'U mad, bro?': Penguins fans shred Evgeni Malkin, Matt Murray; Steelers grumbling, too

You knew that venom would be spewed toward the Penguins in “U mad, bro?” this week. The team was dreadful in its four-game, qualifying-round elimination at the hands of the 24th-seeded Montreal Canadiens last week.

Fans are ticked off. They should be. My only question was, “Which Penguins were going to wind up taking the most heat?”

Well, if my emails from readers are any indication, it’s the team’s goalie, one of the team’s former playoff MVPs and the team’s general attitude.

Oh, and there was some general Steelers griping to be found, too. What would this weekly post be without some of that?

• • •

“Mr. Betts” has a few thoughts on Penguins forward Evgeni Malkin.

“Do you agree that Evgeni Malkin is one of the most overrated athletes in the history of Pittsburgh sports? His performance when it really counts has been minimal.”

Yes. Minimal when it really counts.

As his three Stanley Cup rings, Conn Smythe Trophy and 169 points in 166 playoff games will attest.

Mr. Betts, the only thing overrated is overreaction. Like the rest of the team, Malkin has not been good enough in the last three playoff series. That doesn’t taint his legacy as a Penguin or erase history.

I know tearing down statues is a popular thing to do these days. Let’s not tear down Malkin’s before it is built, OK?

• • •

Donna would like to comment about goaltender Matt Murray. She sent this prior to Game 4 of the Canadiens series, before Tristan Jarry started.

So, eventually, she got her wish.

“I don’t understand why they just can’t see that Murray is AWFUL!!! Tristan Jarry has proven himself — time and time again — to be the better goalie. I’m not saying that Jarry is the long term goalie, but right now he is. The Penguins know they made a mistake but play Murray because of his salary. He smells. My goalie is in Vegas.”

Donna, is your last name “Betts” by any chance? There appears to be some sort of family resemblance.

First off, all goalies smell. Ever been near that equipment after a game or practice? Woof!

Secondly, Murray isn’t awful. He’s just not as good as he used to be. And goaltending isn’t the reason the Penguins lost this series. Well, aside from the fact the other team’s goalie — Montreal’s Carey Price — didn’t make a mistake for four games.

As for your other points, I wouldn’t say Jarry proved himself “time and time again.” He had one good half of a season. He was fine in Game 4. But was barely tested and didn’t exactly bathe himself in glory on the game-winning goal.

Also, Murray wasn’t starting because of salary. He was starting because of loyalty and track record in the playoffs.

Oh, and the “my goalie” thing about Marc-Andre Fleury has become as political as saying “my president” or “your governor.”

Not that I’m completely immune to saying that stuff either, for the record.

Here’s the good news for you, Donna. Murray is likely leaving this offseason, and we’ll get a chance to see exactly how good Jarry is. And who knows? Maybe “your goalie” will come back from Vegas to split time in the net with him.

• • •

Raymond has discovered the true problem facing the Penguins: semantics!

“Everyone is reporting that the Pens were eliminated from the playoffs. Not so.

They were eliminated in the qualifying round for the playoffs, which begin this week.

The playoff streak has ended.”

Raymond, I don’t really care about that. All I know is that a series was played, and the Penguins lost it.

Nothing about 2020 makes sense. Why should the verbiage of the hockey playoffs be any different?

• • •

Jerry sent me a long email after the Penguins lost their series to Montreal. Here’s a portion.

“I think what bothered me the most is how many players admitted that they ‘took their foot off the gas’ after going up two goals in Game 3. How can a veteran group of championship caliber players allow that to happen?

They didn’t let off the gas, they simply ran out of it. Ran out of heart, ran out of desire, energy — whatever word we choose to describe that invisible extra gear that hungry players possess when they’re chasing their first championship.”

Agreed, Jerry. That really bothered me, too.

Based on what general manager Jim Rutherford said, he has the same stance. That’s why he says he wants to go younger.

Good idea, right?

But going younger also means getting rid of some of the older players. And not just the easy subtractions because of free agency. Unless Rutherford is ready to make some difficult, emotional trades — including perhaps one of the “core three” — that won’t happen.

• • •

George responded to my recent column about Ben Roethlisberger’s pending return.

“I liked your article listing all the Steelers’ 2019 bottom-feeding offensive stats. But, with all the stats, only one thing matters in the NFL: respect. NO DEFENSE in the NFL in 2019 respected (Mason) Rudolph or (Devlin) ‘Duck’ (Hodges).

Rudolph, due to his coordinator forcing him to throw 5-yard (or less) passes for at least four games. And Duck, due to his arm not allowing him to throw anything more than 5-yard passes.

That ONE thing, respect, changes ALL the stats.”

Well, talent, too, George. You may want to work “Hall of Fame talent” into your analysis there, as well.

Maybe over a decade and a half of NFL experience on top of that?

But, yes, your point is taken. And valid.

• • •

I got this tweet about former Baltimore Ravens and New York Jets linebacker Bart Scott. He recently claimed that comparing Troy Polamalu to Ed Reed was “disrespectful” to Reed.

In the end, it appeared what Scott — now a radio host in New York City — was attempting to say is that the two men played “safety,” but their roles were completely different. Hence, comparing them is a futile effort.

That is completely true.

But as is often the case with Scott, his mouth moved faster than his brain, and that comment spilled out as a result.

Yeah, it seemed like he had a perfectly reasonable position but felt compelled to lead in with a hot take.

— bucs2829 (@bucs2829) August 3, 2020

This tweet has accomplished the impossible. It uses the words “Bart Scott” and “perfectly reasonable” in the same sentence.

But it’s somehow still accurate.