Dan Boyle goes off on Larry Brooks

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Buff

I think Boyle was unprofessional in how he handled his gripes with Brooks. He looks childish. I don't care what your profession is, a hockey player, lawyer, garbage truck driver, doctor, teacher, janitor, IT guy, groundskeeper, etc. etc. That isn't any way to behave. He certainly isn't setting a good example for anybody. He is a professional athlete and and professional athletes have young kids following everything they say and do. The more people like Boyle react in the way he did, the more poor examples are out there for our young kids who are trying to become athletes themselves.

Don't give me the crap that he didn't think it was being recorded either. In this day an age, you're only a couple seconds away from being recorded, especially when you're surrounded by media.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So then why wouldn't it be okay for a journalist to do the same when an athlete is really getting on his nerves? Why are the standards of behaviour higher for one of the partners in the arrangement than the other?

Who is saying it's not? Given the same situation, say, a player or a coach repeatedly trashing a reporter, should the reporter be allowed to react? Of course.

In fact, you could say it works both ways with Brooks. Maybe you don't like the fact that Boyle swore in Brooks' face. Dealing with things face-to-face makes certain people uncomfortable. It is, however, a lot more upstanding than hiding behind a keyboard and trashing someone you don't like over and beyond the call of duty. That's how Brooks gets back at players he doesn't like.

The difference is that Boyle doesn't have a column. If he's going to be petty or childish, he's got few shots. Brook gets to do it daily.

[undercoverbrother]

Is there an article/video that shows what led up to this?

Was Brooks doing something (other than existing and breathing) that bothered Boyle. The Torts v Brooks always seemed to kick off with a question or comment that Torts didn't like.

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

The good ones don't find themselves to be that way, and are certainly needed. Bob McKenzie, Elliott Friedman, Erik Duhatchek and Darren Hayes in Calgary. Thore guys aren't pointless and are needed.

Georgie Johnson, Eric Duhatchek, Stephen Brunt and a few others are absolute appointment reading.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Freeway

Georgie Johnson, Eric Duhatchek, Stephen Brunt and a few others are absolute appointment reading.

They're what? I don't follow.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

They're what? I don't follow.

You make an appointment to read them. IE, set aside time for it.

[Robbob]

make sure you make time for them is what I gather from that.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Who is saying it's not? Given the same situation, say, a player or a coach repeatedly trashing a reporter, should the reporter be allowed to react? Of course.

In fact, you could say it works both ways with Brooks. Maybe you don't like the fact that Boyle swore in Brooks' face. Dealing with things face-to-face makes certain people uncomfortable. It is, however, a lot more upstanding than hiding behind a keyboard and trashing someone you don't like over and beyond the call of duty. That's how Brooks gets back at players he doesn't like.

The difference is that Boyle doesn't have a column. If he's going to be petty or childish, he's got few shots. Brook gets to do it daily.

Telling someone to Eff Off isn't dealing with things face to face and certainly not any better than "hiding behind a keyboard".
Dealing with things face to face would be engaing in an actual discussion.

Again - would love to see examples of what Brooks actually wrote about Boyle. For all the discussion and support of Boyle, no one has produced that. So seems like people are taking Boyle's side just because they dont' like Brooks.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Telling someone to Eff Off isn't dealing with things face to face and certainly not any better than "hiding behind a keyboard".
Dealing with things face to face would be engaing in an actual discussion.

Again - would love to see examples of what Brooks actually wrote about Boyle. For all the discussion and support of Boyle, no one has produced that. So seems like people are taking Boyle's side just because they dont' like Brooks.

It's posted on the second page.

Although my guess is Boyle's frustration stems less from one article and more from having to deal with Brooks on a daily basis, having him be an ass once again after a playoff loss (when everyone is pissed off), and so he's finally had enough and tells him to GTFO.

Can't remember what you do Jiri, but lets say you have regular interaction with the media, and there's this one person who constantly bashes you and your teammates over and over, and is a condescending prick in real life. And they come to you on the worst day of the year to ask you some more condescending questions. Is it not within your right to tell them to pound sand? I'm not answering any of your questions.

There are better things Boyle could have done to get the message across (and maybe has before), but that doesn't change the message. GTFO. That's all.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Telling someone to Eff Off isn't dealing with things face to face and certainly not any better than "hiding behind a keyboard".
Dealing with things face to face would be engaing in an actual discussion.

Again - would love to see examples of what Brooks actually wrote about Boyle. For all the discussion and support of Boyle, no one has produced that. So seems like people are taking Boyle's side just because they dont' like Brooks.

I searched and the only thing I could find was some real good stats Brooks posted about how bad Boyle was producing on the pp, but he wasn't overly mean about it either.

Maybe some old beef when he was with Tampa?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Again - would love to see examples of what Brooks actually wrote about Boyle. For all the discussion and support of Boyle, no one has produced that. So seems like people are taking Boyle's side just because they dont' like Brooks.

TBH I don't know (outside of the couple things mentioned in this thread), and don't actually care. I've seen enough of Brooks over the past 2-3 years that he could have said nothing about Boyle at all and I would still take Boyle's side.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. An attack on my team is still an attack on me, I imagine a lot of hockey players take it the same. What Brooks did or didn't say specifically about Boyle is irrelevant. Brooks has an incredibly well established (and negative) reputation.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by MattyC

It's posted on the second page.

Although my guess is Boyle's frustration stems less from one article and more from having to deal with Brooks on a daily basis, having him be an ass once again after a playoff loss (when everyone is pissed off), and so he's finally had enough and tells him to GTFO.

Can't remember what you do Jiri, but lets say you have regular interaction with the media, and there's this one person who constantly bashes you and your teammates over and over, and is a condescending prick in real life. And they come to you on the worst day of the year to ask you some more condescending questions. Is it not within your right to tell them to pound sand? I'm not answering any of your questions.

There are better things Boyle could have done to get the message across (and maybe has before), but that doesn't change the message. GTFO. That's all.

If that's all Brooks wrote than I fail to see how he crosed the line.
We all deal with pricks in our jobs. I would never react like Boyle did. It is unprofessional and would probably get me fired.
Boyle is a millionaire who gets paid big bucks to play a game. He needs to put on his big boy pants and act like an adult.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

TBH I don't know (outside of the couple things mentioned in this thread), and don't actually care. I've seen enough of Brooks over the past 2-3 years that he could have said nothing about Boyle at all and I would still take Boyle's side.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. An attack on my team is still an attack on me, I imagine a lot of hockey players take it the same. What Brooks did or didn't say specifically about Boyle is irrelevant. Brooks has an incredibly well established (and negative) reputation.

So basically you admit you had a pre-existing opinion on Brooks that you are using to form your opinion on this interaction.
I think that's a bad way to evaluate the situation, but it really is up to you.

If Boyle has played like crud, why can't Brooks say he played like crud?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

So basically you admit you had a pre-existing opinion on Brooks that you are using to form your opinion on this interaction.

I think that's a bad way to evaluate the situation, but it really is up to you.



If Boyle has played like crud, why can't Brooks say he played like crud?

If nobody likes and respects Brooks in that locker room, why can't Boyle says nobody likes and respects Brooks in that locker room?

[Robbob]

The more I think about it, the more I think this is Boyle taking that parting shot to an individual he and many of his teammates think is an ass. Definitely not the professional thing to do but being at the end of his career could something that many teammates would applaud him for because they can't do it or won't do it publically.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If nobody likes and respects Brooks in that locker room, why can't Boyle says nobody likes and respects Brooks in that locker room?

He can - but he didn't exactly say that in a professional way.
Frankly he can also tell him to F off if he wants, I just think it reflects poorly on him. Just because people CAN do something doesn't mean they should.
Boyle is also making it personal, attacking Brooks as a person, instead of just criticizing his work. Has Brooks attacked Boyle as a person, or have has his commentary been restricted to his play? That's an important question.

[rohara66]

Seems like this Brett character is a really swell guy....

Brett Cyrgalis ‎@BrettCyrgalis
Response to Dan Boyle? I did my job. Not sure he ever did his.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If nobody likes and respects Brooks in that locker room, why can't Boyle says nobody likes and respects Brooks in that locker room?

Well Brooks' fellow reporters don't seem too happy with what Boyle did either. Notice how not one cracked a smile and some even left the scrum?

So maybe the players don't like him but I guess he does have the respect of his peers?

[KootenayFlamesFan]

It was a last parting shot from Boyle, so I get that. But I think he comes off looking pretty bad. And I'm not a fan of Brooks' at all. The Stralman/Boyle comment was actually bang on

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Well Brooks' fellow reporters don't seem too happy with what Boyle did either. Notice how not one cracked a smile and some even left the scrum?

So maybe the players don't like him but I guess he does have the respect of his peers?

The idea that a player can refuse to talk to a reporter or ask that a reporter be removed - is not something that other members of the media would be fans of, regardless of how they feel about Brooks and his work.
Poor 'ol Stan Fischler looked pretty uncomfortable.