ShareThis Page

Sloppy defense, carelessness with puck plague Penguins

| Friday, May 3, 2013, 10:03 p.m.
The Penguins' Evgeni Malkin pokes the puck past Islanders goaltender Evgeni Nabokov in the first period Friday, May 3, 2013, at Consol Energy Center.
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
The Penguins' Evgeni Malkin pokes the puck past Islanders goaltender Evgeni Nabokov in the first period Friday, May 3, 2013, at Consol Energy Center.

Having Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin in the lineup is usually a problem for Penguins' opponents.

In a funny way, it also can be a problem for the Penguins.

When their two superstars are healthy, the Penguins have shown an undeniable lapse in their defensive play at times during the past two seasons, notably in the 2012 Stanley Cup playoffs against Philadelphia.

That tendency was very much on display when the Penguins fell to the Islanders, 4-3, in Game 2 of the Eastern Conference quarterfinals at Consol Energy Center on Friday.

The Penguins gave up 42 shots, but that was only part of the story.

Their inability to make simple plays, like getting the puck deep instead of opting for a fancy drop pass, was a evident throughout the game.

“We were committed in Game 1 to imposing our will on them and forechecking the heck out of them,” defenseman Matt Niskanen said. “We got away from that a little bit. Too many turnovers in the neutral zone.”

In many cases, it was the Penguins' best players who were making mistakes.

Despite their electric start to the evening, Crosby and Malkin, who combined to score all of the Penguins' goals, turned the puck over at alarming rates.

Crosby was charged with two giveaways, and Malkin was guilty of a team-high three turnovers, according to official statistics. Malkin was particularly ineffective during the final period.

The official stats charged the Penguins with 11 giveaways compared to only two New York turnovers.

Defenseman Kris Letang insists the presence of Crosby and Malkin does not compel the Penguins to focus exclusively on offensive hockey.

““They're out there trying to make plays,” said Letang. “We're trying to make plays with them. I don't think that's a problem.”

Last season, when Crosby returned in March from a concussion, the Penguins scored almost five goals per game down the stretch. They also permitted more than four goals per game in that period, which foreshadowed their early exit — and a staggering goals against total of 30 against the Flyers — in the postseason.

They blew a 3-1 lead at home in Game 2 against the Flyers.

It was difficult for the Penguins to stop their minds from wandering back to last spring.

“Maybe a little,” Niskanen admitted. “Last year seemed more chaotic. A lot of it tonight was us shooting ourselves in the foot.”

A perfect example of the Penguins' sloppiness occurred in the second period. Instead of getting the puck deep, right wing Pascal Dupuis attempted a centering pass that was intercepted. Moments later, the Islanders evened the game on a Matt Martin goal.

In the third period, Iginla and Malkin both were guilty of giveaways via ill-advised drop passes. Moments later, Kyle Okposo notched the game-winning goal.

“We turned more pucks over than we should have,” right wing Craig Adams said. “It was one of the things we didn't do well.”

Adams, never one of the Penguins guilty of high-risk hockey, believes the Penguins will be fine.

“We don't need to rethink our strategy,” he said. “We just need to execute better.”

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.