Burning question: Have the Penguins merely held serve, or have they taken control of their Eastern Conference semifinal series with the New York Rangers by winning the first two games at Mellon Arena?
Breakdown: The Rangers will have to win four of the next five games to advance, but with Games 3 and 4 scheduled at Madison Square Garden in New York, they have an opportunity to cut their task in half by winning a couple of games at home and turning the series into a best-of-three.
PuckSpeak: "I think it's significant. We have home-ice advantage, and we kept it. That was our goal, to win two here. Now, our goal is to win Game 3. We're not looking too far ahead, and that's what's made us successful in these first six (postseason) games." -- Penguins defenseman Ryan Whitney.
Looking ahead: The Penguins have put themselves in position to take a stranglehold on the series by winning one of two on the road, while the Rangers will be scrambling to get back into it in Game 3. Although Game 1 was a one-goal game and Game 2 a one-goal game with an empty-netter attached, the Penguins have been the better team through 120 minutes. They've been better on special teams. They've been generating more quality scoring chances five-on-five. And they have to be the more confident team at this point. Although the Rangers are returning home, they'll need more than a change of venue to reverse what's taken place in the first two games.
Click here to launch.
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.