Skip to content

Video: Patrice Bergeron scores another OT winner

Jun 6, 2013, 12:41 AM EST

When the Boston Bruins won the Stanley Cup in 2011, Nathan Horton developed* a knack for scoring big goals, sometimes in OT. In 2013, it seems like Patrice Bergeron is becoming that guy.

(Horton tried in the first OT, though.)

Jaromir Jagr‘s controversial takeaway from Evgeni Malkin opened the door for Brad Marchand to feed Bergeron for this dagger of a 2-1 double OT goal in Game 3 on Wednesday:

* Or stumbled onto, if you don’t really believe in the idea of being “clutch.”

  1. thesportsjudge - Jun 6, 2013 at 12:49 AM

    Take some summer courses on objectivity O’Brien. I’m sure there are plenty of colleges in Pittsburgh you could go (back) to.

  2. therolandobottom - Jun 6, 2013 at 12:51 AM

    There are no words for a game like that. It was an all out slugfest on the ice and an emotional roller coaster for the fans. Both teams wore their hearts on their sweaters tonight! Long. Live. Hockey.

  3. jimw81 - Jun 6, 2013 at 12:54 AM

    Penguins wasted all those picks only to probably get swept, the dealer always wins. but on serious note, i hope someone in pens organization has the guts to come out and denounce the comments their fan base are making on twitter.

    • hockeyflow33 - Jun 6, 2013 at 1:48 AM

      Why would a bunch of idiots need to be explained by the team?

    • season20122013 - Jun 6, 2013 at 8:42 AM

      I hope no one in the Pens organization is immature enough to address comments made on Twitter. I wish there weren’t any adults immature enough to use Twitter and then get offended by idiotic rambles on it.

      And think bigger picture here, what hockey in the post-season really means in Pittsburgh. Sure, I want the Pens to win, but are those picks really wasted when you consider the billion dollars that just flooded the city from the post-season games? Nah……

      The Pens made deals at the deadline – so did the B’s. I’ve heard the “buying a cup” thing and I’m so confused, I think it’s just a bunch of idiots thinking up ways to embarass themselves, but Boston has spent MORE of their cap space than the Pens, and were going after the same guys at the deadline…..so……yeah I don’t get it.

  4. govtminion - Jun 6, 2013 at 12:58 AM

    Awesome game… and yes, it does seem like when the Bruins need a huge goal, somehow it seems to always come from Bergeron this playoff year. If that doesn’t make him their Conn Smythe candidate, I don’t know what would. (With all due respect to Tuukka Rask, of course)

    • itsallniceonice - Jun 6, 2013 at 2:05 AM

      Krejci.

  5. amityvillefun - Jun 6, 2013 at 1:03 AM

    If you watch the “controversial” play, Jagr took an elbow to the head from Malkin before lifting his stick and passing the puck up. Last I checked, elbowing is a penalty and lifting the stick to steal the puck is perfectly legal.

    Bergeron deserves all the credit showered upon him. The guy plays the game the right way with such poise and skill. Easily one of the best players in the league.

    • greenmtnboy31 - Jun 6, 2013 at 7:59 AM

      Lifting the stick is legal if it is on the lower portion of the stick. Hooking a guy under the arms with your stick up around his chin and literally lifting his upper body, is blatant hooking and MUCH less, MUCH more ticky tacky hooking is called in every other game. The hooking is what created the turnover, which led to the goal. It’s a very basic concept in officiating referred to as TPOAD; The Principle Of Advantage/Disadvantage. The NHL has a HUGE reffing problem they need to deal with if they let that go and defend Walkom’s BS call against the Hawks.

      • bakedbees - Jun 6, 2013 at 10:38 AM

        KEEP CALM and BERGERON!!!!!

  6. bigdaddy44 - Jun 6, 2013 at 1:40 AM

    O’Brien, it seems like you wrote this article in your Mama’s basement in Pittsburgh. After you eat those little pizza rolls your Mama made you. why don’t you take her to Cambodia and buy her a lobster dinner.(MIB 2)

    • James O'Brien - Jun 6, 2013 at 3:29 AM

      You leave pizza rolls out of it.

      • bigdaddy44 - Jun 6, 2013 at 10:46 AM

        James, you are correct. I truly apologize for my poor choice of words. I am sorry for denegrating your love of pizza rolls in my shameful, uncalled for, personal attack. Please accept my apology as I will seek sensitivity training and try to operate under a new motto, “No Pizzo Rollo.”

    • season20122013 - Jun 6, 2013 at 8:45 AM

      Is that ramble all just because he used the term “controversial”? They were talking about it on the networks this morning, too…I don’t think the use of the term was off-base. I’m a Pens fan, and I’d have hated to see that hook called. It was a hook, but no way that should been called in a game like that.

      • infectorman - Jun 6, 2013 at 9:10 AM

        The Hook was a neutral zone hook whilst battling for the puck while both players were relatively stationary.
        It was not the more commonly called hook when an O player is driving to the net to either take a shot, a deke or pass it to a team-mate and the D player comes from behind and wraps his stick around a wrist, forearm or hip and thereby causing the O player to lose control of the puck and lose the Offensive chance.

        That call is a 50/50 call. As a Boston fan I thought we kinda of got away with one there. However, because it happened along the boards in the neutral zone where both players were grappling for the puck AND both sets of D were in position to defend any resulting play from the 2 player scrum, I see why it wasn’t called, inconsistency of reffing and penalty calling in general notwithstanding.

        The first PITT defender should not have allowed Marchand to make the centering pass and the 2nd PITT defender also got beat for position by Bergie.

        Point is, a lot more had to happen in order for the Hook to have any meaning whatsoever. But here we are, up 3-0.
        Incredible game, but it all didn’t come down to a single play along the boards in the neutral zone.

      • season20122013 - Jun 6, 2013 at 9:15 AM

        I feel like you’re somehow disagreeing with me, but I agree with everything you said…I actually said those same words. In a game like that, you don’t call that hook. You don’t change the definition of a hook, but you don’t call it. There were a buttload of calls that should have been made in that game, on both sides, but that’s hockey. That was not one of them.

      • infectorman - Jun 6, 2013 at 10:39 AM

        not disagreeing with you.
        But I would not have been surprised or angry if they did call that as a penalty, because the inconsistency of penalty calls all nite on both sides makes a fan and the players have no feel for what is ok and what isn’t

      • bigdaddy44 - Jun 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM

        It wasn’t just the hook, you are right that it shouldn’t have been called in that situation. There were more blatant non-calls both ways that didn’t, and shouldn’t, have been called in OT. It was that, combined with the thinly veiled attempt to discredit the accomplishments of Horton and Bergeron. It comes across as the writing of a wounded homer, or someone who does not like the Bruins. If you have watched the Bruins, the accomplishments of those two in key situations are more than something that they merely “stumbled onto.” That would be like me saying, as a Yankee hater, that Reggie Jackson’s 3 HR’s against the Dodgers in the World Series were “just lucky.” It would be like me saying that Eli Manning wasn’t totally clutch in the Giants’ two SB beatings of the Patriots, that any “average” QB could have done that. That would just be unhappy homer/hater talk.

  7. hockeyflow33 - Jun 6, 2013 at 1:49 AM

    That was probably the best game I’ve ever been to. The best part was sticking it in the fat slob’s faces behind me who did nothing but complain about Jagr all game.

    • supercoop8 - Jun 6, 2013 at 7:54 AM

      Curse of the casual fan that the playoffs bring out; the bar I was at also had a few who were bashing Jagr. He played great all night and the players have to realize he’s waiting to hear someone tap the ice looking for the pass whenever he’s running his one man cycle behind/to the side of the net.

  8. theskinsman - Jun 6, 2013 at 5:20 AM

    Hey Hockeyflow- I’m thrilled that Jagr is contributing! I seriously didn’t see him with anything at all left in the tank, but his being on the ice is still helping. Never been so happy to be wrong!

  9. bobhuong1 - Jun 6, 2013 at 5:51 AM

    What a GREAT game!!! It was nice to see the Penguins actually show up and play well.

  10. papajack1259 - Jun 6, 2013 at 6:24 AM

    Controversial takeaway? please it called a turn over, if it was not Mr Malcontent that is what it would be called…a turn over…

    • greenmtnboy31 - Jun 6, 2013 at 8:01 AM

      It wasn’t controversial at all; it was an obvious hooking that didn’t get called. The only controversy is the egregiously inconsistent officiating in the NHL. Are these guys wannabe WWF refs?

  11. davidmessina63 - Jun 6, 2013 at 8:13 AM

    Only 2 goals in 11 periods of hockey…I think that can be defined as a Raskicking.

    • habssuck - Jun 6, 2013 at 9:18 AM

      Thats a good one!

  12. ironyisadeadscene - Jun 6, 2013 at 8:33 AM

    but…..but….the Pens beat them 3 times in the regular season. How could this be? haha

    Awesome game. I wasn’t able to fall asleep until about 3am.

  13. ndrick731 - Jun 6, 2013 at 10:14 AM

    Was that a hook. Absolutely. But if you want to complain about that one complain about all the other ones that they didn’t call too. Especially the usual head shots by the Penguins.

    • greenmtnboy31 - Jun 6, 2013 at 10:46 PM

      It is why the NHL will never be taken seriously as a pro sports league and I’ve been a fan since the late 60’s. it’s about a half step ahead of the WWF.

Featured video

Next steps for the Oilers after Eakins

Sign up for Fantasy hockey

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. S. Crosby (4082)
  2. D. Krejci (2796)
  3. C. Crawford (2374)
  4. B. Bishop (2281)
  5. C. Kunitz (2140)
  1. J. Toews (2060)
  2. O. Palat (1904)
  3. C. Perry (1824)
  4. B. Elliott (1635)
  5. J. Boychuk (1436)