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

[Leo]

Eventually it will be Troy ward but u can't believe everything one guy says about someone
Bob Hartley from what ive seen n heard seems like a good guy

[FAN]

The presence of "bullying" can be pretty subjective when we're dealing with adults. If you're the boss, would you fire your manager for yelling at an employee for bad job performance even if it's in front of others? I wouldn't. I would give him/her a warning if he starts calling an employee a ##### or a bitch because that crosses the line in most workplaces, but in the locker room of a professional sports team?

I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a coach who has never belittled a player. Find me a good NHL coach who has never chewed out a player. All you can expect is that the coach is generally fair and doesn't sinisterly pick on players whose career he knows he can ruin.

With that said, is Hartley the type of guy who would pick on players whose careers he knows he can ruin? Does he force a player to play hurt? Is he fair to young players and is consistent in his demands or does he take pleasure in playing with their minds? Regardless, why bother even defending Hartley. If he's here he's here and he likely won't be here long enough to do significant damage given he wasn't Burke's hire. Quite frankly, if Burke thinks there's a better coach out there for this team, let Burke go out and get a replacement.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by fotze

I've talked to enforcer types who never even made near the NHL. There are a lot of them. They will tell you that it was a certain coach that decided your fate. One day you loved hockey and worked on your game like everyone else, then you the coach tells you are a fighter and you can't do anything about it. I think these dinosaurs will soon die off. I don't think I mind the fighting in the NHL as much as the fighters.

I agree with the anti-bullying message you want to send, but at the end of the day, it comes down to receiving good advice. Ya a lot of kids want to grow up to be astronauts or professional hockey players, but there comes a time when you stop telling them everything is possible and tell them that they will never be what they want to be. I see nothing wrong with a coach telling a player he should consider turning himself into a grinder or enforcer type if that's honest advice. And by the time a player is an adult, I don't even see a problem with a coach bluntly telling a player he needs to fight and be an enforcer or he won't stay in the lineup, especially by the time they become professional hockey players. Professional hockey is a job. If you can't perform the job someone else will. As long as fighting is part of the game, that's reasonably part of the job requirements for certain players.

Take 6'5" 230 pounds guys like Scott Parker and Tom Sestito, guys who have scored 30 goals in a season in juniors so they have a modicum of skill. Their NHL and AHL coach takes a look at their game and tells them that the only way they will make it to the NHL and stay in the lineup is to be an enforcer and fight. Do you want these coaches fired? Sometimes the truth hurts. But those coaches have, for all intents and purposes, given the players some golden advice. As much as I don't like Hartley, I'm not going to crucify him if he tells McGratton that if he's not going to protect his teammates out there he's going to find his way back to the AHL.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Hells Bells

I can't believe some people actually think Hartley should be fired for this.

What's next? Put Monahan on waivers because some random kid says he beat him up and stole his lunch money 6 years ago.

I think Hartley should be fired after the season for coaching the Flames to two of their worst seasons in franchise history and the worst defensive Flames team in history. I don't understand how some of you give him a free pass because of the roster when the team defense has been a complete embarrassment for two seasons. If you guys think this is a way to bring young players into the league you are very wrong. The next coach it going to be burdened like Brent Sutter having to break bad habits and teach defensive structure all over again further stunting team growth. The perennial bad teams are usually the ones that can't keep the puck out of their nets not the ones that have trouble scoring.

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I think Hartley should be fired after the season for coaching the Flames to two of their worst seasons in franchise history and the worst defensive Flames team in history. I don't understand how some of you give him a free pass because of the roster when the team defense has been a complete embarrassment for two seasons. If you guys think this is a way to bring young players into the league you are very wrong. The next coach it going to be burdened like Brent Sutter having to break bad habits and teach defensive structure all over again further stunting team growth. The perennial bad teams are usually the ones that can't keep the puck out of their nets not the ones that have trouble scoring.

this thread is about having him fired for giving a player 10 yrs ago (?) a little tough love not about this season or last.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by trublmaker

this thread is about having him fired for giving a player 10 yrs ago (?) a little tough love not about this season or last.

I don't think anyone really thinks (I hope at least) that Hartley should be fired for something Parker said and Baertschi probably lives but he still should be fired for being simply a bad NHL coach.

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't think anyone really thinks (I hope at least) that Hartley should be fired for something Parker said and Baertschi probably lives but he still should be fired for being simply a bad NHL coach.

read some of the ridiculous comments. As far as a bad coach I'll give him more than a half season and see where this goes, if it fails I'm sure Burke will make changes.

[moon]

Originally Posted by trublmaker

read some of the ridiculous comments. As far as a bad coach I'll give him more than a half season and see where this goes, if it fails I'm sure Burke will make changes.

I have read the thread and haven't seen anyone say that they supported him before this and now think he should be fired based on this alone. I could have missed them though.

What most that want him fired are saying in this is another tick in negative column and along with many other reasons is why he should be fired.

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by moon

I have read the thread and haven't seen anyone say that they supported him before this and now think he should be fired based on this alone. I could have missed them though.

What most that want him fired are saying in this is another tick in negative column and along with many other reasons is why he should be fired.

Your right here, there is a definite line between haters and supporters and that line isn't crossed. Just more ammo for the haters I guess.

[2macinnis2]

One thing I'm surprised no one has commented on is the fact Parker isn't taking part in the concussion lawsuit (for now at least). The article cites his recognition of the risks prior to playing the game, which I think most athletes with an ounce of common sense would probably admit if truth were actually being told.

If Parker stays true to his word, and remains out of this lawsuit, I think it adds a lot to his credibility and probably accountability. He stands to gain monetarily by coming off of a fairly noble platform (given the way at least American society currently approaches lawsuits). He gains nothing really by slamming Hartley. Hartley isn't the only coach Parker ever played under. Yet Hartley is the one he chooses to single out for egregious behavior, again with no obvious primary gain to him for doing so.

Personally, I find what happened here, if Parker is telling the truth, to be worse than the case of Martin-Incognito. Obviously Incognito used red flag language, but one has to somewhat accept that in today's word locker room talk includes that stuff, even with guys who get along. Martin and Incognito were texting back and forth even after this incident. Incognito is a bad dude and that was a bad situation, but Martin was a high draft pick and arguably had more value to the team long-term. If he decided to beat Incognito's face in at some point, or just give it back to him, there probably wasn't going to be severe repercussions to his livelihood. Incognito didn't control Martin's job.

On the other hand, Hartley's "bullying" of Parker is totally reprehensible on all levels. As Parker said, Hartley had full authority, total control over Parker's livelihood. It wasn't a fair fight. Threatening him with demotion (with significant financial repercussions) to play and fight with disregard and despite risk of a pre-existing injury is brutal, frankly. If that is commonplace in the NHL and hockey coaching, shame on these losers.

It seems like this story will likely fly under the radar. It shouldn't. I'm pretty sure the anti-bullying contingent would have a field day with this if it ever hit more main steam media, particularly in the US.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't think anyone really thinks (I hope at least) that Hartley should be fired for something Parker said and Baertschi probably lives but he still should be fired for being simply a bad NHL coach.

If we can agree on something, I expect Baertschi to live too.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by 2macinnis2

One thing I'm surprised no one has commented on is the fact Parker isn't taking part in the concussion lawsuit (for now at least). The article cites his recognition of the risks prior to playing the game, which I think most athletes with an ounce of common sense would probably admit if truth were actually being told.

If Parker stays true to his word, and remains out of this lawsuit, I think it adds a lot to his credibility and probably accountability. He stands to gain monetarily by coming off of a fairly noble platform (given the way at least American society currently approaches lawsuits). He gains nothing really by slamming Hartley. Hartley isn't the only coach Parker ever played under. Yet Hartley is the one he chooses to single out for egregious behavior, again with no obvious primary gain to him for doing so.

Personally, I find what happened here, if Parker is telling the truth, to be worse than the case of Martin-Incognito. Obviously Incognito used red flag language, but one has to somewhat accept that in today's word locker room talk includes that stuff, even with guys who get along. Martin and Incognito were texting back and forth even after this incident. Incognito is a bad dude and that was a bad situation, but Martin was a high draft pick and arguably had more value to the team long-term. If he decided to beat Incognito's face in at some point, or just give it back to him, there probably wasn't going to be severe repercussions to his livelihood. Incognito didn't control Martin's job.

On the other hand, Hartley's "bullying" of Parker is totally reprehensible on all levels. As Parker said, Hartley had full authority, total control over Parker's livelihood. It wasn't a fair fight. Threatening him with demotion (with significant financial repercussions) to play and fight with disregard and despite risk of a pre-existing injury is brutal, frankly. If that is commonplace in the NHL and hockey coaching, shame on these losers.

It seems like this story will likely fly under the radar. It shouldn't. I'm pretty sure the anti-bullying contingent would have a field day with this if it ever hit more main steam media, particularly in the US.

You start off with "if", then pile on the assumptions from there. Your choice. But did I miss the part where Hartley was GM and actually had "total control"?

[FAN]

Originally Posted by the2bears

But did I miss the part where Hartley was GM and actually had "total control"?

Not sure the point you're trying to make. But I think it's a fair assumption to make that coaches traditionally have more authority or leeway to determine who is in the lineup than the GM. I seriously doubt Lacroix would have gotten in the way of Hartley not dressing Parker or even wanting to send him down. So in reality, Hartley did have close to total control over Parker's NHL career at that point in time that Parker alluded to.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by FAN

Not sure the point you're trying to make. But I think it's a fair assumption to make that coaches traditionally have more authority or leeway to determine who is in the lineup than the GM. I seriously doubt Lacroix would have gotten in the way of Hartley not dressing Parker or even wanting to send him down. So in reality, Hartley did have close to total control over Parker's NHL career at that point in time that Parker alluded to.

The point is pretty clear: Hartley didn't have total control. How much actual control is debatable, and I agree his influence would have been very strong, but the final decisions weren't his.

This is, though, just one item in the the list being used to condemn Hartley here, all based on one person's story.

[Huntingwhale]

[MissTeeks]

News Talk 770 Stamps‏@Newstalkstamps6m

Bob Hartley says he is a 'demanding' coach but never bullied anyone. Responds to Scott Parker allegations in Denver Post.

[2macinnis2]

Originally Posted by the2bears

The point is pretty clear: Hartley didn't have total control. How much actual control is debatable, and I agree his influence would have been very strong, but the final decisions weren't his.

This is, though, just one item in the the list being used to condemn Hartley here, all based on one person's story.

In a non-star player's eyes, especially a rookie fighter, a coach pretty much owns you. You honestly think Parker is differentiating at that point who sits higher on the personnel hierarchy, LaCroix or Hartley?

Interestingly, I just had lunch with a colleague of mine who played ~3 seasons as a special teamer in the NFL after entering as an undrafted free agent rookie. I told him the Parker story and he was able to counter with a very similar situation he went through with an NFL head coach who I would say is of similar ilk or quality as Hartley (has had playoff success but probably not that great a coach, currently out of the NFL). He hates that coach to this day, and said that this was unfortunately somewhat a pervasive attitude, but some guys went about it as bigger pricks than others. Hartley seems to fit that mold, and again, I think Parker's abstinence from the concussion lawsuit buys him a lot of credibility in this instance.

It's possible for Hartley to be a great hockey coach and still do stuff like this. It's arguable based on some of the issues we're seeing with some key young players like Sven and Backlund. More than anything else, stuff like this just makes you a prick, and I don't think it should be acceptable.

[MissTeeks]

Kristen Odland‏@KristenOdlandCH1m

Flames coach Bob Hartley on Scott Parker's comments: "All coaches...we set expectations. We create standards. There's not a player I've coached that I didn't try to make better. I've never bullied anyone. I can be a demanding coach. But I want the best for my players."

[wingmaker]

Originally Posted by 2macinnis2

Personally, I find what happened here, if Parker is telling the truth, to be worse than the case of Martin-Incognito.

You know, even if Hartley is guilty of using bad language and belittling this player, the above comment is just ridiculous and is not alright.

Death threats, racially derogatory language, threats of violence and hate are not comparable to a coach threatening to demote a player, even if he did use colourful language.

[mustache ride]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

You know, even if Hartley is guilty of using bad language and belittling this player, the above comment is just ridiculous and is not alright.

Death threats, racially derogatory language, threats of violence and hate are not comparable to a coach threatening to demote a player, even if he did use colourful language.

In a general sense, is there a difference between these two when one is allegedly peer to peer and the other involves a person in a position of power?