Pens' bad days
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, June 16, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Pens' bad days
Prior to their playoff series against the Bruins, the Penguins provided some of the best hockey entertainment possible. General Manager Ray Shero acquired both talent and experience and those choices provided first-place Eastern Conference standing for the regular season and playoffs. With the loss to the Bruins in four straight games, the media and individuals, in print and on the air, called for changes in players as well as the coach. Memories are short and criticism is easy.
The Bruins were not the better team. They played better. Could anyone have predicted that Sidney Crosby or Evgeni Malkin would not have scored in every game? Based on the critiques, would anyone have suggested that either of the two best players on ice be let go? Rather than mass trades, Pens management should analyze what happened versus the Bruins and adjust personnel if that is what they determine caused the losses. The Pens' first-place regular-season finish did not happen by chance or luck.
Regardless of desire or talent, we all have a bad day, no matter how hard we try. The games against the Bruins were the Pens' bad days.
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.
- Slots & property taxes
- Medicaid’s future
- Harmar needs better enforcement
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Funding priorities questioned
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Drought answer?
- Saved her life
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Ukraine & history
- Obama & Reaganomics I