Insider: Picking apart Flyers' goalies
If the first three games were about the Flyers attacking the Penguins' primary weakness, the defense, Game 4 was the inverse: The Penguins attacked — voraciously — the Flyers' goaltending.
They chased Ilya Bryzgalov with five goals on 18 shots.
They then shelled Sergei Bobrovsky with five more goals on 18 more shots.
Most impressive, perhaps, they went after both by following the scouting reports as if they authored them.
Bryzgalov is a big goaltender at 6-foot-3, but he isn't the most mobile. He relies on taking away angles far more than athleticism, rarely dropping into the butterfly stance that's the foundation for most modern goaltenders. He mostly lets the puck hit him, making it look easy when he's sharp.
His resultant weaknesses, though, are twofold:
1. He isn't quick side to side.
2. He's susceptible to low shots and, because he seldom goes down, loses rebounds in his feet.
Four of the Penguins' goals against Bryzgalov immediately followed side-to-side passes, and Evgeni Malkin's first goal came after finding a loose puck in Bryzgalov's skates.
The book on Bobrovsky is simpler: Shoot top shelf, preferably glove side.
Bryzgalov also has a history of melting when the heat's turned up. He's given up 17 goals in this series and 41 in his past nine playoff games, including his implosions in back-to-back postseasons with Phoenix.
Through it all, he rarely finds fault with his own play and openly blames teammates.
He did that again Wednesday, saying of the Flyers' defense, "We gave them the chances."
Never uttered a peep about his own showing, brief as it was.
Game 4 Pens vs. Flyers 4/18/12
The Penguins win 10-3 against the Flyers in game four during the Eastern Conference quarterfinals at Wells Fargo Center April 18, 2012.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.