As a yeti fan and ex flyers fan I tuned just to see mm. My take on game is if teams are gonna play flat like Vancouver did for 90% of the game they are gonna have tough time beating flyers. Outside of a few burst of a couple minutes at a time nucks looked kinda disinterested in this game. Almost tired. Could be beginning of season fitness. Credit to flyers for playing hard working road game. Go yeti

As a yeti fan and ex flyers fan I tuned just to see mm. My take on game is if teams are gonna play flat like Vancouver did for 90% of the game they are gonna have tough time beating flyers. Outside of a few burst of a couple minutes at a time nucks looked kinda disinterested in this game. Almost tired. Could be beginning of season fitness. Credit to flyers for playing hard working road game. Go yeti
- Stayin alive

Vancouver was not disinterested. They dominated most of the game. They just need to get a little sharper offensively. I wouldn't like the 3rd period collapse against Calgary and they sat back a little too much last night in the 3rd but overall in the game. I would not be too concerned if I was Tocchet from anything in last nights game. Ersson was very good.

Vancouver was not disinterested. They dominated most of the game. They just need to get a little sharper offensively. I wouldn't like the 3rd period collapse against Calgary and they sat back a little too much last night in the 3rd but overall in the game. I would not be too concerned if I was Tocchet from anything in last nights game. Ersson was very good.
- MJL

Meh I saw it differently. Outside of a few spurts I didn’t see them as dominating anything. Simply controlling puck to the outside isn’t dominating imo. I thought flyers played sloppy for lots of game but were able to keep things under control for the most part. I do agree if nucks were sharper they would’ve made Philly pay but that’s to my point. How can you dominate when you aren’t sharp enough? What and where (outside of the few spurts) were the dangerous extended periods for nucks? 5 shots in 2nd? 8in 3rd? 1 on ot? What were the great saves needed by Ersson? Nucks didn’t dominate. They controlled most of the play but I think overall Philly had the better real chances and got just enough to pull a win out mostly due to really good game by ersson.

Meh I saw it differently. Outside of a few spurts I didn’t see them as dominating anything. Simply controlling puck to the outside isn’t dominating imo. I thought flyers played sloppy for lots of game but were able to keep things under control for the most part. I do agree if nucks were sharper they would’ve made Philly pay but that’s to my point. How can you dominate when you aren’t sharp enough? What and where (outside of the few spurts) were the dangerous extended periods for nucks? 5 shots in 2nd? 8in 3rd? 1 on ot? What were the great saves needed by Ersson? Nucks didn’t dominate. They controlled most of the play but I think overall Philly had the better real chances and got just enough to pull a win out mostly due to really good game by ersson.
- Stayin alive

At 5 on 5, shot attempts were 48-34 Vancouver. Scoring chances were 23-11 Vancouver. High danger scoring chances were 7-2 Vancouver. They dominated the game and Ersson kept the Flyers in it.

Obviously I’m not a Torts hater like most but I have to admit, Luchanko only makes this team because Torts seems unhappy with the centers he has. And even with Luchanko being here, I think he should start with more defensive situations than offensive. I don’t think Jett Luchanko has shown a lick of offense at this level, so why the power play time? Why no PK time? I think Couturier needs the offensive opportunities more now than ever.

Obviously I’m not a Torts hater like most but I have to admit, Luchanko only makes this team because Torts seems unhappy with the centers he has. And even with Luchanko being here, I think he should start with more defensive situations than offensive. I don’t think Jett Luchanko has shown a lick of offense at this level, so why the power play time? Why no PK time? I think Couturier needs the offensive opportunities more now than ever.
- roenick97

It's the opposite. Luchanko should get a large dose of offensive situations. If he is just going to be used defensively, there is no reason for him to be on the team.

At 5 on 5, shot attempts were 48-34 Vancouver. Scoring chances were 23-11 Vancouver. High danger scoring chances were 7-2 Vancouver. They dominated the game and Ersson kept the Flyers in it.
- MJL

Shot attempts mean nothing at all. Simply throwing puck at net doesn’t do it for me. And scoring chances is subjective to the one tallying those stats. And if whoever doing those stats only considered Philly to have 2 high danger chances is flat out stupid. You seem to rely on stats provided by whomever instead of your eye. Now you can say I disagree and think Vancouver dominated. That’s fine But I ask you what did milller or Hughes or Petterson do? Do you recall any plays where they were dangerous? No? Then Vancouver didn’t dominate.

Shot attempts mean nothing at all. Simply throwing puck at net doesn’t do it for me. And scoring chances is subjective to the one tallying those stats. And if whoever doing those stats only considered Philly to have 2 high danger chances is flat out stupid. You seem to rely on stats provided by whomever instead of your eye. Now you can say I disagree and think Vancouver dominated. That’s fine But I ask you what did milller or Hughes or Petterson do? Do you recall any plays where they were dangerous? No? Then Vancouver didn’t dominate.
- Stayin alive

Those stats are 5 on 5 hockey. So it does not say that the Flyers only had 2 high danger chances in the game. It's ignorant to say shot attempts mean nothing. It shows which team had the puck more and carried play. They're the facts of the game and clearly show that Vancouver dominated play at 5 on 5. They had more than twice the number of scoring chances that the Flyers had. They took 58% of the shot attempts at 5 on 5 and they more then tripled the number of high danger chances the Flyers took. Both Miller and Petterson controlled play when they were on the ice. There are 18 skaters on every team. It is illogical and unintelligent to say that which team controlled or dominated play comes down to only two players. These are all simple and indisputable facts. They provide information that corrects the flawed human view of games.

Those stats are 5 on 5 hockey. So it does not say that the Flyers only had 2 high danger chances in the game. It's ignorant to say shot attempts mean nothing. It shows which team had the puck more and carried play. They're the facts of the game and clearly show that Vancouver dominated play at 5 on 5. They had more than twice the number of scoring chances that the Flyers had. They took 58% of the shot attempts at 5 on 5 and they more then tripled the number of high danger chances the Flyers took. Both Miller and Petterson controlled play when they were on the ice. There are 18 skaters on every team. It is illogical and unintelligent to say that which team controlled or dominated play comes down to only two players. These are all simple and indisputable facts. They provide information that corrects the flawed human view of games.
- MJL

The flyers only had 2 high danger chances 5on 5? Must be a formula to 1 person only. Because I saw more than 2. Also again shots mean diddly do. Philly for years used to out shoot opposition. Means nothing. Simply putting puck on net never has been a metric to show a team is dominating. Can you explain how a team can have 40 shots on goal and lose 4-0 while other team only has 15 shots? Again shots mean nothing in of itself. Simply stating these were the stats so that’s fact that the eye doesn’t show if frankly stupid. I expect more from you.

The flyers only had 2 high danger chances 5on 5? Must be a formula to 1 person only. Because I saw more than 2. Also again shots mean diddly do. Philly for years used to out shoot opposition. Means nothing. Simply putting puck on net never has been a metric to show a team is dominating. Can you explain how a team can have 40 shots on goal and lose 4-0 while other team only has 15 shots? Again shots mean nothing in of itself. Simply stating these were the stats so that’s fact that the eye doesn’t show if frankly stupid. I expect more from you.
- Stayin alive

You don't even understand simple basic stats. It's not shots on goal, it's shot attempts. To say it means nothing when it is a well accepted measure of play, is just ignorance. To not understand sample size and how there are other factors at play, such as goaltending, which can carry a team that has been outplayed. It's like you never watched hockey. The facts of the game show that what you think you saw, you didn't. They're indisputable. I really don't expect more from you. Vancouver dominated play at 5 on 5.

You don't even understand simple basic stats. It's not shots on goal, it's shot attempts. To say it means nothing when it is a well accepted measure of play, is just ignorance. To not understand sample size and how there are other factors at play, such as goaltending, which can carry a team that has been outplayed. It's like you never watched hockey. The facts of the game show that what you think you saw, you didn't. They're indisputable. I really don't expect more from you. Vancouver dominated play at 5 on 5.
- MJL

Shot attempts. Even worse than actual shots on goal. Obviously you never played. So in your eyes my team dominates if we just shot at the net attempting shots. Doesn’t matter whether it’s actually on net or not. Just shoot. K. That makes sense. No shot is a bad shot. Means we dominate 5 on 5. That’s so laughable. Again give just 1 example where the star players were a threat last night? Just 1 play. You can’t. Because they weren’t a threat. All night long. Philly played a dangerous sloppy game. And got away with it not because they were dominated but because Ersson played well especially the first 10 minutes of game and first 5 minutes of 2nd and the shootout. And yes if Vancouver played even a smidgen of an interested game they’d have won. But to say they dominated is false. You are the only one saying they dominated. Then again to be expected

Shot attempts. Even worse than actual shots on goal. Obviously you never played. So in your eyes my team dominates if we just shot at the net attempting shots. Doesn’t matter whether it’s actually on net or not. Just shoot. K. That makes sense. No shot is a bad shot. Means we dominate 5 on 5. That’s so laughable. Again give just 1 example where the star players were a threat last night? Just 1 play. You can’t. Because they weren’t a threat. All night long. Philly played a dangerous sloppy game. And got away with it not because they were dominated but because Ersson played well especially the first 10 minutes of game and first 5 minutes of 2nd and the shootout. And yes if Vancouver played even a smidgen of an interested game they’d have won. But to say they dominated is false. You are the only one saying they dominated. Then again to be expected
- Stayin alive

Obvious I never played. LOL. You have a reading comprehension issue and ignorance all at the same time. It's not in my eyes, it's in the facts eyes and it's not just shot attempts. It's shot attempts, scoring chances and high danger scoring chances. All metrics which show which team controlled play. Again, hockey is not an individual game, it is a team game. It is ignorance to say a team that by the facts, dominated the game at 5 on 5 was disinterested. I'm not saying they dominated. I'm saying that they dominated the game at 5 on 5. Which is the best measure of a teams play and the best indicator for future success. Prove that I'm the only one saying it,