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

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

So what were you saying? Because looking back on what you said I still stand by my point.

I said there is a difference between the two. I never said I was shocked by it.

The quoted poster attacked the player and implied he was stupid for complaining about being bullied because (according to the poster) he was a bully on the ice.

I pointed out that those are two different things. Pretty straight-forward.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

If you have a problem with players playing hurt or feeling they are forced to play through some injuries then you have a problem with the NHL as a whole, not Bob Hartley.

There is an expectation of playing through the pain throughout the NHL, for sure. Generally I have loathed that enforced machismo for years. It is admirable when a player plays through hardship in order to achieve a goal. It's loathsome to have a player's character questioned when they are otherwise injured as if anything trumps their own self-preservation. Like hazing, I'm glad that culture is changing.

Generally when a fighter crosses that threshold to tell the coaching staff or management that he's unable to meet those expectations, it's a sign he shouldn't be playing. Frankly it's an alarming sign, generally, for that type of player. Look at Boogaard.

[mikeecho]

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.

A good many of his assistant coaches couldn't stand him either from a few I have talked to. Ask Mike Krushelnyski about Scotty Bowman and you'll get a verbal tirade with constant repetition of the c-word. He isn't even discreet about his hate for the man.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I said there is a difference between the two. I never said I was shocked by it.

The quoted poster attacked the player and implied he was stupid for complaining about being bullied because (according to the poster) he was a bully on the ice.

I pointed out that those are two different things. Pretty straight-forward.

Okay, I get what you were trying to say. I just don't agree that what Parker was saying = bullying in the same sense of the word for the NHL.

Like FlashWalken says though, it's terrible that the culture of the league is like that, where it's acceptable and encouraged to hide your injuries, but at the same time, there are plenty of injuries that players could complain about that you should be able to play through (sore ankle is definitely one of them).

I think what Parker wrote is pretty ridiculous and whiny, so that's probably why I'm a little more defensive about this than I should be. The point I tried to make with that last post was just that what he said Hartley did was hardly bullying compared to what an NHL coach could actually do to bully someone, in fact what Hartley did seems more the norm of the NHL than the exception.

[OzSome]

Why is everyone keeps saying Burke should fire Hartley? The reason I am asking is, are we forgetting Jay Feaster is the General Manager of Calgary Flames and not Brian Burke. You guys were ticked off when you guys thought Ken King and the owner was meddling on Flames hockey business but it is okay for Brian Burke to meddle with Feaster's business? I think Brian Burke been in the NHL for a long time that he will go over Feaster's decision. This is still Feaster's team and Burke's job is to give him advice and not to do the firing of coaches or trading players.

As far as Hartley is concerned, I am still not sure about him. I am still not in favour of him constantly sitting out young players. Tough love my bu%t. If Feaster gets rid of Hartley, I wouldn't mind Marty Gelinas picking up the slack rather hiring a rethread head coaches.

[Johnny Rotten]

It's a condemning article for sure, but Hartley does seem to have a good relationship with Patrick Roy. They seem to communicate with each other:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=671883

When Roy moved on to coach the Quebec Remparts in the QMJHL, he and Hartley often would discuss strategy.

"We would spend hours," Hartley said. "He would send me clips of his team over the Internet and we would get on the phone. I'd have my computer with these clips in front of me, he'd have his clips in front of him. We'd say 'Go' and we would watch the clips and I'd tell him, 'Stop and rewind and where are you on your counter?' All kinds of stuff. He would ask me, 'Why does that happen?' or 'What do you think?'

Okay, Scott Parker doesn't respect him, with good reason, but it seems Patrick Roy-and his four Stanley Cups-does.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

I am all for being tough, riding guys that make mistakes, etc.....just as long as there is the "love" part of "tough love" occurring also. We all know that motivational feeling of getting ripped for something, making up for it, and getting praise afterwards.

Who knows really how he is handling the praise part of it.

Wasn't that the reason they hired Martin Gelinas to be the buffer guy. I am not too concerned at least he doesn't call his players out in public too much and he does show praise when they do play well. I think Hartley could be more of a button pusher when it comes to hockey but he has shown that he was supportive and behind the players when the dads came on board.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by OzSome

Why is everyone keeps saying Burke should fire Hartley? The reason I am asking is, are we forgetting Jay Feaster is the General Manager of Calgary Flames and not Brian Burke. You guys were ticked off when you guys thought Ken King and the owner was meddling on Flames hockey business but it is okay for Brian Burke to meddle with Feaster's business? I think Brian Burke been in the NHL for a long time that he will go over Feaster's decision. This is still Feaster's team and Burke's job is to give him advice and not to do the firing of coaches or trading players.

As far as Hartley is concerned, I am still not sure about him. I am still not in favour of him constantly sitting out young players. Tough love my bu%t. If Feaster gets rid of Hartley, I wouldn't mind Marty Gelinas picking up the slack rather hiring a rethread head coaches.

Yes.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by OzSome

Why is everyone keeps saying Burke should fire Hartley? The reason I am asking is, are we forgetting Jay Feaster is the General Manager of Calgary Flames and not Brian Burke. You guys were ticked off when you guys thought Ken King and the owner was meddling on Flames hockey business but it is okay for Brian Burke to meddle with Feaster's business? I think Brian Burke been in the NHL for a long time that he will go over Feaster's decision. This is still Feaster's team and Burke's job is to give him advice and not to do the firing of coaches or trading players.

As far as Hartley is concerned, I am still not sure about him. I am still not in favour of him constantly sitting out young players. Tough love my bu%t. If Feaster gets rid of Hartley, I wouldn't mind Marty Gelinas picking up the slack rather hiring a rethread head coaches.

Hartley should not be fired. However, Brian Burke's job is to meddle with Feaster's business. The Flames created a Hockey Operations role for that very reason, and went out and hired a qualified hockey guy to do it.

Something KK and the Owners are not qualified to do. Not that I think KK was meddling.

[Buck Murdock]

Wouldn't the medical staff have the final say if Parker was ready to play or not? if he was cleared, Hartley has every right to insist he plays (his role - fights)

[Flamescat]

I think a town that smells like chocolate all day wouldn't be so bad.. Maybe that's why Hartley went to Switzerland eventually..

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by nik-

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.

Joining in on this fun... clearly if Sven/Backlund weren't struggling, this isn't a story. But when our crown jewel of a pick, who a few years ago was an enthusiastic player eager to learn suddenly has a attitude problem? Then yeah, Scott Parker's comments are a match - not the fuel. Is Hartley supposed to be some sort of great teacher? There was no interest for almost a decade for him, and the justification for him being a great teacher of "tough love" is the guy who actually cried and sulked his way off the Flames not once, but twice. Uh huh....

Granted, 2 great stories above (Patrick Roy, the Hitman practise) that give me some faith... but Scott Parker's comments, no matter how big of a plug he is, doesn't really help Hartleys case of being a great teacher as long as Sven/Backlund aren't developing.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Flamescat

I think a town that smells like chocolate all day wouldn't be so bad.. Maybe that's why Hartley went to Switzerland eventually..

That would be pretty funny if after Sven benchings and the Flames subsequently losing, Sven walks by and goes "I smell chocolate..."

[Redrum]

Not too surprising about Hartley, I remember hearing things like this when he was in ATL. But I hate how these guys act like they were forced into this like it's dog fighting or something. As far as actually playing hockey goes, my 5 year old nephew could skate circles around this guy. He should be grateful he got a few NHL paychecks. Go sell insurance or something if you can't handle it.

[CaptainCrunch]

there is too much wrong for me to put a lot of faith in Parker's story, it sounds like bitter burnt ashes.

If a player goes to a coach and says I have a broken foot, I want to see if they can corroborate that with the medical staff at the time, if the medical staff says yeah Parker had a broken foot and we told Hartley who insisted that he play then absolutely we can go to town on the guy.

As far as the if you don't fight then your going to Hershey. Well that makes sense because its not like Parker had anything else to offer the team at the time, again if there is good reporting to be had, then the reporters need to go to the medical staff at the time and confirm that Parker had been diagnosed with these concussion issues and that he couldn't be cleared and that the coach knew.

We're burying Hartley based on something that Parker who was a worthless player and took a lot of liberties with other players has to say.

If some kind of proof came out that Hartley knew he was hurt and the medical staff had told them that he couldn't play and Hartley pushed them, then fine blast away.

Until then Parker has very little credibility in this story.

Beyond the fact that he was a absolutely filthy player who liked nothing better then to take liberties with other players.

So far we've had other players like Roy and Tanguay etc come out and say entirely good things about Hartley, but those tend to get ignored because either they're not sexy, or because it doesn't back up some peoples hatred of the Calgary Flames head coach.

[ynwa03]

I don't get this point of view that Roy and other players have good things to say about Hartley so, therefore, anything Scott Parker has to say is not relevant.

To compare Roy's view of Hartley to Parker's is totally pointless. Roy was a superstar goalkeeper and Parker was a tough guy used to intimidate the other team. Do you think Hartley would ever in his wildest dreams tell Roy that he might end up in Hershey after a bad game? Why not? Because you probably can't replace Roy like you can a plug. You can't single out a player and call him names because you can replace him.

What I don't like about this is the way Parker claims Hartley spoke to him. I don't care if you are Wayne Gretzky or Scott Parker, a coach should not be belittling you by calling you names and forcing you to fight.

People need to read the article, because Parker specifically says he is not in any lawsuit and knew then, and knows now the consequences of fighting. He is still pro-fighting. The problem is the kind of language Hartley used and the way in which Parker claims he was treated. I know some will say 'suck it up' and 'it happens all the time' but if Parker was your son you probably would think twice before ragging on the guy. It doesn't seem to me like he really wants anything out of this. Not to mention the negative affects this kind of thing would have in the dressing room.

Something just seems off about Hartley and this kind of stuff coming out doesn't help.

[FBI]

Living near Hershey pa, I can tell you that it does indeed smell like chocolate there when you walk around downtown.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

I don't get this point of view that Roy and other players have good things to say about Hartley so, therefore, anything Scott Parker has to say is not relevant.

It's hard to call any player's opinion relevant or irrelevant. Coaches by nature are in a polarizing position. They actively make decisions that directly affect how a player is used, how a player is perceived, and can ultimately make or break careers depending on what stage you had them and how you as a person react to their style. No matter who the coach is, if he's Scotty Bowman or John Tortorella, some player somewhere loves him and some player somewhere hates him.

Just the way it is. Sounds like Hartley was a little on the harsh side of things, but that was also 10+ years ago. How much have you changed in 10 years? Are there people you've worked with to whom you have said regrettable things?

[strombad]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

I don't get this point of view that Roy and other players have good things to say about Hartley so, therefore, anything Scott Parker has to say is not relevant.

To compare Roy's view of Hartley to Parker's is totally pointless. Roy was a superstar goalkeeper and Parker was a tough guy used to intimidate the other team. Do you think Hartley would ever in his wildest dreams tell Roy that he might end up in Hershey after a bad game? Why not? Because you probably can't replace Roy like you can a plug. You can't single out a player and call him names because you can replace him.

What I don't like about this is the way Parker claims Hartley spoke to him. I don't care if you are Wayne Gretzky or Scott Parker, a coach should not be belittling you by calling you names and forcing you to fight.

People need to read the article, because Parker specifically says he is not in any lawsuit and knew then, and knows now the consequences of fighting. He is still pro-fighting. The problem is the kind of language Hartley used and the way in which Parker claims he was treated. I know some will say 'suck it up' and 'it happens all the time' but if Parker was your son you probably would think twice before ragging on the guy. It doesn't seem to me like he really wants anything out of this. Not to mention the negative affects this kind of thing would have in the dressing room.

Something just seems off about Hartley and this kind of stuff coming out doesn't help.

But coming from a player that was known throughout his career as a dirty bully? Rings a little hollow either way.

Roy and Tanguay both liked him, Parker didn't. It's all irrelevant, but if you're going to make one statement relevant you have to take into the account of the others. Parker was always a punk, and would have had no career at all were he not a tough guy. Tanguay however? Neither of those things, and still found a fit with Hartley.

Not that this matters at all, but how do people think Roy talks to his players? or Torts? What do you think will happen if MacT steps behind the bench? We've all heard those guys go off plenty of times, you think they get nicer in the locker room? The way Hartley carries himself is commonplace in the NHL. This is not some shocking revelation, nor should it be treated as such. The locker room is a hard place with unfiltered speech. There have been countless coaches who have an edge to them, but for a player to come out and say he was bullied? Ridiculous.

Just look at the Miami Dolphons situation, with pretty much everyone turning on the guy who came out and said he was bullied. That situation is MUCH worse than this one. This is basic, run of the mill stuff.

If there is one thing we can, for an absolute fact surmise from this article, is that Hartley (at least once) treated a dirty player with an attitude poorly. No other assumptions can or should be made. Hell, he's told Grats, Jackman, and possibly Bouma not to fight. Doesn't really match up with the man Parker makes him out to be.

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by MattyC

It's hard to call any player's opinion relevant or irrelevant. Coaches by nature are in a polarizing position. They actively make decisions that directly affect how a player is used, how a player is perceived, and can ultimately make or break careers depending on what stage you had them and how you as a person react to their style. No matter who the coach is, if he's Scotty Bowman or John Tortorella, some player somewhere loves him and some player somewhere hates him.

Just the way it is. Sounds like Hartley was a little on the harsh side of things, but that was also 10+ years ago. How much have you changed in 10 years? Are there people you've worked with to whom you have said regrettable things?

I agree with the first paragraph.

The second paragraph is just assumption and the only way I can answer it is with assumptions. How much does an NHL coach change over the course of 10 years and how much can a coaching style be compared to my own personal development over the last 10 years? I can tell you about my own personal experiences, and no I have never insulted any co-workers or treated them in a manner comparable to what Parker is saying, but I understand your point.
My answer to your question would be that personality wise, Hartley probably hasn't changed drastically over the course of the last 10 years, but that's my opinion and based on assumptions.