No kidding. But high off the glass is always the last option. It's a panic play. It's temporarily resetting to let them come right after you again.

That's why puck moving D man are so coveted around the league. They have the puck skills to make a move in tight, or on the boards, or with a guy draped over them and get the puck to a forward.

The argument you are making is like saying forwards should dump the puck in every single time because its the safe play. Or that Fleury should not worry about giving up rebounds and just make sure he stops the first shot.

Safe plays are very important, but when the safety valve is your comfort zone, then its an issue.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

I agree Scuds isn't a puck moving defenseman. Look at how DP and Letang swirl around in circles with the puck glued to their stick in their own zone. They are gifted with that ability. Scuds never had that great skating or stick handling ability that they do.

That being said, Scuds doesn't always dump the puck off the glass. He also doesn't make the fancy play much. He gets the puck where it needs to go. Either off the glass, to his partner to change the angle of the pass and let things open up, or he'll make the pass. I'm also not saying forwards should dump it in every time because it is the safe play. Forwards dumping it in is the safe play, just like any defenseman chipping it off the boards and glass. It all depends on what is available at the time.

Did you read the quotes from Lapierre about how he loves the fact that everyone on the roster right now know their role and plays it? Scuderi knows his role and plays it.

In a perfect world, they'd have 6 mobile veteran defensemen with puck skills, great decision making, size and defensive acumen. Which would leave Scuderi without a role.

I just don't believe they're there yet, and I believe that Scuderi prevents enough goals both 5 on 5 and PK to make up for the fact that he's not going to help create offense very often.
- hardnosed

In theory, that's a good point. But if that's his one real strength and defined role, if its 5 on 5, tied game, 2 minutes left in game 7, do you want Scuderi on the ice? I don't. And, imo, at his price tag and all things considered, that SHOULD be his role.

Same situation but we are UP by one goal? I still don't want him on the ice. Because the opposition will dump it in, and Scuderi will toss it off the glass, and then they're coming right back at us 10 seconds later, repeat until we lose.

Congrats to Matt Murray. He has been a wall lately.

Glad we finally have some hockey tonight. However, I am already sipping Bourbon.

In theory, that's a good point. But if that's his one real strength and defined role, if its 5 on 5, tied game, 2 minutes left in game 7, do you want Scuderi on the ice? I don't. And, imo, at his price tag and all things considered, that SHOULD be his role.

Same situation but we are UP by one goal? I still don't want him on the ice. Because the opposition will dump it in, and Scuderi will toss it off the glass, and then they're coming right back at us 10 seconds later, repeat until we lose.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

You specifically targeting two scenerios that Scuds does not excel in. I dont want Pouliot on the ice in those situations either.
Although, 5 on 4 PK with 2 mins left in game 7 of the stanley cup finals, I want Scuderi on the ice.

Top 10 in voting 3 of the last 4 years...
- cap1681

...because 2 through 10 matter

Well then screw rookies. We should just keep giving away draft picks for established guys. Fire our entire scouting department. We dont need them because we dont have the time for people to make mistakes and develop.

F Rookies
- thickman1178

Precedent set w/ #47. So next year, Pens can bounce either #51, #8, #6, or even #3 for more 'valued' and experienced defenders.#grit & experience #win now

Precedent set w/ #47. So next year, Pens can bounce either #51, #8, #6, or even #3 for more 'valued' and experienced defenders.#grit & experience #win now
- out_of_market

We are in a good position cap wise to bring in offseason help and resign our guys. 51 and 3 are pretty much untouchable. 8 and 6 can be shipped out, but more than likely not.

You specifically targeting two scenerios that Scuds does not excel in. I dont want Pouliot on the ice in those situations either.
Although, 5 on 4 PK with 2 mins left in game 7 of the stanley cup finals, I want Scuderi on the ice.
- stackthepads

My point was geared towards his role. He is supposed to excel as a pure shutdown defensive defenseman. And I don't think he does.

In theory, that's a good point. But if that's his one real strength and defined role, if its 5 on 5, tied game, 2 minutes left in game 7, do you want Scuderi on the ice? I don't. And, imo, at his price tag and all things considered, that SHOULD be his role.

Same situation but we are UP by one goal? I still don't want him on the ice. Because the opposition will dump it in, and Scuderi will toss it off the glass, and then they're coming right back at us 10 seconds later, repeat until we lose.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

I'd want Scuderi on the ice late in a game when we're up 1. The other team will have the extra attacker so it's basically a short handed situation for us and that is were Scuderi can make a difference

My point was geared towards his role. He is supposed to excel as a pure shutdown defensive defenseman. And I don't think he does.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

Yep. Agreed.

Just watched Lovejoy's interview. He Sounds a lot more mature and looks to be in better shape than before. His face is leaner and he Sounds more confident.
Ps. I'm not talking about the Sloth face.

My point was geared towards his role. He is supposed to excel as a pure shutdown defensive defenseman. And I don't think he does.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

But you and lots of other posters are painting him as a useless player. His contract is bad yes, but he is not a bad defender and if you compare him to other 3rd pair dmen he brings alot more to the table. He is almost unique in the league with the way he takes away passing lanes on the PK, rarely does the cross crease pass happen from his side of the ice.

Sure he throws the puck off the glass alot or passes it to his defensive partner, but that is because its the safe play. He is not a great passer, off the glass ensures he isnt giving the puck away for a quick counter attack. To his partner is giving the puck to a player with better passing skills.

Ask any goalie, players like Scuds are nice because you dont have to worry about them coughing up the puck very often.

Precedent set w/ #47. So next year, Pens can bounce either #51, #8, #6, or even #3 for more 'valued' and experienced defenders.#grit & experience #win now
- out_of_market

If Harrington or Dumoulin don't make big strides next year, that could very well happen.

For a team whose focus is the playoffs, playing guys you don't trust simply can't happen.

Just watched Lovejoy's interview. He Sounds a lot more mature and looks to be in better shape than before. His face is leaner and he Sounds more confident.
Ps. I'm not talking about the Sloth face.
- Barnaby36

Here is hoping you are right!

Just watched Lovejoy's interview. He Sounds a lot more mature and looks to be in better shape than before. His face is leaner and he Sounds more confident.
Ps. I'm not talking about the Sloth face.
- Barnaby36

Just watched it, he sounds really happy to be back!

But you and lots of other posters are painting him as a useless player. His contract is bad yes, but he is not a bad defender and if you compare him to other 3rd pair dmen he brings alot more to the table. He is almost unique in the league with the way he takes away passing lanes on the PK, rarely does the cross crease pass happen from his side of the ice.

Sure he throws the puck off the glass alot or passes it to his defensive partner, but that is because its the safe play. He is not a great passer, off the glass ensures he isnt giving the puck away for a quick counter attack. To his partner is giving the puck to a player with better passing skills.

Ask any goalie, players like Scuds are nice because you dont have to worry about them coughing up the puck very often.
- stackthepads

Thats the thing, that isnt always the safe play....a lot of time, he will put his partner is a bad position...because he can't make the outlet pass, and the boards are taken away. He does this several times a game. Its like he doesn't want to take responsibility for it, so he dumps it to the other DMen. By the time the puck gets there, the forward is already on him and it becomes a puck battle along the boards, when it should have been our forward taking the puck the other way. Thats my issue, he absolutely kills the offensive flow. I understand he will never be Tanger and DP...but he can't even make the stretch pass or an outlet from our defensive zone across the redline.

Let me know which one of these top defenseman you would rather sign then.

http://www.mynhltraderumo...hl-free-agent-defensemen/

Like I said, at the time it was the best option. He was brought to pair with Letang in the top 2-4.
- znagle

Still waiting

If Harrington or Dumoulin don't make big strides next year, that could very well happen.

For a team whose focus is the playoffs, playing guys you don't trust simply can't happen.
- hardnosed

My issue is, 47 and 19 I believe were held to different standards then other members of the team... I understand they are young, but its not a good standard to set in a team atmosphere. If Scuds struggles with Cole and is placed with Lovejoy and he struggles there too...do the coaches have enough onions to sit him? That is my question.

Still waiting
- znagle

Why did the Pens need to sign him at all? They had Tanger, Brooks, Martin, Nisky, Despres, the great Engelland and so on..in hindsight, knowing what we know now, obviously Lovejoy would have been the guy to sign...

Bennett is in, Adams out

Bennett is in, Adams out
- znagle

I really hope Bennett can take advantage of this... Because we all know if he doesn't score he's scratched.... That's basically the standard he'll be held to

Why did the Pens need to sign him at all? They had Tanger, Brooks, Martin, Nisky, Despres, the great Engelland and so on..in hindsight, knowing what we know now, obviously Lovejoy would have been the guy to sign...
- Thorny

Well it's no question we needed a defenseman.. Despres back then.. barf. Engelland back then (and now) double barf. That being said, Scuds was the best available and comparing his deal with all the other top defenseman it's clear his contract was the best. Only bad part was the length of it IMO. 3 years would have been enough.

I really hope Bennett can take advantage of this... Because we all know if he doesn't score he's scratched.... That's basically the standard he'll be held to
- nelson911

I thought the 4th line looked pretty decent last game. Certainly better than any other time this season. Had a few good cycles.....something that rarely happened with Sill and Adams.

I really hope Bennett can take advantage of this... Because we all know if he doesn't score he's scratched.... That's basically the standard he'll be held to
- nelson911

Agreed. He just needs to relax and play good hockey. Drive play, generate chances, get to the net and battle along the boards. He doesn't need to do what he did after his first scratch and try and hit everything that moved.. just play simple, good hockey.

I sure as hell hope so. I can't see Adams being a stand-up black ace though.

I like how Montreal does it, frankly. Laraque sucks? Pouting? Thinks he can be a good player int he corners? Send him home. Kovalev (my favorite player of all time) is sulking and moaning? Go home and stay there.

Despres will be a 7-8 in Anaheim. He was a 5-6 in Pittsburgh. That's all; it's a matter of depth. If Anaheim doesn't get Wisniewski this deal never happens. Maybe Simon will be a nice player in a few years, maybe not. Pittsburgh will have much nicer players in the role Despres would have played in Pittsburgh when that time comes.
- Johnny Wrath

You also should consider the return we could have had had Despres been shopped. Do you think the deal was unders or do you think we could have got more?