Share This Page

Penguins on a roll

With their Game 1 victory, the Penguins have won five consecutive playoff games for the first time since 1996, when they came back from a 2-0 deficit to defeat Washington in six, then won the first game of their series against the Rangers. In three previous postseason meetings, the Rangers have won Game 2 twice, in 1992 and 1996. The Penguins took Game 2 only in their 1989 sweep.

Watch this guy

Defenseman Michal Rozsival, New York Rangers

Rozsival had a reputation for injury and underachievement in his four seasons in Pittsburgh. But after signing with the Rangers after the lockout, he's become one of the better offensive defensemen in the NHL. The one team against which he's shown the most potential for elite status is the Penguins. He had three goals and seven points in eight regular-season games and added a career-postseason-high three assists in Game 1. He's also hard to miss, as he led the Rangers in ice time during the regular season at 24:27 per game and in Game 1 at 23:37.

He said it:

"It's a huge game for us, we know that, and we know they're going to come out hard again. We've got to be ready and we know that we've got to find a way to win. We know we can play better and we know we have to. Playoff hockey is not 5-4. It's 2-1, so we've got to tighten up defensively and play our style of game. We got away from that."

-- Rangers forward Brandon Dubinsky on his team's sense of urgency for Game 2.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.