ShareThis Page
Penguins notebook: Special teams flexes power in Game 3 rout |

Penguins notebook: Special teams flexes power in Game 3 rout

PHILADELPHIA — Given the Penguins had the most efficient power play in franchise history during the regular season, it seemed unlikely the Flyers could keep the unit quiet for an entire best-of-seven playoff series.

On Sunday afternoon, the Penguins’ power play made a loud statement.

Derick Brassard, Evgeni Malkin and Justin Schultz scored second-period goals with the man advantage as the Penguins rolled to a 5-1 victory in Game 3 of the first-round series.

The Penguins were 1 for 8 on the power play in the first two games. They went 3 for 7 on Sunday.

The first goal Sunday was scored by a mixture of the team’s two power-play personnel groups.

Phil Kessel, a member of the first unit, corralled a puck down low and made a nifty pass to Brassard, a member of the second unit, for a shot into the top corner from the bottom of the left faceoff circle to make it 2-0 early in the second period.

The second goal came on a Malkin one-timer from the right circle during a four-on-three advantage four minutes later. Schultz’s goal came on a blast from the center point in the third period.

“It’s going to win you games, especially this time of the year,” Brassard said. “There’s a lot of talent in this room, this group here. This is the best (power play) the entire regular season. It’s just a matter (of time) before they connect. We work on it every day.”

Killing better

In addition to thriving on the power play, the Penguins enjoyed a spotless, 6-for-6 effort from their penalty kill Sunday. The Flyers scored two power-play goals in Game 2 on Friday night.

“I think what we did well tonight is we didn’t give them that freebie, that backdoor tap-in goal that really is indefensible from a goaltender’s standpoint,” coach Mike Sullivan said. “And Matt Murray, I thought, was our best penalty killer tonight. He made some big saves for us.”

You’re in big trouble

Penguins captain Sidney Crosby has proven throughout his career he can handle the adversity playing on the road sometimes brings.

That includes, apparently, being urinated upon in effigy.

According to social media reports, a fan placed photos of Crosby in the bottom of the urinals in all the men’s rooms at the Wells Fargo Center before Sunday’s game.

Crosby, who had a goal and three assists, didn’t seem upset about the gesture.

“That’s not the first building that’s happened in,” Crosby said. “I don’t know if they stole that idea from someone else.”

Banning lobbyists

It’s fairly common practice at this time of year in the NHL. Coaches, when seated in front of a microphone and cameras, will use the moment to lobby for favorable calls from officials or favorable rulings on possible suspensions from the league’s department of player safety.

Sullivan never uses such rhetoric.

After Claude Giroux clobbered Kris Letang in an open-ice collision in Game 2, Sullivan said he had an opinion about what happened, but he’d keep it to himself. When it was clear Giroux wasn’t going to be suspended, Sullivan again declined to comment Saturday.

Sullivan said he takes that tact, in part, as an example for his players to follow.

“Because I’m not sure it’s productive. I’m not sure it’s effective,” he said before Sunday’s game. “It’s a distraction from what our team is trying to accomplish. So we’re going to focus on what we can control, and that’s our team, our effort, our execution and that’s where all of our focus is and it starts with me.”

Jonathan Bombulie is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at or via Twitter @BombulieTrib.

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.