Blue Bombers -- 2025/26 Offseason -- Discussion Thread

[HardCoreBlue]

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

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.

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.

[sweep the leg]

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

Name one time a team kicked a guy inside at age 40. You can't I guarantee that. 

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

 

[johnzo]

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

[GCn20]

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.

[17to85]

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

[GCn20]

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.

Edited 23 hours ago by GCn20

[wbbfan]

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

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.

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. 

 

[GCn20]

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.

[CrazyCanuck89]

10 minutes 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. 

 

Didn't Walby and Gorell start at tackle in their 40s?

[johnzo]

18 hours ago, wbbfan said:

same. Especially sheed. idk if he’d be the best technical coach of the position, but his guys would run through a brick wall for him. He’s one of the best natural leaders we’ve ever had. 

 sheed and yoshi showed more leadership than you’d think would even work in the pros. When ever a new guy would be inserted into the line up or especially start, you’d see them with him in the walk out and warm ups. Those two made me wanna run through a brick wall as a fan lol. 

Darvin Adams was a fiery accountability guy, too, right?  I recall hearing he had a big personality.

[HardCoreBlue]

36 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

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

Jake Thomas says hi.

I know, the exit is that way.

[bearpants]

3 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Honestly having Streveler here on IR and basically interning as a coach would be a pretty smart move.  Kind of thing an organization with cash to leverage should be doing.

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

[GCn20]

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.

[bigg jay]

3 hours ago, CrazyCanuck89 said:

Didn't Walby and Gorell start at tackle in their 40s?

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..

[GCn20]

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. 

[bigg jay]

45 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

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

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.

[SpeedFlex27]

8 hours ago, GCn20 said:

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.

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. 

[HardCoreBlue]

3 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.

Yup we took care of ourselves by being told ‘throw some dirt on it and get back out there’.

[GCn20]

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.

[WinnipegGordo]

 

[GCn20]

10 minutes ago, WinnipegGordo said:

 

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

[rebusrankin]

I am fine with Logan being cut. I hope this means they know Vaval is back for 2026.

[Booch]

22 hours 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.

JT still wanted to play tho...so not really on his terms...so we threw him a bone essentially 

As for Stan...he played just fineast yr and if he back he stays where he is...only change i could see is him and Randolph flipping

He's earned the right to.come back and compete and show he still has it..and if he doesn't I can see him doing a Miller on the 6 game all yr or on the PR at full salary just in case and be that veteran presence to guide our young tackles and quasi coach 

All that said...ive seen nothing to indicate he is not still in the top tier of tackles...last yr for a good majority of our offence cant be viewed as for what it appeared...we were facked from day1 

[Bigblue204]

I'm fine with Logan being cut regardless of what happens with Vaval. Logan looked slow last year in his (granted) few attempts. I don't mind another competition there.

[17to85]

Logan looked like ass when he got into the lineup, whatever his injury was surely impacted him cause prior he was a pretty explosive guy.