ShareThis Page
Podcast: What went wrong for Penguins vs. Islanders in Game 1? | TribLIVE.com
Breakfast With Benz

Podcast: What went wrong for Penguins vs. Islanders in Game 1?

Tim Benz
1008029_web1_1141802772
Getty Images
The Islanders’ Brock Nelson scores a first period goal past the Penguins’ Matt Murray Game 1 of the Eastern Conference First Round on Wednesday, April 10, 2019, at NYCB Live’s Nassau Coliseum in Uniondale, N.Y.

It’s our weekly Sided.co hockey podcast with Pens Radio Network host Brian Metzer. He worked the postgame show Wednesday night on 105.9 the X after the Penguins lost 4-3 in overtime on Long Island in Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Metzer and I picked it apart top-to-bottom.


LISTEN: What went wrong for Penguins in Game 1?

Primarily, we focused on the many things that melted on Josh Bailey’s game-winner for the Isles. Then when analyze everything that went wrong with the Penguins blue line.

Also, what was Mike Sullivan thinking with some of his lineup decisions? It’s not second guessing if you guessed the opposite before the game. I sure did. I never would’ve played Olli Maatta instead of Jack Jonhson. And I never would’ve benched Teddy Blueger in favor of dressing Garrett Wilson now that Zach Aston-Reese is back.

Metz didn’t like the Penguins’ offensive approach, battling the normally stingy Islanders. He tells us why. I agree.

On the plus side, Evgeni Malkin and Phil Kessel were good. But Sidney Crosby wasn’t in top form. Neither was the penalty kill.

We miss anything? Listen here and let us know.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at tbenz@tribweb.com 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.