Senators notebook: Gryba remains uncertain for Game 2
Gryba unsure for Game 2
The first question — or questions — posed to Senators coach Paul MacLean on Wednesday was if there was any update on the status of defenseman Eric Gryba and whether center Jason Spezza might suit up for Game 2.
“No and no,” MacLean said.
Brooks Orpik flattened Gryba with a big hit during the second period of the Penguins' 4-1 win in Game 1 on Tuesday. Gryba left the game and did not return with an upper-body injury.
“At this point, we're not ruling him out for the game on Friday,” MacLean said.
Spezza has been out since undergoing surgery on Feb. 1 to repair a herniated disk.
“Jason continues to skate in Ottawa, and obviously every day he skates is progress,” MacLean said.
One word to focus on
In a review of Game 1, one word kept coming up by the Senators.
“We've got to be more physical and dictate more physical play,” center Kyle Turris said.
“We've got to be more physical than we were last night,” right winger Chris Neil said.
At least left winger Colin Greening put it in different terms.
“Honestly, they outhit us,” he said.
The other prevailing theme was special teams play. The Penguins scored a short-handed goal and two power-play goals against a Senators team that led the NHL in penalty kills and thwarted Montreal on 16 of 19 power plays in their first-round series.
“Nothing was really a surprise,” MacLean said. “Their power play was very good. We knew it would be.”
— Bob Cohn
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 â 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.