ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Penguins déjà vu |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Penguins déjà vu

| Wednesday, December 5, 2018 10:03 a.m

This happened before. The Pittsburgh Penguins fire their head coach mid-season. New coach institutes an up-tempo system (Bylsma/Sullivan). The team rallies and wins the Stanley Cup. Eventually, the league cracks its unstoppable offense or learns from the Penguins and does it better. The team sputters, but the head coach sticks with his system, saying, “We need to get to our game.”

The GM (Shero/Rutherford) trades a first-round draft pick, players and prospects for an over-valued player (Iginla/Brassard). The GM signs a turn-style defenseman to a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract (Scuderi/Johnson). The coach favors a fourth liner more than a younger player with more talent (Adams/Sheahan).

There are other similarities between Bylsma/Sullivan and Shero/Rutherford. Hopefully Sullivan and Rutherford make changes before the Crosby-Malkin window closes. Sullivan needs to reign in his defensemen and not “pinch” every shift and order his forwards to cover the defensemen when they do pinch. Better yet, Sullivan and Martin should consider implementing the neutral zone trap at times to spark the offense. (Which doesn’t mean experiencing déjà vu with the 1990s New Jersey Devils.)

Darren Gessler


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.