Penguins Crosby, Niskanen fire back at NBC's Milbury
NBC hockey analyst Mike Milbury compared Penguins stars Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin to "crack addicts" because of their desire to play in the offensive zone during Wednesday's game against Philadelphia.
Some of the Penguins, including Crosby, weren't amused by the remark.
"The big guys, Malkin and Crosby," Milbury said. "They're like crack addicts. They can't get enough of this offensive stuff. They want to go coast to coast and score goals, but it leads to some trouble."
Milbury, the former Boston Bruins coach, is no stranger to ripping Crosby. He produced waves last season when he called Crosby a "punk" and "little goodie two shoes."When told of Milbury's latest comment, Crosby could only shake his head.
"I wasn't aware of it," Crosby said, with more than a hint of sarcasm in his voice. "He watches so much hockey, he must know. I'll try to do a better job of playing defensively."
One of Crosby's teammates also chimed in.
"It's a little irritating," Penguins defenseman Matt Niskanen said. "I try not to get too flustered by it. He always has a bonehead remark to make."
Milbury's rivalry with the Penguins dates to 1991, when he coached the Bruins. He referred to former Penguins coach Bob Johnson as the "Professor of Goonism" during a series that the Penguins won in six games on their way to their first Stanley Cup.
Niskanen believes Milbury still possesses some animosity toward the Penguins.
"He's said some bizarre things about us since I got here (in 2011)," Niskanen said. "He's definitely got something against us."
Milbury apologized to Penguins president David Morehouse last April following his "punk" comments.
"We're used to it," said Niskanen, who mentioned that hearing his team's best players get ripped continually on national television is tiresome. "But I'm not losing any sleep over it."
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.