Islanders’ structure, discipline helped exploit Penguins’ flaws |
Breakfast With Benz

Islanders’ structure, discipline helped exploit Penguins’ flaws

Tim Benz

The Penguins season is over a lot earlier than we expected. And there are many reasons why. So let’s take a look at all of them in our final Peguins podcast of the 2018-19 season.

Tribune-Review beat writer Jonathan Bombulie joins me to discuss how the Islanders managed to sweep the Penguins. They weren’t just a bad matchup. The Penguins have flaws beyond what the Islanders exploited.

LISTEN: For Penguins, how did it come to this?

One of those flaws is that there is speed missing from one key position on the Penguins as opposed to what we saw in 2016 and 2017 when they won the Stanley Cup.

The Islanders have structure and discipline blended with talent. Can the Penguins do that next year?

Also, we get into potential roster changes for next year. Some mixed messages were sent this season. And we scrutinize how the salary cap will impact next year’s team.

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.

Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
The Penguins head off the ice after losing to the Islanders ending their Stanley Cup hopes at PPG Paints Arena on April 16, 2019.
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.