[CTcard]

  [And Shaw has made it public, per a recent interview of Dave Flemming on KNBR].

http://www.knbr.com/murph-mac-podcast-pr...-commerce/

(see 9/21 interview, near end at 13:30 mark)

To be clear, Shaw did not make anything public in that podcast, and was not on that podcast.

Dave Fleming was reporting what every message board has said since the beginning, that Shaw didn't offer Rosen because Shaw didn't like Rosen's attitude. Fleming didn't attribute that information to anything in particular, and it seems to be of the "everyone knows" variety.

I have never heard Shaw state anything negative in public about Rosen, with the possible exception of comments about this past summer's "football and school don't mix" interview by Rosen. Even there, my Shaw's comments were mostly to state that at Stanford they do mix well, and some more half-hearted defense of the mix at several institutions across the country. While Shaw was clearly stating that he thought Rosen was incorrect on the matter, I don't remember anything that sounded like a personal rebuke.

[CTcard]

  [And Shaw has made it public, per a recent interview of Dave Flemming on KNBR].

http://www.knbr.com/murph-mac-podcast-pr...-commerce/

(see 9/21 interview, near end at 13:30 mark)

To be clear, Shaw did not make anything public in that podcast, and was not on that podcast.

Dave Fleming was reporting what every message board has said since the beginning, that Shaw didn't offer Rosen because Shaw didn't like Rosen's attitude. Fleming didn't attribute that information to anything in particular, and it seems to be of the "everyone knows" variety.

I have never heard Shaw state anything negative in public about Rosen, with the possible exception of comments about this past summer's "football and school don't mix" interview by Rosen. Even there, my Shaw's comments were mostly to state that at Stanford they do mix well, and some more half-hearted defense of the mix at several institutions across the country. While Shaw was clearly stating that he thought Rosen was incorrect on the matter, I don't remember anything that sounded like a personal rebuke.

[Goose]

It is an odd couple, but I see some similarities between Rosen and Sherman. Talented, intelligent, thoughtful, outspoken, but sometimes I wish they both had more of a filter. I think Rosen rubs more people wrong because he had many more advantages in life.

One other difference that I think is very important. As I recall, despite some very serious disagreements with JH, and possibly with his teammates, Richard Sherman kept his mouth shut at Stanford. He didn't start calling attention to himself until he had actually done something (made a pro roster at least). Rosen has been calling attention to himself from day 1, and in ways that do not "look good" for UCLA in the news media. I have no issue with Rosen's questioning the compatibility of classwork and football, although I don't totally agree. However, as far as I can tell, he hasn't really done much as a football player yet. Maybe not his fault, but if he thinks we should care what the thinks because of his football reputation, he should think again.

[Goose]

It is an odd couple, but I see some similarities between Rosen and Sherman. Talented, intelligent, thoughtful, outspoken, but sometimes I wish they both had more of a filter. I think Rosen rubs more people wrong because he had many more advantages in life.

One other difference that I think is very important. As I recall, despite some very serious disagreements with JH, and possibly with his teammates, Richard Sherman kept his mouth shut at Stanford. He didn't start calling attention to himself until he had actually done something (made a pro roster at least). Rosen has been calling attention to himself from day 1, and in ways that do not "look good" for UCLA in the news media. I have no issue with Rosen's questioning the compatibility of classwork and football, although I don't totally agree. However, as far as I can tell, he hasn't really done much as a football player yet. Maybe not his fault, but if he thinks we should care what the thinks because of his football reputation, he should think again.

[thunder_chik]

Rosen reminds me of Manziel, and not in a good way.

[thunder_chik]

Rosen reminds me of Manziel, and not in a good way.

[76lsjumb]

This thread really isn't the Card.Board's finest hour...  It obsesses over an opposing quarterback who we've beaten 3 out of 3 times and, along the way, it's managed to trash any number of others, including Coach Shaw [apparently without solid evidence to back it up].  Most likely, we won't see Rosen on the field again against Stanford, so maybe we can just move on.

Geez..., I imagine that next someone will blame it all on Coach Dawkins  ;)

[76lsjumb]

This thread really isn't the Card.Board's finest hour...  It obsesses over an opposing quarterback who we've beaten 3 out of 3 times and, along the way, it's managed to trash any number of others, including Coach Shaw [apparently without solid evidence to back it up].  Most likely, we won't see Rosen on the field again against Stanford, so maybe we can just move on.

Geez..., I imagine that next someone will blame it all on Coach Dawkins  ;)

[BostonCard]

I take issue with the subject line. Rosen may have done a punk thing (I chastised my five year old for refusing to shake hands after a loss in her U7 AYSO game), but that doesn't mean he is a punk.

BC

[BostonCard]

I take issue with the subject line. Rosen may have done a punk thing (I chastised my five year old for refusing to shake hands after a loss in her U7 AYSO game), but that doesn't mean he is a punk.

BC

[Mick]

Not doing a post-game handshake is weak.  But how about refraining from branding the kid as "a punk" for this action after (another) disappointing loss.

And really folks, how would you feel if you were All World in a given sport (top-rated recruit in the nation at your position); excelled in high school (4.0+ average); had a sibling at Stanford; made it known that Stanford was where you wanted to go; and then have the coach of your sport say 'we don't want you, you're too arrogant!"  [And Shaw has made it public, per a recent interview of Dave Flemming on KNBR].

http://www.knbr.com/murph-mac-podcast-pr...-commerce/

(see 9/21 interview, near end at 13:30 mark)

Are you freaking kidding me?  Who is the adult and who is the petulant child?  I'd be pissed if I were Rosen (or a family member of his).

Coach Shaw has every right to extend offers to whomever he believes will help the team, and refrain from extending offers for same reasons.  But why trash a kid you don't offer?

P.S.  Some folks think if Jameis Winston (whom Shaw offered and who was admitted) came to Stanford he wouldn't have had the behavioral issues he did at FSU, given the environment on The Farm.  Does the same not hold for Rosen (whose conduct, btw, is nowhere near as low as that of Winston)?

P.P.S.  Agree with Treesandbirds' post below, too.  Rosen's comments on college and D1 sports were provocative, but hardly ill-informed.  What was Shaw's admonition to players?  If you're going to opine about something in the press or social media, be informed about it.

If you're literally asking and I was that recruit, first I would ask for a candid explanation of why I wasn't being recruited by Stanford.  I would ask the coach to go beyond the typical "fit" or "it's-not-you-it's-me" answer and ask why he thinks I would fail.  Then, if my parents were educator/spinal surgeon, I would offer to walk on for the first year.  That's if I really wanted to attend Stanford.

[Mick]

Not doing a post-game handshake is weak.  But how about refraining from branding the kid as "a punk" for this action after (another) disappointing loss.

And really folks, how would you feel if you were All World in a given sport (top-rated recruit in the nation at your position); excelled in high school (4.0+ average); had a sibling at Stanford; made it known that Stanford was where you wanted to go; and then have the coach of your sport say 'we don't want you, you're too arrogant!"  [And Shaw has made it public, per a recent interview of Dave Flemming on KNBR].

http://www.knbr.com/murph-mac-podcast-pr...-commerce/

(see 9/21 interview, near end at 13:30 mark)

Are you freaking kidding me?  Who is the adult and who is the petulant child?  I'd be pissed if I were Rosen (or a family member of his).

Coach Shaw has every right to extend offers to whomever he believes will help the team, and refrain from extending offers for same reasons.  But why trash a kid you don't offer?

P.S.  Some folks think if Jameis Winston (whom Shaw offered and who was admitted) came to Stanford he wouldn't have had the behavioral issues he did at FSU, given the environment on The Farm.  Does the same not hold for Rosen (whose conduct, btw, is nowhere near as low as that of Winston)?

P.P.S.  Agree with Treesandbirds' post below, too.  Rosen's comments on college and D1 sports were provocative, but hardly ill-informed.  What was Shaw's admonition to players?  If you're going to opine about something in the press or social media, be informed about it.

If you're literally asking and I was that recruit, first I would ask for a candid explanation of why I wasn't being recruited by Stanford.  I would ask the coach to go beyond the typical "fit" or "it's-not-you-it's-me" answer and ask why he thinks I would fail.  Then, if my parents were educator/spinal surgeon, I would offer to walk on for the first year.  That's if I really wanted to attend Stanford.

[teejers1]

Well . . . I'll give you that Flemming does not cite to a particular date and time when it was reported in a newspaper that Shaw said he didn't offer Rosen because he was too arrogant.  However, Flemming very clearly states that Shaw has been up front and public about the reason why he didn't offer Rosen.  Flemming does NOT say "everybody knows this is the reason why Rosen wasn't offered, even if Shaw hasn't explicitly said it publicly."  To the contrary.

Now, you may think you know better than Flemming what Shaw has said in public or semi-public statements (I, for one, do not think a quote in the newspaper is a requirement for something to be deemed a public statement).  But really, even if this is in the "everybody knows why" camp, wouldn't you STILL be pissed if you were Rosen? 

I mean, c'mon . . .

[teejers1]

Well . . . I'll give you that Flemming does not cite to a particular date and time when it was reported in a newspaper that Shaw said he didn't offer Rosen because he was too arrogant.  However, Flemming very clearly states that Shaw has been up front and public about the reason why he didn't offer Rosen.  Flemming does NOT say "everybody knows this is the reason why Rosen wasn't offered, even if Shaw hasn't explicitly said it publicly."  To the contrary.

Now, you may think you know better than Flemming what Shaw has said in public or semi-public statements (I, for one, do not think a quote in the newspaper is a requirement for something to be deemed a public statement).  But really, even if this is in the "everybody knows why" camp, wouldn't you STILL be pissed if you were Rosen? 

I mean, c'mon . . .

[BostonCard]

Here's a story from last year, with quotes attributed to David Shaw.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/la-sp...story.html

Asked about Rosen this week, Stanford Coach David Shaw raved about his strong arm, quick release, high football IQ and engaging personality. Apparently the only thing missing was a spot on the roster.

“The thing with us is that we were investigating all quarterbacks that year and we just didn’t take one at all,” Shaw said. “It wasn’t just we didn’t want to take Josh. We didn’t take a quarterback.”

There is a bit of spin to that statement, since we did offer a QB that year (not Rosen).  Still, no mention that Rosen was too arrogant, not a good fit, or anything disparaging about Rosen.

BC

[BostonCard]

Here's a story from last year, with quotes attributed to David Shaw.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/la-sp...story.html

Asked about Rosen this week, Stanford Coach David Shaw raved about his strong arm, quick release, high football IQ and engaging personality. Apparently the only thing missing was a spot on the roster.

“The thing with us is that we were investigating all quarterbacks that year and we just didn’t take one at all,” Shaw said. “It wasn’t just we didn’t want to take Josh. We didn’t take a quarterback.”

There is a bit of spin to that statement, since we did offer a QB that year (not Rosen).  Still, no mention that Rosen was too arrogant, not a good fit, or anything disparaging about Rosen.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Shaw has never, to my knowledge, publicly stated why he didn't offer Rosen. There have been a lot of rumors about it. I believe Andy Drukarev knows the reason why (but has remained studiously vague about it). Drukarev, IIRC, suggested Rosen did something odd or off-putting during the camp and Shaw chose not to offer for that reason.

Shaw's statement that they chose not to offer a QB is, of course, b.s. They offered Town and would've offered Wimbush if he had been able to clear admissions. Darnold came in and competed for an offer. So to imply they were deliberately taking a year off is silly.

Of course, the exclusive focus on Rosen reveals the silliness of the debate -- i.e. it's more a synecdoche of people's feelings about the Shaw regime than an actual exercise to determine what's right. Otherwise Darnold would be just as much a focus as Rosen. (He should be just as much a focus, of course. And that's why, to echo stupac, you need to make sure you take a lottery ticket each and every year.)

[washingtonismoney]

Shaw has never, to my knowledge, publicly stated why he didn't offer Rosen. There have been a lot of rumors about it. I believe Andy Drukarev knows the reason why (but has remained studiously vague about it). Drukarev, IIRC, suggested Rosen did something odd or off-putting during the camp and Shaw chose not to offer for that reason.

Shaw's statement that they chose not to offer a QB is, of course, b.s. They offered Town and would've offered Wimbush if he had been able to clear admissions. Darnold came in and competed for an offer. So to imply they were deliberately taking a year off is silly.

Of course, the exclusive focus on Rosen reveals the silliness of the debate -- i.e. it's more a synecdoche of people's feelings about the Shaw regime than an actual exercise to determine what's right. Otherwise Darnold would be just as much a focus as Rosen. (He should be just as much a focus, of course. And that's why, to echo stupac, you need to make sure you take a lottery ticket each and every year.)

[teejers1]

Mick, in your scenario, what does Rosen do when Shaw says "you're not being invited to walk on?"

I love the hopefulness of your hypothetical scenario, but it's unrealistic on SO many fronts. 

BTW, how do you think Logan Tom would have responded had the VB coach said to her "We don't like your attitude and are not prepared to offer you a scholie?"

Somehow I don't think Logan's response would have been:  "Okay.  What if I agree to walk-on freshman year and then earn my scholarship after that?"

P.S.  I picked this example for a couple reasons.  First, Logan Tom was consensus best WVB her senior year (and Rosen was close to that at QB his senior year).  Second, my niece was a really good VB player in HS and had many D1 scholarship offers.  She was the same year as Logan Tom.  Stanford offered two scholies that year (and not to my niece, unsurprisingly).  Coach did tell my sister Stanford wanted her daughter to come to Stanford as a walk-on (and I think she had the profile to be admitted).  My sister and her husband (both Stanford grads who could afford  the tuition tab) had no interest in that.  They wanted their daughter to go to a school where the coaching staff really wanted/appreciated her.  [I thought she should have walked on at Stanford!].

[teejers1]

Mick, in your scenario, what does Rosen do when Shaw says "you're not being invited to walk on?"

I love the hopefulness of your hypothetical scenario, but it's unrealistic on SO many fronts. 

BTW, how do you think Logan Tom would have responded had the VB coach said to her "We don't like your attitude and are not prepared to offer you a scholie?"

Somehow I don't think Logan's response would have been:  "Okay.  What if I agree to walk-on freshman year and then earn my scholarship after that?"

P.S.  I picked this example for a couple reasons.  First, Logan Tom was consensus best WVB her senior year (and Rosen was close to that at QB his senior year).  Second, my niece was a really good VB player in HS and had many D1 scholarship offers.  She was the same year as Logan Tom.  Stanford offered two scholies that year (and not to my niece, unsurprisingly).  Coach did tell my sister Stanford wanted her daughter to come to Stanford as a walk-on (and I think she had the profile to be admitted).  My sister and her husband (both Stanford grads who could afford  the tuition tab) had no interest in that.  They wanted their daughter to go to a school where the coaching staff really wanted/appreciated her.  [I thought she should have walked on at Stanford!].

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

I like to consider the  possibility that KJ Costello may prove to be a more productive and successful quarterback than Josh Rosen (or any other then potential Stanford QB of that recruiting period). :)

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

I like to consider the  possibility that KJ Costello may prove to be a more productive and successful quarterback than Josh Rosen (or any other then potential Stanford QB of that recruiting period). :)

[CTcard]

Well . . . I'll give you that Flemming does not cite to a particular date and time when it was reported in a newspaper that Shaw said he didn't offer Rosen because he was too arrogant.  However, Flemming very clearly states that Shaw has been up front and public about the reason why he didn't offer Rosen.  Flemming does NOT say "everybody knows this is the reason why Rosen wasn't offered, even if Shaw hasn't explicitly said it publicly."  To the contrary.

Now, you may think you know better than Flemming what Shaw has said in public or semi-public statements (I, for one, do not think a quote in the newspaper is a requirement for something to be deemed a public statement).  But really, even if this is in the "everybody knows why" camp, wouldn't you STILL be pissed if you were Rosen? 

I mean, c'mon . . .

I would be annoyed were I Rosen.

And as far as I am concerned it is perfectly fine for Rosen to feel whatever he wishes to on the matter.

However, you raised a different point that does matter - specifically about "Who is the adult and who is the petulant child?" While obviously it is Shaw's responsibility to choose whom to offer a scholarship, I would be very disappointed if he then publicly denigrated anybody whom he chose not to offer.

Flemming was not careful with his language.
Flemming said Shaw "has not hid behind the fact that he told the kid to take a hike", with no clarification of what he means by not hiding. I have never heard David Shaw make any public statement critical of Rosen (besides what I mentioned about the football-and-school-not-mixing interview). I have also never heard anyone state an occasion where Shaw did so (including you teejers). Of course rumours get out and in the broad outlines everybody knows what happened.  I have no doubt that among folks he is relatively friendly with, Shaw has said stuff off the record, and that might very well include Flemming.

Shaw has made comments about declining to recruit Rosen, pretty much always in response to direct questions. Those have typically been under the white-lie category about not taking/offering a QB that year. Apparently Shaw feels that is the best way to deflect the question.


As far as I can tell, Shaw has not acted like a petulant child on the matter.
Unlike many fans on both sides.

Shaw has never, to my knowledge, publicly stated why he didn't offer Rosen. There have been a lot of rumors about it. I believe Andy Drukarev knows the reason why (but has remained studiously vague about it). Drukarev, IIRC, suggested Rosen did something odd or off-putting during the camp and Shaw chose not to offer for that reason.

Shaw's statement that they chose not to offer a QB is, of course, b.s. They offered Town and would've offered Wimbush if he had been able to clear admissions. Darnold came in and competed for an offer. So to imply they were deliberately taking a year off is silly.

Of course, the exclusive focus on Rosen reveals the silliness of the debate -- i.e. it's more a synecdoche of people's feelings about the Shaw regime than an actual exercise to determine what's right. Otherwise Darnold would be just as much a focus as Rosen. (He should be just as much a focus, of course. And that's why, to echo stupac, you need to make sure you take a lottery ticket each and every year.)

I don't think there is any secret Drukarev knows, though he may have heard something repeated from closer to the source. Really, we all know the answer in a non-specific kind of way - whether it involves particular things at the camp or an overall feeling about personalities.

And, yes Shaw's statements about not offering a QB are BS. It may be that Shaw did not consider getting a QB a must for that year, but obviously made attempts. But mostly Shaw seems to think this is the white-lie that gives him the easiest route towards not answering the question.

As to the exclusive focus on Rosen, there were a slew of QBs that Stanford had interactions with that year, several of whom seemed to express very serious interest in Stanford. Among those I remember are: Rosen, Wimbush, Town, Brady White (ASU), Jake Browning (UW), Travis Jonsen (was Travis Waller - Oregon), Darnold, and Brett Rypien (Boise).
My memory is that Town is the only one who got as far as an official offer, with Wimbush likely the guy Stanford was next most serious about but was too late (or something) on the academic side. Among all these guys, I don't know which I most wish Stanford had, but of course several could have helped.

[CTcard]

Well . . . I'll give you that Flemming does not cite to a particular date and time when it was reported in a newspaper that Shaw said he didn't offer Rosen because he was too arrogant.  However, Flemming very clearly states that Shaw has been up front and public about the reason why he didn't offer Rosen.  Flemming does NOT say "everybody knows this is the reason why Rosen wasn't offered, even if Shaw hasn't explicitly said it publicly."  To the contrary.

Now, you may think you know better than Flemming what Shaw has said in public or semi-public statements (I, for one, do not think a quote in the newspaper is a requirement for something to be deemed a public statement).  But really, even if this is in the "everybody knows why" camp, wouldn't you STILL be pissed if you were Rosen? 

I mean, c'mon . . .

I would be annoyed were I Rosen.

And as far as I am concerned it is perfectly fine for Rosen to feel whatever he wishes to on the matter.

However, you raised a different point that does matter - specifically about "Who is the adult and who is the petulant child?" While obviously it is Shaw's responsibility to choose whom to offer a scholarship, I would be very disappointed if he then publicly denigrated anybody whom he chose not to offer.

Flemming was not careful with his language.
Flemming said Shaw "has not hid behind the fact that he told the kid to take a hike", with no clarification of what he means by not hiding. I have never heard David Shaw make any public statement critical of Rosen (besides what I mentioned about the football-and-school-not-mixing interview). I have also never heard anyone state an occasion where Shaw did so (including you teejers). Of course rumours get out and in the broad outlines everybody knows what happened.  I have no doubt that among folks he is relatively friendly with, Shaw has said stuff off the record, and that might very well include Flemming.

Shaw has made comments about declining to recruit Rosen, pretty much always in response to direct questions. Those have typically been under the white-lie category about not taking/offering a QB that year. Apparently Shaw feels that is the best way to deflect the question.


As far as I can tell, Shaw has not acted like a petulant child on the matter.
Unlike many fans on both sides.

Shaw has never, to my knowledge, publicly stated why he didn't offer Rosen. There have been a lot of rumors about it. I believe Andy Drukarev knows the reason why (but has remained studiously vague about it). Drukarev, IIRC, suggested Rosen did something odd or off-putting during the camp and Shaw chose not to offer for that reason.

Shaw's statement that they chose not to offer a QB is, of course, b.s. They offered Town and would've offered Wimbush if he had been able to clear admissions. Darnold came in and competed for an offer. So to imply they were deliberately taking a year off is silly.

Of course, the exclusive focus on Rosen reveals the silliness of the debate -- i.e. it's more a synecdoche of people's feelings about the Shaw regime than an actual exercise to determine what's right. Otherwise Darnold would be just as much a focus as Rosen. (He should be just as much a focus, of course. And that's why, to echo stupac, you need to make sure you take a lottery ticket each and every year.)

I don't think there is any secret Drukarev knows, though he may have heard something repeated from closer to the source. Really, we all know the answer in a non-specific kind of way - whether it involves particular things at the camp or an overall feeling about personalities.

And, yes Shaw's statements about not offering a QB are BS. It may be that Shaw did not consider getting a QB a must for that year, but obviously made attempts. But mostly Shaw seems to think this is the white-lie that gives him the easiest route towards not answering the question.

As to the exclusive focus on Rosen, there were a slew of QBs that Stanford had interactions with that year, several of whom seemed to express very serious interest in Stanford. Among those I remember are: Rosen, Wimbush, Town, Brady White (ASU), Jake Browning (UW), Travis Jonsen (was Travis Waller - Oregon), Darnold, and Brett Rypien (Boise).
My memory is that Town is the only one who got as far as an official offer, with Wimbush likely the guy Stanford was next most serious about but was too late (or something) on the academic side. Among all these guys, I don't know which I most wish Stanford had, but of course several could have helped.

[FarmBoy]

The obsession with Rosen here is a bit insane. It all smells a bit of sour grapes to me. I wish he were on our team. Not shaking hands with an opponent wouldn't be the worst thing a Stanford athlete has done on the field of play.

[FarmBoy]

The obsession with Rosen here is a bit insane. It all smells a bit of sour grapes to me. I wish he were on our team. Not shaking hands with an opponent wouldn't be the worst thing a Stanford athlete has done on the field of play.

[teejers1]

FTR:

1.  I've always supported Shaw making his own recruiting calls and deference thereto (and I've been indifferent to Rosen, even while thinking his physical gifts are remarkable);

2.  I've never read Shaw saying that he didn't offer Rosen because of his 'tude; however, I also do not read everything printed about Stanford football, nor do I listen to everything said about Stanford football.  And even though Flemming is no longer in the Stanford booth, I'd bet good money that Flemming is "closer to the program" than I.  Still, perhaps taking Flemming at face value was unjustified, though the whole tenor of the statement on the podcast was how bold Shaw was for being forthright about why Rosen was not offered, which lessens the chance of a "poor choice of words" (perhaps a poor choice of emphasis?).

3.  The "petulant child" comment was over-the-top, particularly if my read of Flemming's commentary is off the mark.  Separately, I do wonder if Rosen fits into another well-known theory:  Shaw's antipathy toward "the strong personality" in his program.  When Shaw first was named HC, I asked someone "very close to the program" if there was a chance Vic Fangio could be lured back to The Farm.  The response:  "No way.  Fangio is too strong-willed for Shaw."  Nothing I've read or seen since then has assuaged that concern.  But again, I don't read or see everything about this program.

4.  Shaw is a great coach for Stanford who has one fundamental flaw . . . that's so fixable. 

[teejers1]

FTR:

1.  I've always supported Shaw making his own recruiting calls and deference thereto (and I've been indifferent to Rosen, even while thinking his physical gifts are remarkable);

2.  I've never read Shaw saying that he didn't offer Rosen because of his 'tude; however, I also do not read everything printed about Stanford football, nor do I listen to everything said about Stanford football.  And even though Flemming is no longer in the Stanford booth, I'd bet good money that Flemming is "closer to the program" than I.  Still, perhaps taking Flemming at face value was unjustified, though the whole tenor of the statement on the podcast was how bold Shaw was for being forthright about why Rosen was not offered, which lessens the chance of a "poor choice of words" (perhaps a poor choice of emphasis?).

3.  The "petulant child" comment was over-the-top, particularly if my read of Flemming's commentary is off the mark.  Separately, I do wonder if Rosen fits into another well-known theory:  Shaw's antipathy toward "the strong personality" in his program.  When Shaw first was named HC, I asked someone "very close to the program" if there was a chance Vic Fangio could be lured back to The Farm.  The response:  "No way.  Fangio is too strong-willed for Shaw."  Nothing I've read or seen since then has assuaged that concern.  But again, I don't read or see everything about this program.

4.  Shaw is a great coach for Stanford who has one fundamental flaw . . . that's so fixable. 

[SamAtoms1980]

Rosen reminds me of Manziel, and not in a good way.

At least Manziel won the Hei$man, and during his time in college his program reached the highest point it has recently seen.  Manziel didn't really become combustible until after A&M....

[SamAtoms1980]

Rosen reminds me of Manziel, and not in a good way.

At least Manziel won the Hei$man, and during his time in college his program reached the highest point it has recently seen.  Manziel didn't really become combustible until after A&M....

[qwerty49]

[quote author=thunder_chik link=topic=17486.msg202988#msg202988 date=1506448617]
Rosen reminds me of Manziel, and not in a good way.

At least Manziel won the Hei$man, and during his time in college his program reached the highest point it has recently seen.  Manziel didn't really become combustible until after A&M....
[/quote]

LOL the implication there is that A&M's standards are lower than the NFL's.  :D

[qwerty49]

[quote author=thunder_chik link=topic=17486.msg202988#msg202988 date=1506448617]
Rosen reminds me of Manziel, and not in a good way.

At least Manziel won the Hei$man, and during his time in college his program reached the highest point it has recently seen.  Manziel didn't really become combustible until after A&M....
[/quote]

LOL the implication there is that A&M's standards are lower than the NFL's.  :D

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=SamAtoms1980 link=topic=17486.msg203032#msg203032 date=1506466069]
[quote author=thunder_chik link=topic=17486.msg202988#msg202988 date=1506448617]
Rosen reminds me of Manziel, and not in a good way.

At least Manziel won the Hei$man, and during his time in college his program reached the highest point it has recently seen.  Manziel didn't really become combustible until after A&M....
[/quote]

LOL the implication there is that A&M's standards are lower than the NFL's.  :D
[/quote]

I'm willing to bet that Rosen will be nothing like Manziel. No substance abuse issues that we're aware of. Seems to care about people other than himself (teammates). I suspect he is learning a lot from the lack of Ucla success ( regardless of whether it's his fault). I think that Richard Sherman is a far better model for him, despite the obvious different backgrounds. And yes Sherman was less outspoken in college....probably because his future was a lot less certain so he had to be more careful. I hope (and think)  Sherman and Rosen team up one day to help less fortunate college athletes, but only time will tell.

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=SamAtoms1980 link=topic=17486.msg203032#msg203032 date=1506466069]
[quote author=thunder_chik link=topic=17486.msg202988#msg202988 date=1506448617]
Rosen reminds me of Manziel, and not in a good way.

At least Manziel won the Hei$man, and during his time in college his program reached the highest point it has recently seen.  Manziel didn't really become combustible until after A&M....
[/quote]

LOL the implication there is that A&M's standards are lower than the NFL's.  :D
[/quote]

I'm willing to bet that Rosen will be nothing like Manziel. No substance abuse issues that we're aware of. Seems to care about people other than himself (teammates). I suspect he is learning a lot from the lack of Ucla success ( regardless of whether it's his fault). I think that Richard Sherman is a far better model for him, despite the obvious different backgrounds. And yes Sherman was less outspoken in college....probably because his future was a lot less certain so he had to be more careful. I hope (and think)  Sherman and Rosen team up one day to help less fortunate college athletes, but only time will tell.

[DC 86]

[quote author=thunder_chik link=topic=17486.msg202988#msg202988 date=1506448617]
Rosen reminds me of Manziel, and not in a good way.

At least Manziel won the Hei$man, and during his time in college his program reached the highest point it has recently seen.  Manziel didn't really become combustible until after A&M....
[/quote]

Prior to even playing his first game as a redshirt freshman, Manziel was arrested for disorderly conduct and spent a night in jail following a bar fight that had been started by his friend using racial slurs. He was also charged with presenting a fake ID.

As a sophomore he was asked to leave the Manning Passing Academy (where he was working as a counselor) because he was reportedly hung over and had slept through morning meetings.

He risked his eligibility by accepting money to sign autographs, didn't take academics seriously and had an obvious alcohol problem while in college, which of course manifested itself more visibly after he was drafted.

It's not accurate to say that he didn't become combustible until after college; things certainly got much worse once he joined the NFL but he had obvious major problems with alcohol and with personal responsibility while in college, which were more or less managed to keep him eligible.

Rosen reminds me of Manziel only to the extent of being privileged and cocky. However, Manziel was a self-destructive partier dating back to high school. Rosen is serious about academics and never been in any sort of legal trouble. It would be shocking to me if Rosen's life followed Manziel's trajectory over the next couple of years (beating and threatening to kill his girlfriend, lying to coaches about having flown to Las Vegas to party the night before a game, multiple rehab stints, vandalizing a luxury apartment that he rented, etc).

Manziel is an alcoholic who prioritized partying over developing his talent, while Rosen seems determined to maximize his football and non-football talents. Both were dynamic, risk taking quarterbacks (although Manziel was far more accomplished and successful than Rosen as a college athlete), but I don't see the personal parallels at all, except on the most superficial level.

[DC 86]

[quote author=thunder_chik link=topic=17486.msg202988#msg202988 date=1506448617]
Rosen reminds me of Manziel, and not in a good way.

At least Manziel won the Hei$man, and during his time in college his program reached the highest point it has recently seen.  Manziel didn't really become combustible until after A&M....
[/quote]

Prior to even playing his first game as a redshirt freshman, Manziel was arrested for disorderly conduct and spent a night in jail following a bar fight that had been started by his friend using racial slurs. He was also charged with presenting a fake ID.

As a sophomore he was asked to leave the Manning Passing Academy (where he was working as a counselor) because he was reportedly hung over and had slept through morning meetings.

He risked his eligibility by accepting money to sign autographs, didn't take academics seriously and had an obvious alcohol problem while in college, which of course manifested itself more visibly after he was drafted.

It's not accurate to say that he didn't become combustible until after college; things certainly got much worse once he joined the NFL but he had obvious major problems with alcohol and with personal responsibility while in college, which were more or less managed to keep him eligible.

Rosen reminds me of Manziel only to the extent of being privileged and cocky. However, Manziel was a self-destructive partier dating back to high school. Rosen is serious about academics and never been in any sort of legal trouble. It would be shocking to me if Rosen's life followed Manziel's trajectory over the next couple of years (beating and threatening to kill his girlfriend, lying to coaches about having flown to Las Vegas to party the night before a game, multiple rehab stints, vandalizing a luxury apartment that he rented, etc).

Manziel is an alcoholic who prioritized partying over developing his talent, while Rosen seems determined to maximize his football and non-football talents. Both were dynamic, risk taking quarterbacks (although Manziel was far more accomplished and successful than Rosen as a college athlete), but I don't see the personal parallels at all, except on the most superficial level.

[winflop]

I listened to KJ's postgame interview which lasted 20 minutes - almost unheard of. It's clear that he's very confident in himself and was taking the most of the opportunity he had, but the way he projected that confidence as part of a team etc is so diametrically opposite to Rosen was stunning. Rosen could learn a lot from Costello about how to handle himself on and off the field.

[winflop]

I listened to KJ's postgame interview which lasted 20 minutes - almost unheard of. It's clear that he's very confident in himself and was taking the most of the opportunity he had, but the way he projected that confidence as part of a team etc is so diametrically opposite to Rosen was stunning. Rosen could learn a lot from Costello about how to handle himself on and off the field.

[Mick]

Mick, in your scenario, what does Rosen do when Shaw says "you're not being invited to walk on?"

I love the hopefulness of your hypothetical scenario, but it's unrealistic on SO many fronts. 

BTW, how do you think Logan Tom would have responded had the VB coach said to her "We don't like your attitude and are not prepared to offer you a scholie?"

Somehow I don't think Logan's response would have been:  "Okay.  What if I agree to walk-on freshman year and then earn my scholarship after that?"

P.S.  I picked this example for a couple reasons.  First, Logan Tom was consensus best WVB her senior year (and Rosen was close to that at QB his senior year).  Second, my niece was a really good VB player in HS and had many D1 scholarship offers.  She was the same year as Logan Tom.  Stanford offered two scholies that year (and not to my niece, unsurprisingly).  Coach did tell my sister Stanford wanted her daughter to come to Stanford as a walk-on (and I think she had the profile to be admitted).  My sister and her husband (both Stanford grads who could afford  the tuition tab) had no interest in that.  They wanted their daughter to go to a school where the coaching staff really wanted/appreciated her.  [I thought she should have walked on at Stanford!].

it all depends on how badly Rosen or Logan Tom wanted to be at Stanford.  Maybe not precisely the same, but my oldest was recruited by Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and UC San Diego.  Paraphrased, the Stanford coach said "We can give you the last spot, you won't get any money, you'll rarely see the court, but if you want to come, we'll let you in."  Princeton and UC-SD wanted him at his position and he wanted to go back East, so that was his decision.  He didn't even finish his Stanford application, having been accepted early to Princeton due to his recruitment.  Same for my younger son, who followed the older son.

To me, Stanford is an order of magnitude better and more impressive than any other D-1 playing college in the USA.  Maybe Shaw wanted to see a little (nonexistent in Rosen) humility.  I've said before that this collective attitude can hamstring Stanford somewhat.  So if Josh really wanted to come here, he could have let his talent do the talking.

[Mick]

Mick, in your scenario, what does Rosen do when Shaw says "you're not being invited to walk on?"

I love the hopefulness of your hypothetical scenario, but it's unrealistic on SO many fronts. 

BTW, how do you think Logan Tom would have responded had the VB coach said to her "We don't like your attitude and are not prepared to offer you a scholie?"

Somehow I don't think Logan's response would have been:  "Okay.  What if I agree to walk-on freshman year and then earn my scholarship after that?"

P.S.  I picked this example for a couple reasons.  First, Logan Tom was consensus best WVB her senior year (and Rosen was close to that at QB his senior year).  Second, my niece was a really good VB player in HS and had many D1 scholarship offers.  She was the same year as Logan Tom.  Stanford offered two scholies that year (and not to my niece, unsurprisingly).  Coach did tell my sister Stanford wanted her daughter to come to Stanford as a walk-on (and I think she had the profile to be admitted).  My sister and her husband (both Stanford grads who could afford  the tuition tab) had no interest in that.  They wanted their daughter to go to a school where the coaching staff really wanted/appreciated her.  [I thought she should have walked on at Stanford!].

it all depends on how badly Rosen or Logan Tom wanted to be at Stanford.  Maybe not precisely the same, but my oldest was recruited by Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and UC San Diego.  Paraphrased, the Stanford coach said "We can give you the last spot, you won't get any money, you'll rarely see the court, but if you want to come, we'll let you in."  Princeton and UC-SD wanted him at his position and he wanted to go back East, so that was his decision.  He didn't even finish his Stanford application, having been accepted early to Princeton due to his recruitment.  Same for my younger son, who followed the older son.

To me, Stanford is an order of magnitude better and more impressive than any other D-1 playing college in the USA.  Maybe Shaw wanted to see a little (nonexistent in Rosen) humility.  I've said before that this collective attitude can hamstring Stanford somewhat.  So if Josh really wanted to come here, he could have let his talent do the talking.