Stickytape said:
Potvin29 said:
Stickytape said:
I've been catching up on the 24/7 episodes, and man, Carlyle's coaching style is pretty disappointing up close, too. It's low on detail, and high on shouting platitudes. He doesn't seem to know how to encourage, only how to threaten. Maybe I'm biased because I don't respond well to that style of command, but it left me pretty cold. I'd rather play for a guy like Babcock.
Carlyle came across as a bit uncomfortable on camera, though, so it's hard to say if that's what he's really like. When he wasn't pissed off he was quiet, laughed nervously, or made weak jokes that mostly fell flat on the floor. I cringed a lot on his behalf.
It's mostly too hard to say from that alone, since it's edited and presented how HBO wants it so things can be out of context or they can present only a fraction of what goes on.
In the "Should Lupul be Captain?" thread you told me to go watch Phaneuf's leadership style by watching the 24/7 episodes. Now, in this thread, the 24/7 episodes aren't a very good indicator of Carlyle's coaching style because they're edited by HBO. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Don't misrepresent what I said.
I never said go watch his leadership style from 24/7. You made a comment that you don't see Phaneuf talking to the players. I said to watch it and see that he does say things to the other players. I then stated that they were just clips of what HBO chose to show and that it was likely others spoke up as well but we just didn't get to see it. AKA, we aren't getting the full, unedited view. I never said it was a good indicator or poor indicator of his leadership style, simply that it showed him talking to the guys.
And, again, I never said that the 24/7 episodes are or are not a very good indicator of Carlyle's coaching style, but that it is too difficult to reach the conclusions you are reaching (low on detail, high on shouting) simply from what HBO chose to show us. Maybe they only showed the shouting bits and left out the detail bits.
I never made any further insinuations that either situation was a strong indicator of anything and they were simply responses to specific, limited instances you brought up.