ShareThis Page

Starkey: Pens not in critical condition — yet

| Wednesday, May 8, 2013, 10:21 p.m.

Something struck me about the way Jarome Iginla carried himself in a television interview after the Penguins' Game 4 loss (otherwise known as “Fleury's Last Stand”).

Back in Pittsburgh, people had practically taken to the streets with pitchforks. They probably were shredding No. 29 jerseys and burning sock monkeys, too. The Twitter-sphere was on red alert.

Inside the crumbling walls of Nassau Mausoleum, however, Iginla was smiling.

“This is fun,” he said. “It's intense.”

On Wednesday afternoon, Iginla again injected some perspective — some sanity — into a series that stands not at 3-0 Islanders but at two games apiece (I just double-checked, and it really is 2-2).

“Give them some credit,” he said. “It's hard. It's a battle, and the Islanders are playing great. … We expected it to be tough.”

Then came the money line, which Iginla said twice: “This could be great for us.”

The way fans and some people in the Penguins organization throw around the word “Cup,” you'd think winning it was easier than sucking Evgeni Malkin into a retaliatory penalty.

Everybody should know better.

Look at this franchise's history. In each of its three Stanley Cup runs, it faced circumstances far more dire than 2-2:

• In 1991, the Penguins were down, 3-2, to the New Jersey Devils in the first round, staring at Game 6 without their best defenseman (Paul Coffey) and their starting goaltender (Tom Barrasso). That's dire. But it turned into the Frank Pietrangelo “save” game. And that turned into Cup No. 1.

• In 1992 , the Penguins fell behind the Washington Capitals, 3-1 — giving up 20 goals in four games — before radically altering their approach (they went to a 1-4 trap) and winning three in a row.

• In 2009, the Penguins fell behind the Capitals, 2-0, in the second round and went to overtime in Game 3. That's dire. They also trailed the mighty Detroit Red Wings, 2-0 and 3-2, in the Stanley Cup final.

Until a team sees the whites of elimination's eyes, a situation is far from desperate. Far from dire. Yes, I picked the Penguins in five games. But I can't be surprised that it's been much tougher than expected.

As coach Dan Bylsma put it, “Every playoff success has a story, and it's never an easy one.”

In truth, this might be just the right amount of adversity. It's not the verge-of-elimination kind, but it ought to be enough to allow Bylsma to make necessary hard decisions without ruffling any feathers.

So Fleury is out. That can't be a surprise. Nobody in this organization was going to sit around while Fleury faltered for a fourth consecutive spring.

Next, Bylsma must alter his lines. Sidney Crosby may love playing next to Chris Kunitz and Pascal Dupuis, but guess what? Malkin needs Kunitz more than Sid does.

What's more, even though Iginla says he has grown comfortable on the left side, it doesn't look that way. It's time to put him back on the right side, with Crosby and Dupuis, and reunite last season's high-powered line of Kunitz, Malkin and James Neal.

Meanwhile, Brenden Morrow has played himself into a demotion to the fourth line, just as Brandon Sutter did earlier in the series. Morrow has been too quick to attempt big hits and too slow to retrieve pucks. He has contributed nothing offensively and is tied for a team-worst minus-3 rating.

Tyler Kennedy, with his straight-line speed, deserves a chance on the third line alongside Sutter and Matt Cooke.

After that, it's up to Bylsma to make the mandated strategic adjustments, such as a finding new ways to break out of the defensive zone. The Islanders clearly have taken away the walls and the Penguins' precious long-passing game.

Kunitz spoke of the Islanders forcing the Penguins into “panic” mode at times with their quick, aggressive forecheck. If the Penguins lose Game 5, panic won't begin to describe this city's reaction.

But that hasn't happened yet. The Penguins aren't facing elimination.

This could actually be great for them.

Joe Starkey co-hosts a show 2 to 6 p.m. weekdays on 93.7 FM. His columns appear Thursdays and Sundays. Reach him at

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.