I agree that while Talbot was destroyed perhaps his show of heart was enough to get his team to awake from the lethargy they were in to that point. As Bob says, can it be coincidence that within a few minutes of this fight, the Penguines marched back into the game. While Richard is right that the goals can be seen as the result of lucky bounces perhaps the fight helped get the Penguins the lift they needed to get those pucks into the Flyers zone. While we can’t know exactly what caused the Pens momentum the reality is that they won the game and are into the 2nd round.

I think that however you want to describe the game after the “fight” — and in particular the 2 minutes or so immediately following — the terms “coincidence” and “unconnected” are not in the running.

Would you give the Penguins the edge in play prior to the “fight” or go so far as to call it even?

Would you give the Flyers an edge after it or go so far as to call it even?

It wasn’t just because someone “fought” a short time before — skill and determination scored those goals — but I saw a marked increase in the determination after it. I’d say it certainly motivated the Pens.

Let’s hear what the rest of the crew and IC readers think.

That first goal should have been covered by Biron; a good goalie gets that puck. The second goal Eaton misses probably 8 out of 10 times and the third goal got through Timonen and Biron and bounced to Crosby. Those weren’t exactly the goals Getzlaf, Perry and Ryan have been scoring.

Give the Penguins credit, but I don’t think everything is always attributable to what happened directly before. Sometimes, things just happen. You get a bounce, or you get a loose puck you normally wouldn’t. Just because somebody fought a short time before doesn’t mean he is the reason they came back.

Great quote: “Our turnovers create 90 percent of their offense; we have to learn our lesson,” Tortorella said in the afternoon, before adding without a trace of irony, “That’s [one of] our two biggest issues — that and discipline.”

Oh irony.

I didn’t see much of Carter’s wicked snap/wrist shot in the series — rib/shoulder/arm/hand injury? Even the nice swooping deke goal he scored was a pretty weak backhand — he certainly didn’t snap it in as he usually does.

I don’t know about your comments and conclusions on Talbot’s fight, Richard:

1. No doubt he got clocked, but do you have the impression that he’s a stupid player? Or a fighter? Or a disturber? My impression is no, no, and no. So why would he pick a fight — we can agree he picked a fight, yes? — except to motivate his team? Embarassed? He wasn’t hanging his head in the box — he was grinning from ear to ear. And the reception he got on the bench after he served his time? He got mobbed after he scored the OT goal vs the Wings last year, bit I’d say the warmth of that reception yesterday wasn’t much different.

2. Regardless, he picks a fight at 4:20 of the second period, 15 seconds after the Flyers have gone up 3 – 0. 14 seconds later Fedotenko scores his first goal in six games. What’s fluky about going to the net and poking in a loose put in the crease? Certainly Malkin’s patented drive to the net and moves to come out from behind it couldn’t be classed as fluky.

3. 1:56 seconds after that Mark Eaton joins the play, rushes the net, takes advantage of a rebound to the slot and bats the puck out of the air into the net. Excellent offensive read by a defensive defenceman showing great eye-hand coordination. What’s fluky about that?

4. Two goals cutting a 3 – 0 deficit to 3 – 2 in the 2:26 following the goal which established the 3 – 0 gap, but it’s just a coincidence that the “fight” Talbot engineered happened to fall 14 seconds after the 3 – 0 goal and the two Pens goals followed in less than 2 minutes?

5. If Crosby’s goal to even the score was fluky, he gets a lot of fluky goals. Looked more like his usual combination of determination and skill to me.