GCn20

I can understand it due to the bonus, but I hope this means we are confident that Vaval is coming back

I did so only after the OP told me I didn't know anything about football but I get your point that others may not realize this was directed to him and take offense and that was not my intention. Next time I will directly tell him I think he is an idiot and leave it out of subsequent posts on the matter. Also the use of the word stupid you quoted was a direct answer to SF27 who asked me if I thought discussion was stupid.

At what point did i say that discussion is stupid? People have their opinions, and we discuss them. I thought that the idea of moving Stan inside as a plan was not very intelligent and discussed my reasons why. Is that Ok with you or are we only to nod and agree with things we don't agree with. I gave my reasons respectfully and the OP decided to get butt hurt and make rude commentary. That's not on me. I explained many times that my issue isn't with Stan playing inside per se, but with it being the plan which I think would be a very shortsighted one that would carry more risk than reward. IF we go through FA, draft, and recruiting and roll snake eyes on anything better than that plan, fine, we do what we gotta do. I would think that to be a pretty big fail by KW and staff tho. We need to do better than moving Stan inside out of convenience. He is unlikely to be any better at age 40 and changing positions than a younger, cheaper OL we can get in FA or recruitment at a lower cost and with far more long term upside. Stan is going down the wrong side of the hill to reinvest in him at a new position and I know that hurts some sensibilities around here but it's just fact. Our very best play as an organization is to find our next generation of OL, let Stan compete for his usual job, and let the chips fall where they may as to whether he still has a year or two in him. If he is still deemed to be our best LT so be it. If not, we need to move on not reposition him. KW needs to have stud OGs and C in camp already. All that has been discussed around here for almost 3 years is how we are holding onto aging players for too long out of loyalty. I am suggesting that doing so with Stan would just be continuing the stupidity and everyone who vehemently argued that MOS and KW are too loyal suddenly get in an uproar. I am legitimately confused by this inconsistency. The guy is 40, its not the time for him to reinvent his career.

That was not what was said in the post I originally responded to. So don't say "we" didn't say. It was said. The original post was that the Bombers should plan to move him inside to try get a few extra years out of him. That was the post I took issue with. I have no trouble with Stan moving inside in an emergency or should in season circumstances dictate, I just think it would be stupid if that was our plan in January of the offseason. What we should be planning is getting our hands on a bonafide centre and any interior OL we may need this offseason without having Stan as anything in our plans at the interior more than break glass if needed. Debate by who? The fans. I haven't heard anything to suggest that Marty, Hogan, JJ, or MOS were debating anything of the sort.

Little has changed with OL conditioning. They are asked to keep their weight up as a general rule and consume ungodly amounts of carbs and protein to do so. Tons have changed with the guys they line up against. They used to be carbon copies of the OL in the middle and were big men that could run a bit on the edge, now DL are chiseled man mountains that can run 4.5/40s. Take a look at a guy like Ceresna, guys like that didn't exist in Walby and Gorrell days. We won't re-sign him if Vanterpool is the plan. He's 40. We are not going to sign Stan to play inside. It would be bad for the ratio, and would hinder development of our young OGs. It would make no sense. There is no upside to it.

I'm not willing to roll the dice on Eli without at least trying to get a Centre in FA. There is a reason he never got into the lineup. I don't believe that if he was a better option he would have remained on the bench. The MOS argument is a dud because he has arguably shown more loyalty to Eli than most coaches would have after he walked away. If Marty believed that Eli was better I don't believe for one second he wouldn't have been playing. I truly think Kola was only intended to be a short term stop gap while we got Eli ready and that just never happened. I could be wrong, but it's just as likely as the alternative. My view is backed up by Eli only briefly being used as an injury replacement at OG, and then sat after playing horribly. I like Eli and hope I'm wrong but we have seen with our own eyes that he may represent zero upgrade to us.

We have way bigger priorities than DB. Pickett is a luxury we don't really need on a team that needs quite a bit of upgrading in some pretty expensive areas

OL career longevity is actually lower now than in Walby and Gorrells time. Different level of athletes on both sides of LOS now.

Biggie still thought he could play. That is something a lot of players do and it forces tough decisions like last year. It takes a great deal of confidence in yourself to become elite, and at the beginning of a career it's a great trait, at the end it usually results in some humbling.

Actually what started all of this was exactly that. Piggy suggested we move Stan to OG to get more years out of him. I thought that idea to be pretty stupid and still do.

That's my point entirely. At this point in his career does it do anyone any good to keep squeezing for extra time? I don't think so. I would think so too. I don't view him as one at all at LT. He's still very good at what he does. Thanks, didn't know he had moved inside. NFL is a completely different game tho and different contracts as well. NFL contracts are guaranteed which make a bit of a difference. Also, it was not really a planned transition he moved to OG when Brandon Brooks was injured. As I stated earlier if we HAD to move Stan to OG out of necessity so be it, but to plan it would be detrimental to everyone.

Possibly.,,,and if so well deserved. I would just hate for us to tarnish SB's legacy with any moves born out of desperation.

The year that J5V changed from Spalding to Wilson was a dramatic difference. I remember the kickers and QBs having fits with the new ones. Not necessarily a change on purpose. Could be as simple as a new supplier of their rawhide.

I would take either Woodmansey, or McEwen. They would represent a massive upgrade over Kola, Eli, or Vibert. We need a bonafide centre not a scrap heap plan. Could very well be a change to the footballs themselves. Different cowhide or pebbling etc. I remember when I was playing we had the J5Vs and every year they were a little different than the year before.

Name one time a team kicked a guy inside at age 40. You can't I guarantee that. As it is Stan has exceeded the normal parameters of career longevity. Relearning a new position at age 40 is moronic. I can't believe anyone would think otherwise. We have younger guys on our roster that are OGs that would be better than Stan trying to do it. Idiotic? Is that a better word? Because that's what it would be. If Stan isn't our best LT in camp then he should hang them up and we should be encouraging him to do that. If moving a 40 year old import LT to OG is our best move then management has failed badly. As I've stated, this isn't about Stan's ability to move inside it's about whether this move is good for both the short AND long term. It isn't good for either from a ratio standpoint and from a developmental standpoint. He is 40, we need to quit with the idea of wringing out extra time out of him. He can either play the position we are going to sign him for or he can't. Keeping him and putting him elsewhere is desparation. He is not entering the twilight of his career here where we can get a few more good years out of him with a position change. That was 4 years ago. My god. The move would be high risk/low reward. Stan is the best OL that I have ever seen play in a Bomber uniform and I understand everyone not wanting to let him go, but the proposal is absurd.

There is quite a huge difference between Stan being converted at age 35 and age 40. This is not the time to get extra years out of him at a new position. It would make zero sense, as I suggested earlier. Either he can still get it done at his regular position or we move on and honor him for the GOAT he is. Trying to stretch out a career by putting a 40 year old at a new position is very short sighted.

Knees and hips do not respond well to being reconditioned for an entirely different usage at age 40. Just getting out of the snap takes an entirely different muscle grouping than what a tackle is used to. It would be beyond moronic to even consider moving an OT to C at age 40. It's also not about the mashing, it's about keeping safe in the fray. 40 year olds do not have the flexibility to get rolled up on as an example. Relearning a new position at age 40 does no one any good, not Stan, not our team. If it was as an emergency thing sure. But how stupid would a team have to be to even consider taking their best OT and converting him to C at age 40. I can't put into words how dumb and short sighted such a decision would be. Moronic doesn't begin to cover it. We would be putting Stan at a position completely new to him, asking him to learn how to snap, how to use his body completely differently than all his pro career for what? The guy is 40...there is no long term benefit whatsoever. Like I said this isn't about his ability to get it done, it's about his age. He plays OT until he cannot do so anymore. Any plan other than that with a 40 year old player would hurt the team and be beyond moronic.

I would take him in a heartbeat. Christ we have people here suggesting we move Stan to C. Let's get a real centre so that we can end ridiculousness like that. It seems we are pretty desperate or at least the fans are. Or we can put the goat at a position he has never played, get him injured by the big men in the middle while learning how to snap at age 40. I could barely type that last sentence.

My point isn't whether Stan can do it, it's whether his body could hold up to it. It's not about ability it's about age. If Stan is too old for OT then it's highly likely he is also too old for the interior as well. If he is capable of playing it would be in his best interest to stay at OT. Not many spots open at his position in the NFL anymore. There isn't much for returning anymore. That would exclude you I guess. I could fit your football knowledge in my pinky finger but you are the king of eye rolls I'll give you that. I have never read any post of yours that approaches football intelligence. And lasted how long after?

That makes zero sense. Stan is a natural OT. Inside is more physical. You don't convert an OT inside at age 40 unless you want to end his career

Woods, Fox, and Adams are the definition of meh

A coach needs to be a good communicator, know how to get the best from his players, and get 100% buy in. What you did on the field is irrelevant. There are very few guys who come in that require extensive coaching in technique. If you got a guy on your team that lacking in technique it's because he's a beast, so you let him be a beast. Guys lacking in tech are shown the door fast unless they are a Stove type of player.

The overwhelming majority of position coaches in our league are ex-players who retired and had zero coaching experience beforehand. Your complaint is unfounded. Jake's not our DC for cripes sakes. You can count the winning HCs of 4 out of the last 5 Grey Cups among them Osh, Mace, and Dinwiddie all retired and went straight into coaching.

I disagree. I hate what we have asked him to do under Younger but he's probably the best suited DE in the league if we are going to continue that.

If they were going to fire Matty for imbibing they never would have hired him in the first place. Guy has liked his beers for many, many years.