Column: Crush Crosby? Sure, but it’s missing point

210

by • Columns • Tags:

469996600

Sidney Crosby is checked into the glass in the first period Thursday at Madison Square Garden. — GETTY

BY DEJAN KOVACEVIC

NEW YORK — It’s never enough that the Penguins lose in the Stanley Cup playoffs.

No, it’s always got to come with the standard set of narratives attached, too.

So what say we check off a slew of these from this 2-1 series-opening loss to the Rangers last night at Madison Square Garden, shall we?

The goaltender gagged again.

Now, anyone who watched this with even a modicum of hockey acumen, whether in person or on a satellite feed from Saturn, would know this wasn’t the case. But let’s tackle it, anyway.

Marc-Andre Fleury, invariably the first direction the fingers point this time of year no matter how deep he buries his penchant for postseason failure, turned out a trampoline rebound on the game’s first shot, a harmless long-distance slapper from the left boards by Rick Nash. The puck bounced right to the blade of Derick Brassard, who buried it with ease after only 28 seconds had ticked off.

“Bad rebound,” Fleury would say later.

Sure was. And all he did in response was stop 36 of the next 37 shots. He was nothing less than the very best player on either team.

Why can’t the best player in the world produce in the playoffs?

Sidney Crosby, I’m betting, will take a lot more heat than Fleury, maybe the bulk of it. And it won’t be without cause, given that he’s still stuck on one goal over his past 19 playoff games and this one was nothing special: He had no points, he was a bystander on that opening goal, and he missed one more shot than he registered, which was only one.

Oh, and there was this weirdness, too …

I have no idea what Crosby could have been thinking there and, unfortunately, I didn’t see this with such clarity until well after any access. But it looks awful. It looks like he’s frustrated by not getting a pass from Rob Scuderi, then intentionally coasts offside, then does some talking to the bench.

That will be worth a question or two at the next opportunity.

Overall, though, there were mitigating factors. Not excuses, either. Real stuff.

In the first period, Crosby logged a ridiculously low 3:42 of ice time, partially because the Rangers were awarded all four power plays and partially because Mike Johnston, coaching his first NHL playoff game, clearly was so hellbent on avoiding counterpart Alain Vigneault’s preferred matchup — the Brassard checking line — that he forgot that, you know, Crosby needs to play. Even if that means playing short-handed.

It was a big blunder, and there was zip the captain could do about it.

Beyond that, the flat-out bizarre decision to keep Daniel Winnik on the top line with Crosby and Patric Hornqvist — mercifully undone in the third period — was a killer. Winnik, a lifelong mucker, couldn’t catch routine breakouts, much less make anything happen with those he did. And the Rangers knew it, motioning to each other to pick up Crosby and Hornqvist in the neutral zone and letting the rest fall where it may.

As Vigneaut confessed afterward, “It was numbers I was looking for” against Crosby.

I don’t have hard answers here, except this: Winnik isn’t it.

Neither is Chris Kunitz. At the risk of beating the horse deeper than the Penn Station tracks under the Garden, watching him play anymore is just painful.

Try someone else. Anyone else. Get creative. New York’s team defense, especially five-on-five, is far too solid to victimized by any two-man line.

Hey, why not Crosby and Evgeni Malkin together?

Is spreading around the offense more important than getting one or both of those guys going?

Vigneault wants to load up with numbers, but he’d lose that option in a heartbeat.

What about the world’s other best player?

This one needs no elaboration: Malkin is pushing through significant pain. It shows every shift, including those where he positively owned the Rangers in the third period. He doesn’t have a goal in his past 11 games, or a point in his past six games. Those are the worst such stretches of his career, and they’re no accident.

That Malkin ascended as he did in the third period was helped by his wingers — Blake Comeau and David Perron — both playing at their peak for the first time since, what, January?

Crosby should be so lucky.

The other coach was smarter.

That might well be, if isolating on the aforementioned Johnston mistakes. But the fact — and this was undisputed on either side — was that the Penguins enjoyed a strategic advantage on multiple levels. This was most true of their ability to disrupt the Rangers’ trademark east-west surges up ice, in which they try to spring their speedy left wingers. Johnston made this the central theme of preparations at Consol this week, and the Penguins came through by picking off pucks left and right.

“Credit them” New York defenseman Ryan McDonagh said. “They had some good structure in the neutral zone. We couldn’t get the pucks behind them as much as we like to.”

Johnston also showed new tricks, including lining up Malkin behind Crosby on faceoffs in the old James Neal trigger spot — Crosby cleaned up on draws, by the way, at 15-5 — and other nuances aimed at helping his battered defense move quickly up ice.

The coach evidently learned from a couple of his mistakes right away, judging by the adjustments for the third. Now, no doubt, he’ll have to make even more for Game 2 tomorrow.

Pittsburgh Penguins v New York Rangers - Game One

Evgeni Malkin lets a shot rip past the Rangers’ Dan Boyle in the third period. — GETTY

So, if none of the above narratives fully applies, why, then, did the Penguins lose?

From this vantage point, they simply picked the wrong period to play well.

I liked their overall effort, their Xs and Os, their determination, their Hornqvist-cloning going hard to the net, their composure as related to everyone but Steve Downie and, above all, the way their confidence grew. They looked anything but overwhelmed once the first few minutes faded away. And that, especially in the context of the chance that most people — myself included — are giving them in this series — made them look and feel 180 degrees different than, you know, ‘fragile.’

They talked a little tough, too.

“We’re a confident team in here,” Ben Lovejoy said. “We can not only play with that New York Rangers team, but we can beat them. We didn’t bring it early enough tonight, but we feel we have the guys in this room.”

He was anything but alone. Several other players spoke of sensing a gradual buildup.

“We definitely got stronger as the game went along and started feeling better about ourselves,” Crosby told me. “That was very encouraging to see.”

Listen to Fleury …

 

“We’re fine,” Fleury shared later. “Believe me, we’ll be fine.”

I absolutely didn’t believe before. I might now, at least a bit.

For one, the chance of officials calling five power plays for the Rangers to one for the Penguins again figures to be remote, never mind all four in the opening period. Jean Hebert and Marc Joannette made three of those initial calls on ticky-tack plays — only a Perron slash was justified — but then, in the spirit of Gary Bettman’s NHL, put the whistles away in the third while the Rangers committed institutional interference at a level only the 2009 Red Wings could appreciate.

Which is to say nothing of a high stick from New York’s Kevin Hayes that bloodied Scuderi but went uncalled, or Malkin being boarded face-first in the third with no arm raised.

The Penguins wouldn’t complain about officiating.

“It’s part of the game,” Scuderi said, motioning to his nose that needed seven stitches while still wearing thickly bloodstained socks. “You just deal with it.”

“We just have to work through it,” Perron said.

I don’t like criticizing officiating, either. But what’s a penalty in one period is a penalty in any other, the league office always claims. The Penguins had every right to be rewarded for their work in the third period the way the Rangers were for theirs in the first.

Beyond more balanced officiating, the Penguins also would benefit from Christian Ehrhoff’s return. And the vibe I got after this one is that it could happen in Game 2.

He’ll be no panacea, but he’ll certainly help mitigate the crazy count of nine icing calls against the Penguins, including three in the critical final five minutes. The Wilkes-Barre tandem of Taylor Chorney and Brian Dumoulin acquitted themselves mostly well, but Ehrhoff and maybe Derrick Pouliot could restore some sanity to the breakouts. Pouliot is here and skating, as well.

Oh, and for all the Penguins’ ails on the blue line, the Rangers lost Dan Girardi, one of their best, early in the third period when a puck clanked off his jaw. He’s no Kris Letang, but he’d be a sizable loss for Vigneault.

Add in keeping Comeau with Malkin — maybe that very Comeau-esque goal will ignite him — and finding someone, anyone for Crosby’s left wing, and Game 2 could well be a continuation of the final half of this one.

“I don’t see why not,” Fleury said. “Game 3 in Pittsburgh would be pretty nice, then, you know?”

Check all narratives at the Consol doors if that comes to pass.

sub final