Share This Page

Penguins notebook: Good and bad from Cooke

| Sunday, May 5, 2013, 6:18 p.m.
Getty Images
The Penguins' Matt Cooke argues a call in a game against the Islanders on Sunday, May 5, 2013, in Uniondale, N.Y.

Left winger Matt Cooke finished Game 3 with three shots, two hits, a takeaway and four penalty minutes.

His first penalty was a slashing foul in the offensive zone just 40 seconds after the Islanders took a 1-0 lead. His second was for roughing near the midpoint of the third period after New York had pulled within a goal.

The second foul did not leave the Penguins shorthanded. By then Cooke had so alienated the Islanders that their defenseman, Matt Carkner, tried to hit him with a stick from the bench. Carkner was penalized for interference.

Sutter struggling

Center Brandon Sutter, in his first postseason, is off to a slow start. He has yet to record a point, and he has taken only three shots. Also, he is 19 for 42 (45.2 percent) on faceoffs.

Missing pieces

Defenseman Brooks Orpik (lower body) missed a fifth straight game, though he did skate on his own before Game 3. Right winger James Neal (right ankle) missed a second straight game.

Despres' day

Simon Despres replaced Deryk Engelland as the fill-in for Orpik in Game 3.

He fell into goalie Marc-Andre Fleury, who could not slide across the crease in time to prevent New York's Matt Moulson from scoring the opening goal. Despres played six minutes and 12 seconds — less than two in the third period and none in overtime.

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.