Penguins happy to face Red Wings sooner rather than later
"Let's go Red Wings."
That was a cry that could be heard at Joe Louis Arena during Game 5 of the Western Conference final, and, apparently, wherever the Penguins watched Detroit eliminate Chicago with a 2-1 win in overtime.
Had the Red Wings lost, the Stanley Cup final wouldn't have started until June 5.
Now the Penguins and Red Wings will play Game 1 on Saturday night in Detroit.
"I think (Wednesday night) was probably the only night we were cheering for Detroit, rather than getting 10 days off," Penguins D Brooks Orpik said. "I think it's good for the league, too."
The Penguins prefer the way things worked out, particularly considering that Detroit D Nicklas Lidstrom, C Pavel Datsyuk, C Kris Draper and D Jonathan Ericsson all missed Game 5 against Chicago due to injury.
"Huge advantage," Orpik said. "You want to catch them when they're beat up. I think the Anaheim series took a big toll on them. They have guys out of the lineup, and I'm sure a lot of guys that are in the lineup, probably, if it was the regular season, wouldn't be playing."
Orpik described the Penguins as "relatively healthy, probably not as healthy as everyone thinks we are."
Added Orpik: "Compared to Detroit, we're a lot healthier, that's for sure. We've gotten pretty lucky with injuries."
RW Bill Guerin also saw a benefit to playing again relatively quickly after the Penguins completed their sweep of Carolina in the Eastern Conference final.
"We didn't want the time off," he said. "We want to play. We don't want to sit around for 10 days without a game."
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.