ShareThis Page
Tim Benz

Tim Benz: Series too erratic to pronounce Flyers' doom

| Sunday, April 15, 2018, 9:48 p.m.
Penguins goalie Matt Murray braces for a shot by the Flyers' Wayne Simmonds during the third period Sunday.
Getty Images
Penguins goalie Matt Murray braces for a shot by the Flyers' Wayne Simmonds during the third period Sunday.

We can act like we have a good handle on this Penguins-Flyers Eastern Conference quarterfinal series. But we don't.

How can we? It's been unpredictable game-to-game. It's been unpredictable within games.

The Penguins dominated Game 1, winning 7-0. They got dominated in Game 2, losing 5-1. Then they pulled a 5-1 reversal Sunday in Philadelphia for Game 3.

Lots of scoring. Emotional swings. Kind of like the 2012 series between the teams, except with one-tenth the violence and mayhem.

We can go through the routine of pronouncing the Flyers dead — again — like many did after Game 1: The matchups are bad for the Flyers. Brian Elliott is toast in goal. Philly doesn't have enough toughness. The Pens “flipped a switched” n'at.

Hey, I subscribed to some of that myself. I didn't think this series would see a sixth game either. The Penguins are better. They should win this thing with a mulligan or two to spare.

But the manner in which they get there? Our collective crystal ball has been foggy in that regard.

I'm not going to pretend like I have any clue how Game 4 is going to go.

Another pendulum swing to a fourth consecutive blowout? This one back to Philadelphia? Yeah. I could see it. Sure, why not?

Either team finally winning a conventional, close, one-goal playoff game where under-six goals hits in Vegas? We are overdue for that.

That's gotta happen eventually, right?


Geez. Even 2012 had one of those when the Penguins stayed alive with a Game 5 victory.

“This first one, having played it here. Now we've got a feel for it,” said captain Sidney Crosby after a four-point afternoon Sunday. “That should help us going into Game 4.”

It's not just the final scores that have been erratic. It's been some of the play within the games.

The Flyers came out as the far better team in Game 3. They carried the play early, outshooting the Penguins, 11-4, in the first period.

Just 1 minute, 15 seconds into the game, Nolan Patrick blew past Olli Maatta, but Matt Murray made a great glove save.

Less than a minute later, Murray made another big stop on Travis Sanheim after a backdoor pass from Jori Lehtera.

Travis Konecny had a glorious scoring chance as well but couldn't finish. Not quite as much of a blown layup as Scott Laughton in Game 1. But close.

Television cameras caught Konecny yapping something at Matt Murray after the play. The NBC broadcast speculated it was something to the effect of, “You got lucky.”

Murray just gave a knowing smile and skated away.

“He's such a battle-tested guy. He's got a quiet confidence,” coach Mike Sullivan said. “He knows he's good.”

Yet somehow after 20 minutes of play, the Penguins went into the first intermission with a 1-0 lead.

Even the special teams were kind of strange. It was a dominant win for the Penguins. They were 6 for 6 on the penalty kill and 3 of 7 on the power play.

“I thought we did a better job tonight,” defenseman Justin Schultz said. “We just have to keep improving on that.”

The Penguins were just 1 of 8 on the power play in the first two games.

“It was nice to see the power play get a couple and get some confidence there,” Schultz said. “I don't think we needed it. We knew we had it. We were getting our chances. Just a matter of sharpening up a little bit.”

Even the successful power plays were a bit bizarre in how they cashed in, though. Evgeni Malkin's score on a four-on-three to make it 3-0 occurred only after a series of fumbling misadventures near the blue line to enter the zone.

Derick Brassard's man-up goal to give the Penguins a 2-0 lead a few minutes earlier was huge. But the unit attempted only two shots and got just one on goal in the first 1:36 of the advantage.

Oh, and as far as the PK goes? Six for six is, 6 for 6. It was perfect.

Just avoid six trips to the box on Wednesday night, though.

None of this is to nitpick details or marginalize a Penguins victory. Actually, quite the contrary.

It's to reiterate that, while the Penguins appeared to be in a different league than Philly after the first 60 minutes of this best-of-seven series, Game 2 was a blatant reminder that this series' script wasn't going to write itself.

And the story of it might be more winding than the history books will show if this series lasts only five games as so many us — yours truly included — predicted.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at or via Twitter @TimBenzPGH.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.

click me