ShareThis Page
Failure to protect leads a growing late-season problem for Penguins | TribLIVE.com
Penguins/NHL

Failure to protect leads a growing late-season problem for Penguins

Jonathan Bombulie
897320_web1_gtr-pens07-031819
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
The Flyers’ Scott Laughton and Shayne Gostisbehere celebrate with Sean Couturier after Couturier beat the Penguins in overtime Sunday, March 17, 2019 at PPG Paints Arena.

Statistically speaking, the Pittsburgh Penguins are one of the best teams in the league at protecting third-period leads.

They’re 32-0-3 when leading after two periods this season, one of only four teams in the NHL that haven’t lost in regulation under those circumstances.

Recent results, though, tell a vastly different tale.

On Sunday night, the Penguins blew a 1-0 lead when James van Riemsdyk scored with 18.8 seconds left and lost 2-1 in overtime.

The last time the Keystone State rivals met, it was a similar story. At Lincoln Financial Field on Feb. 23, the Penguins blew a 3-2 lead when Jakub Voracek scored with 19.7 seconds to go and lost 4-3 in overtime.

It’s the first time in NHL history that one team has used a tying goal in the final 30 seconds of regulation to beat the same opponent twice in the same season.

Throw in a 4-3 overtime loss in Buffalo on March 2 that saw Brandon Montour score the tying goal in the final three minutes of regulation, and it starts to look like a disturbing trend. The Penguins have blown a late lead and lost in overtime in three of their past 12 games.

“We’ve got to find a way to close that out,” center Matt Cullen said. “We’re right there. Just find a way to close it out. Obviously if we’re going to be where we want to be at the end of the season, we’ve got to get better at finishing games.”

It’s hard to find a solution to the problem because the tying goals came in such vastly different situations. It’s hard to connect the dots between the three.

Montour’s goal was on a shot from the point that deflected off an ankle in front. It came before the Sabres pulled their goalie.

Voracek’s goal came on a bad-angle shot from the left-wing corner of the offensive zone that went through the legs of defenseman Jack Johnson and eluded Matt Murray in a driving rain.

Van Riemsdyk scored on what was essentially a four-on-two after Sidney Crosby stepped up on the Flyers forward but failed to steal a pass in the neutral zone.

“I thought we did a pretty decent job, honestly, until that four-on-two,” Murray said. “When we’re in zone, we were doing a really good job. We have our scheme and we stuck to it and we did a good job. They just threw pucks on net and we battled for rebounds and did a good job clearing them out. Just that one play and it gets by us.”

There’s no easy answer. For the Penguins to fix the problem, they’ll need to use a combination of better in-zone structure, better execution with the puck and better decision making in general.

“We gotta stay on our toes,” Murray said. “That’s what it’s all about in the grand scheme of things.”

Follow the Pittsburgh Penguins all season long.

Jonathan Bombulie is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jonathan by email at jbombulie@tribweb.com or via Twitter .

Categories: Sports | Penguins
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.