Showing posts with label Steve Stamkos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steve Stamkos. Show all posts

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Conspiracy Theory: Penguins Drop Game 5 in Historic Fashion

Tormented at the Consol Energy Center yesterday, I had just one thought. Okay, I had several thoughts, but one very disturbing one which was this -- the Penguins must hate Pittsburgh fans. They simply refuse to clinch a series on home ice, depriving the 18,000-plus on hand of witnessing in person the magnificence of the NHL playoff hand-shake line.

The atmosphere at the drop of the puck was electric, as loud as I've ever heard a sports facility. I don't mean all the electronic gagetry or the airhorn -- just the organic noise generated by the fans, no vuvuzelas or drums or thundersticks, just the din generated by the throats and feet and hands was ear-splitting.

The Pens got off to a good start, matching the intensity of the crowd for the first 10 minutes of the game, allowing the Bolts only one legitimate attempt on Fleury. Then it was all pissed away. It's hard to put a finger on where it went wrong, terribly, horribly wrong and there were so many problems, I could be here all day enumerating them, but here are a few ideas.

With about four minutes left in the first period, I was thinking that if the Penguins could keep the Lightning off the scoreboard and go into the first intermission 0-0, that would be a good thing. Why? Well because Marc-Andre Fleury can be a slow starter. And the team as a whole is not a great early game team. The earlier the game, the greater the chance you're going to see a stinker. I don't know if it's just the routine of night games or some other weirdness, but they're often better at night. And while it would certainly have been nice to have scored in the first period, I thought that holding the Lightning scoreless for a full period might dampen the Lightnings' spirits a bit, and allow the Penguins to just lean on them, wear them down, the way they did in the first game.

They couldn't close out the first period. In fact, it was so bad, that they let in two goals inside of the final three minutes (or thereabouts).

The first Lightning goal was scored by Simon Gagne, a long time pain in the balls to Penguins fans. They had kept him quiet so far in this series, pretty much limiting the Tampa offense to Marty St. Louis exclusively. With Gagne emboldened, the second goal that got behind Flower just 46 seconds later was scored by Steven Stamkos. My great fear was that if Stamkos got going, the whole team would rise up.

I really think that is what happened. Tampa's whole bench loves when Stamkos gets going; they all get a lift from it. It's like a shot of emotional Red Bull for Stamkos to score. And it turned out to be a portent of things to come later in the game. It snowballed from there. Eventually Dan Bylsma pulled Fleury, but Johnson wasn't really any better. The goal differential was the worst playoff differential in the history of the franchise. It was literally: The. Worst. Playoff. Game. Ever.

I don't know that the team can linger on this loss. In fact, I suspect they have to just toss this one out. When Fleury is bad, he is often epically bad. This was one of those days, for a fact. Of course, his usually stalwart defense didn't help him much. Nor did the wingers or anybody else, for that matter.

There are three things that they need to do on Monday:

1. Flower has to have a bounce-back. And I think he will. He often follows up his worst performances with stellar ones. I think we'll get the Game 4 Marc-Andre Fleury on Monday night, not the Game 2 version.

2. Penalty Kill. Through the first four games, the Pens had allowed four power play goals on 15 opportunities. That penalty kill percentage of 73% is nowhere near as good as the regular season killer percentage of 86%, but still, against a power play unit like Tampa's, it's not bad, all things considered. Yesterday, the Pens allowed goals on four of seven power plays. That's just unacceptable. They have to get the kill back down in the neighborhood of 75% effectiveness, if they want to advance to the second round. It's just that simple.

3. Power Play. The Penguins power play is so putrid, so miserable, that I wish hockey were like football and the Pens could just decline the penalty. They have scored one power play goal on 25, opportunities, a scoring percentage so low the folks at the Carnegie-Mellon are studying it to see if they can learn anything new about absolute zero. The biggest problem with this, of course, is that the Lightning have no fear of taking a penalty. The power play won't punish them for the occasional board or cross-check or slash, so why should they give a rat's ass if they get caught administering one? Heck, it just gives that offending player a chance to rest in the penalty box and come out refreshed after watching the Penguins muck about ineffectively for two minutes.

The power play has been a problem for most of the season, frankly, so this is not a new development. The Pens do not establish possession well. And when they do establish position, they don't get enough traffic in front of the net. I know it's radical, but I wonder if Bylsma shouldn't start Eric Tangradi in place of Chris Conner for this game? I like Conner a ton, but he hasn't done much this series. Also, he's small. Tangradi's a big body. He has shown a willingness to plant himself next to the net. I don't think it's an accident that the Penguins one and only power play goal of the entire series came when Tangradi shielded Dwayne Roloson, preventing him from getting a bead on Tyler Kennedy's shot. Just saying.

If this thing goes to seven games, I may have to get one of those medic alert monitor things, because I'm sure I'll stroke out before the end of the first period.

(Photos from the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review)

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Sidney Crosby, No Hyperbole Possible

Many years ago in my epically profligate youth, I was out drinking with RJ and the Deadhead. (Sounds like a bad sitcom.) After about 37 pitchers of beer, the three of us had a rousing argument over who was the better quarterback -- Terry Bradshaw? Or Terry Bradshaw? Oh, emotions boiled over, fingers were pointed, spittle flew and I do believe that I pulled a Kruschev and banged my shoe on the table. The whole argument culminated with RJ hollering, 'You can take your Bert Jones, and you can take your Dante Pastorini, and you can shove them straight up your ass!'

I feel like I can have the same argument about Sidney Crosby. Who is a better hockey player? Sid? Or Sid? And to paraphrase my old drinking buddy, you can take your Alex Ovechkin and you can take your Steven Stamkos, and you can shove them straight up your ass!

Two years ago, Sidney Crosby was the best player in the NHL. I thought that he had arrived at his true, highest self and in so doing, carried his team to a Stanley Cup championship, personally besting the entire Philadelphia Flyers roster, then Ovie, then the Red Wings along the way. It was great. Pittsburgh fans were both lucky and appreciative. Hell, we were all on cloud nine. Or cloud 87.

Then, something crazy happened. Sid got better. I didn't actually think it was possible, and yet, he went ahead and did it.

When Sid first arrived in Pittsburgh, he was immediately one of the best players in the NHL. The most obvious strengths of his game were his vision and speed. And his soft hands. But there were holes in his game. Following that rookie year, he vowed to spend his off-season improving his face-offs. I'm not sure how a person gets better at that, but he did it. Then, despite being a point generating machine, the knock on Crosby was that he, himself, did not score enough goals. So the next year, he promptly went out and scored more. It seems like when he sets his mind to a task, he just simply achieves it. He is, quite simply, the best player in the NHL. And there is no argument to be made.

Some are enamored of laser-like wrist shots, like the one Ovie unleashes from all over the ice. If there were a way to measure talents in a vacuum, to somehow quantify just the innate, singular talent of launching a disc of vulcanized rubber towards a goalie at the speed of light, then Ovechkin has more talent that Sid. Geno Malkin probably has more. Marian Gaborik, who has one of the sneakiest, most effective shots in the game for my money, has more.

But the thing you have to factor with Sid is totality of his game -- that his game is so complete is precisely what makes him so special.

He wins faceoffs.

He plays defense.

He can see plays happening two and three seconds before they happen.

He has speed and strength and elegance.

He scores from up high, and he plants himself at the goal mouth, fight off cross-checks and buries the puck behind helpless goaltenders.

This year, he is everywhere on the ice and has scored from every spot of the Consol Center except the executive washroom.

He leads his team by example, brandishing his work-ethic and equanimity. He never gives up on a play and the team has taken on that personality, which puts him light-years ahead of everybody else. He is the greatest and I wonder, is it possible we STILL haven't seen the best he has to offer?

So, Penguins fans, who is better? Sid? Or Sid?

And we get to watch him ever night. So really, who is luckier? Pens fans? Or Pens fans?