Denver Post Article on Scott Parker (and his thoughts on Bob Hartley)

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

And I bet if he'd told Barclay Plager that he was a ##### for not playing injured, Bowman would have been fed his lunch.

Again, there is a difference here between enforcement through intimidation, it's quite another to intimidate a player to fight and play injured at the risk of their professional livelihood.

There's a lineup of players who couldn't stand Bowman back in the day. I don't think he ever had a dedicated goon on his team (I can't think of any on the Hab teams he coached). Steve Shutt was famously quoted as saying they hated Scotty for 364 days a year, then they got their Cup rings on the 365th.

[Dion]

I can't believe people are ready to fire Hartley based on one players comments. It would seem to me that we should wait to hear what Hartley has to say before passing judgement.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Dion

I can't believe people are ready to fire Hartley based on one players comments. It would seem to me that we should wait to hear what Hartley has to say before passing judgement.

This is what he said:

No comment

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Dion

I can't believe people are ready to fire Hartley based on one players comments. It would seem to me that we should wait to hear what Hartley has to say before passing judgement.

Hartley really doesn't say anything. He praises the likes of Jackman and Begin to the media (apparently they are "warriors") while Sven is a boy and that the NHL is a man's game.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

"He would call me a (expletive), say that Hershey (the Avs' former minor-league affiliate) would be my next stop, where I'd be 'smelling chocolate fumes all day long.' I remember I thought I had a broken foot and told him about it, and he called me a (expletive) and said Hershey would love me," Parker said. "Nobody needed to question my commitment to doing my job. But I was just constantly belittled by Bob Hartley. I really have no respect for the man."

people are defending this crap?

I don't think anybody is out and out defending it but no one is surprised by it.

[ricardodw]

What young players has Hartley developed in the NHL:

So far I can come up with Tanguay and he didn't ruin Kovalchuck ...... are there any others

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Dion

I can't believe people are ready to fire Hartley based on one players comments. It would seem to me that we should wait to hear what Hartley has to say before passing judgement.

Is that what you think? Really?

Your interpretation of what people are saying is every bit as extreme as what you are accusing people of saying.

People that don't like him are just using this as ammo.

IMO the Flames should address this. Burke is anti bullying and Flames coach is accused of being someone that bullied a player to fight.

[wingmaker]

The NHL is not a development league. It is the highest level. Players develop in junior and in the AHL. That is why NHL teams have affiliated AHL teams, so that they can send their players there to develop. If you are playing in the NHL, than you should be held accountable to the highest level of play that you are capable of. If a player is thrust into the NHL and they fail to grasp the game, than either the organization failed to leave him in the development leagues long enough or the player was simply unable to elevate his play to the highest level. A coach's job is to find the best tools to have the group of players given him to perform to their highest capability. This means putting in systems play, using motivation tactics (such as more or less ice time, video sessions, praise/criticism), etc. Ultimately, if the coach feels a player is not providing the role that he needs to in the lineup, than he will look for other players to fill that role. Because his job is not to develop, it is to demand excellence, because that is the level of the NHL.

[Mango]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

What young players has Hartley developed in the NHL:

So far I can come up with Tanguay and he didn't ruin Kovalchuck ...... are there any others

Chris Drury?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by troutman

Hartley helped Tanguay
http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/05/31...helped-tanguay

“At the time, he was hard on me and now I’m later in my career, I understand what he was trying to do,” Tanguay said about his new head coach with the Calgary Flames.

“I’m appreciative. He gave me that chance out of junior. To be an NHL player, there is a lot of work that needs to be put in. He’s put many hours in to help me be an NHL player.”

So years after they parted, Tanguay would be struggling and he picked up the phone and asked Hartley for advice.

Lol what does this prove? Hartley couldn't even get him to play like he gave a damn last year! Who cares about some random event that may have happened in the past. Hartley is so great an inspirer that Tanguay floated and pouted his way off his team.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

What young players has Hartley developed in the NHL:

So far I can come up with Tanguay and he didn't ruin Kovalchuck ...... are there any others

Hejduk as well comes to mind. Chris Drury, Donovan, Deadmarsh, Skoula also were developed when Hartley was coaching. Vrbata had his rookie season under Hartley and he has turned out a pretty good career.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by habernac

There's a lineup of players who couldn't stand Bowman back in the day. I don't think he ever had a dedicated goon on his team (I can't think of any on the Hab teams he coached). Steve Shutt was famously quoted as saying they hated Scotty for 364 days a year, then they got their Cup rings on the 365th.

It's not about not liking the coach. It's about the coach pulling Keenan-esque character assassinations as some sort of misguided motivational tool, and intimidating players into doing things that have negative consequences for them, short and long term.

I don't know what having a dedicated goon has to do with anything. There's a difference between browbeating and intimidating a player, it's quite another to attack and single them out pressuring them to compete when they don't feel they are able to go.

Think about what we're talking about here. Parker says he thinks his ankle is broken. The coach calls him a #####. This doesn't seem like the type of guy who is constantly complaining about injury, it's a guy who fights for a living. He says 'coach I don't think I can go' because 'my ankle is really hurt' or 'i've had my bell rung (aka, concussion) in the last couple of weeks, I need a couple of days off' and the coach calls him a #####.

In my mind, that is bullshat coaching, and I don't think you can compare it to other more successful coaches as a shield.

[mustache ride]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

I really don't think a coach is responsible for "developing" a player by the time they get to the NHL level. At that point, it is up to the player.

I can understand this line of thought. It's all on the player to reach his potential and receive the awards that come with it. But this isn't the army where you can just wash out the weak and still have an unlimited supply of new talent coming in. There are a finite amount of prospects available to the organization and it only benefits them to make the most out of the prospects they get.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flames89

More surprising is when all of CP became anti-Hartley? This is essentially his first real year.

Last year's team was recognized as virtually uncoachable because of the entitled vets and lack of buy-in. This season is Hartley's first where he's really in charge of the team. Anyone who hasn't noticed an improvement in the effort and attitude of the players on the ice hasn't been paying attention.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's not about not liking the coach. It's about the coach pulling Keenan-esque character assassinations as some sort of misguided motivational tool, and intimidating players into doing things that have negative consequences for them, short and long term.

I don't know what having a dedicated goon has to do with anything. There's a difference between browbeating and intimidating a player, it's quite another to attack and single them out pressuring them to compete when they don't feel they are able to go.

Think about what we're talking about here. Parker says he thinks his ankle is broken. The coach calls him a #####. This doesn't seem like the type of guy who is constantly complaining about injury, it's a guy who fights for a living. He says 'coach I don't think I can go' because 'my ankle is really hurt' or 'i've had my bell rung (aka, concussion) in the last couple of weeks, I need a couple of days off' and the coach calls him a #####.

In my mind, that is bullshat coaching, and I don't think you can compare it to other more successful coaches as a shield.

His points about the coach just attacking the player and publicly humiliating them is an issue, it's a coaching style that has a small shelf life, but Parker's points on injuries need to be thrown out the window. Was his ankle broken, or was he just complaining about a sore ankle, which 95% of players play through cause they know playing on it won't make the injury any worse? You've never heard a coach say suck it up? That's all I'm getting from that quote. If he really had a broken ankle and the coach forced him not to get it checked out, that's a whole other issue, but that's not what Parker said.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Last year's team was recognized as virtually uncoachable because of the entitled vets and lack of buy-in. This season is Hartley's first where he's really in charge of the team. Anyone who hasn't noticed an improvement in the effort and attitude of the players on the ice hasn't been paying attention.

LOL funny how a win makes people forget just how god awful we've been in the defensive zone. Showing effort is fine but like Burke said, there are 3 zones and Hartley couldn't coach his team last year to play in all 3 zones and he has actually been worse this year.

The entitled vet myth is just that, a myth. Iginla has bought in defensively on Boston and was fine in Pittsburgh. Sarich is thriving in Colorado and Bouwmeester in St. Louis. Calgary isn't either one of those teams but teaching defence is the easiest thing to coach and Hartley hasn't been able to coach the Flames defence, young or veterans.

In short, his system sucks and is outdated.

[the_professsor]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

LOL funny how a win makes people forget just how god awful we've been in the defensive zone. Showing effort is fine but like Burke said, there are 3 zones and Hartley couldn't coach his team last year to play in all 3 zones and he has actually been worse this year.

The entitled vet myth is just that, a myth. Iginla has bought in defensively on Boston and was fine in Pittsburgh. Sarich is thriving in Colorado and Bouwmeester in St. Louis. Calgary isn't either one of those teams but teaching defence is the easiest thing to coach and Hartley hasn't been able to coach the Flames defence, young or veterans.

In short, his system sucks and is outdated.

I don't think the poster you responded to was supporting Hartley's system, which I agree is terrible defensively.

He mentioned attitude and effort, which was never there last year for any games. Just a bunch of floaters collecting pay cheques. This team, while lacking lots of skill, is at least fun to watch because they care and they work their asses off. Did anyone expect lots of Ws this season anyway?

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by saillias

I'm not sure you really "get" Burke

His anti-hazing stance shows he's anything but bully.

Good point. I respect Burke for that. However, he also seems to favour the kind of on ice product that Parker is complaining about.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by the_professsor

I don't think the poster you responded to was supporting Hartley's system, which I agree is terrible defensively.

He mentioned attitude and effort, which was never there last year for any games. Just a bunch of floaters collecting pay cheques. This team, while lacking lots of skill, is at least fun to watch because they care and they work their asses off. Did anyone expect lots of Ws this season anyway?

Yes, it was there periodically last season and as well as this season. Effort is a good thing but these guys work hard not smart and only hard in the offensive zone. These guys wouldn't be last in goals against if they were showing effort consistently.

And no one expected wins but we expected this team to compete in all 3 zones. That hasn't happened under Hartley at all.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Hartley really doesn't say anything. He praises the likes of Jackman and Begin to the media (apparently they are "warriors") while Sven is a boy and that the NHL is a man's game.

Jackman and Sven are completely different players filling different roles. We all know you love Sven and he can do no wrong in your eyes but in my opinion he has been terrible since the rookie tournament and has done nothing in the ice to deserve preferential treatment. The flames want to build a culture of winning and have higher expectations for Sven than what he has shown. I have no doubt off ice is playing into this and I think Sven is a bit if a sulker when things are not going for him. I also think he is just learning the pro game and will be totally fine sooner tha later

We all want to have a team full of young superstars but it won't happen overnight. I think Sven will look back at this season in a few years and say he learned a lot about what it takes to be a star at this level. There is no way Hartley is out to get Sven. Look at Monahan and Colborne they are constantly getting praised and I think that is because they are trying to improve in all aspect and soaking up all the knowledge that is being handed down to them. I suspect Sven has not been doing the same