Penguins notebook: Neal rattled by 'stupid penalites'
Penalties rattle Neal
Right winger James Neal turned a terrible hat trick in Game 1. He was called for three penalties, including two in a row late in third period of the Penguins' 4-1 victory over Ottawa on Tuesday night.
“I've got to be more disciplined, because those are stupid penalties to take,” Neal said Wednesday.
“We're in full control of a game and I take penalties like that. It just rattles me that I take penalties, and penalty killers have to go out there and block shots in a 4-1 game.”
The Penguins rated second-worst among remaining playoff teams at 18.6 penalty minutes per game through Tuesday. They had been called for five or more penalties in five of seven games during the postseason.
Taking an option
An optional practice at Consol Energy Center was attended by 12 players, though center Evgeni Malkin appeared only briefly and did not wear full gear.
Coach Dan Bylsma said Wednesday — the first of two days between games — was beneficial for rest and film study. The Penguins will hold a full on-ice practice Thursday.
Time well spent
General manager Ray Shero is presiding over amateur scouting meetings this week, as the Penguins are drafting lists for the NHL Entry Draft (June 30) and free agency (July 5). Director Jay Heinbuck, in his seventh season, leads the amateur scouting staff.
— Rob Rossi
Show commenting policy
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.