ShareThis Page
Penguins

Insider: Who's next?

| Thursday, April 17, 2008

Burning question: What would be the Penguins' most intriguing second-round matchup?

Breakdown: The Rangers, with ex-Penguins Jaromir Jagr, Martin Straka and Michal Rozsival (plus Jordan Staal's brother, Marc) would be interesting, but nothing would beat a Penguins-Capitals series. Alexander Ovechkin against the Penguins' young guns would make for the most compelling storyline. Far less intriguing would be Penguins-Devils or Penguins-Bruins. There is no scenario in which the Penguins would play the top-seeded Canadiens or the sixth-seeded Flyers.

PuckSpeak: "I did (like Mellon Arena) when I used to play here, but it's not easy when everybody's booing you when you touch the puck." - Jagr, during his most recent visit to Pittsburgh.

Looking ahead: The Penguins were 3-3-2 against the Rangers this season, topping three goals only once. They were 3-0-1 against the Capitals, with one of the wins in overtime and the loss in a shootout. They were 2-2 against the Bruins, though one loss was with what amounted to a split squad after the trade deadline. Finally, the Penguins were 4-3-1 against the Devils, scoring four or more goals four times. They outscored New Jersey, 9-1, in the final two meetings of the season. Additional Information:

Gigapan Interactives

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.

click me