ShareThis Page
Penguins need more from 3rd, 4th lines |

Penguins need more from 3rd, 4th lines

Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
Penguins center Matt Cullen: “We need, as bottom-six guys, to either chip in with a goal at times or even as important is having a shift where you can turn the momentum or consistently grind in the offensive zone or tip the ice and have a positive impact.”

Despite running their losing streak to five games, the Pittsburgh Penguins had improved work ethic and attention to detail in a 2-1 loss at Washington on Wednesday night.

There were more scoring chances than they could count. They had a 1-0 lead on a power-play goal from Sidney Crosby and a strong performance in net from Casey DeSmith.

What they didn’t get was offense from their secondary scorers.

It could have made the difference in a game that tight, but it didn’t come.

That’s been the rule, not the exception, for the Penguins this season.

They’ve scored 47 goals, getting 33 from their six highest-scoring forwards, eight from their two most prolific defensemen and a grand total of six from everybody else.

“I think our depth is one of our strong points. So the third and fourth line, we have to take some ownership and try to contribute a little more,” center Riley Sheahan said.

Before burying the Penguins’ depth scorers, some context is required. It’s perfectly normal for a team’s top players to dwarf the rest of the team on the stat sheet. Washington’s top six forwards and two defensemen have scored 43 of the team’s 51 goals, for example.

Still, the lack of production is a glaring sore spot for a team off to a disappointing 6-5-3 start.

“On this team, you have superstars on the top two lines. If you’re on the third line or fourth line, you’re seeing a better matchup for yourself, a more favorable matchup,” winger Carl Hagelin said. “That’s one of the things you’ve got to take advantage of because those two get a lot of attention from the other team.”

The depth-scoring problem for the Penguins is two-fold.

First, it has dried up completely. No one outside of the top six forwards and two defensemen has scored a goal since Matt Cullen capped off a 9-1 win in Calgary on Oct. 25.

Second, the third and fourth lines are rarely making significant positive impacts when they don’t score.

“What has helped us as we’ve gone through a lot of seasons is the timely goal from the third or fourth line,” Cullen said. “We need, as bottom-six guys, to either chip in with a goal at times or even as a important is having a shift where you can turn the momentum or consistently grind in the offensive zone or tip the ice and have a positive impact.”

If general manager Jim Rutherford decides to shake up his struggling team with roster changes as he suggested he might on his radio show Wednesday, the bottom six is the most logical target.

The Penguins aren’t bumping up against the salary cap at the moment, but that will change when Justin Schultz returns from the long-term injured list in February, so acquiring a big-ticket player would be difficult.

Rutherford said there’s nothing on the market he thinks will improve his defense corps, and reports indicate the Penguins are considering dealing prospect Daniel Sprong. Given Sprong’s limited trade value at this point, bottom-six help might be the best the Penguins could hope to get in return.

Barring a trade, the Penguins could reshape their forward depth with call-ups from Wilkes-Barre/Scranton as well.

They already began that process Wednesday night in Washington, inserting Zach Aston-Reese and Garrett Wilson into the lineup. Centered by Cullen, they had a few shifts that served to build momentum and create scoring chances.

If that continues and the Penguins build off their strong performance in a loss, the bottom-six woes could disappear. If not, it will be an area to watch going forward.

“I believe in what we have,” Cullen said. “We just have to be better.”

Jonathan Bombulie is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jonathan at or via Twitter @BombulieTrib.

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.