Share This Page

Fleury sensational in goal, but Penguins fall again to Blackhawks

| Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2016, 10:47 p.m.

CHICAGO — On Wednesday afternoon, Marc-Andre Fleury found out he had not been selected to play in the NHL All-Star Game.

That's OK. He saw plenty of scoring chances against and questionable defense in front of him, longtime staples of All-Star action, on Wednesday night.

Artemi Panarin scored his second goal of the game with 11:04 left in the third period, leading the Chicago Blackhawks to a decisive 3-1 victory that was only close because of a brilliant, 34-save performance from Fleury.

“He was tremendous,” coach Mike Sullivan said. “It's a shame because he held us in there. He gave us a chance to win, and we weren't good enough in front of him.”

Chicago's dominance was established shortly after the puck dropped. They outshot the Penguins, 15-3, in the first period and took a 1-0 lead on Panarin's first goal.

The 24-year-old Calder Trophy favorite picked up a puck in the right-wing corner, wheeled all the way around to the top of the left faceoff circle and fired a shot inside the near post at 15:58.

“He's obviously a very gifted player,” Sullivan said of Panarin, who also scored twice in a 3-2 Blackhawks overtime victory at Consol Energy Center the night before.

Chicago's lead could have been three or four times as big if not for Fleury. Among his stops in the period was a save on an Andrew Shaw breakaway.

Sullivan called it perhaps the worst period the Penguins had played since he took over as coach Dec. 14.

“I think we were just watching too much,” Sidney Crosby said. “(Tuesday) night, we had that mentality of dictating the play. At the start of the first there, we were just sitting back and watching. Give these guys time and space and it's going to be a long night.”

Improbably, the Penguins tied the score 1-1 in the second. Operating on an abbreviated, 87-second power play — their only power play of the first two periods — Evgeni Malkin scored on a one-timer from the blue line past Crosby's stick and Patric Hornqvist's body.

Later in the period, Fleury made his most dramatic stops of the night. He shrugged his left shoulder to stop Patrick Kane after a shake-and-bake move out of the corner and then made a nearly impossible stop on a Trevor van Riemsdyk shot from the slot with the knob of his stick.

“I was just trying to get something there,” Fleury said. “I was lucky obviously to get a piece of it.”

Despite being outshot 25-11 through two periods, the Penguins were in the game entering the third.

“We had the chance to maybe steal one here,” Crosby said.

They didn't.

The Penguins had a pair of power plays in the third period and Crosby hit a post with a redirection with less than six minutes left, but largely, the Blackhawks dominated the final period as much as they did the previous two.

On the winning goal, Panarin picked up a loose puck off a faceoff and whipped it past Fleury to break a 1-1 tie.

“He's got a good shot, a good release,” Fleury said. “He shoots hard.”

With the loss, the Penguins fell to 1-6-1 in the second game of back-to-backs this season.

“I haven't been here long enough to really address it quite honestly,” Sullivan said. “For me, back-to-backs is about a mindset. It's about finding ways to win. Chicago was in the same situation we were.”

Jonathan Bombulie is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at or via Twitter at @BombulieTrib.

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.