Share This Page

Coffey: I'd consult on Penguins' power play

Paul Coffey isn't interested in coaching in the NHL.

But the Hall of Fame defenseman said Tuesday he'd be willing to consult with the Penguins next season, after an ineffective power play sent the team to an early playoff exit.

"Anything to help anybody," Coffey said in a phone interview.

Coffey's name has been mentioned after the Penguins' 1-for-35 effort played a part in the team's failings during a seven-game series with the Tampa Bay Lightning.

The former Penguin certainly knows what he's talking about, having been on the ice for 1,147 power-play goals (fifth all-time) in his 21-year career. Coffey scored 40 of his 135 power-play goals during his 331-game tenure with the Penguins, which included his fourth Stanley Cup in 1991.

But running two car dealerships outside Toronto and coaching his sons — Blake, 13, and Christian, 8 — takes up most of his time. Coffey, who has been closely associated with the team since he was inducted into the Penguins' hall of fame, still regularly watches the Penguins and the NHL.

"I was going back and forth with Mario (Lemieux) on texts (during the playoffs)," said Coffey, widely considered to be one of the game's great power-play quarterbacks.

Coffey cautioned that the lengthy absences of Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin played a larger role in the power play's frustrating showing than, say, the Penguins' coaching staff. After the season, Penguins coach Dan Bylsma said he would be open to working with a consultant.

"I will say, and I study the NHL pretty closely, the four guys with the Penguins' coaching staff are as good, if not better, than anybody in the league," he said. "They know what they're doing. I've watched them, I've listened, I've watched their professionalism, when guys went down, they're very calm. With Ray Shero leading from the top, they've got a great management team."

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.