[teejers1]

Per interview on TOS, Fields worked to get admitted to Stanford's graduate program solo - hence the academic scholarship.
THEN he contacted the football office about playing ball - evidently, they did not actively recruit the guy as a grad-transfer.

IF this is true, it perhaps is the ultimate example of Shaw's "recruiting prowess" - i.e., only self-selecting Stanford Men.  

Good for the kid; good for Stanford football.  Agree with a poster on TOS who opined that a player with this kind of leadership who actually plays can elevate the play of entire secondary.  That would be great.

What am I missing" The above seems to be a reasonable comment. Then the subsequent posts seem to go sideways then completely off the rails, and end up becoming somewhat personal. I've no dog in the this particular fight, just somewhat perplexed. Can somebody explain?

The problem with the above (assuming it’s a reference to Teejers point) is that he tries to make something undeniably positive into a dig at Shaw, even though it would have been an NCAA violation for Shaw to try to “recruit” a player who was enrolled at another school and not in the transfer portal.

Furthermore, in another thread, Teejers tries to twist a transfer of a *sixth year* player to be somewhere else *with his wife* as somehow an indictment on Shaw and the team, suggesting that our poor record is undeniably the reason he left (despite the existence of plausible alternative explanations), and here an all-Big12 player is transferring *in* to Stanford, which at the least should make him question the sinking ship narrative, no?  Even if you believe, as I think is reasonable, that the primary motivation for Fields to come here was his academic pursuits and not the quality of the football team (he would surely have a better chance at football success next year at Oklahoma, even with a new coach), spinning this into a dig a at Shaw is far-fetched, even for Teejers.

So, this is a piece of unquestionable good news.  Let’s say it’s not a reflection on Shaw one way or another and celebrate the transfer of a great football player and what sounds like an even better person into the program.

And maybe as a New Year’s resolution try not to turn every thread on this board into a referendum on David Shaw.

BC

I can't help you if you are in denial re: players with eligibility remaining departing being a net bad thing for Stanford - at least as it pertains to players projected to get meaningful PT.  And it's not just Reid, as someone (SaMcF?) pointed out.  But let's take Reid - if Stanford had a snowball's chance of going to the Rose Bowl (or better) next season, do you think Reid and his young wife decide on Utah?

Fields is a net good for Stanford, and I could be wrong re: transfer portal and timing/contact re: same. So my bad.

But my observation was that Fields epitomized recruiting under Shaw - the self-selecting Stanford Man.  You are the one concluding that was a dig at Shaw.  Why did you draw that conclusion?  (And be honest - don't cop out with "because you were the poster").

[teejers1]

Per interview on TOS, Fields worked to get admitted to Stanford's graduate program solo - hence the academic scholarship.
THEN he contacted the football office about playing ball - evidently, they did not actively recruit the guy as a grad-transfer.

IF this is true, it perhaps is the ultimate example of Shaw's "recruiting prowess" - i.e., only self-selecting Stanford Men.  

Good for the kid; good for Stanford football.  Agree with a poster on TOS who opined that a player with this kind of leadership who actually plays can elevate the play of entire secondary.  That would be great.

What am I missing" The above seems to be a reasonable comment. Then the subsequent posts seem to go sideways then completely off the rails, and end up becoming somewhat personal. I've no dog in the this particular fight, just somewhat perplexed. Can somebody explain?

The problem with the above (assuming it’s a reference to Teejers point) is that he tries to make something undeniably positive into a dig at Shaw, even though it would have been an NCAA violation for Shaw to try to “recruit” a player who was enrolled at another school and not in the transfer portal.

Furthermore, in another thread, Teejers tries to twist a transfer of a *sixth year* player to be somewhere else *with his wife* as somehow an indictment on Shaw and the team, suggesting that our poor record is undeniably the reason he left (despite the existence of plausible alternative explanations), and here an all-Big12 player is transferring *in* to Stanford, which at the least should make him question the sinking ship narrative, no?  Even if you believe, as I think is reasonable, that the primary motivation for Fields to come here was his academic pursuits and not the quality of the football team (he would surely have a better chance at football success next year at Oklahoma, even with a new coach), spinning this into a dig a at Shaw is far-fetched, even for Teejers.

So, this is a piece of unquestionable good news.  Let’s say it’s not a reflection on Shaw one way or another and celebrate the transfer of a great football player and what sounds like an even better person into the program.

And maybe as a New Year’s resolution try not to turn every thread on this board into a referendum on David Shaw.

BC

I can't help you if you are in denial re: players with eligibility remaining departing being a net bad thing for Stanford - at least as it pertains to players projected to get meaningful PT.  And it's not just Reid, as someone (SaMcF?) pointed out.  But let's take Reid - if Stanford had a snowball's chance of going to the Rose Bowl (or better) next season, do you think Reid and his young wife decide on Utah?

Fields is a net good for Stanford, and I could be wrong re: transfer portal and timing/contact re: same. So my bad.

But my observation was that Fields epitomized recruiting under Shaw - the self-selecting Stanford Man.  You are the one concluding that was a dig at Shaw.  Why did you draw that conclusion?  (And be honest - don't cop out with "because you were the poster").