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

Redskins‏@Redskins

QB Kirk Cousins throws open WR Aldrick Robinson on a deep pass down the sidelines. Over the shoulder, touchdown, untouched

Aldrick is starting to show what was expected of him before traing camp. Can't wait to see him field some punts in a game.

Banks had to make the team.

We simply don't have enough play makers to let one go.

Red_One43 wrote:CLL wrote:

TO be fair, they didn't kick away from Crawford. Banks didnt get a chance to return. However, Crawford run north/south... I liked that and I'd honestly like to see more of him at PR.

Chris, you raise a strong point. Banks does make teams alter their kicking game. For stats, Banks doesn't get credits for shanked or short punts that happened because they tried to kick away from Banks. Shanny knows that explosive players make a big difference.

Let's see the outcome of the Bills punts because I fail to see what credit Banks might have had coming.

The first punt was 47 yards out of bounds at the 12, Skins started inside their own 15, the punt returner made no difference on this play, punters have been doing this for decades to pin the other team inside their own 20 yard line. They even track how often a punter does this.

The second punt 49 yards down at the 4 after first being called a touch back, again the punt returner made no difference on this play, it was a good punt and pinned the team inside the five.

The next punt was one of those short punt you mentioned, it went 33 yards and end with a fair catch by Banks at the 13, had the punter kick the ball any further it would more than likely went into the endzone for a touchback or may have been downed inside the ten. The punter didn't consider who the punt returner was because field position dictated that he kick it short. Banks took away the possibility of them downing the ball inside the 10, so he should get credit for that.

The next punt was 44 yards and also ended with a fair catch, this time by Crawford at the 24, the same credit that could be given to Banks on the previous return, when you consider this was the first punt the punter didn't get credit for having pinned the opponent inside it's own 20 you would think Crawford's fair catch was more beneficial to the Redskins than the previous fair catch

The fifth punt was 43 yards and down at the 1 and just another good play by the kicking team

Number six was 45 yards and out of bounds at the 46, but I don't think Banks was the returner on that play, it might have been Crawford but I'm not sure.

On the Bills next punt they boomed it 55 yards to the 10 and Crawford returned it 17 out to the 27 yard line. They punted the next one three yards shorter that the last to the 14 which Crawford returned 22 yards and the net of 30 yards made it statistically the Bills worst punt of the night.

On their last punt it went 47 yards to the 10 and Crawford returned it 17 yards to give the Bills the same net and the punt before.

Red_One43 wrote:Crawford did look good. This is an honest question - Did he show anything more than Terrance Austin as a punt returner. I bring this up, because Austin has looked good with PRs in preseason, but Shanny wanted the explosion of Banks - that potential of big gainer every time he touched the ball. If the answer is no - then I assume Crawford at this point has not come close to beating out Banks as the PR guy.

OK I just reviewed every punt and Austin wasn't mentioned so I'll say Crawford definitely looked better than Austin on Thursday night. I won't say he hasn't come close to beating out Banks but I won't say he has either. I will say Crawford may have surpassed both Austin, Robinson, and Paul as Banks' main challenger for the return duties

Red_One43 wrote:We have yet to see Aldrick Robinson return punts. He is considered an excellent open field runner with good vision (based on his open field running after catches in college). If he can catch the punts, he could be the guy.

"If he can catch the punts" is enough to keep Danny Smith from sending him out there, he needs to focus on catching passes. If Shanny wants Banks to contribute as a WR he'll want the same thing from Robinson. If Crawford wins the return job, then Banks, Robinson, and Austin lose a little "LEVERAGE" when it comes to getting a roster spot based on flexibility of playing more than one role for the team.

IMHO Crawford looked better than Griffin.....(C. Griffin ) Thursday night.

skinsfan#33 wrote:Banks had to make the team.

We simply don't have enough play makers to let one go.

When was the last time he made a play?

Don't name a play that was called back, because someone else made a mistake... it's a team sport and you can't always blame a illegal block in the back because the return should set up his blocks and sometimes the illegal blocking call is really on the returner.

Oh and how many times will whatever trick play he may have been good at work once the rest of the league gets the film?


The Redskins had 70 offensive plays in the 1st games, 3 kickoff returns, and 9 punt returns. How many plays did this playmaker make?

Banks was truly a play maker in 2010 but that was 2010. If he wants to make the roster he better start making plays. He doesn't have to be a play maker he just needs to make plays and he hasn't

1niksder wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Banks had to make the team.

We simply don't have enough play makers to let one go.

When was the last time he made a play?

Don't name a play that was called back, because someone else made a mistake... it's a team sport and you can't always blame a illegal block in the back because the return should set up his blocks and sometimes the illegal blocking call is really on the returner.

Oh and how many times will whatever trick play he may have been good at work once the rest of the league gets the film?


The Redskins had 70 offensive plays in the 1st games, 3 kickoff returns, and 9 punt returns. How many plays did this playmaker make?

Banks was truly a play maker in 2010 but that was 2010. If he wants to make the roster he better start making plays. He doesn't have to be a play maker he just needs to make plays and he hasn't

Here's how Danny Smith defines a playmaker:

And, finally, special teams coach Danny Smith: “I think the world of him. I think he’s a playmaker, he’s a chunk-yardage guy, and you have to get chunks in this league. If you look at every time he touches the ball in situations on offense, he got a chunk. Some of them have been called back and things like that. It’s hard to drive the ball against people in this league and you get chunk-yardage players, so it didn’t put me in any different position, I like it. It doesn’t affect anything. He will still be a punt returner, a kick returner, that kind of thing. Obviously it’s the head coach’s decision, but I think it’s a great idea personally.”

His postion coach says he is a playmaker and his position coach mentions plays being called back.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/redskins- ... le/2504402

DarthMonk wrote:Size might easily be the biggest single factor that could keep BB from being a top 53 player.

Red_One43 wrote: disagree with you that size might be the biggest factor - As you can see from my posts, I don't think that it is a factor at all in Shanny's eyes. The biggest factor will be him not being able to do what is asked of him.

What I'm saying is size could be the single biggest factor preventing him from being able to do what is asked of him ... as a WR in particular.

DarthMonk

Red_One43 wrote:

1niksder wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Banks had to make the team.

We simply don't have enough play makers to let one go.

When was the last time he made a play?

Don't name a play that was called back, because someone else made a mistake... it's a team sport and you can't always blame a illegal block in the back because the return should set up his blocks and sometimes the illegal blocking call is really on the returner.

Oh and how many times will whatever trick play he may have been good at work once the rest of the league gets the film?


The Redskins had 70 offensive plays in the 1st games, 3 kickoff returns, and 9 punt returns. How many plays did this playmaker make?

Banks was truly a play maker in 2010 but that was 2010. If he wants to make the roster he better start making plays. He doesn't have to be a play maker he just needs to make plays and he hasn't

Here's how Danny Smith defines a playmaker:

And, finally, special teams coach Danny Smith: “I think the world of him. I think he’s a playmaker, he’s a chunk-yardage guy, and you have to get chunks in this league. If you look at every time he touches the ball in situations on offense, he got a chunk. Some of them have been called back and things like that. It’s hard to drive the ball against people in this league and you get chunk-yardage players, so it didn’t put me in any different position, I like it. It doesn’t affect anything. He will still be a punt returner, a kick returner, that kind of thing. Obviously it’s the head coach’s decision, but I think it’s a great idea personally.”

His postion coach says he is a playmaker and his position coach mentions plays being called back.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/redskins- ... le/2504402

Is this your way of saying it's been so long since he made a play, you'd rather post a quote of the special teams coach reminiscing about what he did in the past.

Crawford had 3 returns for 42 yards or as Danny smith might say he got a chunk of yards on three returns. And he had a pick as a position player.

Banks past is his past. Honestly his return work is the only thing that has kept him on the roster the last two years, and the fact of the matter is the staff has said it won't be enough. People act like he is the only option in the return game, he's not. Another fact is after the top four at Banks primary position the last two/three spots are up for grabs and Banks IS in the mix with or without being a returner. I still have him listed as my number 6/7 WR competing against a guy with suspect hands and still PS eligible, a guy claimed of waivers, and a dude that spent most of last season in the coaches doghouse and currently limited due to injuries. If Crawford or someone other than a WR won the return job, all of Banks current competition can all be used as the back up return man. Banks is the only that is proven to be able to actually do it.

If it came down to a just a numbers thing right now, I think Banks wins out for the last spot be it #6 or #7. He showed nothing as a WR in game 1 of the pre-season yet he had been a bright spot all week in practice.

It's no guarantee he gets a roster spot because he can return punts, and it's no guarantee he isn't one of the top six WR on the roster because of what he did in the first game of the pre-season.

I was up in the air on him this off season after feeling he was a waste of a roster spot at this time last year. Still up in the air on him but higher on him than I was last season. Maybe because he is injury free now, not sure why my opinion changed.

^You know, until last year's preseason game against the Bucs, I would have said no team would kick away from a punt returner in preseason. Bucs proved me wrong, but I wouldn't expect very many teams to follow the Bucs lead on that. If you will recall, after Banks' 90 yarder agaiinst the Bucs, they stopped kicking to him - bringing a chorus of boos everytime the punter kicked away from him.

Those remarks that you quoted were made in reference to the past regular season. Dallas shanked a punt that led to our first TD in the home game against them.

Your stats are good and they do prove that the Buffs feared no PR in that game, but I would think the priority in preseason would be to evaluate ST teams and not kick away from the PR.

*True - Austin didn't return a kick in the Buff game. I was referring to when he returned punts the past two seasons. Austin: 5 for an 8.8 Avg 22 Long 2010 preseason. Crawford: 3 for a 14.0 Avg 17 long Two small a sample, but going on what I remember about the returns. To answer my question: I would give the slight edge to Crawford because he has more wiggle in his step - it makes people miss. I don't see the explosiveness of Banks in him, though.

*I agree if Crawford wins the PR job, Banks, Robinson, and Austin lose leverage. Here is the issue for preseason games: Opportunities! Banks only returned 4 last preseason because they knew what he could do and the Bucs kicked away from him in the last game. Niles Paul got the other 4 returns. Austin didn't get any. I am going to predict that Robinson shares with Banks against the Bears.

To me, Robinson potentially is the guy to beat out Banks - he has the speed and he has the open field elusiveness.
Shanny wants explosivenes! Danny Smith wants chunk yardage! If the draft scouts are right - Watchout for Rob on punts!

Red_One43 wrote:^You know, until last year's preseason game against the Bucs, I would have said no team would kick away from a punt returner in preseason. Bucs proved me wrong, but I wouldn't expect very many teams to follow the Bucs lead on that. If you will recall, after Banks' 90 yarder agaiinst the Bucs, they stopped kicking to him - bringing a chorus of boos everytime the punter kicked away from him.

Those remarks that you quoted were made in reference to the past regular season. Dallas shanked a punt that led to our first TD in the home game against them.

Your stats are good and they do prove that the Buffs feared no PR in that game, but I would think the priority in preseason would be to evaluate ST teams and not kick away from the PR.

*True - Austin didn't return a kick in the Buff game. I was referring to when he returned punts the past two seasons. Austin: 5 for an 8.8 Avg 22 Long 2010 preseason. Crawford: 3 for a 14.0 Avg 17 long Two small a sample, but going on what I remember about the returns. To answer my question: I would give the slight edge to Crawford because he has more wiggle in his step - it makes people miss. I don't see the explosiveness of Banks in him, though.

*I agree if Crawford wins the PR job, Banks, Robinson, and Austin lose leverage. Here is the issue for preseason games: Opportunities! Banks only returned 4 last preseason because they knew what he could do and the Bucs kicked away from him in the last game. Niles Paul got the other 4 returns. Austin didn't get any. I am going to predict that Robinson shares with Banks against the Bears.

To me, Robinson potentially is the guy to beat out Banks - he has the speed and he has the open field elusiveness.
Shanny wants explosivenes! Danny Smith wants chunk yardage! If the draft scouts are right - Watchout for Rob on punts!

I understand what your saying, I guess I'm saying although Banks can't make the roster based ONLY on his ability to return kicks, non of his competition at his primary position will make the team BECAUSE they can return kicks.

When you think about Banks you think returns, that might be why I didn't like him as a WR... last year league rules took away his KORs and this off-season Shanny took away the roster spot set aside for someone who could only return kicks.

When I started this thread I had Banks getting cut and Moss not making the final 53...

1niksder on March 24th in this thread wrote:Stays:

Pierre Garçon
Joshua Morgan
Jabar Gaffney
Leonard Hankerson
Niles Paul
Anthony Armstrong

Goes:

Terrence Austin
Brandon Banks
Aldrick Robinson will go back to the PS

If they only keep 6 Santana Moss goes, if they keep 7 and don't draft or sign somebody else he stays.

They didn't draft anyone and hadn't signed Briscoe yet but when Paul got moved to TE full time and Gaffney went back to NE, I moved both Moss and Banks back into my top six and started thinking a seven WR would be a wasted roster spot.

1niksder on Apr 22nd in this thread wrote:

1niksder wrote:Stays:

Pierre Garçon
Joshua Morgan
Jabar Gaffney
Leonard Hankerson
Niles Paul
Anthony Armstrong

Goes:

Terrence Austin
Brandon Banks
Aldrick Robinson will go back to the PS

If they only keep 6 Santana Moss goes, if they keep 7 and don't draft or sign somebody else he stays.

Less than a month has pasted and there's time for a update.

With Paul saying the move to TE is a permanent move and Gaffney being shopped or chopped, they may only have six or seven WR on the roster going into camp. And Banks may have to play WR.

Top six, no real need to carry seven

Pierre Garçon
Joshua Morgan
Leonard Hankerson
Santana Moss
Anthony Armstrong
Brandon Banks
Aldrick Robinson will still go back to the PS and Terrence Austin is the odd man out

I might come off anti-Banks but I stand by my post in this thread, just as I did last year in the thread that this one sprung from... I was wrong last year but I wasn't a Banks fan back then. Even after his performance on Thursday< posted that my list hadn't changed...

1niksder wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:My 6 after tonight

Garçon
Moss
Hankerson
Morgan
Robinson
Banks

Aldrick showed that he can step it up for the games. If he can return punts he is in. He needs to show that he is comfortable catching them. I know that he can run.

Banks showed me, tonight, that he is a hard worker. The second go route, he put a studder step move on the DB and he was wide open. He will improve. To things can end Banks Redskin career no matter what he does - Robinson showing that he is a good punt returner and Crawford making the team - he can return punts.

I dropped AAA because he is not and will not be a better WR than Aldrick. Aldrick is too polished as a wide out. I believe Banks is a better student of the game and will get better at route running. Also Banks has shown that he can get off the line. AAA didn't show that last year.

Briscoe is the mystery guy? I think next game, we will see a lot of him. Of course that is dependent on how he practices.

If were to make a change after one pre-season game My list would look like this.

Pierre Garçon
Joshua Morgan
Leonard Hankerson
Santana Moss
Anthony Armstrong
Aldrick Robinson

Banks had a rough night and Robinson helped his cause with the little things like coming back for the ball.

Shanny has said Banks needs to do more than return kicks and Crawfords efforts in game one stood out more than those of Banks attempts. Can't count Anthony Armstrong out yet because he hasn't had any live action. The same goes for Dezmon Briscoe, if we throw him in it looks like four guys and two spots. For now I'll stick with Banks over Robinson.

The thing is, last year I said someone might step up outside of the WR position that would eliminate the need for a roster spot for a return man. It didn't happen and Shanny allocated a spot for Banks anyway which made my hopes mute. Now MS has killed the position and stated that he has done so.

I think Banks is one of those guys that MS will keep around because he can. I'm starting to lean toward the team keeping seven WRs again but some of the young defensive linemen on the roster might make that a little hard. If they do... it'll be Dezmon Briscoe over Austin and Robinson.

With Paul (TE) and Crawford (CB) appearing to be Banks main competition for return duties, Banks is the least impacted. The WR will compete as WRs... I have Banks ahead of Briscoe and Briscoe at #7 if they keep seven.

They gave Banks a lot of looks at WR, they don't need to see what he can do in the kicking game. It's put up or shut up time for Banks. I doubt he get as many looks next week but when the coaches come out of the film room they'll remember they still have never seen him in real action at WR, with passes being thrown to him by a real NFL QB. No knock on Cousins and that's all I got to say about that.... Rex

DarthMonk wrote:What I'm saying is size could be the single biggest factor preventing him from being able to do what is asked of him ... as a WR in particular.

DarthMonk

I get what you are saying. Let me give you a scenario, but first let's look at Shanny.

Shanny says he will pick the best 53 that gives us the chance to win.

Shanny has been true to form with this philosophy. We may not always understand why he does what he does, but he truly believes that he has to find a way to keep the best 53. Remember last season when he kept 8 receivers (You called the Stallworth when many of us didn't see that coming because of his age) - he showed that he doesn't always fit inside the box.

The scenario (not my new "who stays" just a scenario):

Garcon, Hank, Morgan, Moss (To most fans and most of the media thes guys are in.

2 slots left (Conventional wisdome says six slots total - we will use that for now)

Briscoe is the newcomer wasn't in the picture in OTAs. He scored 6 TDs last year and showed today in practice he is a legitmate red zone threat! Let's he continues that throughtout came. Shanny slaviates over Hank and Briscoe in the red zone. Briscoe gets the 5th slot.

1 slot left

Armstrong, Banks, Austin, Robinson are legitimate contenders for one slot.

Shanny said that Banks must make the team as a wideout - lets' go with that he really meant that as a fact and not just to motivate the guy to get better.

1. Shanny likes Banks - no question about it - for two years folks have been saying that Shanny would dump the kid. Why does Shanny like Banks? - He likes players with explosiveness and he loves players with work ethic
2. Shanny is not going to tell Banks he has to make the team as a wideout if he believes that Banks' size will prevent him from doind what he wants of him. Right here all size issues should go out the door.
-Shanny knows that Banks is really 5'6" (on a step ladder) and barely 150 pounds.
-Shanny has seen the guy in practice.
5. He knows how high he can jump. He knows if he gets manhandled or not by bigger corners. He knows if he can block and the limitations of a small reveiver for blocking.
6. Most important of all he knows the potential of Banks for the past two years, Banks has been sandbagging it because he could - return kicks and protect the football.
7. Shanny has always wanted to do more with Banks - US Big 12 folks know why Shanny signed Banks - it was to get the ball into his hands as much as possible - Shanny's philosophy is get the ball to playmakers.

Folks saw the Buffalo preseason game and all of a sudden Banks is too small - that is fans and media - not the coaches - not Shanny! Do we really think that what Shanny saw out there with Banks was a revelation concerning things that folks were complaining about - he can't out jump DBs. DBS can reach around him. He had one good block but on the other, he didn't block well. That is just fans and media nitpicking. Shanny puts a lot of stock in practice - he knows his players.

I know that this is not you Darth - stay with me.

It would not make sense to ask Banks to be an end zone threat or to be a run blocker or to be your go to guy for first downs. Banks is a package player - That's what Shanny has always wanted to do with the guy, but the injury forced him to be patient with his plans

Here's the deal Armstrong, Austin, Robinson are not going to beat out Banks because of Banks' size. If you want to say Briscoe beat out Banks, because of size then you have to say it about Austin, Armstrong and Rob as well. Briscoe will not make the team because of what these guys can't do, it will be because of what Briscoe can do. keep in mind the 8 receiver thing from last year. That says that Shanny WILL keep the best 53 that gives us a chance to win even if he has to go outside the box. So Briscoe takes a slot. It doesn't mean that there is only one left. That one slot can become two if the two players give us the best chance to win.

Let's say Robinson gets that 6th slot because he is a more polished receiver. Remember, the Jags wanted to sign him off the PS last year. Let's say neither Crawford nor Rob have that explosiveness like Banks.

That finally brings us to Mr. Banks.

Shanny finds a slot for him. Why?

Banks is a weapon - no other player on the roster has yet to show that he has the explosiveness that Shanny wants . The key is that Shanny wants. You can't teach explosiveness. With a weapon, you get the ball in his hands - this is the first year, that Shanny has a healthy Banks who knows the offense! Shanny is excited about that.

I know that I am repeating myself here but it is key:

But the Keep in mind that Shanny kept 8 last year means that we don't know what Shanny will do with the receiver position and last year showed that what he will do is most likely something we didn't see coming. This doesn't mean Shanny will keep 8 this year (seriously doubt that when we will keep 3 QBs, right). It means that if Banks is the only explosive player on the current roster, Shanny finds a way to keep him. It is up to Banks to do what Shanny asks of him. If Another player can be as explosive as Banks and do more than Banks, then Banks will most likely be gone, but it won't because of his size. It will be because the other player gives us the best chance to win!

Shanny will keep the best 53 that help the team win even if he has to go outside the box. This is Shanny's MO - he doesn't cut guys because of size or age, he cuts them because there is somebody else in his mind that gives us the best chance to win!

1niksder wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:

1niksder wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Banks had to make the team.

We simply don't have enough play makers to let one go.

When was the last time he made a play?

Don't name a play that was called back, because someone else made a mistake... it's a team sport and you can't always blame a illegal block in the back because the return should set up his blocks and sometimes the illegal blocking call is really on the returner.

Oh and how many times will whatever trick play he may have been good at work once the rest of the league gets the film?


The Redskins had 70 offensive plays in the 1st games, 3 kickoff returns, and 9 punt returns. How many plays did this playmaker make?

Banks was truly a play maker in 2010 but that was 2010. If he wants to make the roster he better start making plays. He doesn't have to be a play maker he just needs to make plays and he hasn't

Here's how Danny Smith defines a playmaker:

And, finally, special teams coach Danny Smith: “I think the world of him. I think he’s a playmaker, he’s a chunk-yardage guy, and you have to get chunks in this league. If you look at every time he touches the ball in situations on offense, he got a chunk. Some of them have been called back and things like that. It’s hard to drive the ball against people in this league and you get chunk-yardage players, so it didn’t put me in any different position, I like it. It doesn’t affect anything. He will still be a punt returner, a kick returner, that kind of thing. Obviously it’s the head coach’s decision, but I think it’s a great idea personally.”

His postion coach says he is a playmaker and his position coach mentions plays being called back.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/redskins- ... le/2504402

Is this your way of saying it's been so long since he made a play, you'd rather post a quote of the special teams coach reminiscing about what he did in the past.

Crawford had 3 returns for 42 yards or as Danny smith might say he got a chunk of yards on three returns. And he had a pick as a position player.

Banks past is his past. Honestly his return work is the only thing that has kept him on the roster the last two years, and the fact of the matter is the staff has said it won't be enough. People act like he is the only option in the return game, he's not. Another fact is after the top four at Banks primary position the last two/three spots are up for grabs and Banks IS in the mix with or without being a returner. I still have him listed as my number 6/7 WR competing against a guy with suspect hands and still PS eligible, a guy claimed of waivers, and a dude that spent most of last season in the coaches doghouse and currently limited due to injuries. If Crawford or someone other than a WR won the return job, all of Banks current competition can all be used as the back up return man. Banks is the only that is proven to be able to actually do it.

If it came down to a just a numbers thing right now, I think Banks wins out for the last spot be it #6 or #7. He showed nothing as a WR in game 1 of the pre-season yet he had been a bright spot all week in practice.

It's no guarantee he gets a roster spot because he can return punts, and it's no guarantee he isn't one of the top six WR on the roster because of what he did in the first game of the pre-season.

I was up in the air on him this off season after feeling he was a waste of a roster spot at this time last year. Still up in the air on him but higher on him than I was last season. Maybe because he is injury free now, not sure why my opinion changed.

My quote means that a coach of the Redskins is saying something different than what you are saying about playmakers and plays called back.

Danny Smith didn't define how many yards is a chunk, but in the context of plays called back, it sounds like chunk means more than 20 yards on a given ball handling, not a combined yardage total.

I respect your WR selections and that you are struggling on who to pick.
For me, I like to go with what hear the coaches say and do. I also read Shanny's book - no, I can't predict what he will do, but I understand what he is looking for and how much he craves work ethic in players. I also read that he was didn't like the criticism that he didn't adjust the O to his players - He said that when he has a QB, he trusts, he will make adjustments and then give that QB more leeway to make decisions - this explains how McNabb was handled and how RGIII is being handled now. Just bring the book up to recommend it in understanding Shanny.

Back to Banks - you say that Banks made the team soley because of returns - Shanny is a potential loving guy. He has longed to use Banks more in the O and you saw that last year as the season progressed and his knee got better. Reverses (yeah called back, but it showed what Banks can do - read Shanny's book and you will see how much he craves what Banks has to offer). Sure if he can get that from another guy, Rob? Crawford? Then Banks most likely is gone.

Now, we have Briscoe in the picture. Like you, I can see a scenario where we keep seven. It will be tough, but fun for us picking our 6 or 7.

1niksder wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:^You know, until last year's preseason game against the Bucs, I would have said no team would kick away from a punt returner in preseason. Bucs proved me wrong, but I wouldn't expect very many teams to follow the Bucs lead on that. If you will recall, after Banks' 90 yarder agaiinst the Bucs, they stopped kicking to him - bringing a chorus of boos everytime the punter kicked away from him.

Those remarks that you quoted were made in reference to the past regular season. Dallas shanked a punt that led to our first TD in the home game against them.

Your stats are good and they do prove that the Buffs feared no PR in that game, but I would think the priority in preseason would be to evaluate ST teams and not kick away from the PR.

*True - Austin didn't return a kick in the Buff game. I was referring to when he returned punts the past two seasons. Austin: 5 for an 8.8 Avg 22 Long 2010 preseason. Crawford: 3 for a 14.0 Avg 17 long Two small a sample, but going on what I remember about the returns. To answer my question: I would give the slight edge to Crawford because he has more wiggle in his step - it makes people miss. I don't see the explosiveness of Banks in him, though.

*I agree if Crawford wins the PR job, Banks, Robinson, and Austin lose leverage. Here is the issue for preseason games: Opportunities! Banks only returned 4 last preseason because they knew what he could do and the Bucs kicked away from him in the last game. Niles Paul got the other 4 returns. Austin didn't get any. I am going to predict that Robinson shares with Banks against the Bears.

To me, Robinson potentially is the guy to beat out Banks - he has the speed and he has the open field elusiveness.
Shanny wants explosivenes! Danny Smith wants chunk yardage! If the draft scouts are right - Watchout for Rob on punts!

I understand what your saying, I guess I'm saying although Banks can't make the roster based ONLY on his ability to return kicks, non of his competition at his primary position will make the team BECAUSE they can return kicks.

When you think about Banks you think returns, that might be why I didn't like him as a WR... last year league rules took away his KORs and this off-season Shanny took away the roster spot set aside for someone who could only return kicks.

When I started this thread I had Banks getting cut and Moss not making the final 53...

1niksder on March 24th in this thread wrote:Stays:

Pierre Garçon
Joshua Morgan
Jabar Gaffney
Leonard Hankerson
Niles Paul
Anthony Armstrong

Goes:

Terrence Austin
Brandon Banks
Aldrick Robinson will go back to the PS

If they only keep 6 Santana Moss goes, if they keep 7 and don't draft or sign somebody else he stays.

They didn't draft anyone and hadn't signed Briscoe yet but when Paul got moved to TE full time and Gaffney went back to NE, I moved both Moss and Banks back into my top six and started thinking a seven WR would be a wasted roster spot.

1niksder on Apr 22nd in this thread wrote:

1niksder wrote:Stays:

Pierre Garçon
Joshua Morgan
Jabar Gaffney
Leonard Hankerson
Niles Paul
Anthony Armstrong

Goes:

Terrence Austin
Brandon Banks
Aldrick Robinson will go back to the PS

If they only keep 6 Santana Moss goes, if they keep 7 and don't draft or sign somebody else he stays.

Less than a month has pasted and there's time for a update.

With Paul saying the move to TE is a permanent move and Gaffney being shopped or chopped, they may only have six or seven WR on the roster going into camp. And Banks may have to play WR.

Top six, no real need to carry seven

Pierre Garçon
Joshua Morgan
Leonard Hankerson
Santana Moss
Anthony Armstrong
Brandon Banks
Aldrick Robinson will still go back to the PS and Terrence Austin is the odd man out

I might come off anti-Banks but I stand by my post in this thread, just as I did last year in the thread that this one sprung from... I was wrong last year but I wasn't a Banks fan back then. Even after his performance on Thursday< posted that my list hadn't changed...

1niksder wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:My 6 after tonight

Garçon
Moss
Hankerson
Morgan
Robinson
Banks

Aldrick showed that he can step it up for the games. If he can return punts he is in. He needs to show that he is comfortable catching them. I know that he can run.

Banks showed me, tonight, that he is a hard worker. The second go route, he put a studder step move on the DB and he was wide open. He will improve. To things can end Banks Redskin career no matter what he does - Robinson showing that he is a good punt returner and Crawford making the team - he can return punts.

I dropped AAA because he is not and will not be a better WR than Aldrick. Aldrick is too polished as a wide out. I believe Banks is a better student of the game and will get better at route running. Also Banks has shown that he can get off the line. AAA didn't show that last year.

Briscoe is the mystery guy? I think next game, we will see a lot of him. Of course that is dependent on how he practices.

If were to make a change after one pre-season game My list would look like this.

Pierre Garçon
Joshua Morgan
Leonard Hankerson
Santana Moss
Anthony Armstrong
Aldrick Robinson

Banks had a rough night and Robinson helped his cause with the little things like coming back for the ball.

Shanny has said Banks needs to do more than return kicks and Crawfords efforts in game one stood out more than those of Banks attempts. Can't count Anthony Armstrong out yet because he hasn't had any live action. The same goes for Dezmon Briscoe, if we throw him in it looks like four guys and two spots. For now I'll stick with Banks over Robinson.

The thing is, last year I said someone might step up outside of the WR position that would eliminate the need for a roster spot for a return man. It didn't happen and Shanny allocated a spot for Banks anyway which made my hopes mute. Now MS has killed the position and stated that he has done so.

I think Banks is one of those guys that MS will keep around because he can. I'm starting to lean toward the team keeping seven WRs again but some of the young defensive linemen on the roster might make that a little hard. If they do... it'll be Dezmon Briscoe over Austin and Robinson.

With Paul (TE) and Crawford (CB) appearing to be Banks main competition for return duties, Banks is the least impacted. The WR will compete as WRs... I have Banks ahead of Briscoe and Briscoe at #7 if they keep seven.

They gave Banks a lot of looks at WR, they don't need to see what he can do in the kicking game. It's put up or shut up time for Banks. I doubt he get as many looks next week but when the coaches come out of the film room they'll remember they still have never seen him in real action at WR, with passes being thrown to him by a real NFL QB. No knock on Cousins and that's all I got to say about that.... Rex

I agree with you about Banks that Shanny will try to find a roster spot for Banks if he can, but only if Banks puts up and he doesn't have that explosiveness in Crawford or Robinson. Crawford has wiggle and makes guys miss, but Banks has that explosiveness - you give him a seam and he is gone. I can easliy seeing him keeping 7 if Banks gives him reason too. He found a way to keep 8 last year.

John Keim says:

Receiver Leonard Hankerson’s size makes him tough to defend on certain routes, and it’s a reason why Brandon Banks has some issues. As we saw the other night, defensive backs can run right through Banks to break up a pass (he’s also a small target for a QB over the middle, unless he has separation). Tougher to do that against Hankerson, partly because he’s big but he also plays even bigger by extending his arms far when he receives the ball. Saturday, corner Josh Wilson tried to come over him to defend a pass, but to no avail. Hankerson’s body and arms shielded him from the ball.

What Keim says about Hank is why you want a couple of big receivers on your team, but what teams have all big receivers? The Typical small receiver has gifted speed (Banks). You want both types on your roster. Keim wants to make it a size "issue" for Banks when all small receivers deal with that issue and coaches of these small receivers know about these limitations.

Here's what one scout said about Robinson:

Long, lean frame that allows defenders to out-muscle him for the ball. Not very physical downfield, often tries to run around defensive backs.

The Skins still drafted him and he is now two years with the team. There is a place for small receivers on an NFL team, including diminutive ones like Banks.

Small receivers are going to get out muscled for the ball. There bodies cannot shield DBs. So, what's a small receiver to do - Get separation.

I give Keim credit for finally mentioning this.

unless he has separation

If you get separation, the DB has a hard time knocking balls out.
Was the comparison of Hanks size to Banks' a revelation? The real issue for Banks is getting separation. That can be taught.

You can bet the coaches talked to Banks about making his cuts precisely to get that separation. You can bet they didn't tell him that he needs to get bigger like Hank.

We will see or hear (from practice reports) if Banks makes improvements. He better, if he wants to make this team.

http://www.fanaticalfootballfiend.com/3 ... ports.html

http://washingtonexaminer.com/redskins- ... CbnrMUz_1U

Stock down

Brandon Banks—The bad news is that he looked too small to compete at NFL wide receiver in extensive playing time with nine passes being thrown his way. The good news is that he has not looked too small in practice and that will buy him some more opportunities. But at some point he has to get it done in a game.

First of all, let me say that I do agree with Tandler that Banks' stock it down, but Brandon's stock is not down because of his size. His stock is down because he didn't display good receiver skills at times.

Tandler says that he looked too small in the game, but he did not look to small in practice. Surely, our D is as good or better than the Bill's D. Shanny runs a hard practice, Ask RGIII. Trying to hard and nerves can easy explain the difference in a player's practice and game play. Afterall, it was Banks' first time to be highlighted as a receiver in a game. The slips on the routes? Brandon's fault - yes, but due to nerves - high proability.

Either Brandon is too small or he is not. Coach Shanny says he is not. Not saying that size doesn't matter to some NFL teams and how one intends to use a player! I am saying that if Banks, was too small for Shanny's O, then he would have sent Banks packing early as a courtesy, so he could possibly catch on elsewhere.

Let's touch on the so calleddurability issues that Brandon has.

Name another player who had surgery on his knee and played 8 days later and never missed a game, thereafter. That is durability. The injury lingered on into next year, did he miss a game? No. That is durabilty and it is heart!

Banks is still on my six and possibly seven.Let's get that stock up starting this week.

Quick - name a 5th or 6th receiver who was used extensively in the Redskins offense (you determine what extensively means).

http://www.csnwashington.com/football-w ... eedID=6355

Bobblehead Banks...


Seriously, he looks like a bobblehead.

ATX_Skins wrote:Bobblehead Banks...


Seriously, he looks like a bobblehead.

Who are your 6 (7) so far?

Red_One43 wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:Bobblehead Banks...


Seriously, he looks like a bobblehead.

Who are your 6 (7) so far?

I know where this is going... If it were up to me I would honestly not keep Banks. Here is my 6 though for S and G's:

1. Garcon x6

1niksder wrote:it'll be Dezmon Briscoe over Austin and Robinson.

I think Robinson is over Briscoe at this moment. Although I keep hearing great things about Dez's practices, Robinson was the one in the game. Maybe Briscoe to PS?

OK, so everyone agrees that Bamks won't win many jump balls, but seriously, how many jump balls do you think RGIII is going to throw him? This is Griffin not Grossman.

Deadskins wrote:

1niksder wrote:it'll be Dezmon Briscoe over Austin and Robinson.

I think Robinson is over Briscoe at this moment. Although I keep hearing great things about Dez's practices, Robinson was the one in the game. Maybe Briscoe to PS?

After further review neither Briscoe nor Robinson are eligible for the PS

ATX_Skins wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:Bobblehead Banks...


Seriously, he looks like a bobblehead.

Who are your 6 (7) so far?

I know where this is going... If it were up to me I would honestly not keep Banks. Here is my 6 though for S and G's:

1. Garcon x6

You have made it clear where you stand on Banks and I respect that. I honestly wanted to know your six. There is no debate from me. If Garcon x6 is your answer, then I respect that as well.

For the record, I will have no problem if Banks is cut because that will mean that the guy chosen to return kicks and/or get the last receiver slot gives us a better chance to win. It will have nothing to do whether he is small or not. Smaller players do have more of a challegne to make it, but that's life.

Deadskins wrote:OK, so everyone agrees that Bamks won't win many jump balls, but seriously, how many jump balls do you think RGIII is going to throw him? This is Griffin not Grossman.

Deadskins wrote:

1niksder wrote:it'll be Dezmon Briscoe over Austin and Robinson.

I think Robinson is over Briscoe at this moment. Although I keep hearing great things about Dez's practices, Robinson was the one in the game. Maybe Briscoe to PS?

I have to agree that Robinson is ahead of Briscoe and when we think about our red zone issues and read about this play from Saturday's practice (8/11):

Grant Paulsen‏@granthpaulsen

Dezmon Briscoe made a nice leaping TD catch in a redzone drill. Big 6-2 WR out jumped everyone around him. Nice moment for him. #Redskins

I have agree with your assessment of Briscoe. With practice tomorrow, I would have to say that Briscoe will be continuing his case to make the 53.

This.........horse.........is........dead.

Brandon Banks is one of the best returners in the game. He makes this team. Get over it people!