Steelers’ Sutton Smith, ex-hockey player and Blues fan, breaks down Stanley Cup Final |
Breakfast With Benz

Steelers’ Sutton Smith, ex-hockey player and Blues fan, breaks down Stanley Cup Final

Tim Benz
Steelers linebacker Sutton Smith goes through drills during OTAs at UPMC Rooney Sports Complex.

It’s Blues vs. Bruins on Wednesday in Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final. So I turned to the best possible hockey expert in Pittsburgh for analysis for our podcast today.

Look out, Bob Errey and Phil Bourque. Step aside, Colby Armstrong and Mike Rupp.

This is Sutton Smith’s time to shine.

The Steelers’ rookie linebacker went to high school in Saint Charles, Mo. He grew up playing hockey. And he’s a big Blues fan.

If I’ve learned one thing during these spring practices with the Steelers, it’s this: Smith knows his pucks.

And he’s a heckuva good interview for a 23-year-old.

At least about hockey. We’ll worry about football later. Game 7 is tonight. Training camp isn’t until the end of July. There is more important stuff on the table right now.

LISTEN: Steelers’ Sutton Smith breaks down Blues-Bruins Game 7

Smith breaks down the Blues’ chances Wednesday, what went wrong in some of their defeats against Boston, the Blues’ failed forecheck in Game 6, some of Boston’s puck luck, St. Louis’ wall play, their attempts to make Tuukka Rask find the puck and whether Jordan Binnington is out of gas.

Smith also talks about his love for the sport, growing up watching Sidney Crosby from afar, St. Louis as a hockey city and his excitement to have seen Mike Sullivan at Steelers practice Tuesday.

Oh. Yeah. And we talk about that whole, hybrid fullback-linebacker thing he’s got going on, too.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at [email protected] or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.

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.