The Philadelphia Flyers arrived in Calgary knowing the margins would be thin. Second night of a back-to-back, travel baked in, and facing a Flames team that had already beaten them once this season, the setup wasn’t forgiving.
Still, the result — a 5-1 loss on New Year’s Eve — wasn’t simply about fatigue or circumstance. Philadelphia never found a second gear after briefly pulling even, and a shuffled blue line struggled to stabilize a game that tilted quickly and stayed there.
1. Defensive Disruption Showed Up Immediately.
Rick Tocchet told media pregame there would be no lineup changes. In practice, that wasn’t quite true.
Emil Andrae was held out as a healthy scratch, Noah Juulsen re-entered the lineup, and all three defensive pairings were reworked: Travis Sanheim with Jamie Drysdale, Cam York with Rasmus Ristolainen, and Nick Seeler with Juulsen.Noah
Noah Juulsen (47). (Megan DeRuchie-The Hockey News)That level of change — particularly on the second night of a back-to-back — mattered greatly. The Flyers looked disconnected defensively from the opening stretch, with spacing issues in the neutral zone and timing problems on retrievals. Calgary exploited that early, forcing Philadelphia into longer shifts and defensive-zone scrambles rather than clean exits.
Sanheim logged four blocked shots and did what he could to steady things, but the collective cohesion simply wasn’t there. Calgary’s forecheck consistently arrived first, and the Flyers’ defense had difficulty transitioning play under pressure. Even when breakdowns weren’t glaring, the rhythm was off — and against a structured Flames team, that was enough.
2. The Flyers Couldn’t Build Off Their Lone Push.
Philadelphia’s best moment came when Travis Konecny scored to briefly give the Flyers some life. It was his 13th goal of the season and the fourth time this year he’s scored in back-to-back games — a reminder that his game has traveled well through the end of December.
But the goal didn’t change the flow. The Flyers couldn’t follow it with sustained offensive-zone pressure, and Calgary quickly reasserted control. Too often, the Flyers’ offense stalled after the first touch — a shot without support, a rimmed puck with no second layer arriving, or a rush that ended without forcing the Flames’ defense to turn.
3. Physical Engagement Was There, Execution Was Not.
Effort wasn’t absent. Carl Grundstrom and Bobby Brink each led both teams with four hits, and the Flyers weren’t passive along the boards. The issue was what came next.
Hits didn’t translate into possession. Board battles were contested, but Calgary was quicker to recover pucks and cleaner with their first play. The Flyers often won contact but lost the sequence. Over time, that wears down a team chasing the game rather than dictating it.
This was especially noticeable through the middle portion of the game, where Philadelphia still had opportunities to keep things close but couldn’t turn physical play into momentum.
4. The Second Night of Back-To-Backs Continues to Be Uneven.
This was the Flyers’ sixth back-to-back set of the season. Their record tells the story: 4-1-1 in the first game, 2-3-1 in the second. That split doesn’t excuse the performance, but it does frame it.
The Flyers’ pace dipped as the game went on, and Calgary took advantage by stretching the ice and forcing longer defensive shifts. Recovery time was limited, and with altered pairings on the back end, the margin for error shrank even further.
Final Thoughts.
The Flyers might not be popping champagne after this NYE result, but it's important to keep in mind that this was a loss defined by disconnection—nothing more to it.
They didn’t stop competing, but this was a reminder of how sensitive the Flyers’ game can be to lineup changes and execution — especially against a disciplined opponent on short rest.
Calgary earned the result. Philadelphia, meanwhile, will leave this one as a data point: when structure slips and momentum isn’t built immediately, games can get away quickly.