Flyers vs. Hurricanes Game 1 prediction: NHL odds, picks, best bets for Stanley Cup Playoffs
The Carolina Hurricanes enter the second round of the 2026 Stanley Cup Playoffs after sweeping the Ottawa Senators, while the Philadelphia Flyers advanced following a hard-fought series against the Pittsburgh Penguins. Goaltending will be a key storyline, with Frederik Andersen and Dan Vladar posting strong playoff statistics so far. The Hurricanes are favored in Game 1, but the Flyers' recent defensive improvements and goaltending could make for a close series.
- ▪The Hurricanes swept the Ottawa Senators in the first round, advancing to the second round for the sixth consecutive year.
- ▪Carolina went 3-0-1 against the Flyers during the regular season and are favored to win Game 1 at -200 odds.
- ▪Frederik Andersen leads the playoffs with a .955 save percentage and 7.6 Goals Saved Above Expected through four games.
- ▪Dan Vladar posted a .937 save percentage and recorded a 42-save shutout in the Flyers' series against the Penguins.
- ▪The total for Game 1 is set at 5.5, with the author recommending a bet on the under due to strong goaltending and defensive play.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Betting Flyers vs. Hurricanes Game 1 prediction: NHL odds, picks, best bets for Stanley Cup Playoffs By Sean Treppedi Published May 2, 2026, 4:00 p.m. ET Frederik Andersen #31 of the Carolina Hurricanes tends net during the second period against the Ottawa Senators in Game Two of the First Round of the 2026 Stanley Cup Playoffs at Lenovo Center on April 20, 2026 in Raleigh, North Carolina. NHLI via Getty Images Gambling content 21+. The New York Post may receive an affiliate commission if you sign up through our links. Read our editorial standards for more information. Like taxes in April, the Hurricanes are playing playoff hockey in May. For the sixth consecutive spring, Carolina advanced to the second round after sweeping the Senators.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at New York Post.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from New York Post
