Yohe: Penguins need to develop killer instinct
When these Penguins smell blood in the water, they swim in the other direction.
Under coach Dan Bylsma, the Penguins are 8-9 when presented with an opportunity to end a series. At home in such situations, they are 1-7 and have been outscored 31-12.
Since winning the Stanley Cup in 2009, they are 4-7 against teams on the ropes.
“Obviously, we need to be much better in these situations,” defenseman Rob Scuderi said.
They have a second chance to finish the New York Rangers in Sunday's Game 6 at Madison Square Garden. History says this team would be wise to develop a killer instinct as Game 7s at home haven't been kind. The Penguins are 2-6 all time at home in Game 7s.
The lack of a killer instinct is among the most distinct differences between the Sidney Crosby and Mario Lemieux eras.
During the early 1990s — the other golden generation of Penguins hockey, they almost were unbeatable when they had the chance to conclude a series. In the 1991 and 1992 Stanley Cup playoff runs, the Penguins were 8-0 when able to clinch a series. In Lemieux's career, the Penguins were 13-6 in such scenarios. With Crosby and Evgeni Malkin on the ice with the opportunity to eliminate a team, the Penguins are 11-8, which includes a mark of 4-4 since 2010.
Even when the Penguins have ended series, they've had difficulty. In the first round of the playoffs, they led 4-0 late in Columbus before allowing three unanswered goals and barely hanging on for a 4-3 win.
They fell behind 3-0 in Game 6 at Ottawa in 2010 before roaring back for an overtime victory. Last season, they trailed late against the New York Islanders before escaping with an overtime win. The players who ended those respective games — winger Pascal Dupuis and defenseman Brooks Orpik — are injured.
Some killer instinct could go a long way for a Penguins team still finding its way in the postseason.
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.