Sam Donnellon: Flyers' attack philosophy at root of slump

WHAT IS IT about the sports teams in this town that the only one interested in creating a defense-first identity is its pro basketball team? Yes, its pro basketball team. The football team thinks it will win a championship by outscoring you. You can argue the Phillies are defense-first these days, but that's more out of default than design. When they acquired those ace pitchers, it was to complement a high-octane offense, not replace it.

The hockey team? I don't know if it has an identity. With two balky goalies and a defense whose only consistency is coughing up the puck in its own zone, the Flyers nonetheless try to outscore you. When they don't, they talk about the mistakes they made, their turnovers in the neutral zone, or the play of the other team's goalie. Sometimes it's all of the above. And their coach, their Stanley Cup-winning coach, sounds eerily like Andy Reid these days, answering all questions, specific or general, with that blanket "We can get better" verse that I will, if ever made commissioner of a league, ban.

Of course they can get better. The question is how. And this is where I get alarmed. To me, the Flyers' problems begin with their philosophy, an aggressive offensive onslaught that places no great value on protecting a lead and has not even been very proficient in obtaining an early one. How many times has the opposition scored the first goal over the last 2 months? How many times have the Flyers failed to protect a third-period lead - or a lead at any other juncture of the game, for that matter?

"We're a team that's aggressive," Danny Briere said to me before their two lost weekends against top-tiered teams netted no points in four games. "We're going after it. We don't sit back. It's part of the reason why we give up more goals against. But we also score more. It all depends upon the system you're playing."

This reminds me of an old story about the 1988 Olympics, when a French-Canadian writer, accent in tow, questioned then-U.S. hockey coach Dave Peterson this way:

"Coach . . . your team . . . it has no see-stum."

"Are you a hockey coach?" Peterson asked testily.

"No," was the response. "Are ewe?"

 Said Briere: "Obviously, we're not happy giving up five or six goals a game. There's a difference in that. I think we can live with giving up two or three goals a game. Once we get in that range of four, five or six, that's when we get in trouble. That's when we need to clamp down a little more on defense."