Pens Vs Bruins Grades
Mike Adams | Report Cards
Mar 8, 09:32 AM | Hype this story!
Pens, victorious
Another solid effort
Matt Cooke, not so much
Offense: B-
They had a fair number of good chances on Tim The Tool Thomas, but it was their misfortune to be facing the lucky Thomas. They hit a couple posts on transition plays. But the Bruins, for the most part, kept them at bay most of the day. The Pens had trouble breaking the trap. But at least they stayed patient. Both the goals were at even strength, and they kept the pressure on once they got the lead.
Defense: B
Was it great defense or Boston’s inept offense? Probably a combination. The first half of the game, the Pens’ defensemen were turnover machines, and that caused them to spend unnecessary time in their own end. Pretty much all of them gave the puck up at least once with terrible passes. They did settle down and play much better the second half of the game.
Power Play: C
The PP generally looked good on the only chance they got (???), but failed to score.
Penalty Kill: B
They gave up one on four chances, but actually had a great day killing. The refs just decided to give Boston lots of power play time to try to keep the game close, and then decided to give them a goal when Fleury actually had the puck covered.
Goaltending: A
Fleury continued his strong play from the day before. The rust is gone, and hopefully we see the March Fleury the rest of the way.
Overall: B
They didn’t play their best game, but managed to beat a ruiner of hockey team in tight, playoff-style game. They overcame the luck of The Tool. They overcame a bad goal call. They overcame lots of penalties. And they still eked out a win.
And now, the rest of the story…
Sid: B
He had a decent game, but nothing special. I think if I’m HCDB, I order him to stay off the ice these next three days to let him catch his breath.
Geno: B
What a tricky little shot for the game-winner. Up until that point, he was having his usual day game.
The Pony: A
I don’t think we’re going to see Bill Guerin back on the power play anytime soon.
The Eaton/Gonchar Pair: F
These two just don’t look like they work well together. The net-front coverage is terrible. Both seem to be trying to convince Shero not to resign them right now.
Mellon Arena Ice: F
The puck looked like a superball out there yesterday. And you wonder why there were only three goals?
Tyler Kennedy: C
Okay, sooner or later he might actually score a goal. At least he was putting the puck toward the net.
Pascal Dupuis: A
This guy gets a lot of crap from Pens fans. But he’s having a heckuva year (for him). And to be honest, the Crosby line looks better with him on it than Guerin. They have some speed now. So what to do with Guerin when he comes back?
Penguin Discipline: F
Tripping, goalie interference, high sticking, hooking. This has to stop.
Striped Buffoon Huh? Call(s) of the Game
This might be a first. Two equally inept calls by the same ref on the same types of plays. First, Tim Peel gives the B’s a goal when Fleury clearly had the puck underneath him. He allowed Wheeler to keep poking after it was out of view. Clearly a no-goal. But then he turns around and gives the pens the exact same gift as a makeup call. He allowed Dupuis to keep poking and poking until he pushed Thomas’ leg and the puck across the line. Maybe it’s the goalie in me, but I thought both should have been blown dead.
Free Cookie
Marc Savard got a whole box of cookies, but…
Icehole of the Game
Matt Cooke. Yes, it was a “legal” hit. Yes, he was “just finishing his check.” Whatever. There is no excuse for hitting a guy in the head from the blind side. It really isn’t that much different than the Mike Richards hit on David Booth. I called for him to be suspended, and I echo that on this hit. How many games? Given his prior history, I’d say five is probably a good number. You just can’t have guys getting hit in the head from behind. Period. I am not the least bit happy with this play, and have to wonder whether we should re-sign him. I like what he brings to the team, and he’s great on the third line, but there is no place for this type of hit.
A guide to the game grades can be found here.
Comments
Bag o' pucks
Mar 8, 10:22 AM
I expect Cooke to get five games. That’ll take him out of the entire road trip, the fifth and final game of which is in…Boston. If the two clubs meet in the playoffs, strap yourselves in! Silver lining, if Billy G is ready to go for the road trip, no need wondering who’ll have to ride the pine.
SprJudd
Mar 8, 10:49 AM
It was an unnecessary hit regardless, but I think the injury to Savard is causing more of a spotlight to be put on this incident instead of one of the 3 other head shots this weekend. The issue for me is that the NHL does not have a standard in place for punishment, so they take things on a case-by-case basis. If the NHL is serious about banning head shots, they need to install a standard for discipline and hold everyone to that standard – stop letting stars get off without punishment. The NHL is at a crossroads right now: they either need to put some muscle behind their proclamations that they want to eliminate head shots or they need to just shut up about it. This pussy-footing crap they do right now is doing nothing but drawing more and more negative publicity to the game.
This hit is similar to the Richards on Booth hit – and the NHL did themselves no favors by setting the precedent of no punishment in that instance. I am not trying to defend Matt Cooke’s hit on Marc Savard, but if Richards got to walk then every player – including Matt Cooke – has a legitimate argument that they should go without punishment for a head shot. Matt Cooke is in the NHL to be an agitator, throw big hits, and not let up. It is easy for people to point him out as a goon, a thug, and a dirty player – but the moment he lets up on big hits to star players is the moment he no longer has a job in the NHL.
DaBich
Mar 8, 10:54 AM
Good grades, Mike.
I am a huge fan of Dupuis, and I like seeing him play this way. He is proving me right =)
As for Cookie, While I don’t like the way the league gives stars better treatment, I think perhaps they had better give Cookie a suspension, just so the B’s and other opposing teams can’t whine about it for the next 10 years.
FDeuce
Mar 8, 11:04 AM
It wasn’t cooke’s intent to take off savard’s head. Not resigning cooke for making that hit is hypocrisy. It is his job to finish his checks, and to lay hard hits.
Ray aka WildcatRay
Mar 8, 11:05 AM
I’ve been saying this elsewhere and will say it again here. Unless and until Mike Richards is suspended for his vicious hits, Cooke does not deserve a suspension for what is a “within the rules” hit.
Not a smart play, dirty for “going after the guy’s head”, etc., is very much up for debate.
See the rest of my comment in Matt’s post.
Shlim
Mar 8, 11:50 AM
Remember you watched the replay in what, 1/16th speed?
It appeared to me that Matt Cooke had a blindside shoulder hit lined up, Savard shot, and Cooke was already “braced for impact” and appeared his eyes were squinted, if not closed.
Was not meant to be delivered to his head at all, he didn’t even know he did it at first.
DaBich
Mar 8, 12:24 PM
Shlim, I agree. I think Cookie was really upset about how this ended up. I know he is a very aggressive checker and hitter, but he’s not vicious. Cookie looked pretty shook up while Savard was being look at.
Pens1967
Mar 8, 03:38 PM
When Bergeron was over talking to the Pens on the ice, it looked like he was saying something to Cooke. You could see Cooke just sort of shaking his head and shrugging his shoulders like he was saying he didn’t hit Savard in the head on purpose. Cooke did try to say he was sorry to Savard after the hit and, according to the P-G, Cooke also tried to contact him again either after the game or today.
Commenting is closed for this article.