Pens insider: No one safe at 3-0
Burning Question: Why has a 3-0 lead seemingly become more difficult to protect this postseason?
Breakdown: Once upon a time, when a team went ahead 3-0 in a playoff game, that playoff game was all but over. This spring, that hasn't been the case. The Penguins blew a 3-0 lead in Game 2 in the first round against Ottawa, but broke a 3-3 tie to win, 4-3. San Jose coughed up a 3-0 lead in the first round against Calgary and lost, 4-3. And the New York Rangers jumped to a 3-0 in Game 1 against the Penguins on Friday night, but were beaten, 5-4.
PuckSpeak: "We heard it on TV, that 3-0 after one period is the worst lead in hockey. But you know what• I wouldn't mind getting that lead the next game." -- Penguins winger Pascal Dupuis
Looking Ahead: One of the reasons the Penguins were able to get off the deck against the Rangers, according to captain Sidney Crosby, is that they adopted a shift-by-shift mentality. Having successfully navigated such a deficit, particularly by twice scoring a pair of goals in 20 or less seconds, should bolster their confidence in the event they find themselves in another such hole. And their inability to protect that 3-0 lead against Ottawa ought to serve as a reminder that it's never over until it's over. The shift-by-shift mentality can be effective in protecting leads as well as erasing them.
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 â 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.