GCn20

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.

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. 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.

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

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.

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

Would be nice to have one guy do all 3, but unless we have a sure thing there we can't roll the dice.