[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.