe it’s because of all of the losing of late. At any rate, that’s not very funny to me. Either Stevens was clueless that something else was going on, or Richards has tuned him out. Neither is desirable, if either is even true.
The latter would not be surprising, actually. Here’s an excerpt from a New York Times article on coaches getting fired, which was published in December of 2008:
The average current coaching tenure [in the NHL] is 2.58 seasons, with the median at 1.37.
Stevens has essentially been here for three full seasons at this point; he became head coach in late October of 2006. So he’s already above the average and well above the median in coaching tenure. If the Flyers’ struggles continue, look for a coaching change before a big trade.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
The average current coaching tenure [in the NHL] is 2.58 seasons, with the median at 1.37.
Because if everyone else burns through coaches it must be the right move?
I didn't say that.
That is a direct quote from the article. I posted it just to show the way business is done in the NHL. Head coaches do not stick around all that long with one team.
What I meant to say (and I’ll admit I could have been clearer) was that, if the Flyers continue to struggle, we can only assume that they’ll do business the same way everyone else does. In other words, they’ll fire the coach before they trade any big-name players.
Whether or not it would be the right move depends on one’s perspective. Personally, I feel that Stevens is a good coach, but that he is not the right coach for this team.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
While I haven’t criticized Pyorala personally for his face-offs, hasn’t that been my point? That Holmgren should’ve gotten another defensive, face-off center? When Betts is healthy, Pyorala plays wing. I’m not going to kill a guy who’s playing a position due to an injury. Same reason I don’t criticize Laperriere’s faceoff numbers. Also, Pyoralla’s sample size is too small. He has taken a total of 141 in 24 games, or ~6 per game. For perspective:
Faceoffs per Game
Carter – 18.333
Richards – 17.666
Betts – 15.693
Giroux – 7.041
Pyorala – 5.875
Everyone else <2 faceoffs per game.
I don’t understand the application of the instigator. The emphasis was supposed to be on players retaliating for clean hits. Asham retaliated for a hit that resulted in a major penalty. There shouldn’t be an instigator.
Also incredibly ludicrous from that sequence:
Friday, when Kaleta took a major and Cote a minor, Stevens got into a big argument with the officials but they decided to drop the puck at center ice.
Saturday, Armstrong major and Asham minor, faceoff in the Flyers offensive zone.
Which one is correct?
(Predicting, not opining) Armstrong has a past and is not a superstar, so he should be suspended. But JVR isn’t injured so there should not be a suspension. My guess in this case is that the wheel falls off its point of axis and they flip a coin.
The Flyers right now are the 9th seed in the Eastern Conference (using points per game). Let’s not make any changes!
Just curious about something...
The Flyers right now are the 9th seed in the Eastern Conference (using points per game). Let’s not make any changes!
I’m not trying to start anything here; I just want to present you with a hypothetical situation.
Say that the Flyers had made pretty much every move you wanted them to make before the season started. And let’s say that the team was at the same place regardless – 13-10-1, riddled with injuries and inconsistent play, etc. In other words, the Flyers’ fortunes would be no different than they are now, regardless of who played here and who did not. What would be your recommendation for change then?
In your answer, you cannot say “Well the Flyers would never have reached this point if they had players A, B, and C instead of X, Y, and Z.” The ONLY difference between your desired team and the actual team would be some of the players. NOTHING else would be any different. What would you suggest should be done?
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
First off, this is a ridiculous question. If the Flyers had a different team, they wouldn’t have the same record. And if they had a different team, they’d have different problems. I’m not Accuscore, I’m not going to predict the performance of a hypothetical team and somehow identify what their hypothetical weaknesses are.
If the Flyers had a different team, they wouldn’t have the same record.
How can you be certain? You can’t be, and neither can I. My question was essentially saying “Let’s pretend the roster was slightly different, yet the net results were the same.” Not likely, but certainly possible. Last year’s roster was different from the 2007-08 version – not drastically, mind you – and the team ended up one point and one seed higher in the standings than they had in 2007-08. So they essentially had the same results at the end of the regular season.
You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, or if you don’t think you could do so accurately. But I don’t think it’s a ridiculous question.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Its the butterfly effect. Its pretty much incalculable.
But the reason its ridiculous is that its an exercise that doesn’t accomplish anything. My criticisms are not merely my opinions of what Paul Holmgren should do. My criticisms of Paul Holmgren are his failures to accomplish what he himself said he should do (acquire a veteran, defensive, faceoff specialist) (carrying a cap cushion of a couple million dollars to avoid the problems of last season) and his clear failures (believing Syvret could replace Randy Jones in the lineup).
If he had done all the things he said he should do, and the team sucked as badly as this one does, then I would criticize Holmgren for clearly mis-analyzing the Flyers last June and, though he would’ve successfully executed that offseason plan, it would hypothetically have been a terribly drawn plan for the offseason.
more over-reacting
The Flyers right now are the 9th seed in the Eastern Conference (using points per game). Let’s not make any changes!
You can’t just make changes to a roster based on a two week stretch of hockey. This is was a crazy trip against tough teams, two back to back games with travel, and they got screwed in a couple of games with injuries a weak suspension to their leading scoring and flat out bad game changing calls against Colorado, Phx and Buffalo.
Calm down yes there are 9th in the conference the still have games at hand on some of the teams above them and have played a really hard schedule so far. A week ago they were 8th most difficult in the league 5th in the conference now they are 5th most difficult in the league, 2nd in the East only behind the Devils. Now is not a time to start to panic.
All that being said I think Stevens in on the hot seat and if a losing streak like this was to happen after the Olympic break, with a more normal schedule, I think he would be fired with the hopes of jump starting the team heading in to the playoffs.
Thoughts about the slump
1. When players stop playing for a coach, like what seems to be going on with the Flyers, it’s the PLAYERS’ fault, not the coach’s. Yet the easiest remedy to that problem is to fire the coach. Look what it did last year for Chicago and Pittsburgh. The players are responsible for this mess, not Coach Stevens, but it is easier to fire one coach than a roster of under-performing players.
2. Mario D is right on about Pyorala — he’s not a center. Granted the Flyers are thin at that position when compared to their wealth of wings in the system, but it’s time to bring up Matsumoto and put him on the third line. And while you’re at it, give Maroon a chance — he’s earned it.
3. While a big trade would help the Flyers, it is unlikely to happen. Who would you trade? Who would you get? If the Flyers had draft picks or cap space, they could pull off a swap. Since they have neither, this is the roster Holmgren has to work with.
You're right.
It is the players’ fault, and not the coach’s. But sometimes the coach is in a bad situation, or his message is lost.
John Stevens is smart. He works very hard at what he does. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a better-prepared coach heading into any given game. I truly believe that, given the right situation, he would flourish. I’m starting to believe that this is not the right situation for him, however.
Here are the regular players who have been with the team since they became competitive again in 2007:
Richards
Carter
Briere
Gagne
Hartnell
Timonen
Coburn
Ryan Parent was also here, but he was not a regular until last season. Riley Cote was also here, but he is not a regular player.
Essentially, seven starters have been here since the beginning of 2007-08, when the team became competitive again. Even when you include Cote and Parent in that mix, you have 14 guys who have changed since then. Yet the team goes through the same struggles it has gone through since 2007-08.
The positives that Stevens brings to the table are not getting through to the players. If they were then we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
I mentioned this earlier in the week: I would trade Carter for the right deal tomorrow. It makes so much sense:
1) They have too many centers. Both Briere and Giroux are centers playing wing. They talk a lot about wanting to put Giroux at center but they don’t have a line he can center. Trading Carter lets Giroux slide into the 2nd line center.
2) Carter will never have more trade value than right now. His cap hit is only $5mil. He’s signed for another season and a half.
3) They probably won’t be able to afford to keep him when this contract ends.
4) Briere has a no trade, Gagne is damaged goods, Richards’ contract is too good of value to trade, et al, Carter is really the only piece they will be able to move for good value.
But for whom?
You’d need to do a talent-for-talent swap, as Pittsburgh did last year with Whitney-for Kunitz. Preferably, you could get a young, high-scoring right winger.
In the Salary Cap era, it is not likely that both Richards and Carter will be here forever. But you’d absolutely have to make the right deal.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
1st round pick
2nd pair Dman
2/3 line scoring winger
One of those players has to be under a good multi-year contract. And the Flyers can take back an equal amount of salary.
Re John Stevens:
Stevens is a good hockey coach. He’s getting his toes stepped on this season by Paul Holmgren (forcing/convincing him to play this uptempo attacking system). I can’t ever remember him (and his staff) every being outcoached. I can remember them outcoaching a number of teams, most memorably the Caps in that 2008 series.
And he’s clearly willing to make the good hockey decision rather than the job-saving decision. Pulling the goalie with 3 minutes left on Friday. Asham on the 1st line. Sitting Syvret at the end of the bench and leaving him there. That’s the kind of leadership every team needs from its coach.
Most importantly, though, this franchise already went through a generation of switching coaches at the drop of a hat. And it was a laughingstock for it. The new generation of players on this team cannot be allowed to believe that if they whine and play poorly they can just get the coach fired.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph and most of your third.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 29, 2009 5:16 PM EST up reply actions
Which part of the third? My memory certainly isn’t perfect so there could be contradictory instances.
I like pulling the goalie that early, and I like him not playing people who hurt the team. However, I have a hard time believing that he can’t tell Homer he wants Laliberte (or whoever, really) instead of Cote or Bartulis/Tollefsen instead of Syvret. Yes, Homer makes the final decision, but if Stevens isn’t going to play Syvret while Tollefsen is a healthy scratch, that’s on him.
Also, I like that he played Asham with Richie, but when Asham performs, Stevens moves him back down. I just don’t think Asham is the best example of smart decisions from Stevens. Personally, I think he was the second biggest reason they won in NY this week – behind Boucher – because of how he dealt with his line combinations. So, while I agree, I just don’t think Asham is the best example there.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 29, 2009 7:28 PM EST up reply actions
Regarding my earlier hyopthetical question
I’m answering your replies down here because I was curious to see whether or not you’d be willing to change coaches. In other words, if the Flyers were built the way you wanted them to be built, and if they had the same issues, would you be willing to replace Stevens as a possible alternative?
From your defense of Stevens here, I’m guessing not. That’s fine; the only purpose of my hypothetical situation was to satisfy my own curiosity. I didn’t expect you to have a crystal ball or anything.
As I said above, I think Stevens is a good hockey coach. We agree there. Here are some things I disagree with:
He’s getting his toes stepped on this season by Paul Holmgren (forcing/convincing him to play this uptempo attacking system).
Jeez. If you had both Homer AND Powe at your mercy in a dark alley, who would you kill first? Homer wants Stevens to implement this system because it’s how the best teams in the league play. While the Flyers are not as fast as Detroit, they have the legs and the talent to play a style like this. Last year they stood around in their own end waiting for pucks to come to them along the boards, and they gave up far too many scoring chances as a result. That’s just one example of why the style had to change.
Most importantly, though, this franchise already went through a generation of switching coaches at the drop of a hat. And it was a laughingstock for it. The new generation of players on this team cannot be allowed to believe that if they whine and play poorly they can just get the coach fired.
This is a valid point, but some things need to be pointed out:
1. Part of the issue was Bob Clarke and, to a lesser extent, Eric Lindros. Lindros is essentially why Terry Murray was let go (mistake #1). Clarke was why people who should not have been head coaches – namely, Wayne Cashman and Craig Ramsay – were head coaches. Murray and Bill Barber were let go because of player complaints. Neilson was let go because Clarke was a jerk to him. Cashman and Ramsay never should have been head coaches in the first place. And Hitchcock had just overstayed his welcome. He needed a fresh start as much as the team did. Still, he stayed here for just over 3 seasons, which was well above the median (and half a season above the average) as laid out in the NY Times article.
2. Firing Stevens would not have the same effect as firing someone else due to player complaints. If Sam Carchidi is to be believed and the Flyers “love” playing for Stevens, firing him would be a real shock to their systems. You can bet that a lot of guys would be looking in the mirror if Stevens were fired. If they “love” playing for him then they would likely feel responsible for his demise.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Neilson was let go because Clarke was a jerk to him.
Understatement of the decade.
by Ben Feldman on Nov 29, 2009 10:32 PM EST up reply actions
Damn straight.
I felt bad for Roger. I really did. If the Flyers had hired him right after they fired Terry Murray – instead of having the Wayne Cashman interlude – I can’t help but wonder if things would have been different. The players, especially Lindros, were very fond of him.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
And...
… by the year 2000 (in Conan O’Brien falsetto) I had lost all respect for Bob Clarke. I was raised to believe that he could do no wrong… but he did, over and over and over and over.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
The same Terry Murray logic you used applies to John Stevens.
Sam Carchidi should never be believed about anything.
The same Terry Murray logic you used applies to John Stevens.
Not sure I understand. How so?
Sam Carchidi should never be believed about anything.
And why is that?
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Why does one have to equal the other? There’s no need for a Wayne Cashman – who only lasted 61 games. I also don’t believe Roger Nielson was a poor coach, even though Bill Barber was the one with the highest winning percentage since Murray.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2009 8:48 AM EST up reply actions
Because if you look around the NHL, its very difficult to find a good coach. There are a few good ones and a whole lot of bad ones. The Flyers just had two very good coaches back to back. The odds of a hat trick in that department are pretty slim.
I agree that it’s very difficult to find a good coach, but not impossible. I still think Travis’ suggestion of Peter Laviolette would be one of, if not the, best option available.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2009 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
This is interesting:
A look at the past 82 Stanley Cup winners shows that only three times has a head coach been with a team for more than four years before winning a Cup. It suggests that if the chemistry between a coach and his team doesn’t result in a championship within four years, it’s not likely ever going to happen.
What it suggests is that head coaches don’t generally grow with their teams, and help turn them into winners over time. Instead, winning head coaches have been able to come in and quickly turn foundering and under-performing organizations into champions.
Emphasis mine, as that’s an argument that’s being used in favor of Stevens. Granted, it’s an article about Alain Vigneault, but this is also Stevens’ fourth year (for a few he had been their coach in the AHL, too) and this is exactly what we’re talking about.
But that data is going to also be monumentally skewed by the data Mike posted earlier this thread:
The average current coaching tenure [in the NHL] is 2.58 seasons, with the median at 1.37.
So is it the chicken or the egg? Do coaches not win a cup after four years because they can’t? Or because they don’t make it four years?
On a separate note:
Stanley Cup winning teams are obviously high pressure situations, only amplifying the likelihood of management changes. Hell, fucking Lamoriello fired a coach in first place with a week left in the season a couple years back. They lost in the 2nd round and Julien went on to lead the Bruins to the top seed last season and won the Adams award.
Succinctly: that’s some terribly misleading data.
But perhaps the average coach isn’t kept for very long because team managements have realized/decided that this is one of those things where it’s either going to work after one or two seasons or it’s not — and if it’s not, then it’s certainly not going to work after four seasons.
Realistically, because GMs can sell the president on “the coach is the problem, not the players” and save their own job.
There are certainly coaches who have a personality that fits poorly or wears out its welcome (Keenan, Tortorella, Nolan, etc.).
But Stevens is the style of coach that doesn’t wear thin like that.
Well...
… just because Stevens isn’t abrasive doesn’t mean that his style can’t wear thin in other ways.
In his column today, Sam Carchidi took a break from fellating the Penguins to say:
The Flyers love playing for the hardworking Stevens. Many played for him when he coached the AHL’s Phantoms and have grown into NHL regulars with him at the helm.
Perhaps the issue is not that Stevens is a bad coach, which he isn’t – it’s that the players have grown too comfortable playing for him.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
I think there are a lot of times when you’re right regarding the GM saving face, but there are other times where the coach is the problem because the players make him one (such as Michel Therrien, who was in, ironically, his fourth season coaching the Pens).
I will ask you this: if Homer blows up the team as you have previously suggested, should he still keep Stevens? And who in your mind should Homer try to trade away?
by Ben Feldman on Nov 29, 2009 10:24 PM EST up reply actions
I never suggested they blow up the team.
I think the only viable trade is to send Jeff Carter.
I want to see Stevens here for many years to come. He can develop young talent so no reason to fire him if they’re going to rebuild. Give him the Lindsey Ruff treatment.
Lindy Ruff is the closest thing the NHL has to a football coach. He’s been in Buffalo for what, 12 or 13 years?
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
I have no idea what that means. According to your article, NFL coaches only last an average of 4 years.
It’s a joke, if you will – the only coaches you hear of who stick around for a long time are NFL coaches (or college football coaches). I don’t think the Flyers had a coach who stuck around for nearly as long as Lindy Ruff has with the Sabres.
Fred Shero coached the team for 7 seasons. The next closest guy was Mike Keenan with 4. Stevens is next, and Hitchcock is right behind him. Pat Quinn and Bob McCammon are in there somewhere too…
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
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.
Then what did you mean by this?
by Ben Feldman on Nov 30, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
Obviously mixed metaphors.
When I read “blow it up” in your post yesterday, that was synonymous in my head with “rebuild”. Which, even in the post you quoted, is clearly not what I meant.
For context, that was also before Oskars Bartulis suprisingly emerged as an NHL caliber defenseman, and I thought they would have to plug that hole via trade. (Because why on earth why Danny Syvret start the season on this team when Oskar Bartulis was waiting in the wings? Obviously that was a screw up of talent evaluation.)
This is at least good to hear:
"We’re playing well enough to keep it close, but we’re not getting it to the finish line. Tonight, we had too many passengers. We need everyone on the same page for 60 minutes for us to win. Right now, that is costing us games. I’m sure down the road, these points are going to be important. We need to get our heads screwed on straight real fast and use these three-to-four days to get sharp, tighten up some areas, and get everyone on the same page. You don’t want to fall too far behind the pack. You want to be continually improving and not taking two steps backward and one forward." – Chris Pronger
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 29, 2009 3:06 PM EST reply actions
True, but at least it’s still being said. Unlike last year.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 29, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
On Facebook? Use Connect to join SB Nation. Share insights with fans and friends.- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Broad Street Hockey
Related FanShots on Broad Street Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Atlantic Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
New Jersey
|
82 | 48 | 27 | 7 | 103 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
82 | 47 | 28 | 7 | 101 |
|
Philadelphia
|
82 | 41 | 35 | 6 | 88 |
|
New York Rangers
|
82 | 38 | 33 | 11 | 87 |
|
New York Islanders
|
82 | 34 | 37 | 11 | 79 |
(updated 4.12.2010 at 9:21 AM EDT)
Flyers Schedule
Next 5 Games
|
@
Pittsburgh
|
Thu 10/07 | 7:00 PM EDT |
|
@
St. Louis
|
Sat 10/09 | 8:00 PM EDT |
|
Colorado
|
Mon 10/11 | 7:00 PM EDT |
|
Tampa Bay
|
Thu 10/14 | 7:00 PM EDT |
|
Pittsburgh
|
Sat 10/16 | 7:00 PM EDT |
Last 5 Games
|
Chicago
|
Wed 06/09 | OT - L 3 - 4 |
|
@
Chicago
|
Sun 06/06 | L 4 - 7 |
|
Chicago
|
Fri 06/04 | W 5 - 3 |
|
Chicago
|
Wed 06/02 | OT - W 4 - 3 |
|
@
Chicago
|
Mon 05/31 | L 1 - 2 |
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Trending Topics: Odd arbitration decisions; more NHLers Tweeting
- Ovechkin wins fifth Kharlamov Trophy, talks Talbot
- Puck Headlines: Witt hits waivers; Kovalchuk grievance details set
- Jersey Fouls: Sharks get creatively awful; hockey movie pass/fail
- White, Flames agree to one-year deal; Bruins sign Wheeler
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
