In meeting with reporters Tuesday, Jim Rutherford described the horror of watching his team wilt in Game 4 on Friday _ the day the Penguins' bubble burst.
"It was so disappointing," Rutherford said. "You're waiting for that desperation. And waiting. It didn't come in the first period. It didn't come in the second period. In the third period, it was even worse."
Desperation is a euphemism for effort, for heart. So this marked the second straight year Rutherford accused his team of lacking heart. Only this year, he also ripped the club's leadership, aside from Sidney Crosby, and the coaching, at least as it pertained to the chronically underachieving power play. He even criticized one player (Justin Schultz) by name.
He was probably right on all counts, too, but it was glaringly obvious that he left one area unidentified _ the GM's chair.
He left one name unmentioned _ Jim Rutherford.
The puck stops there, right? Those were his players shrinking in the biggest moments again, his leadership core failing to inspire, his staff failing to get its message across and especially his bottom six losing games outright and his third defense pair falling flat on its face.
Rutherford needed to express some accountability here. He needed to begin by saying something like this: "Before I answer questions, I want to be very clear: This second straight disappointing playoff defeat falls on me first. I am the person responsible for putting the pieces in place. I failed."
Instead, he went right at the players, openly questioning their "drive." Again, it was a fair charge. But in levying it, Rutherford indicted himself. It's his roster, after all, especially the bottom parts of it. He constructed a significant part of the team that disappoints him so profoundly.
In better times, Rutherford brought in heart-and-soul guys such as Matt Cullen, Nick Bonino, Carl Hagelin and Ian Cole. Now ... well, now, not so much. Winners have been replaced not by losers but by players who have simply never won.
Bonino would have crawled across broken glass to win a Cup. The Penguins have not found a remote replica of him to center their third line.
To be clear, Rutherford is a man I respect greatly. A man whose fearless approach to his job brought championships back to Pittsburgh. He earned his belated spot in the Hockey Hall of Fame. Which only makes it weirder to hear him, as an example, adamantly defend Jack Johnson while hammering Schultz.
Not that Schultz is above criticism. He was terrible in the series. But the counterattacks on Johnson's critics have become baffling.
If Johnson were half as defensive as Rutherford, he'd be Victor Hedman.
What is Rutherford watching?
I have yet to encounter a person in the game who believes the Johnson signing was anything but ill-advised at best and disastrous at worst. Mike Sullivan told you all you need to know when he scratched Johnson for the playoff opener last year after Johnson played all 82 games. Think about that.
Maybe Rutherford's allegiance is tied to the fact that he drafted Johnson in Carolina. Maybe he's letting his feelings for a good man get in the way of good business (and maybe Sullivan has lost some of his edge in that regard, as well, as evidenced by him keeping Johnson and Patrick Marleau in the lineup when it was obviously time to move on).
Nobody believes the Penguins' myriad issues are all tied to Jack Johnson. That would be ludicrous. The criticism is sometimes too harsh. But the fact of the matter is that Johnson needs to be replaced, this offseason, by any means necessary.
Meanwhile, some Rutherford moves that once looked brilliant now seem questionable. Jared McCann became Jared McCan't as the season wore on (no goals, minus-9 rating in his final 25 games, including playoffs). He disappeared. Is he the best option as the future third-line center?
Nick Bjugstad's contract is a Johnson-like albatross, albeit for just one year if he isn't jettisoned. Marcus Pettersson's five-year, $20 million extension isn't looking especially shrewd at the moment, either. He was just OK in the series.
Marleau and Conor Sheary were busts. The fourth line gave up three even-strength goals and must be reconfigured. And to continue the oldest storyline known to man, Sid needs a winger.
Rutherford has corrected mistakes before. Spectacularly so. He still has a core of talented 20-somethings and some productive older players, although if he's so disappointed in his secondary leadership core _ and how can you not believe he was referring to Evgeni Malkin and Kris Letang? _ he should probably look for a trade, if it's not too late.
With the right pieces, this team can still contend. Maybe some of the new pieces are already in the organization. It's Rutherford's job to figure it all out.
He kept admitting during the call Tuesday that he wished he had more answers.
"I"m still asking questions," he said.
That seems like a healthy approach. Hopefully one of them goes something like this:
"Where do I put myself on the list of culprits?"
