Should Pens' Scuderi have played?
Burning Question: Should injured defenseman Rob Scuderi have played in Game 4 against the New York Rangers?
Breakdown: Scuderi and center Max Talbot were in walking boots Wednesday after sustaining foot injuries while blocking shots in Game 3. Talbot suffered a broken right foot and didn't play in Game 4. X-rays on Scuderi's left foot were negative, and he suited up Thursday night.
PuckSpeak: "If I really thought I was going to be hurting my team, I wouldn't play, but I don't think that's the case at all. It's uncomfortable, but it's certainly nothing that probably most of the guys in this room aren't playing with right now. The trainers were a little concerned; as a defenseman you're pivoting a lot, going frontwards to backwards. But I tried it more than a few times during the pregame skate and didn't have any difficulties. There's no reason I shouldn't play tonight." -- Rob Scuderi.
Looking Ahead: The Penguins have defenseman Darryl Sydor waiting in the wings for just such an emergency, and Sydor has two Stanley Cups and four trips to the Cup final on his resume. But Scuderi is a professional and a competitor, and as such he was determined to play. Once he established himself as capable in the game-day skate, the Penguins had no choice but to let him play. He's been a quiet but invaluable part of what the Penguins have accomplished this postseason. And the chemistry coach Michel Therrien has been so careful to maintain had already been altered by Talbot's absence. Scuderi deserved the chance to continue doing what he's been doing.
Click here to launch.
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 â 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.