GCn20

Bryant did show signs of aging last year, although he still played very well. The Bombers would be remiss not to have a backup plan in place should his play drop off a cliff, as it does with so many players around his age, but if he can come back and play as well as last year LT will not be an issue.

Will all depend on who is available come draft time I would think, but KW should be thinking about rebuilding our NAT talent at the LOS for sure.

I have zero doubt that Eli contributes effectively to our team. I am just not 100% sold that he is the heir apparent as a starter.

I agree. The interview with him sounds like he will be active in FA, so let's hope it's for stud players not scraps like last year.

It may have been in shambles due to lack of better options on the depth chart. I'm not trying to hate on Eli, I just want there to be some no doubt about it upgrades vs. maybes this year.

Yes, KW seems like he might show up this offseason. Fingers crossed.

Maybe...but maybe not. Maybe Eli just wasn't good enough. I know for sure he was terrible in pass pro whenever given reps as a starter. That does not inspire me to make him a FT starter.

In fairness to Logan, he never really got many return chances. I don't know if he is crap or not but I wouldn't base it on the dozen chances he had to return last year. Vaval stole his job and Logan was never really in the mix afterwards.

Ok...so you meant centre only then? Even worse. I was giving you the benefit of doubt because moving to OG is about the only position where Stan should ever line up besides Tackle. Planning on moving Stan to Centre would be a massive mistake by management and coaching of epic proportions. I would fire both if that is the best plan at Centre they can execute. Anyone suggesting that Stan would automatically make a good Centre, I would ask them what evidence they have he can execute snaps effectively. Sorry even to a GOAT OT like Stan this may not be an area he excels. I've never seen any evidence he can snap the ball so why would I ever assume he would easily pick it up. Most guys don't. I completely agree. All this discussion is for nothing. Stan is still rock solid at OT.

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.