I get what he's saying here. However, I want to contend with a few points:
When he's referring to compound movements not being the most effective at creating an asthetic physique, you have to first consider what is asthetic to people. Take me for example. My arms are not very big at all. People are always raving about how they want a bigger chest and arms. Well, a lot of my clients also tell me that they want their physique to look just like mine. Their idea of an ideal physique is not some juiced up bodybuilder who has arms so big they cause his torso to look like a tent. Your recreational bodybuilder and your competitive bodybuilder are two different beasts.
With that same point, he goes on to say that your body will use the strongest muscle groups to get the job done. While this may be true to some degree, there are tons of variations of compound movements that you can try. Okay, so a back squat builds your ass and hammies up, not your quads. Have you tried front squats? Walking lunges? Split squats? Catch my drift? I find that back squats tend to trash the entirety of my legs pretty good, split squats rape my quads, Bulgarian squats own my glutes, and deadlifts do it for my whole posterior chain.
He goes on to say that training for function shouldn't apply to training for asthetics. If you are a competitive bodybuilder, then you do what you have to. You have to remain competitive in your sport, if you can call bodybuilder a sport. This shouldn't apply to your recreational bodybuilder though. You want to train for asthetics to a certain point, but you don't want to create any muscular imbalances and interfere with good motor patterns in order to look "more balanced," which is very subjective anyway. This goes against his talk about avoiding injury. How many big guys do you know with shoulder issues? I have talked to a lot. Why? Probably because of their internally rotated humeri and winged scapula.
His talk about full body routines doesn't make sense. He says you would be performing X exercises and X number of sets, and it would take too long. There is absolutely no reason you can't organize a full body program to include a good amount of isolation work and not take too long. If you are performing a split program 3 days a week, there is absolutely no reason you couldn't reorganize that into a full body program with good results. For one, you don't have to isolate every body part. You should probably only be isolating your weak points, that is, the muscles that don't seem to develop to the same degree from purely compound exercises. He said it himself, either compound exercises will allow for pretty symmetrical development, or some muscles are going to pick up the slack for weaker muscles; these are the muscles that probably aren't going to need much isolation work. Also, even in a full body program, you don't have to isolate every muscle group every session. You could pick 3-4 compound exercises to cover the whole body, then another 3-4 isolation movements to hit another couple body parts and isolate the other body parts on different days. There are other ways to organize your program. Also, functional sport training does include isolation work. It's called activation work, and it's done to get weak links involved in more integrated movement patterns. The same could apply to training like a bodybuilder.
With that said, training like a bodybuilder and training like an athlete are not exactly the same. Why they Hell would a wide receiver do a post-activation superset using the bench press and flies? Why the Hell would a bodybuilder do a 300 yard shuttle run? They wouldn't, but that doesn't mean there aren't similarities in the way they should train.