14 hours ago, bigg jay said:

Flip side is the training and treatment athletes get these days can allow for them to play longer.  A lot of guys didn't take care of themselves properly back then... at least not compared to today's standards.

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.

14 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I don't understand the hills you choose to die on, sometimes. If he & the coaches think he can do it, then they'll move him over to Center or Guard. The guy can still play. No one says he can't. It's time to work in a new guy like Vanterpool at LT to protect Zach's back while he can help us inside. He can still perform outside as well. 

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.

44 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

It's true that we wont know for a couple of games. We've used the heavy set pretty extensively, especially prior to Hogan's year. I'm not worried about his confidence or game experience. He's come back from two lengthy times away from football in his career, and hes not the type of guy you worry about confidence with. 

The question will be, does he do a significantly better job in pass pro at C than he did at G? He will be, at worst, a slight upgrade in pass pro at C over Kola, and a significant upgrade in run blocking, and in the nuance of playing C.  That will dictate if he is a Couture-level or another stopgap. They also really value his contributions as a 6th ol, if we go back to the heavy set usage, they might want to keep him there. 

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.

1 hour ago, Booch said:

Last year I woulda chased Pickett...but like said here....we way over spending in secondary as it is so that be just robbing from Peter to pay Paul and not really benefitting us

I like what we have in Woodbey, Allen, Smith and Shay and we need to let that young talent keeo getting better, and by what has been seen all will be pretty damn good

Hopefully we sign Griffin to round it out as he would be a big loss, and is just hitting his prime too, and is also just so dam versatile and perfect for Younger's system

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

11 minutes ago, bigg jay said:

Not late into their 40's but yes both were starting right up until retirement (1996 was the last season for both).  Walby had turned 40 at the end of his last season so he only played a few games past that 40 mark while Gorrell had turned 41 at the end of his final season..

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

10 minutes ago, bearpants said:

completely agree... was kinda hoping we would do that with Bighill last year...

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.

1 minute ago, wbbfan said:

Name one good starting tackle at age 40. That is the issue lol. Basically, all Ts are gone long before that. 

He doesn't face any learning curve. We've seen DL play ol. We've seen guys switch sides. When you have the experience Bryant does, when you've set the line for that long and developed half the elite linemen in the league, you don't have to learn. You especially don't have to learn to move inside. Some guys have weird issues with switching left to right, more so than outside to in, but if you can play T, you can play inside mental blocks aside. 

Look up "The Tackle Age Wall". The best tackles in the world hit it and disappear around 32. The kick inside happens before that, primarily to guys who are below elite. Because Elite guys have the money and don't want to dimish legacy by playing to 40 and being a turnstile. It happens every single year in the NFL. If you look, you'll see there is a mass exodus from T to G across the board. It isn't a risky scenario. It's literally the safest one. 

There is no long-term. There is no medium term. Maybe not even a short term. It's day by day. And it's been a long time since the last good day. 

No one said we shouldn't move on from him if he can't produce. You've lost the plot and spiralled. Come back to the actual conversation point. 

 

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.

24 minutes ago, johnzo said:

40-year-old OL are pretty rare to begin with so we're already in a weird space.  Maybe it gets weirder?  I dunno.  

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.

6 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Thinking that if Big Stan became a liability he would just call it a career.

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.

26 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

Jason Peters. Switched to guard before having to move back to T due to starting tackles getting hurt.

 

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.

29 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

You write with conviction, I'll give you that.

I'm assuming MOS is giving SB the same card he gave JT, i.e., you go out on your own terms.

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

10 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

My only concern with Mcewen is health/age. I do think either of those two at 100% is a big upgrade. Eli would be an instant and drastic improvement in the run game. But his lateral work at guard in pass pro was very subpar. He might be one of those rare guys who struggle at guard vs a natural position, like Hardrick. He might also be a guy who struggles head up, and is more of a bully C. Which is fine, again, teams played a nose on Kola once he was exposed. Teams aren't going to start out challenging Eli like that. He's a mauler. He might not win, especially against speedy, talented 3-techs, but he will give you a battle. 

Yeah, that would make a ton of sense. I didn't hear any changes to the football, but if they did, I wouldn't be surprised in the least. I thought the J5Vs were awful when brand new. Most of the time, if you could beat 'em up and get some wear on them, they played a lot better. I remember playing a game in real sloppy conditions with brand new ones, and it was like a 3 stooges bit for the first half. At halftime, they put them in bags with gravel from the parking lot, and we shook them the whole half. After that, it was manageable. 

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.

11 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

Normally yes. They pick from a bag of a few and break them in. But we've seen crazy stuff like that in the past. Like when the NBA tried new balls, or when baseball went to more deadened balls after 2019. I would think if that happened, we would have heard about it, though, especially from QBs/wrs. But in this era and league, anything is possible. 

Not necessarily a change on purpose. Could be as simple as a new supplier of their rawhide.

1 hour ago, wbbfan said:

Woodmansey just completed his first full season at C, he played it off and on the two previous years so he isn't like a true blue centre. But he's damned good and still 28. He's played 82 games, but he's also been pretty healthy through his time in the league. He's got excellent size and build for C as well as athleticism. 

 I dont know how much he will get, but a steal like that in free agency is worth being spend happy on. 

I do like Eli and am comfortable with Vibert as the backup. He was also solid in the work we gave him at C last camp/pre-season. But there are other options as it stands right now;

Woodmansey, an excellent centre in his prime. He will command a premium price. With marty coaching him, I think he only goes up from last year.

Mcewen, the riders prized free agent from last year but ended up getting hurt and missing the year. Turns 33, I wouldve loved him last year. This year, he'd be solid at a reasonable pay day.

Further to the scrap pile, Sceviour is also a free agent. He is a natural C that has played as much G in the cfl as C. Again, solid pick up if he is on a reasonable deal. 

Then in the depths of the scrap heap, Starczala. He's a warm body who has started at C, and is likely a 6th ol at best on a good team, if hes healthy. At that point I'd rather take a developmental kid in the draft. 

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.

1 hour ago, wbbfan said:

I do remember 1-2 errant snaps in games against us, snapping is certainly not his greatest strength. With the Pistol and alignment nature of cfl offences, I don't think the snap is as critical as it was when everyone was in run and gun from the shotgun. I think a good coach should be able to tighten up snaps with in a year or so in the cfl. 

 But I also think we could have had some outlier issue last year. Kola was always a snapping specialist; that was the one thing he did really well. But last year he was close to a wild snap a game. And most games in the league now that I think back had some bad snaps. I wonder if this is an issue of wear on artificial turf, causing something to rub off on balls, or a wipe down procedure change or some thing. 

I kind of want to go back and look at the ball handling in a game or two now. It could all be a coincidence, or it could be some odd root problem. 

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.

1 hour ago, wbbfan said:

That really depends on the wear on them. Ive seen a ton of people who've reconditioned their hips and knees for extreme use changes in the 30s-60s (Bjj, yoga, muay thai) and its not only worked very well but drastically improved issues. Youd be surprised how many ex ol make moves like that (usually post-career) and how much of a positive impact it has. 

No one has the flexibility to get rolled up on, that's not a thing. if you get rolled up on from the side or rear of the leg, you are plain lucky to get up afterwards. No matter the age. 

Stan isn't our best T. If he comes back at 100% of where he was last year, he may not be our 2nd best T. 

A change inside a guy like stan isn't relearning. 

Shortsighted? We are talking about a 40-year-old OL. At this point its about getting the last bit out of his career. 

There is no long-term anything; he's 40, and the year before last had to be carted off the field and hospitalized for dehydration. 

You keep saying moronic, even though kicking inside happens across all leagues, specifically to extend careers. 

 

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.

27 minutes ago, bigg jay said:

4 seasons. His 2001 season was ended by a back injury and that was pretty much the end of him being a full-time tackle - he did see some action there but he was mainly a center from that point on.

He played until he was 39 so he had a fairly lengthy career & wasn't lasting a whole lot longer no matter what position he was in.  By the time he was moved to center, he had played over a decade between the NFL, WLAF & CFL and had suffered some major injuries during that time (and in college). 

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.

16 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

@stan, the wear at C would likely be the lowest he'd face in terms of impact. Now it would really depend on how his knees and hips are. C is more demanding in those areas. Stan has always kept himself in tremendous shape and has never been sloppy. he looks to move fluidly, even if slower in this age range.  At C he wouldn't be facing the mashing every snap, or even on most snaps. Teams aren't going to line up a nose against big stan unless they are in a 30 front, which no one is running as a base. Having been exposed by speed rushes off the edge, he will see even more of that this year. Which means his lower body is at risk from those non-contact type injuries, having to explode out of the stance and kick step to a rusher. Those side-angled pushes at T are what generally cook Ts knees. So it really depends on his physical state and what is worn now. 

That is a good point, the kr game in the NFL is soo strange now. 

Moe actually played a considerable while once he kicked inside, first to G, then to C. He actually slide in side for the final stretch of his first year here as well. But he played the last 3 years inside, about 3/4 of that at C. Then he also played C in his final year with bc before he retired. He didn't play T here for as long as you'd think. 

qft. Such an impressive career, one of the most resilient players we've had. 

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.

12 hours ago, wbbfan said:

It’s backwards. He was drafted as and started out his career at G. He was in and out of the line up and bounced between g and c. But he played much better at c and was at C most of year and maybe the best C in the league. The previous year he was at g the whole year. 

 the cats ol prior to last year was pretty bleh and they didn’t run balanced play call. he’s an excellent run blocker and good in pass pro. he’d fit us brilliantly. 

 I don’t think we will be in the market to pay that though. 

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.

14 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

There's 3 weeks to go in the window. Lots can change. 

It's a lot easier for a tackle to move inside then for an interior OL to move outside. Center calls all the blocking schemes. Stan understands that & wouldn't have any problem adjusting to Center. Neither would Neufeld if they went that route. 

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.

16 hours ago, wbbfan said:

It should always be the case that you need to win your spot in camp. After a run like we've had the past few years, we have to bring in league free agents who will compete for spots. And be willing to cut them if they get trounced in performance, like Vaval/Logan. 

On that note, how has Vaval not gotten an NFL deal yet?

Not many spots open at his position in the NFL anymore. There isn't much for returning anymore.

14 hours ago, Piggy 1 said:

The people on here that actually know something about football beg to differ............

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.

14 hours ago, johnzo said:

Moe Elewonibi converted to center for us in his late thirties.

 

And lasted how long after? 

22 hours ago, Piggy 1 said:

I think Big Stan would be awesome inside for at least a couple years , because of how hes taken care 

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

On 2026-01-09 at 9:29 AM, Bigblue204 said:

Wasn't Sayles a Bomber find in the last 4 years? Woods/Fox/Adams have all been solid but suffered from lack of playing imo. 

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.

1 hour ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I think my complaint is legit. Osh's priorities make no sense. A real weakness was our DL play. Solution? Bring in a guy who just retired has never coached. Who was the big reason the DL sucked so much to be the new position coach.

I've said this before. There has to be coaches who have more experience in U Sport that could coach at that position. Why bring in a retired player like Jake when we could have brought in someone more than qualified from the Canadian College ranks? These guys deserve a shot as well & seem to never get it.

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. 

 

 

7 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

From a defensive line point of view we need to change what we expect from and how we use our dline. This change in DL scheme and expectations does not involve retaining WJ imo.

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.

1 hour ago, Stickem said:

Bo Levi has the gift of the gab and comes across very well on the tube....He'll be a good one....As far as Matty being let go...there were whispers about his imbibing ...Now I don't know if that was factual or just an excuse to dump him....Dunnigan had his share of noggin knockers in his time and maybe it was starting to tell in his speech...can't say for sure, but after listening to Kate over the past while, she is starting to make me year for the days of Matty....At any rate IF it wasn't his choice to move on, I think that was pretty piss poor treatment of one of the stars of this league....That still sticks in my craw

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.

1 hour ago, Booch said:

I've actually said thats where I want him...traditional role safety...over top coverage and crashing down on run plays...nothing too exotic as he cant do it. He is bad covering...and gets lost in space too much to be a coverage guy, and at SAM where he has a lot of different responsibilities at prob one the most important spots on a CFL defence...so why play a guy who isnt the best you have and most skilled?  The apparent smarts only do so much for a player on the field when their limitations dont allow them to be elite...Same can be said with Jones....Too many holes to be used as your legit playmaker....but really good guy to have in a role and depth

 

He's an average DB but he is kinda multi usefull in a way...as he can work up close to the line...hence he should be a role player/super sub and paid accordingly...not at a top defender level and SAM is where you need one...and Was gonna say in the response above would love to see that flip flop

I also think Smith could handle SAM very effectively too if given the opportunity

Wonder with the big Kramdi deal...The Nichols resigning...If we were looking to move on from Holm?...Lotta scratch for those 3 that would be a bad allocation of cash...

 

would just like to add...I never said I dont want Kramdi on my team....Just not starting unless it is a dire emergency thing....and his price tag way out weighs his production/impact....valuable piece as depth and leadership and serving a role...

I like Kramdi at S because I think it plays to his one big strength, his closing speed. S is a role way more suited to his skill set and I think he could give QB fits if he can read the play well enough. His acceleration in a straight path is as good as it gets. Don't know if he can catch tho...lol.

2 minutes ago, bigg jay said:

The part about it being a bad allocation of cash could still be correct.  Need to see some details first though.

He is not bad allocation of cash. He is an all star DB. Someone else in the secondary might be bad allocation of cash but not Holm. He plays the toughest position in the secondary and is the best in the league at it.

6 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

I love the timing of this post after booch questions if we're moving on from him.

Yea...sorry Booch going to pile on...that post didn't even get a chance to not age well. 

18 minutes ago, Booch said:

Goosen...Fortin...among others

Woodbey should be our SAM and also an almost Jack at times off the edge of line....Griffin as well if resigned, tho not in a jack spot...Griffin and Nichols as the HB's as well would be ideal...and we get more physical with Woodbey and Griffin playing starter reps

Smith as well needs to be playing majority of reps at WIL and even in the role Woodbey had...

 

correct guys....and this also has to go hand in hand with not predetermining and being rigis with ratio based on how we ran it before....just negates talent on roster from actually playing

if camp shows Kramdi is not best player at SAM....does Osh start him anyway...cause thats Osh...And they have to justify his stupid salary?...Probably....and that right there makes us weaker on defence...

Kramdi is not nearly as bad as you make him out to be, but if someone is clearly better I like him at S. I know you don't care for him there, but I think he could be really good there with a little more time.

6 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

I don't know why they don't just let Castillo do it all

Yea...he is actually a pretty good punter.