2nd Period Live Blogging Continued

--Phone call. The TV has to be muted.

--The mute button is magic. Andy McDonald scores another goal. Without hearing commentary, I don't think that's a goal the Senators (and Ray Emery) should be giving up.

--Momentum switches fast in the playoffs; this game is by no means over. But you've got to love a goal that hushes a crowd that's already quiet.

--Talk about more switching of momentum. Heatley scores. Growl. I don't like natural goal scorers who are wingers. Particularly because my Penguins do not have them.

--If I'm Anaheim, I'm not happy Alfredsson and Heatley are on the board. If I'm Ottawa, I'm happy they're on the board. And by the way, Chris Pronger's absence is not coincidental when it comes to Heatley and Alfredsson finally getting untracked.

(Still, if Anaheim could somehow pull this out, even with Ottawa's big guys getting untracked, well, that would bode well. I would think.)

--End of the period festivities. Lots of grabbing and talking. And to that Ottawa buffoon bothering Scott Niedermayer, leave Scott Niedermayer alone. He's better than you. He's above you. Leave Scott Niedermayer alone.

--Eventually the players depart for their respective locker rooms. And Scott Niedermayer starts "talking." Sure, that's what he's doing. Did I not tell that Senator to let Scott Niedermayer be Scott Niedermayer? I mean. Really.

--Tied at 2 all after 2. Maybe I get overtime tonight? Pretty, pretty please?

Period 2 -- Live Blogging

The Lecture: Now Bill McCreary decides to tell Ray Emery that flopping outside of his crease in unacceptable. I wonder what Ryan Getzlaf thinks about that? Somehow I think Sidney's Crosby favorite word (at least the one he's typically caught on camera saying) is probably involved. Good thing no one's got a camera on Getzlaf. Wouldn't be family friendly TV.


Referee Rant: I don't like Bill McCreary. Never have. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've ever liked an official. Maybe it's because I also rooted for the Mario or Jagr-led Pens, who were never really, to put it mildly, the darlings of referees. The only official I ever liked was one Kevin Collins, a linesman who officiated some of big-time Pens' games, and who I nicknamed Curtis just because, well, he looked like a Curtis.

(Note to self and to anyone who's reading: In any case you hadn't figured it out by now, I'm a little goofy/crazy/other synonyms, and there's no snark involved in that.)

But seriously, I liked Curtis (Kevin Collins) because he always just did his job. He dropped the puck. He called off-sides when it was supposed to be called. He broke up fights.

When it comes to Curtis, though, I never noticed him because he was NOT doing his job. Curtis was always just a part of the game. The game wasn't about Curtis; Curtis was a part of ensuring the game ran smoothly. And most games with Curtis--and not just because the Pens won--did run smoothly.

If I could wish upon a star.....the NHL standard would be Curtis. Officials who call the game right and do their jobs and as such, we only notice them as part of the game--not as the ones who decide the game. Were I to dream, dream, dream, dream....



Baseball Jokes: Ha, ha, ha. Mike Emerick, like me, roots for the pathetic Pirates, who I think are still in contention in the Comedy Central Division in the NL despite a sub .500 record. Edzo jokes about the Pirates' bullpen (it's been VERY BAD lately, blowing leads here and there and everywhere). Yeah, I know it's irrelevant to the game. But these guys know each other and get along and I got the joke and--wow, I'm praising the announcers.

Must. Stop. Now.


Thank you, Mr. Emerick: For apologizing when you made a mistake. Rather than insisting you were right. Players, coaches, and general managers, not to mention on-ice and off-ice bigwigs, could learn a lot from you. When you thought a call was a goal, you didn't insist that it was. You apologized. Thank you for setting a remarkable example. I (no snark here) seriously encourage others in the hockey world to follow Mr. Emerick's example.

Shot Clock Update: The Ducks came to play in Period 2, or they channelled all that rage in the right direction, or something, at least that's what the shot clock says. The momentum has shifted in this period...for how long?

Goal: Andy McDonald, whom Brian Burke, who used to have Colin Campbell's job, jumped so vigorously to protect, scores a goal.

Tie Game. Yeah. The Senators crowd is quiet. Beautiful.

1st Intermission Live-Blogging

"Replacing Pronger": C'mon. Let's be honest. This is what happens with a suspension to a star player, or an injury to a star player. Someone, or many someones in this case, have to take this certain star player's ice time. But these players will not, cannot, and should not be expected to "replace" Chris Pronger. Do you want Ric Jackman trying to dish out a nasty check when he clearly has no concept of how to do that and remain in appropriate defensive position? Duh. Of course not. You want your players who are replacing your star player to play to the best of their abilities, within, of course, their limitations. While I was too busy blogging to pay a ton of attention to the defenseman the Bozo's the Clown called out, I usually diagnose this problem as a player trying to do too much and then not doing what he can do. Beauchemin needs to play within his limitations and not pretend to be someone (cough, Chris Pronger, cough) he isn't.

"We're going to keep playing the same way": Chris Pronger gives Anaheim an edge that the team maintains even when Pronger isn't on the ice. However, I'm not sure that it's wise, e.g., in Anaheim's case, to continue to make the plays that referees are calling as penalties. When a key cog in the wheel is missing, other adjustments have to be made to ensure the bike can still function. (Snark to myself: Yes, that's a horrible analogy. Deal with it.) And perhaps for Anaheim that might need to be tweaks to the basic approach (tweaks, not a wholesale overhaul) in order to give the Prongerless Ducks a better shot at winning.

Oh, dear, I am going to break a record: Bozo Brett is far more blunt than I am. But I agree with Brett's basic premise. For all I could rightfully criticize certain Anaheim Ducks, the men in stripes were probably the worst offenders, when it comes to doing their jobs well, during the first period.

Scott Niedermayer: The Bozos praise Scotty. How could not? His name is Scott. He plays defense. He's a future Hall of Famer. Oh, yeah, and he played like such. Nice job, Scottie. Still, if you and Jiggy are the only ones who come to play, I think this series shifts back to Anaheim tied at 2. But the announcers and I agree again (seriously: this is NOT that common).

Don Cherry Preview: I am promised Don Cherry is coming. Good. Grapes and I rarely agree on anything. (I love Jordan Staal, too, but I still think Evgeni Malkin should win the Calder Trophy.) The Bozos joke about Cherry's suits. It's kind of funny. You know, if ex-hockey players discussing wardrobe/attire issues is funny to you. I'm pretty easy to amuse.

Live-Blog: Game 4

Caveat: I've never previously done live-blogging. To ease the stress (snark: I wouldn't blog if I found it stressful), I think I'm just going to focus on Bozo the Clowns (specifically the pre-game and intermission commentators). And Don Cherry. And whatever else I feel like blogging about.

--It's raining in Ottawa. No snow? This isn't Edmonton in early June. Disappointing.

--The trio of Bozo's the Clown make their first appearance. Bill Clement facilitates the top 2 Bozos talking.

--Ferraro says Pronger should have been suspended. Hull yells at Anaheim fans and says Pronger should NOT have been suspended.

--Note to Brett: Honey, are you really that desperate to be liked? Perhaps you don't really like to be hated?

--Note to self: Wow, did Bozo Brett really just make sense? Hull has a good point here. Regardless of the ultimate result, if the NHL wants to punish illegal hits to the head, then the NHL needs to punish all illegal hits to the head. Even if such an illegal hit results in no injury, punishment should now be forthcoming. (I think I could agree that MORE punishment should result when injuries result.)

--Chris Neil rant: Chris Neil wants to call Chris Pronger a "backstabber"? Chris Pronger has more talent in his rebuilt-from-surgery wrist than Chris Neil could ever dream of having. Of course, I'm happy for Neil, what with the birth of his first child and an appearance in the Cup Finals. (Not snark here. I would hope Neil would be having a blast at this particular life juncture.) But memo to Chris Neil: You and Chris Pronger share more in common that just your first names. You play the same "on-edge" style. The only difference is that Pronger is a perennial Norris Trophy winner who's also won a Hart Trophy, and Chris Neil is, well, that character guy who's good in the locker room.

(Reflective note in midst of live-blogging: My natural loathing for Chris Neil appears here. Wow.)

--I like Mike Fisher (his forechecking prowess against my Pens notwithstanding). He's articulate and smart. Why is he friends with Chris Neil? Ah, what that whole "team concept" can do. Mike Fisher and Chris Neil, polar opposites on the ice (I don't really think Chris Neil is THAT smart of a player, sorry), can be friends. Life's amazing.

Random Comment: I understand all about advertising, really, I do. It's not like the NHL has a decent American TV contract anyway (a whole other topic for a whole other time). But really, let's be honest. The officials deliver the game-puck on time, not any company. And it's not like NHL officials deliver the puck on time anyway, not with the pregame festivities of listening to Bozo 1, 2, and 3, and the beautiful spectacle (no snark, I mean this) of the Canadian and American national anthems being sung.

Canadian bias? Or blind eyes? Or just Chris Neil is a punk. Ottawa fans who claimed Sidney Crosby dived need to wake up and smell the roses. Or at least honestly admit that their lovely, edgy character guy, just took a ridiculous dive. Yes, Chris Neil is so huge and strong and tough that he throws himself on the ice. Diving like that doesn't get you called a "backstabber," rather, but that hockey insult, pure and simple, of "diver."

(Oh, and this is weird, because Edzo and I didn't agree on much when he was Pittsburgh's coach. But it wasn't exactly like Edzo had all that much to work with as Pittsburgh's coach last season, so it wasn't like we had a lot, really, about which to disagree. But the point is: I agree with an announcer for the 2nd time tonight. Chris Neil dove. Wow. I'm far more astounded by the fact an announcer and I share an opinion than by the earth-shattering (snark) news that Chris Neil is a diver.)

Update: At least the Ducks killed that stupid penalty.

The Anaheim Parade to the penalty box: Canadian bias aside (in all seriousness, from where do the majority of NHL officials hail?), I might be in for a record. I think Pierre just told the Ducks to play their game and forget Chris Neil. Just to be difficult, I'd like to tell Anaheim: play your game, without boneheaded penalties, as much as possible, and in so doing, you will get Chris Neil. Eventually. Where it matters. By winning.

Maybe this will have to be a new feature. Keep track of my record for agreeing with the announcing "team." But I do agree the Ducks will miss Pronger on the PK.

A beautiful, and just sight: Chris Neil is in the penalty box. It's a beautiful thing, baby. Absolutely wonderful.

On the ensuing Anaheim PP, Scott Niedermayer gets the Sidney Crosby/Chris Pronger treatment.
Memo to Senators fans: C'mon. Crosby is the best player in the game at nineteen. And Pronger's not just scary good, he plays with that dirty edge you love in Chris Neil but hate in the opposition. But booing Scott freakin' Niedermayer? He was a Devil for years, and I hated him, but c'mon, Scott Niedermayer screams class.

Helpful PP tips: It might be a good idea for Anaheim to use their PP to get shots on Ottawa's goalie rather than allowing another class act, Mike Fisher, to get a shot on Jiggy. Fortunately, Jiggy has made the saves he's had to make so far in this game.

Shot Clock Check: Anaheim finally gets a shot. Wow. More than halfway through the first period, welcome to Game 4 of the Cup Finals, Anaheim Ducks.

Wow: I can't quite recall which losing version of the Penguins on which Ric Jackman was featured on the Pittsburgh blueline, but suffice it to say the Pens had a few years (insert reminder that the Pens made the playoffs for 11 consecutive years prior to those years) where they earned the right, on merit of wretchedly awful (not just merely bad) play, to draft two of this year's Calder Trophy nominees. In any case, several Pens' message boarders (seriously now: is there a better term?) moaned about letting the "great" Ric Jackman leave. Still, watching Jackman on the ice at the same time as Teemu Selanne. No offense to Jackman and no matter what great thing he might yet go on to do, but Ric Jackman and Teemu Selanne do not belong on the same sheet of ice.

Quality Drop-Off: You can't help but notice the huge gap in talent level that exists between #1 and #5-7 defensemen. When Scott Niedermayer leaves the ice, it's not like Anaheim just twirl out another #1 defenseman. And that does make a difference. Those #5-7 defensemen have to keep the play simpler, and they sure as heck do not provide the same support to Selanne's line and the "Kid" line as would Norris Trophy winners. Granted, of course this is probably a "duh" moment. But just know that as a Pittsburgh Penguins fan whose blueline depth was the team's weakest link all year, it's a little odd to see Anaheim's lower level blueliners reminding me of the limited skillsets of Joe Melichar and Rob Scuderi.

(Um, obviously, in any case anyone doesn't get it, Anaheim's blueline is far superior to Pittsburgh's. It's just that, well, all defense corps, especially those headlined by 2 legitimate #1 defenseman, have an obvious quality dropoff from #1 to #7 on the depth chart.)

Funny Emerick Story: Emerick tells a story about Kerry Fraser officiating some game that wasn't a NHL game. At least that's what I think.
Note to self: Blogging and watching the game simultaneously is fun, but it does mean I can't attend to Mike Emerick's stories as I usually can. Not that I necessarily do. But say this for Emerick, who narrated those 1991 and 1992 Stanley Cup videos I memorized as a kid. He's got some great hockey stories to tell.
Other note to self: Ah, Kerry Fraser. He wasn't allowed to officiate in the playoffs. Seeing the (snark warning) high level of officiating in these playoffs, one has to wonder how much worse (seriously now) the officiating would be if Fraser had been officiating any of these playoff games.

Dang: Just as I was about to type that the Ducks owed Jiggy a beer for every save he made that period, Ottawa's captain scores a goal. Of course the class act (still serious) Fisher makes the play in the corner that helps that goal get scored. The Ducks still owe Jiggy 12 beers for keeping them in a period in which they were outshot 13-2. But the Ducks had better wait until the Finals end before they buy Jiggy those beers. Jiggy's sure going to need to be sharp if the Ducks start making a pattern of playing every period like period 1 of Game 4.

Media Manners? or Blunt Honesty: Ryan Getzlaf shows that he has yet to go to the Sidney Crosby school of media manners, e.g., having one personality on the ice and a much more, er, nuanced personality as soon as it's time to talk to a reporter. Getzlaf informs Pierre that the call was horrible and complains about the officiating while also admitting that this type of officiating isn't exactly new. I'm sure Pierre, like me, appreciates Getzlaf's blunt honesty. And now a little advice for the Ducks: channel that frustration and energy into, you know, shooting the puck at Ray Emery. Seriously. It would be good for your frustrations. And better for the shot clock.

(Memo to Getzlaf: I'm only a little older than you, but NHL officiating has been like this for a very, very, long time.)


Oh, and: Just a reminder, something I forgot about, but I really dislike Ottawa's coach. He's a whiner and a cryer and a complainer, and I've never liked him. I'm not sure I quite remember my history with him (did he coach a playoff team that lost to my Pens?), but I know I have never liked him. Whining and crying, especially in a coach, is highly unattractive. Motivate your players and strategize. Do what Scott Bowman did when he told the '92 Pens NOT to retaliate to the '92 New York Rangers--but don't work the officials from the bench or in the press. It's annoying, and it's not where winning coaches should focus their energy or effort. But, really, what do I expect Murray to know about winning? There's a reason Murray is Murray and Bowman's the winningiest coach in NHL history.

Chris Pronger=Ulf Samuelsson?

At first glance, to the hockey fan such an equivalency, even a rough one, appears patently absurd. Yet, in a conversation this week, the comparison was explored. And, upon further merit, the comparison is not quite as outlandish as it would appear at first blush.

First, to deal with the objections. Yes, of course Chris Pronger has played, for the most part, in a different NHL than the one in which Ulf Samuelsson played. And yes, of course Chris Pronger is far more of a complete defenseman than Ulf Samuelsson ever was. Pronger can body-check, kill penalties, but he can also play more than half of a 60 minute game because he is (to put it mildly) an effective power play quarterback who excels at such things as the outlet pass and keeping the puck in at the blue line. Honestly and upfront, it must be acknowledged that Pronger always has and always will be a more complete defenseman than was Ulf Samuelsson, even in Samuelsson's heyday.

However, Pronger and Samuelsson share certain similarities that--whether you loved or hated Samuelsson or adore or abhor Pronger--had the potential to make both of them extremely effective defensemen in the postseason.

Nasty: Just as Samuelsson physically punished his opposition, so, too, does Pronger physically punish his opposition. And here I am not necessarily talking about those "borderline" plays, but just about the fact that when it comes to bruising bodychecks, Pronger and Samuelsson share that both defensemen hit, and hit with full-force.

Edge: Playing with an edge goes beyond being merely nasty. In his prime, Samuelsson was as edgy as they came. Samuelsson would do whatever was necessary to give his team the competitive advantage, although he had to learn how to maintain control in critical situations. Likewise, Pronger has always played with a fierce, competitive edge, and while the 2006 playoffs showed he'd grown leaps and bounds in terms of controlling his edgy play, Pronger, like Samuelsson, will always play on the edge.

Borderline Dirty/Just Plain Dirty/Cheap Shot Artists: All of the above charges were levelled against Ulf Samuelsson. All of the above charges have been levelled against Pronger during the 2007 postseason. As for Samuelsson, well, he is blamed for prematurely ending the career of the great Boston power forward Cam Neely with knee-on-knee hits. Pronger is accused of using his elbows (e.g. which are higher than other people's elbows, thank you very much, Brian Burke and Randy Carlyle) to give hits from behind that result in concussions to the opposition. Pronger is basically accused of head-hunting.


Whether fans of Ulf Samuelsson or Chris Pronger like it or not, all three of the above "charges," but in particular, the last, have merit. While I heard a comment that this week where a longtime hockey fan wondered aloud if all "real" defenseman (e.g. not rovers, primarily offensive stars a la Paul Coffey) were a bit borderline dirty anyway. Over the course of their careers, at various times, the "dirty" charge was levelled against players like Scott Stevens and Chris Chelios, too. And frankly speaking, from a "rational", e.g., as unbiased as possible perspective, Chris Pronger and Ulf Samuelsson share this in common: At minimum, throughout their careers, such players have committed acts that rightfully have them labeled, minimally, as borderline dirty players.

Yet there is one more category that both Chris Pronger and Ulf Samuelsson share, and it is what I have now dubbed the "Sidney Crosby treatment."

Universally Loathed by the Opposition/Universally Loved by the Home Team:
If an effective Pronger in his prime or Samuelsson in his prime is starring for your particular team, you love them. I make no bones about this. Go to any Edmonton Oilers blog and read the masses of adoring odes to Pronger throughout the 2005-06 season and 2006 postseason. Read the vitriol spewed by fans of opposing teams toward Pronger last season and this season. Pronger is pretty much universally detested, just as Ulf Samuelsson was in his heyday.

As a Pens fan who rooted for a team laden with future HHOF talent, Ulf Samuelsson stood out from the typical Pens star. But make no mistake about it: The man they called Ulf was a star in his own right. Ulfie thrilled the Penguins faithful and was adored and respected by his teammates. He was a nightmare for opponents and a dream come true for the home team. Oh, and his nasty edge and consistent defense helped to provide a backbone to two Stanley Cup winning teams that probably, in all honesty, never could have captured the Cup without his play solidifying a group of out-of-this-world offensive stars.

When I watched the start of Game 3 of the Finals, it occurred to me that Ottawa fans were giving Chris Pronger what I have come to refer to as the Sidney Crosby treatment. I briefly wondered if the Canadian faithful were upset that Pronger demanded a trade from another Canadian team last summer. And, then, of course, I snapped to my senses. Say whatever I will for Ottawa fans, but fans in Canada's capital know hockey. They knew that without Pronger having a "forgettable Game 3,: as an AP article later noted, that their team was likely to be down in a pretty much insurmountable 3-0 hole. They knew that Pronger, just like Crosby, had the ability to impact a game, and in impacting a game, alter the course of a series.

Of course, muddled in with the acknowledgement that players who've been nominated at some point in their careers for MVP trophies merit a bit of fearful backlash from opposing fans, so too must the acknowledgement come that with Pronger comes not just the "Sidney Crosby treatment" but the "Ulf Samuelsson treatment." Sure, opposing fans boo Crosby and Pronger because they know such star players can hurt the home team. But fans boo Pronger not just because he can hurt the home team on the scoreboard. They boo Pronger, the way they booed Samuelsson, because Pronger has shown that he can, quite literally, hurt the opposing players.

So is Ulf Samuelsson to Chris Pronger really a fair comparison, a decent equivalency? Honestly. No, not quite. Very few players are blessed to play on teams as talented as the Pittsburgh teams that captured Cups at the start of the nineties, but Samuelsson did. And in winning those Cups, Samuelsson forever etched himself among players who will always be "universally adored" by Penguins fans.

And until Pronger captures a Cup, whether it's fair or not, and this despite his overall far higher skill level than Ulf Samuelsson, as in potentially Hall of Fame skill level, Pronger's "borderline dirty" attributes will never outweigh his ridiculously obscene skillset, even in the eyes of the home team that adores him.

But if and when Pronger captures a Cup, well, of course anyone who actually stumbled upon this blog will read this post and roll their eyes. Because Pronger is a far more complete player than Ulf Samuelsson ever was, but both defensemen share certain attributes that opposing fans (to put it politely) loathe. Unfortunately for Pronger, players of his ilk are measured by championships won, and not just by how close they came to winning a championship.

All that being said, however, including the statement that Pronger has been, is, and probably will always remain an obscenely skilled but borderline dirty player, I'd still welcome him, or a player like him, to my Pittsburgh Penguins. Our blueline and our team of youthful, speedy stars, could surely use an edge on the blueline. And, as far as "dirty players" go, 2 Stanley Cup victories helped to ensure that Ulf Samuelsson will remain universally loved in Pittsburgh.

Saying everything I've said about Pronger in this post, perhaps the best thing I can say is that I would still take him on my team, and that I still agree with his coach Randy Carlyle that his positive attributes (as a complete defenseman) far outweigh his negative attributes. Of course I wouldn't want Pittsburgh GM Shero sacrificing any of the Pens' future to obtain Pronger or a player of his age who is like him, at least not at this juncture in the team's development.

But the 1991 and 1992 Pens would not have won their Cups without Ulf Samuelsson, just as the Ducks will not win a Cup this season without Chris Pronger. And in order for captain Sidney Crosby to win the Cup someday, the Pens' blueline will need to feature at least one defenseman who plays shutdown defense with the kind of edge and grit and meanness found in both Ulf Samuelsson and Chris Pronger.

Cheap shot artists? Borderline dirty, at minimum? Absolutely.

Shut down defensemen without whom a team can't hope to capture a Cup? You bet.

Ulfie and Prongs share negative attributes, but those who have lustfully booed realized that they weren't just booing plain old cheap shot artists. They were booing impact players, star players, even, who--even when going way too overboard--more often than not, still manage to be a part of what makes an already-good team a great team.

The Rulebook

Clarification is Sorely Needed


It is not often when I find myself in agreement with Bozo the Clown 1, 2, and 3 (as I tend to refer to the national commentators on NBC or Versus broadcasts. Snark warning: Be glad I don't watch Don Cherry. I doubt I'd be as polite, and of course, it's all in jesting fun).

In all seriousness, aside from hits to the head--a matter which at least, according to the Hockey News, the NHL has promised to discuss this offseason--the league has got to do something about this "distinct kicking motion" rule.

Frankly speaking, I've seen too many goals this postseason (I'm sure they occurred during the regular season, but the playoffs trump all) scored or not scored by that "distinct kicking motion." The rule, or at least the interpretation of the rule, is a mess.

Questions I've asked, Comments I've had:

• Was that player really just trying to stop and the puck inadvertently went in off his skates? And if that's the case, why is that goal a goal, and in another case, it was ruled not a goal? Talk about inconsistency!

• Was that a "distinct kicking motion?" It depends on your interpretation. Who's doing the interpreting, and why is the interpretation different? Why is what appears to be the same exact incident resulting in a goal at one game and a disallowed goal at another game? The lack of consistency is baffling and annoying?

• If players don't know what a goal is, and if coaches don't know what a goal is, and if these Bozo the Clown experts who, I will concede, have played the game, can't tell what a goal is, well, how in the world can anyone else?

• Would the NHL, once and for all, please, please, pretty please, ensure the rulebook makes sense and can be accurately and consistently applied in every situation? Seriously. Please? Pretty, pretty, please?

All my questioning and commentary aside, the fact of the matter is that this rule has to be clarified. As much as I love all the stuff the new captain of my team, and currently the best player in the NHL, can do with his feet, a part of me wonders if the NHL needs to enforce something as simple as this: You must shoot the puck in the net, with your stick, to score a goal. (Now, of course deflections off the other's team's defensemen, sticks, skates, would be permissible.)

Yet even the league doesn't need a statement that simple, it surely needs something better than the inconsistency to which coaches, players, and fans have been subjected throughout the entire postseason. For the pure purposes of fair competition, I plead with the NHL: clarify the rule. Please.

No, it won't ensure longer careers or safety on the ice. But being able to know what the rules are can only help sell the sport to new fans. Beyond that, however, it's just common sense.

(Snark Warning: Any guesses as to how long it will take for the NHL to apply common sense to solve a problem?)

High Maintenance Vs. No-Maintenance

Randy Carlyle, coach of the Anaheim Ducks and former Norris Trophy winning and Pittsburgh Penguins defenseman, is the right coach for the Anaheim Ducks. Despite Carlyle's "kid" line, Carlyle has been an effective tactical coach for a fairly veteran group of NHL players.

Reading and listening to Carlyle's comments throughout the postseason, and especially the first two games of the Finals, was enlightening and entertaining. I was particularly struck by his proclamation that he had many "no-maintenance" players. For a coach like Carlyle, and for most coaches, I imagine, "no-maintenance" players are a coach's dream. You know what to expect from the player each and every game. The player gives you consistency night in and night out. Even better than that, of course, is that "no-maintenance" players need a coach to devise strategy but do not need a coach to review basic fundamentals such as appropriate position in a particular situation.

Listening to Carlyle's comments, and reading about how he, as a player, wanted rookies to be quiet (that's putting it politely, "shut up and listen" might be better and yet still too mild), it seems obvious that, for as good of a job as he's done with the Ducks, that he, or someone of his ilk, would be a poor choice to coach our current crop of Pittsburgh Penguins. Like it or not, the Penguins probably still have more "high-maintenance" players than "no-maintenance" players.

When it comes to work ethic and the willingness to improve, the 2006-07 took on Sidney Crosby's identity, to the betterment of each player on the team and the team as a cohesive whole. In this, in players who want to improve and are willing to work to improve, the Penguins, as a whole, appeared to an outsider to be a fairly "low-maintenance" group last season.

Unfortunately, however, having a "no-maintenance" player is about more than just work ethic and willingness to improve. Most players only arrive at the "no-maintenance" label through experience. Surely that was true for Norris Trophy winners Chris Pronger and Scott Niedermayer (and: snark warning: Pronger might want to watch his elbows to ensure he can maintain that "no maintenance" label). For most players, it takes experience, during the regular season and in the playoffs, playing through every possible situation, to arrive at a point where they are "no-maintenance" players. As in, the coach knows and can rely on this type of play from this player, all day, every day. The coach not only doesn't have to worry about the player's work ethic but about the player having a mental lapse and blowing a coverage. The coach knows what he's getting from a "no-maintenance" player, and he doesn't have to coddle or scold to a ridiculous extent. He just calls out the number of his "no-maintenance" player and lets the player do his job.

In the midst of the Finals series, I've found it interesting that Anaheim's so-called kid line is older than the Penguins' trio of Crosby, Malkin, and Staal. No doubt Anaheim's players are still inexperienced but talented kids. No doubt that Crosby, Malkin, and Staal, are ridiculously talented youngsters who are younger than even another team's "kid" line. Yet in noting that Anaheim's "kids" are older than Pittsburgh's kids, I've also noted that Randy Carlyle still views his kids as "high-maintenance." Watching Ryan Getzlaf in the Finals, I have no doubt there will be a day when he is a "no-maintenance" player. I've also noticed from Carlyle's treatment of Getzlaf that Getzlaf is in no way a "no-maintenance" player in the 2007 Cup Finals.

Like it or not, kids are usually "high maintenance" players, at least until they acquire the experience that makes them shed that "high maintenance" label. And while most Pens fans love the team's insanely talented and equally young core players, I've found Carlyle's discussion and treatment of Anaheim's slightly older (than Pittsburgh) Kid line to provide an important reminder for Pens' fans.

What is that reminder? Simply put, part of watching a player evolve from "high maintenance" to "no maintenance" is simply maturity, simply gaining experience. And, unfortunately for Pens fans who might get impatient, the Pens' core players are younger than even the kids of most other teams! There is no substitute for maturity that comes from experience when it comes to all of the centers winning faceoffs, Evgeni Malkin playing in the playoffs, and Jordan Staal adding assists to goals.

The Penguins got playoff experience this year, which should, hopefully, propel them to bigger and better things next season. For the moment, however, it's worth noting that two of the team's top goal scorers in the playoffs were a 19-year-old and an 18-year-old who will only be one year older next season. Which, of course, is not to deny the once-in-a-generation talent of Crosby and the, if not once in a generation, still special, talent of an 18-year-old who thrived in the Show.

Rather, the point is that Randy Carlyle would not be a good coach for next year's Penguins team, either. At this juncture, still (and hopefully remaining) no-maintenance when it comes to effort, developing all that high-end talent remains a high-maintenance priority.

But don't be surprised, if not next season, but the season after that, Michel Therrien (or someone else) is forced to adjust his method of coaching--which, of course, is what happens when "high maintenance" players become "no maintenance" players.

The Captain's C

A Significant Symbol

At first blush, the news that the Pittsburgh Penguins had just named Sidney Crosby the youngest captain in the NHL history just didn't seem all that earth-shattering. Hockey history aside, Sidney Crosby being the captain of the Pittsburgh Penguins is roughly akin to the colors of the Penguins being black and gold.

Cynics will claim that the Penguins made Crosby captain at this particular juncture to ensure that he would get another NHL record as well as capitalize on the public relations bonanza of Crosby becoming captain during the Stanley Cup finals. The Penguins' organization is guilty as charged on both counts. But, really, who cares?

Honestly, the reason I equated Crosby being captain of the Pens with equally earth-shattering facts such as Mario Lemieux owns the Pens, the Pens wear black-and-gold, and the Pens play their home games at Mellon Arena, is because Crosby has already been the Pens' de-facto captain for at least a season.

For the cynics/worrywarts who fret about Pittsburgh marketing Crosby's captaincy and/or wonder if a kid who still can't drink legally is up to the job, let's look at some primary responsibilities of a captain and see if "Sid the Kid" can actually be a good "Captain Crosby."


Responsibility: In this day and age, a captain represents his team to the media. A captain, in many ways, is a team's spokesperson to the press. A captain answers the bell on behalf of his team.

Captain Crosby: Sid the Kid has been answering the media's beck-and-call since he was a teenager. While fans around the league joke about Sidney's "boring" and never incendiary interviews, the fact of the matter is that Crosby can easily deal with being the public face of his team. Submitting to more questions and extra interviews? Like that's going to be anything new for Crosby?


Responsibility: A captain is to lead his team by helping to ensure his team is prepared to play at a high level.

Captain Crosby: After the YoungStars game this winter, Crosby made arrangements to see that he and his three YoungStars teammates got ice time prior to the Pittsburgh-Dallas game. While Crosby ensured his teammates got the ice time, he also commended his teammates for their willingness to go out and get in a good on-ice workout. The rhetorical question: Do you think a kid who can inspire and rouse his teammates to an extra practice session in the midst of a break in the season can handle helping to ensure his team is ready to play at a high level?


Responsibility: A captain is to lead his team by example.

Captain Crosby: Sid the Kid played the last three weeks of the regular season and the first round of the playoffs on a broken foot. His teammates knew he wanted to win badly enough to play through pain. Beyond the hockey cliche of playing through pain, however, come the other hockey cliches of effort and hard work. Say what you will for Crosby, but when the best player in the league is also the player who works the hardest, his less-skilled teammates have no choice but to follow the lead of their best player and hardest worker.


Responsibility: A captain needs to be able to talk to officials and demonstrate composure both on and off the ice.

Captain Crosby: Sid the Kid displayed leaps and bounds of growth from his rookie season to his second season when it came to being demonstrative toward officials. If one were to have a legitimate concern about Captain Crosby, it might be that his off-the-charts off-ice maturity is not always equal to his passionate, in-game composure. And yet I still feel that much of the criticism directed at Crosby has been blown up--by Don Cherry's comments and by the comments of coaches (who apparently don't know Crosby well enough) trying to help their team win games--into unrealistic heights. Sure, Crosby gets upset and frustrated from time to time. So did Mario Lemieux; so have other great players. It's a matter of what Crosby does when he's frustrated that matters--and usually, just like Lemieux, when Crosby gets mad, he gets even, and more than even. Crosby's frustration turns into passion that leads to winning, more often than not. An occasional outburst (by the way, hardly uncommon for veteran players and leaders who are renowned as terrific captains) aside, channeling frustration and anger into passionate play are a sign of on-ice maturity--and what any team should desire of its' captain.


In all honesty, Sidney Crosby has been the captain of the Pittsburgh Penguins, at least in spirit, since Mario Lemieux's retirement. And last season, when it was revealed that the Penguins twice offered the captaincy to Crosby, the team truly did become his.

Yet the "C" that Crosby chose to accept after talking to veterans and after the season (still more signs of maturity for the naysayers) is not some insignificant letter. The captain's C is symbolically significant, and more than just a symbol, it's a significant symbol.

After the Pens' playoff loss to Ottawa, a photographer captured the Pens' trio of underage centers sitting, still in partial gear, with dejected expression on their faces. The dejection and sadness on the faces of Crosby, Malkin, and Staal, is obvious, and yet somehow, it's poignant, too.

When the Penguins offered the captaincy to Crosby, the organization was effectually saying: This is your team now. And for Crosby, yes, of course, it's his team. Of course he will be the one, if and when the Penguins lose again in the postseason, to face the media music and answer questions about another postseason loss. Of course he who is the franchise will be the face of the franchise.

Yet that captain's C, significant as it is for Crosby, is another way of passing to the torch to the young core of Penguins players. Crosby will lead the young players, of course, but the team now belongs to them. Success or failure, triumph and exaltation versus dejection and depression, the team is now Crosby's, and by extension, now theirs.

Yes, veteran players will remain on the team, and the team will not wholly be comprised of youth. Veteran players should and probably will sport A's as alternate captains next season, and the younger players, including their captain, will still listen and learn from their more experienced teammates.

But make no mistake. When the Pittsburgh organization offered Crosby the captaincy of the Penguins, the organization knew full well what it was doing. When Crosby accepted the captaincy, he knew full well the set of obligations and responsibilities he was assuming.

And now those obligations and responsibilities--both days where the duties may be burdensome and days when they may be joyful--fall upon Captain Crosby. As the youngest captain in NHL history is now the official centerpiece of the Pittsburgh Penguins, let it ring out, loud and clear, that Crosby's acceptance of the Pittsburgh captaincy necessarily entails that the youthful core of the Pittsburgh Penguins is no longer just brimming with future "promising potential" but is the expected core, sooner rather than later, of a bonafide Cup contender.

And no, those aren't just expectations from rabid, faithful Pens' fans. Those are the expectations of the organization, from ownership to the general manager's office, and of the captain himself. And, as goes the captain, so, too goes the team.

It's been an exhilarating two years thus far, and I plan to continue to enjoy the ride that is the Sidney Crosby show as the league's youngest but perfectly prepared captain sets out to bring the Stanley Cup back to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Random
Remembrances
Musings
Questions
Fears--Edition 1

Remembrances

All right, so it's not my top ten list, or top twenty list, or season-in-review. At least not yet. But here are some things from the past year that make me eager for the start of the 2007-08 Pens' season.

Malkin's goal against the Devils. Yes, that one. That pass from Crosby. That goal. That celebration. That made Mario Lemieux, watching on TV, pause and go, Wow. Yeah. That one. That goal reminded me what it felt like when I watched Mario and Jagr as a kid. And now I get to watch kids all over again as an adult.

First NHL goals: No matter they sent Letang back to his junior team. That 6-5 win against the Rangers was so much fun. Letang got his first goal, showing glimpes of what I hope I'll get to see next season. And well, let's just say I hope there's something beautifully poignant, when it comes to the trajectory of Jordan Staal's career, about scoring his first goal, shorthanded, by breaking up a play between two future Hall of Fame players.

All-Star galore: Who cared that Malkin didn't get a point in the Young Stars game or that Crosby didn't get a point in the All-Star game? (Hmm, if I remember reading about that, surely someone did.) There were Penguins back at the All-Star game because they BELONGED THERE. And that was beautiful.

Hockey Night in Canada: Gotta love being 18 years old and scoring your first hat trick on HNIC. What I would have given to have seen Cherry kiss Staal. Still, beautiful.

Take your pick: Crosby scored so many ridiculous goals this season. I liked the one against Phoenix, of course, because he scored against Wayne Gretzky's team. (Always a beautiful thing for a Pittsburgh fan.) And perhaps due to Paul Steigerwald's call, "Here comes Sidney Crosby, 1 on 4, surrounded by Canadiens, shoots...scores!" Beautiful, lovely.

"Long Stick": For anyone who listened to Steigy and Errey all year long, they probably heard, multiple times per game, about the "long stick" of one Pens' rookie. Moreso than the long stick comments, however, Steigy and Errey, even when they didn't necessarily call the game to a perfect T, kept me in hysterics with such discussions of a "long stick" and other such phrases.
Amazing how little you care to fuss about announcing when the team on the ice mesmerizes you.


Musings and Questions

Crosby: How can Crosby get any better than he has this season? He should only be bigger, stronger, faster, and yes-healthy. Wow. Now could we pretty, pretty, please, find him a scoring winger?

Malkin: Will another year of adjustment help? Will he give an English interview? Will he be able to adapt more and more to the North American game?

Staal: Everything was so unexpected. I mean, 3 goals in 5 playoff games? 7 shorthanded goals? What planet did the 18-year-old killing penalties come from (and don't tell me Peterborough one more time, Bob Errey)? Can he keep that up--and get better? Can he add assists next year?

Kris Letang: Will he be the new wunderchild, a la Staal? Will he be able to play in the NHL right away? Will he be able to make an immediate impact on the power play? Will he make me remember Paul Coffey or Larry Murphy in a good way? And do I have unrealistically high expectations or what?

(Important Note to Self: Mario, Jagr, and the first three kids listed in this musings/questions post have spoiled me rotten. I fully admit that.)


Fears

Regression: What if one of our two Calder Trophy nominees endures a sophomore slump, as sometimes can happen? What if they don't play the way they played this season, and by that, I mean they regress instead of progress?

Injuries: The Pens were fortunate to endure only short-term injuries for most of the season. What about a longer term injury to a key player? Can the team overcome that?

Stumbling: What happens if the team so many people now expect to leap forward takes a step backward? What happens to chemistry? To player development? To making the playoffs--which, by the way, is no longer a pleasant step, but a bare-minimum preseason expectation.


* This is the first edition of Remembrances, Musings, Questions, and Fears. More editions shall be forthcoming throughout the summer months.*

All Right

Hockey Post

Since I have been without playoff competition for what feels like an eternity (how I will endure the summer I am not yet sure), it took a bit of warming up to get to the point of writing about hockey.

So the Finals start tomorrow night. I hate to make series predictions and then end up being proved wrong, so here are some random thoughts. And maybe, you know, a prediction or two will appear. Sometimes that can't be helped.

Marquee Match-up: If the Ducks' defense can shut down Ottawa's first line, I think Anaheim wins the series.
(Sigh, so I guess that's a prediction.)

However, there are so many caveats here:

Anaheim's PK versus Ottawa's PP: If Anaheim can't stay out of the penalty box, they're in trouble. I don't care if you do have 2 of the NHL's best defensemen on your roster; you'd need double that if you're going to be silly enough to give Ottawa's skilled forwards too much time on the man advantage. While it may not suit Anaheim's style, they'd be advised to limit the time they spend killing penalties, which means, in English, stay out of the penalty box, Anaheim!

Anaheim's depth versus Ottawa's depth: Anaheim has two marquee defensemen that Ottawa, in name value, doesn't have. Ottawa rolled four lines more regularly than Anaheim during the regular season. Whichever team gets the most from their "depth chart" also has a far better chance of winning the series.

Anaheim's scoring versus Ottawa's scoring: Anaheim has a line of kids that scores (and as a Pens fan, I love and appreciate kids) and Teemu Selanne, in addition to, of course, Pronger and Niedermayer. Ottawa has that Spezza-Alfredsson-Heatley line that I loathe (also, of course, as a Pens fan). Of course this sounds boneheadedly simple, but if a player who's depended on to score doesn't score, well, not so good for that team. Obviously.

So, what do I think? Honestly, I don't know. I've thought all playoffs long that the only team with a shot to stop the Senators was Anaheim, precisely due to the presence of Pronger and Niedermayer. If anyone could limit the chances of Ottawa's first line, it would have to be Anaheim's Norris Trophy winning defense. Yet having watched Ottawa roll through the best of the Eastern Conference (beating teams that were the best in the league from January through the end of the regular season), if Anaheim does pull it out, it won't be easy.

The bottom line, of course, is that all it really comes down to is which team is better and which team plays better.

Meaning, if Pronger and his ilk can shut down Ottawa's first line, then well, Ottawa better hope for terrific goaltending, mind-boggling coaching, and role players performing as more than mere role players.

Meaning, if the line that's had its' way the entire playoff season does its' thing with usual aplomb in the playoffs, there had best be fantastic coaching, otherwordly goaltending, and kids performing like wily veterans.

So I draw the same conclusion: Whoever wins the battle--whether Ottawa's first line or Anaheim's defense--takes the series.

However, given the caliber of Ottawa's first line and Anaheim's defense, if that match-up is a draw, then it comes down to everything else. Coaching, match-ups, role players, goaltending, and, of course, special teams play.

No predictions yet. I just want to see them play hockey tomorrow night.

Speaking of Archives....

In the midst of my various Internet searches, I made a discovery. Message board archives can also be absolutely hysterical.

While I'm not in the mood to post up links, if you're bored, go to any message board's search engine. (You should probably make this a message board you actually want to read). Type in "2006 draft" and you'll come up with some dandies.

I particularly enjoyed the sentiment that Jordan Staal should play two more years in the OHL, and then one year in the AHL, before joining the Pittsburgh Penguins. Think a certain Calder-Trophy nominated 18-year-old has something to say about that? (In the interests of full disclosure, Staal changed a lot of people's minds--or opened lots of eyes--over the course of his first NHL season. My own expectations changed as I watched the 18-year-old play.)

In all seriousness, however, it will be quite a bit more fun to look back on archives about the 2006 draft year in, let's say, five years. Because in five years' time--let's just say it will be interesting to see the general sentiment when players were drafted versus five years down the road. And the beauty of the Internet--it's all readily accessible with a few words typed on a search engine and the click of a mouse.

Too Much Free Time

So I haven't seen playoff hockey in almost a week (at least it sure feels like almost a week). During the playoffs, something about this long of a layoff, speaking from the perspective of a fan and not a player, is just, well, wrong.

In the midst of all the free time I've had, and partially due to a dial-up connection (still haven't upgraded) that makes watching videos a bit of a trick, I've taken to googling hockey-related topics.

It is absolutely astounding what Internet searches will yield. I got to laugh-aloud several times at the following links I found when searching "Bob Errey." (Yes, I know how sad that is. I was curious to see other opinions of the Pens' TV color analyst).

Here are the links, purely for your amusment:
http://www.answers.com/topic/bob-errey

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=313975&highlight=bob+errey


The first link exemplifies why I love the power of user-edited encyclopedias (though if you check out the current entry, someone has "fixed" it. Anyone want to volunteer to "tweak" Bob's entry again?). As for the latter link, well, good 'ol hockey humor. Has to make you laugh.

Speaking of hockey and humor, although the website has been around forever (since before I ever used the Internet, and no, I'm not kidding), www.lcshockey.com is just utterly hysterical.

Just to think. I have the entire summer to do more hockey-related research (yeah, ostensibly, that was how I rationalized my free time search queries of various hockey players and other hockey-related personnel).

Sick Talent

On my first day home in Pittsburgh, I watched the Pens fall behind Toronto. I complained aloud, "They just don't have it tonight." No one, necessarily, was to blame. Toronto was fighting for its' playoff life, and the Pens had long ago secured a postseason berth. The intensity level of the two teams just couldn't be the same.

Nevertheless, the third period arrived, and I watched the Pens do what they have done all season long. Somehow sitting in front of the television, watching this unfold live rather than reading about it or seeing it later, made it different. When the Pens scored, with a few seconds remaining, to tie the score at four, I, like both coaches, could only shake my head in wonder.

I wanted a "Caption this!" for Therrien's face. My own "Caption this!" would have been something along the lines of, "How did I end up coaching a team so sickly talented that they can screw off for most of the game and then pull off feats like this?" I probably would have added, "This talent certainly helps my win-loss record."

I didn't disagree with Toronto's coach, either, when he said that he'd known Pittsburgh could come back and tie the game as they did because of the talent on the roster. Toronto's coach knew well his own team's limitations when facing the talent of the Pens.

A few weeks later*, it's obvious the Pens can't pull the magic they pulled against a non-playoff team against a team that finished with the same number of points they did. And yet, just focusing on the jubilation on the Pens bench in the last five seconds of that Toronto game, well, wow.

Toronto's coach is right. The Penguins are sickly talented. And the solace in the suffering of a playoff loss remains: That sick talent should have many more celebrations like that celebration against the Maple Leafs in the next few seasons.

Perhaps, even, experience will help such sick talent perform as sick talent should in the playoffs.

*(Present Day Note: Obviously, it's way more than a month later. Just saying. And by the way, I still share the same sentiment at this present moment that I did when I first drafted this post.)

REGULAR SEASON

I was in Pittsburgh for the last game of the regular season (I watched on television), and what struck me was how no one wanted to see a magical regular season end. The fans cheered loudly. The players did what they usually did at Mellon Arena in the second half of the season and won a one-goal game. Even the media loved the team so much that they awarded the whole team that Good-Guy media award. The announcers relished every second of the game.

Most of all, however, I was struck by the players, who skated around the ice after the game had ended. Fans remained to cheer. Sidney Crosby skated slowly and appeared to be taking in the atmosphere. The regular season, with no expectations, and every expectation since set exceeded, had been magical.

This wasn't necessarily a portent of things to come. But only one team's season ends as every team wishes for their season to end. And somehow, watching those players soak up every last second of a wonderful regular season was only giving them their due for a great a season.

At some future point, may that wonderful end to the regular season become a a wonderful end to the playoff season.

A CAVEAT

The sting I currently feel is actually good. It means my team is much closer to capturing the Cup than I ever would have thought possible at the start of the season.

Back when the Pens were piling up high draft picks, the only thing that excited me was which player Pittsburgh might earn the right to draft. There was no sting about not making the playoffs, no hurt about not winning hockey's holy grail, because, well, let's be real--the team was nowhere near a contender.

As much as it pains me to say that the commentator buffoons (i.e. Brett Hull and Don Cherry) were right this time around, the Pens, even in the midst of this playoff loss, are so, so close to being a legitimate and perennial Cup contender.

And it's supposed to sting when legitimate Cup contenders get bounced from the playoffs. That sting sill beats the indifference experienced by teams who have no shot at the Cup and know they have no chance.

Commercials

The best part about watching the national TV bozos (I don't live in the Pittsburgh area) was watching the Versus commercial about the Penguins" quest for the Cup.

I memorized the commercial, which showed a picture of Sidney Crosby and said, "He has been hailed as a prodigy and a legend of the game. Yet 19-year-old Sidney Crosby has not cracked under the pressure. Now the Pittsburgh Penguins begin their quest for the Cup, led by three young stars," and cue the pictures of Crosby, Malkin, and Staal, "in a world that has always separated the men from the boys." The commercial ended by urging me to log onto Versus and follow the Penguins' quest for the Cup.

I saved the Game 4 loss to the Senators that I taped. Not because I really desire to re-watch a playoff loss, but because I want to see that commercial--the children's first appearance in the Stanley Cup playoffs--recorded for posterity.

Next week, I'll reflect on everything I loved about this Pittsburgh season (and believe it or not, I'll include a playoff event, too), but four days after the Pens were eliminated, the fact that Versus had to pull the plug on that commercial still stings.

I'm going to let that sting linger for a little awhile. Perhaps, if and when Crsoby, Malkin, and Staal capture the Cup, I'll be able to insert that commercial advertising the kids' first postseason appearance and smile.

Even though that commercial wil probably always make me smile, right now the fact that I'm not going to be seeing it, or the 2006-07 Penguins, who exceeded all my expectations, again, does seriously sting.

(Present Day Note: Obviously, this post was written four days after the Sens bounced the Pens from the playoffs. Also obviously, I haven't yet written what I promised to write the next week: the best moments from the season. At some point this offseason, I plan to get around to that. Seriously. But I'm not promising it's going to be next week. Just sometimes this summer. Reasonable expectations, right?)

Oh, yeah....

I almost forgot. Marc-Andre Fleury wasn't stand-on-his-head-sensational by stealing a game by stopping every puck, but he hardly looked like a goaltender under duress (despite the putrid quality of defense in front of him). Despite the fact that he only won 1 game,his team only won 1 game, and he kept the scores closer than they should have been when the Pens were ridiculously outshot and outchanced.

Every goaltender gets the "He can't win the big one" until he does, in fact, win the Cup.

But, in his first taste of the Stanley Cup playoffs, Fleury gave no indication that he lacks the physical skill or mental fortitude to backstop a team (that will, overall, be better than this year's team) to a Cup at some point in the future.

Speaking of Expectations

Amazing how fast, isn't it, that expectations can change? Prior to the start of the season, I expected the Pens to be a borderline playoff team. I didn't count on a 14-0-2 unbeaten streak, close to the most 10 goal scorers in the NHL, or an 18-year-old rookie finishing 1 shy of the 30 goal mark.

And yet I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed that the Pens lost in in 5 games in the playoffs. I had hoped for a run, at least, to the Eastern Conference finals. My expectations had changed--and soared.

While it might be too easrly to consider this, next season will be different. The team will be expected to make the playoffs. Very few prognosticators will pick the team to miss the playoffs; a few might even pick the Pens to capture the Cup. The "surprise" factor is over, and so, too, is the "We're just happy to be here" sentiment.

When you have a team laden with first round draft picks, ask the Pens' 1st-round opponent what happens to expectations. Expectations are going to soar. If the team struggles to make the playoffs, or suffers through injuries, or players endure sophomore slumps--look out, Loretta, and not in a good way.

Part of what made this season special was the fact that any success was an unexpected surprise, a bonus of sorts. Despite the fact that the Pens will remain one of the youngest teams in the league, and will still count among their best players those who have yet to reach the legal U.S. drinking age, high expectations, from here on out, will be par for the course.

And you know what? Although the Senators can certainly tell you that nothing is guaranteed even when you have a roster full of former high 1st round picks, there is something right about allowing expectations to soar when watching young superstars begin to develop the skill set that will one day allow them to retire known as franchise players.

STRATEGY

While I could not accuse Michel Therrien of being a poor regular season coach, I have always questioned Therrien's use of matchups, adjustments, and well--plainly put--in-game strategy. Although I believe Therrien did a marvelous developmental job with many players who were spending their first full season in the NHL, my quibbles with his strategy, or lack thereof, became even more evident in the playoffs.

Granted, the Penguins' power play ran hot and cold all year. For the power play being fifth overall during the regular season, it was ridiculously streaky. Ryan Whitney was right: for the talent on the Pens' team, they should score against anyone. And, while one can blame Ottawa's penalty killers, was there a response to what Ottawa did? Other than Sidney Crosby diagramming his own plays (more on that later, too)? Was there a change in strategy? Not that I saw.

Therrien's line juggling and shifting of lines made me crazy all season long. When Malkin struggled, I wondered why Therrien didn't just reunite Stall, Malkin, and Ouellet, who had sick (sickeningly good) chemistry throughout much of the season. I saw that his third and fourth lines weren't scoring, but wondered why those lines weren't deployed as they had been during the Pens' winning regular season.

Friends and I have discussed the fact that Therrien has proved himself to be an excellent developmental coach. However, Therrien's skill as a tactician is still in question, particularly--like it or not--after this playoff series. At some point in time, when the Pens' players stop needing development and opposing coaches spend all their time devising creative ways to impede franchise players, the Pens will need a coach who is a masterful in game tactician. To this point, Therrien has not yet shown he is that coach, and to this point, this very young team has not yet screamed that they are no longer in need of a developmental coach.

Yet at some point--perhaps, even, if next season starts off too slowly and the team fails to meet in-house organizational expectations--Therrien will either have to learn on the job to develop in-game tactical skills, or he will have to be replaced. Because there is going to be a point when Crsoby, Staal, Malkin, and Whitney, are not going to need someone to teach them the finer poitns of the NHL game. Those players are going to know how to execute the finger points of the NHL game, and the challenge for a coach won't be to teach and develop those players but to devise strategies that will allow them to excel against opponents devoting all their energy to containing them.

This post is not a call for Therrien to be replaced immediately, but with the Pens' development this season, Therrien will soon need to do some of his own development--that of in-game tactical skills and matchups that will allow franchise players to do what franchise players do. Because that's what's necessary for a championship coach to do.

MYTHS

Myth: The regular season doesn't matter.

Reality: The regular season matters. It just doesn't sometimes matter the way we think it does.

While perhaps nothing would have helped the Pens when it came to an inexperienced team facing a superior opponent, I wonder. What if the team had secured home ice? What if the team had won the Atlantic Division? Surely trading chances with Tampa's stars and throwing shots on the Lightning's goalie would have been a better option than facing a stingy Ottawa team that consistently outshot the Penguins?

In addition to learning how much it sucks to lose in the playoffs, perhaps the players will learn (despite losing two games on home ice) that where they finish in the standings does matter. And that, while no playoff team is a pushover (and surely you never utter that aloud), some matchups (still never say this aloud) are more beneficial for your team than are other matchups.

Beyond the matchups, however, look at the Rangers, who swept Atlanta after finishing sixth in the conference. For much of the regular season, the Rangers didn't appear to be a playoff team. Now I don't expect a team with two Cup-winning, 600 goal scorers to fade away.* At this point, I'd take New York's up-and-down regular season for the Pens next year if the Pens perform as the Rangers did against Atlanta (through 2 or 3 rounds rather than the Ranger's sole round demolishment) next postseason.

From the Rangers, however, the Pens can learn a lesson that doesn't just have to do with matchups. How you win can be just as important as winning. As much as I enjoyed the "Cardiac Kids" thrill a minute comebacks after relinquishing leads or falling behind 4-0 and somehow winning 5-4, goals are much harder to come by in the postseason. Team don't relinquish leads. If you want to win, you can't play a period or two periods; you have to play the entire game.

Despite their youth, the Pens escaped with regular season victories when they failed to play a complete game. The Pens had so much talent that such victories were possible during the regular season. And perhaps someday, the Pens will have enough experienced talent that such comebacks are possible even come the postseason.

More often than not, however, habits stick. Even in the midst of regular season games, the Penguins must begin to do the things they learned this spring are a requirement for playoff success. Habits matter; it's not just about "peaking too soon," but about how you peak. Win with the right habits, and you're not peaking too soon--win with the wrong habits, and despite your talent, expect another early-round playoff ouster.


(*Present Day Note: The Rangers almost took the Sabres to seven games. The Rangers also showed how vulnerable the Sabres were. The Rangers were unable to beat the Sabres, in my estimation, primarily due to lack of blueline depth that Ottawa actually possessed. Despite the Rangers' subsequent 2nd round playoff ouster, I maintain that the Rangers definitely didn't fade away/roll over for the Sabres. And while I still think Ottawa's superior defensive depth would have prevailed in a 7 game series, I think the Rangers could have taken Ottawa the deepest of any Eastern Conference playoff team--primarily because those two 600 goal scorers and future Hall of Famers, laden with experience and talent, would have been the most even matchup for Ottawa's scoring hotshots.)