Pens' Fleury flawless in goal again
NEW YORK — Defenseman Matt Niskanen wasn't with the Penguins when goalie Marc-Andre Fleury backstopped their drive to the Stanley Cup in 2009.
Right wing Craig Adams was.
They both came to the same conclusion: They've never seen their goaltender play like this.
Fleury stopped 35 shots in a 2-0 victory on Monday to record consecutive shutouts for the first time in his postseason career, now going precisely 120 minutes without permitting a goal while the Penguins took a 2-1 series lead against the New York Rangers.
“This is the best I've seen him play,” Niskanen said. “The last two nights, he's been so good. He's been really good since I've been in Pittsburgh. He's won a ton of hockey games, made a ton of highlight reel saves. But the last two nights have been different.”
Adams witnessed Fleury at the height of his power when, five years ago, he appeared on the verge of joining the NHL's elite for the next decade.
“No,” Adams said, shaking his head. “(I've) never (seen him) better than that.”
Fleury has endured notable postseason troubles that had numerous members of the New York media peppering coach Dan Bylsma about his goaltender before Game 3.
Bylsma and Rangers coach Alain Vigneault, though, foreshadowed this performance.
It was suggested to Vigneault that Fleury could be easy prey in New York because of his postseason demons.
“Marc-Andre Fleury is a good goalie,” Vigneault said. “He's won a Stanley Cup, been to two Finals. He's one of the best in the league.”
Bylsma drew laughs when he said Fleury has “plenty of practice” in regards to dealing with questions about his postseason failures. He said Fleury has been asked such questions in each of the past 100 days.
The Rangers certainly aren't laughing about what they've had to face.
Just like in Game 2, Fleury was forced to contend with three consecutive New York power plays early on Monday. Although the Rangers are struggling mightily on the power play, they fired 10 shots at Fleury while with the man advantage.
He stood tall.
“He was obviously our best penalty killer tonight,” Adams said.
Fleury possessed a little bit of luck, too. Right wing Martin St. Louis hit the post while on the power play, and center Mats Zuccarello hit the crossbar on a play that was ultimately reviewed before being called no call. Fleury said the post and crossbar were his “good friends” on this night.
The rest of the Penguins weren't buying any talk about luck.
“I've seen it since the beginning of the season,” defenseman Kris Letang said. “I've just felt so comfortable with him and the way he's been playing. He was great tonight.”
What impressed the Penguins most was Fleury's rebound control, which was superb on a night when the Rangers were buzzing while playing in front of their home crowd.
“We had good looks,” Vigneault said. “We just couldn't score.”
Many Penguins acknowledged that their defensive work wasn't as strong as it was in Sunday's Game 2.
“Bigger workload for him tonight,” Niskanen said. “Definitely more shots. I don't know if they had a ton of Grade-A chances, but they had a handful. And he shut the door every single time.”
Fleury's regular season road numbers (2.57 GAA, .905 save percentage) were pedestrian. His numbers while playing on the second of consecutive days (4.92 GAA and .833 save percentage) were awful.
But in the playoffs, where he has struggled so frequently in recent years, Fleury is at his best once again.
“It was pretty good,” Fleury said with a smile.
His teammates disagreed slightly.
“That,” defenseman Paul Martin said, “was a great performance.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.