ShareThis Page

Change in defensive philosophy forces Pens' goaltenders to adjust

| Thursday, Oct. 31, 2013, 10:39 p.m.
The Flyers' Max Talbot (rear) is held back from the puck by  Penguins goalie Marc-Andre Fleury, who received an interference penalty on the play in the second period Thursday, Oct. 17, 2013, in Philadelphia.
The Flyers' Max Talbot (rear) is held back from the puck by Penguins goalie Marc-Andre Fleury, who received an interference penalty on the play in the second period Thursday, Oct. 17, 2013, in Philadelphia.

Marc-Andre Fleury and Jeff Zatkoff are learning some new tricks in their down time.

Through the opening month of this NHL season, the Penguins' new neutral-zone defensive philosophy has left their goalies to deal with long stretches of nothingness.

“Sometimes it's just me back there for a while, so maybe I'll move around for no reason — just to do something,” Fleury said.

Zatkoff, a grizzled veteran of two NHL games, suggested an alternative option.

“He laughed, but I told Flower that I'll spray myself with the water bottle just to wake myself up,” Zatkoff said.

“Our guys are playing great defensively, and that's definitely a challenge for a goalie because you want, probably, 30 shots a night.”

The Penguins finished October third overall at 25.3 shots allowed per game. They were 16th last season at 29.2.

Shots are one thing.

Shot attempts are another, and there is a statistical trend that suggests the Penguins' reliance on a left-wing lock approach is working.

The Penguins have held an opponent to 60 or fewer attempted shots (shots + attempts blocked + missed shots) in 12 of 13 contests. Four times — or about 31 percent of their games — the Penguins have held opponents to 50 or fewer attempted shots.

That has translated directly into fewer scoring chances for opponents.

Limiting scoring chances — specifically by preventing opposing forwards from entering the offensive zone with speed — is the aim of the left-wing lock approach.

For a goalie, however, that can prove to be a boring way of life.

“That's probably not the word I'd go with for how we're playing,” Penguins defenseman Robert Bortuzzo said. “‘Sound' is better. Or ‘hard.' Or ‘honest.'

“If I'm a goalie, I have no problem when things are easy for me.”

Easy is somewhat problematic for goalies, Fleury and Zatkoff said.

“I grew up watching those great Detroit teams, and (Red Wings goalie) Chris Osgood probably had to face only 20 shots a game,” Zatkoff said. “But he had to make all of those saves. There was no room for error.”

Fleury is off to the best overall statistical start of his career. He is 9-2-0 with a 1.81 goals-against average and .927 save percentage.

He has faced 273 shots, an average of 24.8 per game. Opponents have connected on just 48.1 percent of attempted shots (273 of 568) in his 11 appearances.

“It's the most defensive (stretch) since I've been here,” said Fleury, who assumed the No. 1 goalie role during the 2005-06 season.

It could have long-term benefits, he said.

Fleury said he has noticed “quicker recovery” for his body days after games “because sometimes I'm not doing much in games.”

“I'm not as tired in practices,” Fleury said.

That is a benefit given that he is in the first year of working with goalie coach Mike Bales.

Still, the life of a goalie on a defensively sound club is not without challenges — as Zatkoff witnessed from the bench at Carolina on Monday.

“I think that game is an example of why it can be tough,” Zatkoff said. “I'm watching Flower go 10 minutes without seeing a shot, then I see one coming at him from out of midair — and it seems like from out of nowhere. It's almost not fair, because you're not in any kind of rhythm and you've got to make this save or the game changes completely.

“It's a mental battle, but with the way our guys are playing defense it's something I think we're going to have to get used to.”

Rob Rossi is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at or via Twitter @RobRossi_Trib.

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.