Is this ever a guy we should take a run at? I really like Pokey as a receiver but not sure he's a 1A Superstar guy... Would you ever take a run at Hatcher as your #1 and then have Pokey and Demski as 2/3?

 

 

6 hours 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. 

Eli might be the answer, but we will not know until he has had a few games at center and we need to bear in mind that all those games where he mostly warmed the bench did nothing to enhance his confidence or game experience. 

12 hours ago, Tracker said:

Eli might be the answer, but we will not know until he has had a few games at center and we need to bear in mind that all those games where he mostly warmed the bench did nothing to enhance his confidence or game experience. 

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. 

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.

Edited January 15Jan 15 by GCn20

On 2026-01-14 at 7:21 AM, GCn20 said:

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.

We never said to move Stan to Center. We said he could play there if needed. 

If Eli is better, why hasn't he been the starter?

8 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

If Eli is better, why hasn't he been the starter?

Last season seemed to be full of debate about who should be starting not just reserved at the center position.

1 hour ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

We never said to move Stan to Center. We said he could play there if needed. 

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.

2 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Last season seemed to be full of debate about who should be starting not just reserved at the center position.

Debate by who? The fans. I haven't heard anything to suggest that Marty, Hogan, JJ, or MOS were debating anything of the sort.

Edited January 15Jan 15 by GCn20

3 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

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.

Debate by who? The fans. I haven't heard anything to suggest that Marty, Hogan, JJ, or MOS were debating anything of the sort.

Yes fans on this discussion board and thank goodness for that because it would be awfully boring around here if not.

15 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

If Eli is better, why hasn't he been the starter?

That's my worry about Eli. We've seen guys with less talent start over others for a hand full of games...if not entire seasons. But usually if both are still around there is a switch starting the next year. Eli has been here for 5 or 6 seasons now...? That's hard to over look. However, he has also been very good as the 6th man. So there's that to consider as well. 

14 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

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.

 

It's called a discussion. You know, we come here to talk about the Bombers. Is that okay with you or do you think that's stupid, too? 

22 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

It's called a discussion. You know, we come here to talk about the Bombers. Is that okay with you or do you think that's stupid, too? 

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.

Edited January 15Jan 15 by GCn20

15 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

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.

You do aften use the words stupid, moronic, ridiculous etc when offering up your opinion on other people's opinions, goes back to my previous post when I wrote you write with conviction though this conviction can at times ruffle some feathers if that's your intention. It's not necessarily what you're writing, it's how you're writing it. I offer this unsolicited piece of observation free of charge and even better if you read this while working, you got paid to read it, even better. You're welcome.

I exhausted myself just writing this sentence. Time for a nap.

16 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

You do aften use the words stupid, moronic, ridiculous etc when offering up your opinion on other people's opinions, goes back to my previous post when I wrote you write with conviction though this conviction can at times ruffle some feathers if that's your intention. It's not necessarily what you're writing, it's how you're writing it. I offer this unsolicited piece of observation free of charge and even better if you read this while working, you got paid to read it, even better. You're welcome.

I exhausted myself just writing this sentence. Time for a nap.

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.

Edited January 15Jan 15 by GCn20

17 hours ago, GCn20 said:

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

Yeah we in pretty good position there with incubants and recruited guys...and we havnt seen what FA offers...tho like u said...we need to focus on both lines and WR

 

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

If Eli is better, why hasn't he been the starter?

Do u really need to ask with u know who as the coach...cause it could be asked at likely 4 positions at mi imum the last few yrs

 

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

If Eli is better, why hasn't he been the starter?

Did the same logic apply when Sam Hurl was starting at MLB back in the day? 

Oshea using his roster in a suboptimal way is not a new phenomenon.... but I feel like we go around and around and around about this all the time.

Feels like there's gonna be a bunch of these....

 

 

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

Did the same logic apply when Sam Hurl was starting at MLB back in the day? 

Oshea using his roster in a suboptimal way is not a new phenomenon.... but I feel like we go around and around and around about this all the time.

Sam Hurl.

3 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

If Eli is better, why hasn't he been the starter?

Because O'Shea

 

52 minutes ago, Tracker said:

Because O'Shea

 

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.

Edited January 15Jan 15 by GCn20

1 hour ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Sam Hurl.

Him as our starting LB legit interfered with the joy in my life for years. It was like a dark cloud hanging over me.

Edited January 15Jan 15 by Bubba Zanetti

 

 

23 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

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.

The O-line has been a shambles for the past 2-3 years and until there is both ability and continuity, assessing Eli is likely pointless. 

10 minutes ago, Tracker said:

The O-line has been a shambles for the past 2-3 years and until there is both ability and continuity, assessing Eli is likely pointless. 

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.

Edited January 15Jan 15 by GCn20

hopefully we have a real camp...real battles and the cream rises...whoever that may be....but hopefully we are past the old way of certain positions are pre-decided and to heck what TC showed.

If for anything at the very least we know Eli is as solid a 6th you can have...can play multiple spots and is just a machine in jumbo...

Eli has 5 or 6 years and has never established himself. I'd lean towards him not being good enough.