Penguins’ power play falls flat again |

Penguins’ power play falls flat again

Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
Brunins goaltender Tuukka Rask makes a second-period save on the Penguins' Chris Kunitz during Game 3 of the Eastern Conference finals Wednesday, June 5, 2013, at TD Garden in Boston.

Rarely has such a mighty power play looked so lifeless.

The Boston Bruins handed the Penguins numerous opportunities to win Game 3 of the Eastern Conference final, but the power play that was so lethal all season let down the Penguins again in a 2-1 setback at TD Garden that likely has crippled their dream season.

“We had the puck on the stick of people in places where we wanted them to be,” coach Dan Bylsma said.

The Penguins went 0 for 6 on the power play, including a chance in overtime and another in double overtime. Boston twice was caught with too many men on the ice, but even then the Penguins couldn’t score with the man advantage.

“You better score on the power play when you get that many chances,” said defenseman Kris Letang, who fired eight shots on net. “We were not good enough.”

The Penguins’ biggest names participate on the power play but proved fruitless against a Bruins penalty-killing unit that entered the series killing 81 percent of penalties, a solid but hardly spectacular percentage.

The Penguins entered the game having accumulated the second-best power-play percentage in the regular season and the top mark in the postseason.

Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, Chris Kunitz, James Neal and Kris Letang composed the top power-play unit. All had chances. None buried one.

The Penguins entered the series clicking at 28.2 percent on the power play. Against the Bruins, they are 0 for 12.

“Getting one would have made the difference,” Bylsma said.

In the second period the Penguins had three opportunities. Never was their power play incompetence more noticeable than late in that period.

With the game tied, 1-1, the Penguins essentially were handed a lengthy five-on-three.

Boston penalty killer Gregory Campbell blocked a shot and remained on the ice for about 10 seconds. Even after Campbell made it to his feet, the center was incapable of making his way to the bench.

But the Penguins never mustered a quality scoring opportunity. Malkin had a shot blocked and missed the net on another occasion. Letang also missed the net during a sequence in which Crosby simply stood on the left side of the ice.

“You can say whatever you want,” Letang said. “We should be able to score goals when we have that many chances.”

Letang, though, doesn’t believe the power play is broken. “There is nothing wrong with it,” he said.

The Penguins’ second power-play unit actually was more productive.

Rookie Beau Bennett nearly scored on two occasions. He twice got open down low and cut in front of Tuukka Rask, attempting a wrap-around on one occasion and nearly scoring on a forehand deke on the other.

“We had so many good looks all night on the power play,” right wing Jarome Iginla said. “We really did, and on most nights, I really believe a lot of those pucks go in.”

But not on this night, and not in this series.

Josh Yohe is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at [email protected] or via Twitter @JoshYohe_Trib.

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.