Another Penguins-Islanders battle: More scoring, lots of stress | TribLIVE.com
Breakfast With Benz

Another Penguins-Islanders battle: More scoring, lots of stress

Tim Benz
1971375_web1_AP_19324117121032
AP
New York Islanders’ Mathew Barzal can’t get his stick on a puck underneath Pittsburgh Penguins goaltender Matt Murray with Justin Schultz, rear, defending during the overtime period of an NHL hockey game in Pittsburgh, Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2019.

Penguins fans, sick of the New York Islanders yet?

I already was after the playoffs last spring. And I sure as heck am now!

On Thursday night, we will witness the third game in 14 days between these two clubs. The Penguins won Game 1 of the season series 4-3 in overtime back on Nov. 7.

The Islanders responded with a 5-4 overtime win on Tuesday.


The Penguins came from three goals down to win their game. The Islanders responded from a pair of two-goal deficits in their victory this week.

So at least the games have been entertaining. Our Penguins beat writer Seth Rorabaugh is in New York covering Game 3 for TribLive. He joins us on the podcast Thursday.

Beyond the rivalry with New York, we look at big-picture topics facing the Penguins.

For instance, why is the power play getting in gear while Sidney Crosby, Kris Letang and Patrick Hornqvist are all injured?

We consider what the best role for Brandon Tanev should be when all the injured Penguins come back healthy.

And we consider the impact of Tuesday’s defeat.

Plus, on a league-wide level, we get into Mike Babcock’s firing in Toronto.

Tim Benz and Seth Rorabaugh discuss the Penguins-Islanders rivalry, as well as the team’s power play and injury situation

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at [email protected] or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.

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.