The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Irn-Bru wrote:

markshark84 wrote:Based on what he has done this year: no.

What? You would cut a guy who can return kicks and punts who had two solid games and two games where he didn't do anything big but also didn't make mistakes?

Honestly, for me it's more complicated than that. Based on your statement taken alone, of course he should be on the roster. BUT, Banks is in a very unique situation. He only returns punts and kickoffs and does not see the field as a WR or on other special teams functions. So, in order for Banks to "deserve" the spot, I believe he needs to excel at PRs and KRs more so than anyone else could possibly do that is currently on our roster.

If you look at the roster, there are guys that could adequetely return punts and kickoffs -- such as Austin or Moss. But a special spot has been reserved for Banks because he is THAT much better. And right now we are carrying 8 WRs, which is more than most teams in the NFL. Therefore, I think it is necessary for Banks to do things that the other players currently on the roster are unable to do in terms of returning kicks/punts.

So......Banks needs to be "that much better". Now, I personally do not think he has done anything to say that he has proven that it was a smart move to carry 8 WRs while only having 7 OLs, but I don't think he has done anything that would make me ask that he be cut or released. But as he been "that much better" this season??? Who knows.

As I said before, even great returners only bring 1 or 2 back a year -- so it is WAY to early in the season to make this determination. My statement was made as if the season ended on week 4 -- which it doesn't. That is why I also included the next sentence stating why he deserved the roster spot.

First of all, right now Banks is not taking a WR spot. Hogster posted a Shanahan quote in which Shanny clearly said that Banks is a special teamer because of his knee problems. He can't put him in as wide receiver and make the necessary cuts. Banks currently, falls in the category of Sundberg (LS). Purely a special teamer.

So all the talk about taking a wide receiver spot is bunk. Shanny reserved a spot for Banks period - if Banks were to be gone, who knows what he would do with that spot? Third QB? Only Shanny Knows.

As far as Banks' four game production and the knocks on him:

Here is a guy named Chris Johnson's four game production:

Johnson is averaging 2.9 yards-per-carry this season, which puts him 45th out of 47 eligible players.

The Titan's should bench Chris Johnson. OK, some of you argue that it is Banks' only responsibility and that's the difference between his and Chris Johnson's stats. Nevermind that Banks' first two games produced what he was signed to do. We'll move on to the real argument why Chris Johnson should be benched, since some can't get over that Banks isn't taking someone else's spot (except maybe a third QB).

Let's go to this argument. Chris Johnson's lack of production is all his fault. Has nothing to do with the blocking.

My point - Just as it is ludicrous to say that Johnson's lack of production should bench him, it is so with Banks. Both of their performances have a lot to do with the blocking up front. Now, if we are seeing on film that Banks is not doing the things that he used to do that gave him the big returns, then folks would have an argument, BUT not one poster who is noting the lack of production of Banks in the last two games, mind you - not all four like Chris Johnson, has noted anything (with articles or descriptive observations based on film) that Banks is doing differently (not talking about, if he would have caught that punt stuff).

Countless times on two threads, folks have pointed out the lack of blocking in the LAST TWO games, but none of the posters, including Parks Smith, the author of the article, want to address what several of us have pointed out.

And stop with the "he has one job" stuff. His one job still says that he needs to have blocking.

And Stop forgetting what the guy has accomplished in the first two games as if it no longer counts.

Yes, his situation does compare to Chris Johnson's - no blocking - no production!

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... oing-away/

lol I'm the only one who said "one job". It's true though, he returns balls, one job.

It's what I say when there is a misdeal at the poker table. Omaha, not any of that Texas hold em garbage.


http://www.redskins.com/team/depth-chart.html

He's listed as a WR. Just sayin.

ATX_Skins wrote:lol I'm the only one who said "one job". It's true though, he returns balls, one job.

It's what I say when there is a misdeal at the poker table. Omaha, not any of that Texas hold em garbage.


http://www.redskins.com/team/depth-chart.html

He's listed as a WR. Just sayin.

Ok so he has two jobs. Primary KR/PR and emergency WR. Banks has done way more to justify his roster spot than Paul, Hankerson, Austin, or Stallworth have done!

ATX_Skins wrote:lol I'm the only one who said "one job". It's true though, he returns balls, one job.

It's what I say when there is a misdeal at the poker table. Omaha, not any of that Texas hold em garbage.


http://www.redskins.com/team/depth-chart.html

He's listed as a WR. Just sayin.

Shanahan said he didn’t take Banks into account when considering which receivers the team should carry on its 53-man roster. Instead, Redskins coaches see Banks – who this preseason returned a punt 95 yards for a touchdown and ran back a kickoff 58 yards -- as a specialist, one who is too valuable to risk by playing him at multiple positions.

“I don’t look at Brandon [Banks] as a receiver – he’s a returner,” Shanahan said. “I thought he did such a great job in punt returns and kick returns that it would be silly not to dress him on game day. I think he’s a difference maker out there, but he will be a specialty.”

Read what you want on depth chart - you just read what the HC said about Banks and that is a Special Teamer.

BTW, you are not the only one to say or point out that Banks has one job and that is returning kicks.

Markshark84 wrote:

BUT, Banks is in a very unique situation. He only returns punts and kickoffs and does not see the field as a WR or on other special teams functions. So, in order for Banks to "deserve" the spot, I believe he needs to excel at PRs and KRs more so than anyone else could possibly do that is currently on our roster.

You are both right that he has one primary job and that is as a returner. Having one job still doesn't change the fact that he needs to have blocking and it doesn't change the fact that neither of you have reported that you have looked at replays of video or TiVo or something and disputed that his blocking has not been good the last two games. Of course, you have read my argument that they are kicking to him differently and it is working. That was mentioned in the article that you posted. You have also read me describe that Banks is, on almost all occasions, making the first man miss on his returns and then getting clobbered by the second and third men down.

What I have heard is that his numbers are down in the last two games and Banks needs to do something about it - Ok, yes, you did change your tune a bit and said that team needs to do something about it. I think that we can all agree that the team needs to address the return game.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/foo ... _blog.html[/quote]

markshark84 wrote:Honestly, for me it's more complicated than that. Based on your statement taken alone, of course he should be on the roster. BUT, Banks is in a very unique situation. He only returns punts and kickoffs and does not see the field as a WR or on other special teams functions. So, in order for Banks to "deserve" the spot, I believe he needs to excel at PRs and KRs more so than anyone else could possibly do that is currently on our roster.

I see what you are saying, and I agree with you that someone who only does PR/KR better be very good at it to justify a roster spot.

If you look at the roster, there are guys that could adequetely return punts and kickoffs -- such as Austin or Moss. But a special spot has been reserved for Banks because he is THAT much better. And right now we are carrying 8 WRs, which is more than most teams in the NFL.

I don't think Banks is the reason we are carrying 8 WRs. I think Shanahan really can't decide between keeping Stallworth and some of the youth. We are doing pretty well on injuries so he hasn't had to pull the trigger on letting one or the other go.

We are also in a unique position because Hankerson clearly has the tools to become a solid starter but is clearly not there yet. He's one of those few draft picks who commands a roster spot even without contributing, solely because he'd be snatched up before clearing waivers and being signed to our practice squad.

So I think there are other things going on to explain why we have 8 roster spots tied up with WRs, and I don't think Shanahan will hesitate to cut that number back as soon as it's starting to hurt the team.

Moss is getting old and is not any kind of long-term solution at PR. Austin has shown that he can return kicks, but I've never seen anything from him that suggests he could break one with any regularity. Sure, he will probably do the decent thing (like James Thrash): put his head down, get his yards, trot back to the sidelines. But in Banks we've got a guy who does that and more with some regularity.

Banks has not only shown that potential between last year and this year, he's shown that potential in just these four games. So I just don't see the logic that Moss or Austin = as much value in PR/KR as Banks.

As I said before, even great returners only bring 1 or 2 back a year -- so it is WAY to early in the season to make this determination. My statement was made as if the season ended on week 4 -- which it doesn't. That is why I also included the next sentence stating why he deserved the roster spot.

What this line of reasoning overlooks is that great returners contribute more to their team than TDs. A lot more.

Great returners consistently take kickoffs beyond the 20. Every extra yard there improves the offense's chances of scoring a TD or getting into FG range — or, at the very worst, punting from a decent position with a chance to pin the opponent back deep.

Great returners turn a punt that lands on the 30 into a mid-field starting field position for the offense. A good return, even if it doesn't end in 6 points, can be the catalyst that swings the game back in the direction of our team.

I disagree that we should be measuring great returners primarily by TDs. There is a lot more to their contributions, and on that more comprehensive view Banks has shown some good things so far this year.

One job...

Irn-Bru wrote:

markshark84 wrote:Honestly, for me it's more complicated than that. Based on your statement taken alone, of course he should be on the roster. BUT, Banks is in a very unique situation. He only returns punts and kickoffs and does not see the field as a WR or on other special teams functions. So, in order for Banks to "deserve" the spot, I believe he needs to excel at PRs and KRs more so than anyone else could possibly do that is currently on our roster.

I see what you are saying, and I agree with you that someone who only does PR/KR better be very good at it to justify a roster spot.

If you look at the roster, there are guys that could adequetely return punts and kickoffs -- such as Austin or Moss. But a special spot has been reserved for Banks because he is THAT much better. And right now we are carrying 8 WRs, which is more than most teams in the NFL.

I don't think Banks is the reason we are carrying 8 WRs. I think Shanahan really can't decide between keeping Stallworth and some of the youth. We are doing pretty well on injuries so he hasn't had to pull the trigger on letting one or the other go.

We are also in a unique position because Hankerson clearly has the tools to become a solid starter but is clearly not there yet. He's one of those few draft picks who commands a roster spot even without contributing, solely because he'd be snatched up before clearing waivers and being signed to our practice squad.

So I think there are other things going on to explain why we have 8 roster spots tied up with WRs, and I don't think Shanahan will hesitate to cut that number back as soon as it's starting to hurt the team.

Moss is getting old and is not any kind of long-term solution at PR. Austin has shown that he can return kicks, but I've never seen anything from him that suggests he could break one with any regularity. Sure, he will probably do the decent thing (like James Thrash): put his head down, get his yards, trot back to the sidelines. But in Banks we've got a guy who does that and more with some regularity.

Banks has not only shown that potential between last year and this year, he's shown that potential in just these four games. So I just don't see the logic that Moss or Austin = as much value in PR/KR as Banks.

As I said before, even great returners only bring 1 or 2 back a year -- so it is WAY to early in the season to make this determination. My statement was made as if the season ended on week 4 -- which it doesn't. That is why I also included the next sentence stating why he deserved the roster spot.

What this line of reasoning overlooks is that great returners contribute more to their team than TDs. A lot more.

Great returners consistently take kickoffs beyond the 20. Every extra yard there improves the offense's chances of scoring a TD or getting into FG range — or, at the very worst, punting from a decent position with a chance to pin the opponent back deep.

Great returners turn a punt that lands on the 30 into a mid-field starting field position for the offense. A good return, even if it doesn't end in 6 points, can be the catalyst that swings the game back in the direction of our team.

I disagree that we should be measuring great returners primarily by TDs. There is a lot more to their contributions, and on that more comprehensive view Banks has shown some good things so far this year.

ATX_Skins wrote:One job...

QBs also have one job, but it still takes 10 other guys to make it work. You probably only have one job, too.

Deadskins wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:One job...

QBs also have one job, but it still takes 10 other guys to make it work. You probably only have one job, too.

ZING

ATX_Skins wrote:One job...

. . . what is a phrase that doesn't really add to the discussion?

I'll take Hogettes and Baguettes for 400, Alex.

Deadskins wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:One job...

QBs also have one job, but it still takes 10 other guys to make it work. You probably only have one job, too.

I do have one job. You guys get rattled so easily it's amusing.

People talk about Brandon Banks having subpar games. Devin Hester never has them or does he?

Against the Lions on Monday NightL:

KOR

D. Hester 4 returns 21 Avg 0 TDs 33LG

Punt Returns
D. Hester 1 return 1 Avg 0 TDs 1 LG

Even with the line drive kicks deep into the end zone, Hester had a sub par game. Banks rarely gets those types of kicks anymore.

This is all Hester's fault, right? Of course it isn't JUST like it isn't all Bank's fault.

Not saying Banks is as good as Hester, but then again, some folks are holding Banks to a higher standard than Hester. What's up with that? Two games and they are already clamoring that Banks is not earning a roster spot. Just threw away the first two games. What have you done for us lately, Mr. Banks? Bloggers tomorrow? What have you done for us lately, Mr. Hester? Not a chance.

Without blocking and the other team gameplanning for you, there will be days like this and more than just one day, even if you are Devin Hester. The same is true for Banks and other returner with their skills.

Banks earned his roster spot in the first two games and will continue to earn his roster spot during the season.

Mr. Hester was catching balls for the Bears offense. Thats what he has done lately.

ATX_Skins wrote:Mr. Hester was catching balls for the Bears offense. Thats what he has done lately.

Figured that was coming from you.

Surely, there must be someone on the Bears roster who could return kicks better than Hester. Johnny Knox has a TD return under his belt. For Kick Offs, what have you done for us lately Mr. Hester?

Of course, their fans aren't going to ask that question until there is a long drought on returns if such a thing ever happens with him and if it does, it is valid same as with Banks.

BTW, the wide receiver Hester has yet to make people forget that, he makes the big bucks because of his return skills.

Red_One43 wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:Mr. Hester was catching balls for the Bears offense. Thats what he has done lately.

Figured that was coming from you.

Surely, there must be someone on the Bears roster who could return kicks better than Hester. Johnny Knox has a TD return under his belt. For Kick Offs, what have you done for us lately Mr. Hester?

Of course, their fans aren't going to ask that question until there is a long drought on returns if such a thing ever happens with him and if it does, it is valid same as with Banks.

BTW, the wide receiver Hester has yet to make people forget that, he makes the big bucks because of his return skills.

You asked what he had done lately. I answered. He caught 5 passes, second on the team, tonight. He also brought a kick back from the endzone, juked 3 tacklers and then lowered down initiating contact (it was a kicker though). If Banks was catching balls and in there with the offense his lack of return production would not be this much of an issue I believe.

The fact that you even compare Hester with Banks is actually ridiculous.

Hester hasn't always been a WR though right?
You forget how many tds BB broke last year including all that were brought back due to unneeded or bogus blocking in the back calls? Maybe blockers are trying so hard to not negate a return, blocking has gone a little soft? Can U forget the one he returned in preseason? Last year and this year? If you add them all up and I'm sure u can make sixteen games total he's played that add up to one hellova season..
Grahm gano has one job- kick. So what? Banks is a game changer but certainly can't change every game. I hope he blows this thread up this week- something I think we all can agree on

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Hester hasn't always been a WR though right?
You forget how many tds BB broke last year including all that were brought back due to unneeded or bogus blocking in the back calls? Maybe blockers are trying so hard to not negate a return, blocking has gone a little soft? Can U forget the one he returned in preseason? Last year and this year? If you add them all up and I'm sure u can make sixteen games total he's played that add up to one hellova season..
Grahm gano has one job- kick. So what? Banks is a game changer but certainly can't change every game. I hope he blows this thread up this week- something I think we all can agree on

Looking at the stats, you are possibly right. In 2006 he didn't. Every year after though he has. It also looks like he's played a bit of defense (14 career tackles).

Either way, the Hester/Banks debate is absurd.

Its relative but not needed... Being a rookie he had a great first year and will only get better. He and the team needs to counter the game planning and just figure out how to get something going, undoubtedly something they are addressing this week in practice

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Its relative but not needed... Being a rookie he had a great first year and will only get better. He and the team needs to counter the game planning and just figure out how to get something going, undoubtedly something they are addressing this week in practice

I really hope you are right. There should be no excuse as to why teams are able to shut down out return game.

YES - This dead horse topic doesn't deserve any more beating.

All that I ask of you Banks haters is that you be willing to give away the points when Banks scores. No returner breaks one every game. That's why it's called "breaking one" gurus.

On another note, thanks for giving Redskins fans who believe in Banks a newer thread in which to gloat and humiliate the haters once Banks does score. I forgot the name of the older threads.

Who's a Banks hater?

ATX_Skins wrote:Who's a Banks hater?

Anyone who has watched this guy play, and still asks whether he deserves a roster spot.

ATX_Skins wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:One job...

QBs also have one job, but it still takes 10 other guys to make it work. You probably only have one job, too.

I do have one job. You guys get rattled so easily it's amusing.

Rattled?

The Hogster wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:Who's a Banks hater?

Anyone who has watched this guy play, and still asks whether he deserves a roster spot.

Oh ok, because I have made it clear that he does.