Looks like Fish Sticks is off his rocker on this assessment.  There’s no reason to hang that series on Fleury - both sides had flukey/freaky goals get in that cost them games.

Posted by HockeyJoe from NY on 06/10/08 at 05:23 AM ET

Agreed HockeyJoe. And not to mention, that the number of shots was usually quite lopsided in favor of the Wings. Even if you do accept Stan’s point, you can’t ignore the countless times that Fleury kept the Penguins in games that they had no business being in because the guy up front were outplayed. To me, that’s just as important, and he did that far more consistently this playoffs then he let in soft goals.

Posted by penguinsfan on 06/10/08 at 06:27 AM ET

So, when the ENTIRE TEAM was nervous and jittery in the first two games, Fleury was supposed to score goals, too? 

That’s not what I would call logic, but whatever floats your boat.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 06/10/08 at 06:31 AM ET

the team can’t win if they score 0 goals, no matter how great fleury plays.  i don’t know the exact stat, but i thought his save percentage was great.  he was outstanding in game 5.  i couldn’t even believe it.  and let’s not forget his performance through the first 3 rounds of the playoffs.  sounds like someone is just trying to play devil’s advocate, but there is no way to have a good argument for that.

Posted by keh4p on 06/10/08 at 07:19 AM ET

He’s wrong that Fleury cost them the series, but he’s right that once of the key differences in the series was that Osgood was consistent, whereas Fleury was not.

Someone, don’t remember who, said before the series that Detroit’s ability to shut down the Pens’ second line, the mismatch in the quality of the defense corps of the two teams, and Fleury’s lack of consistency would be the difference in the series. Who was that?

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 06/10/08 at 07:43 AM ET

As much as I hate to admit it, you can’t blame this SCF loss on Fleury. I have to say that he is the reason that this series went to a Game 6 and there was no more dominant performance than Game 5. His defense and forwards occassionaly left him out to dry - especially in the first 2 games - and after that he kept the games close. Most of the goals some called “weak” were deflected or his defense did not clear the screens away from the front of his net. The GWG in Game 6 would only happen 1 time out of a hundred and again it fell on his defensemen to realize where the puck was and help him out.

Posted by Brandi Lynn from Philadelphia, PA on 06/10/08 at 07:53 AM ET

Inconsistency has been the knock against MAF since he got to the show.  If any one thing cost the Pens the series, it was the ridiculous amount of turnovers within 20 feet of the goal.  How that is blamed on the goalie is lost on me…

Posted by Mike at MHH on 06/10/08 at 10:42 AM ET

Let’s come full circle, back to Hockey Joe’s first sentence:

Looks like Fish Sticks is off his rocker on this assessment.

Fischler has been in my doofus pile for some time now.  I don’t see anything in this story that says I should remove him.

Posted by BobTheZee on 06/10/08 at 01:41 PM ET

Fleury was sometimes inconsistent, but he was also frequently under siege. Inability to properly execute Pittsburgh breakouts, inability to do anything to counter Detroit’s breakouts (both of which have a lot to do with Babcock’s tactical coaching vs. Therrien’s), and inabililty to generate offensive pressure cost the Penguins the series--not Fleury.

Besides, the Penguins were shut out in the first two games. Even if Fleury had been perfect, that wouldn’t have been enough to win.

Posted by Steve from Pittsburgh on 06/10/08 at 02:20 PM ET