ShareThis Page

Second-period short-handed goal gives Blue Jackets momentum

| Saturday, April 19, 2014, 11:51 p.m.
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
The Penguins' Brian Gibbons beats Blue Jackets goaltender Sergei Bobrovsky for the second of his two first-period goals during a first-round Stanley Cup playoff game Saturday, April 19, 2014, at Consol Energy Center.
Philip G. Pavely | Tribune-Review
The Blue Jackets' Matt Calvert gets a short-handed goal past Penguins goalie Marc-Andre Fleury during the second period during first-round Stanley Cup playoff action Saturday, April 19, 2014, at Consol Energy Center.

The double-overtime winner wasn't the only pivotal goal of Matt Calvert's night.

His second-period short-handed goal, likewise, wasn't the only momentum-changing part of the Columbus Blue Jackets' penalty kill.

Calvert's goal 7:31 into the second period was the highlight of the rapid-succession success of the Blue Jackets' play while down a man, and it was the turning point of a 4-3 victory that evened the best-of-seven first-round series at a game apiece.

“Short-handed goals are always big factors in a game, especially playoff games,” Penguins coach Dan Bylsma said. “(But) in addition to the short-handed goal, on the two other power plays we didn't capitalize on, and they gained a ton of momentum from that.”

Calvert's first career playoff goal began when Artem Anisimov beat James Neal to a loose puck above the Penguins' attacking left-wing circle and poked it ahead to Calvert. It was off to the races for Calvert, with only Matt Niskanen back for the Penguins, and Anisimov and Jack Johnson along with Calvert for a developing 3-on-1.

“I looked for the pass, and didn't quite see it,” Calvert said. “And then I saw (Penguins goalie Marc-Andre Fleury) bite a bit, so I just tried to put it upstairs and it was great to see it go in the back of the net.”

Calvert's rising wrist shot beat Fleury high and to the glove side under the crossbar and inside the right post. The goal came when the Penguins had four forwards and only one defenseman on the ice, and it was far from the only chance Columbus mustered while short-handed. The Blue Jackets regularly produced odd-man, short-handed breaks — particularly during their three kills over a nine-minute span during the first half of the second period.

Calvert's shot was one of two taken by Columbus during that particular Penguins' power play; the Penguins had zero during it. That sequence began a stretch in which the Blue Jackets held a 10-2 shot advantage, despite two Penguins' power plays to none for Columbus.

“They're a good power play, (but) they take a lot of chances,” Calvert said. “And whenever we can if we pick off a pass, we try to take advantage of that.”

Regardless of the Calvert goal that turned the tide from a 3-1 Penguins lead, the Blue Jackets' second-period penalty kills flipped the momentum because the Penguins were impotent at one of their supposed strengths: the power play.

“The game could have changed if they make it 4-1 there on the power play,” Columbus forward Brandon Dubinsky said. “But as it happens, we stick to our game plan and keep working and we find a way to get a shorty there and kill them off, and build some momentum.”

The Penguins took 16 of the game's first 20 shots on goal through the first period and a minute into the second. It was a penalty by Columbus' R.J. Umberger 2:14 into the second that ended up inadvertently helping turn the tide of the game in favor of the Blue Jackets.

“We let the momentum get away from us, and we never really recaptured it,” Penguins winger Lee Stempniak said.

Chris Adamski is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at or via Twitter @C_AdamskiTrib.

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.