Three things we learned from Penguins-Capitals Game 3 |
Breakfast With Benz

Three things we learned from Penguins-Capitals Game 3

Jonathan Bombulie
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Washington Captials' Alex Ovechkin's celebrates after scoring a goal late in the third period to give the Capitals the win inside of PPG Paints Arena on May 1, 2018.
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
The Penguins' Matt Murray eyes the puck during their game against the Capitals inside of PPG Paints Arena on May 1, 2018.
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Pittsburgh Penguins' Brian Dumoulin takes a shot during during their game against the Capitals inside of PPG Paints Arena on May 1, 2018.

Over the last three postseasons, the Penguins have won nine consecutive series.

In one-third of them, they’ve been in a position similar to the one they find themselves in now.

Alex Ovechkin scored a tie-breaking goal with 1:07 left to lead the Washington Capitals to a 4-3 victory in Game 3 of the Metropolitan Division finals Tuesday night. The Capitals lead the series, 2-1, with game 4 set for Thursday night at PPG Paints Arena.

The Penguins have trailed in three of their previous nine series.

They lost the opener to Washington in the second round in 2016 and went on to win the series in six games. They fell behind 1-0 and 3-2 in the 2016 Eastern Conference finals against Tampa Bay and won in seven games. They fell behind 1-0 and 2-1 against Ottawa in the 2017 Eastern Conference finals and won in seven games.

They’ve never trailed by two games, however, which is why Game 4 is pretty close to must-win territory.

Here are three things we learned from Game 3.


The Penguins scored two even-strength goals Tuesday night. Three guesses which line was on the ice for both.

Jake Guentzel, Sidney Crosby and Patric Hornqvist were on the ice for both goals, and in fact, they’ve combined in some form or fashion on 17 of the team’s last 19 even-strength goals over the last seven games.

Perhaps Evgeni Malkin’s return will make a difference eventually, but for now, it’s an extremely top-heavy attack.

“We have to try to help those guys,” center Derick Brassard said. “They’ve been producing really well. It’s fun to watch from the bench, but yeah, the other lines, we have to try to help out and try to take some pressure off those guys. Eventually, it’s going to come. We’re going to have to keep working, making plays. Get on the inside a little bit more, try to get in front and score some tips or whatever.”


The Penguins were, in general, pleased with their response after Tom Wilson delivered a violent hit to Zach Aston-Reese, breaking the rookie’s jaw and giving him a concussion.

“I loved it,” defenseman Kris Letang said. “I think our team showed character, showed emotion. I think it was great. We answered back with a big body check. I think our answer was great. We took the lead. We played really well. It’s just unfortunate. Bad break with a minute (left) and we lose the game.”

That said, Chandler Stephenson scored a goal to forge a 2-2 tie 55 seconds after Wilson’s hit.

By any reasonable analysis, the Capitals should have been killing a penalty at that point, not scoring a tying goal.


As violent as Wilson’s hit on Aston-Reese was, another potential penalty he got away with may have been more detrimental to the Penguins’ chances of winning the game.

The two-on-one that led to Ovechkin’s winning goal started on Olli Maatta’s offensive-zone turnover. Maatta, however, would have been in position to keep the rush a two-on-two situation if Wilson hadn’t taken out his skates just before Nicklas Backstrom took off up the left wing.

Jonathan Bombulie is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at [email protected] or via Twitter @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.