Download the App Image

Flyers vs. Canadiens Game 5 Betting Odds & Pick (Wednesday, Aug. 19): Back Montreal to Extend the Series

Flyers vs. Canadiens Game 5 Betting Odds & Pick (Wednesday, Aug. 19): Back Montreal to Extend the Series article feature image

Chase Agnello-Dean/NHLI via Getty Images. Pictured: Kevin Hayes

  • Check out our betting preview for Wednesday's Game 5 NHL Playoffs matchup between the Montreal Canadiens and the Philadelphia Flyers.
  • The Habs are down 3-1 in the series, and the Flyers have held Montreal scoreless in two straight games. Despite that, Michael Leboff is still leaning to the Montreal moneyline for Game 5.
  • Read on for Leboff's complete Game 5 breakdown, including odds, picks and predictions for tonight's NHL matchup.

Game 5: Philadelphia Flyers vs. Montreal Canadiens Odds

Canadiens Odds +118 [BET NOW]
Flyers Odds -137 [BET NOW]
Over/Under 5 [BET NOW]
Time 8 p.m. ET

Odds via DraftKings. Get up to a $1,000 sign-up bonus at DraftKings today or see more offers and reviews for the best online sportsbooks.

The Philadelphia Flyers have scored five goals through four games in their best-of-7 series with the Montreal Canadiens. Somehow, the Flyers have a 3-1 lead and are one win away from advancing to Round 2.

Those results speak to a couple of things. First, Carter Hart has been sensational for the Flyers in goal. Outside of a hiccup in Game 2, the 22-year-old netminder has looked largely unbeatable in this series.

Second, Montreal has been writing this book all season. The Habs finished the regular season averaging 2.66 expected goals per 60 minutes at 5-on-5, which was the third-best mark in the NHL in 2019-20. Montreal’s actual output was a bit lower than that at 2.54 goals per hour, good enough for 17th in the league.

If the Canadiens could solve Hart, they would be winning this series because they’ve been the better team at 5-on-5.

Philadelphia Flyers Montreal Canadiens
Goals 4 3
Expected Goals 5.25 7.29
Shot Attempts 161 207
High-danger scoring chances 21 40

Expected goals (also known as xG) is a predictive statistic that gives an indication of whether results are based on sustainable factors like a steady creation of scoring chances, or whether it is down to aspects such as shooting luck or outstanding goaltending.

Simply put, an expected goals rate (xGF%) above 50% is considered good because it means a team is creating the majority of the scoring chances. Anything below 50% is usually a sign that a team is struggling to control play.

xG numbers cited from Evolving Hockey.

The odds for this series started comically high but have since mellowed out. After closing at -162 for Game 1, the Flyers were down to -127 at DraftKings (and even further below that at other places) ahead of Game 4.

It seems like the market is as skeptical of the Flyers, as I am. Carter Hart can’t shut the Canadiens out forever.

Philadelphia Flyers Montreal Canadiens
Game 1 -162 +138
Game 2 -148 +126
Game 3 -148 +128
Game 4 -127 +110
Game 5 -137 +118

Odds via DraftKings

And boy, it’s going to be tough for me to quit Montreal. The Habs drive play like a top-5 team but have been let down by poor finishing in this series. Teams that boast this kind of statistical profile but lack the results to go along with it are often undervalued in the betting market.

There really isn’t that much that separates these two teams. It isn’t your typical No. 1 vs. No. 8 matchup and the market has corrected to reflect that since Game 1.

I doubt we see the kind of line movement on Montreal that we saw before Game 4. The Habs are down 3-1 and haven’t scored in two games, so I am hopeful bettors will stay away and Montreal drifts before puck drop.

If you’re just looking for action on the game and need some guidance, I’d lean towards Montreal at this price but I’m going to wait it out and hope that a +125 pops on the Canadiens. I’ll probably be in at +120, though.

Heck, I may even throw a few bucks at the Habs +1000 to win the series.

I just can’t quit these guys.

[Bet now at DraftKings and get a $1,000 sign-up bonus.]

How would you rate this article?