GDT: Stickpuck Duel: "Meet the New Boss, (Please be better than) the Old Boss"

[NotOpie]

Komesarek sighting incoming....three, two, one....

 

[StormCast]

Huh? I didn't read anything into your comment, I took them at face value and my point is still the same. Your view is that he's not mentoring/grooming the young defensemen and my point is that you (and I) see maybe 5% or less, of all of the time Faulk interacts with these guys. None of us are on the plane, in the bus, in the lockerroom, on the ice, etc... I'm not saying Faulk is a good leader or mentor, just that none of us know for sure as we aren't seeing 95%+ of it. We all have the right to form an opinion, but an opinion without enough data is suspect at best and none of us really have enough data.



Sure it does. The initial statement that started this whole line of talk was that Faulk has always done better with a more stabilizing partner (paraphrasing). Nothing to do with Peters as even Gleason was mentioned. You then, in my view, took a leap in saying that he shouldn't be a C because he is more in need of a veteran mentor than having the capacity to be one. My point being that because a guy that does better with a more stabilizing partner has no bearing on his leadership / mentoring ability, thus why the EK example is indeed relevant. BP is irrelevant in this context.

Funny how you tried to give examples based on what you heard or saw on how he was a leader and when I do something along the same lines to support my opinion, it doesn't matter because nobody really knows? No, the EK point is wholly irrelevant because it's how Faulk's coach uses him and decided he needed to share the captaincy. It has nothing to do with Ottawa.

Anyway, I've clarified and cavaeted my position enough and explained it goes beyond just pairings (though yes that's where the convo started) so it should be clear by now. So you disagree? Fine but you just seem to revel in continuing an argument. That's fine too but I'm on to other things.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Oh that's classic. You keep responding to me, Rod, geehaad, etc... but I'm the one that seems to revel in continuing an argument.

That's fine though. Time to move on.

 

[StormCast]

Oh that's classic. You keep responding to me, Rod, geehaad, etc... but I'm the one that seems to revel in continuing an argument.

That's fine though. Time to move on.

No, the difference being that I was trying to correct for the record what I actually wrote whereas you just clearly wanted to argue for the sake of arguing to try and prove yourself right even as contradicted yourself. I made it clear it was my opinion but that wasn't good enough as you tried to prove subjective observations. But whatever. Feel free to get the last word and we'll button it up.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Sure, you were only explaining yourself and correcting the record.

And to be clear, I never contradicted myself. My point is, and has been from the start that none of us are there with them to know if he's a good mentor or not. I gave some examples of things I've heard that could be construed as mentoring/leadership, not to say that he is a good mentor, but to show that those are only small snippets of information that could just as easily say he is a good mentor as the reasons you say he isn't. I clearly stated from the start that neither you, nor I are in the locker room, on the ice, to be able to make a fair judgement of his mentoring. I've been consistent in that point all along. If you think that's contradicting myself, then you either misread, misunderstood, or purposely read into something that you wanted to just to try and make a point.