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

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.

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:Tim Tebow? Did someone say Tim Tebow?

ATX_Skins wrote:

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.

markshark84 wrote:

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.

Trust me, I basically agree with what you are saying. I personally don't believe that there is a guy currently on the roster that can return punts/kickoffs as well or better than BB. Based on what he has done last year and this year, he deserves a spot. Good returners are difficult to come by. If he was released, he would be picked up by another team almost instantly.

As far as the 8 WRs, BB is one of those WRs. If BB wasn't a return man, we would be carrying 7. While I agree that MS can't decide on WRs just yet, it doesn't take away from the fact that BB has a WR spot but doesn't play the position. Therefore, I think that BB is one of the reasons (obviously) we have 8 WRs.

And to your last point, I totally agree in that it isn't just TDs -- it was just the stat I decided best represented my case. Ball position is an enourmous advantage in football -- so much so that it can ultimately decide the outcome of games. But all in all, I agree. My major point was just that in order for BB to "deserve" a spot, he needs to clearly be a better return man than everyone on the roster -- otherwise there is no reason to keep him.

the fact that BB has a WR spot

Red_One43 wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:

Red_One43 wrote: 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.

I asked what has he done lately. You responded with catches and I responded with - specifically "On Kick Offs" what has Hester done lately, which you failed to respond to because you can't prop up your argument when probably the best return man in the game, can't get going without blocking like all returners.

No one is comparing Hester with Banks except for you. I compared Hester's output last night with Bank's output in the last two games which are similar - not the two individuals. You cannot admit that even a great returner needs blocking or it would kill your weak argument that Banks is not living up to his one job.

You said that maybe if Banks had caught 5 passes (and dropped a key long pass - Oh I am sorry, I added that one that you left out) maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion. That is a comparison of the two. Obviously, you do not know the history on Hester's transition to WR. It was not an overnight success. He struggled to get where he is. He is a 6 year vet and you are comparing a second year guy to him.

This is another example of you deflecting and trying to change your subject. The argument of your post was Banks' return production was down in the last two games. Then it became - he has one job. You weren't complaining about one job in game 1 and 2.

The fact is you came out of the woodwork after two games in which Banks had pedestrian stats. Like Smith, you totally discounted that he had two key returns in the first two games and then come up with some idea that returners never go series of games without a big return. Two games and you are jumping all over the guy. You and Parks couldn't even wait until mid season.

Next part of yours and Parks Smiths' ludicrous positions is you do not want to accept the fact that Shanny said that Banks is a returner period. Shanny says he is dangerous - All the one job hype is all that that is - you neglected the first two games to prop up your argument and when it failed, you softened it. Now you want to forget that Shanny's goal before Banks' knee was determined too damaged to sustain the cutting that the receiver's job requires, was to get the ball in Banks' hands as much as possible. Screen passes and wildcat were in the mix. Banks was a rookie last year - he was still learning the offense - most rookies (Hankerson) don't touch the field.

As long as Shanny believes that Banks can break one at any moment the Banks will be seen worth the roster spot even if he has only one job. He production can drop, but Shanny and Co. know why - when it is Banks is fault, as quickly as he made the team, he would be dropped just like Shanny dropped last year early in the season. The fact that guys like you seem to salivate on anything that that guy does that you can perceive to be negative says that you don't really want him on the team period, but you can't say that because just like Shanny you know the guy just might break one on any return - so you tip toe around throwing out a barb here and there. How many turnovers has Banks committed? NONE - but you want to blow up that he muffed two punts (if he would have turned the ball over you would have an argument - BUT he didn't, so you try to make one anyway).

You are the type fan that acentuates the negative and when the negative comes - you are the first to say I told you so - rub it into your own fellow fans faces just like opposing fans would do - then when you are wrong, you jump on the bandwagon and say, Oh, I am glad that I am wrong. You want to be a can't lose guy. Banks fails to deliver - I told you so. Banks - gets a number of good returns - Gee, I am a Redskin fan - I am happy!

Like I said, if you want to have a real discussion instead of always accentuating anything negative - go back and look at video and analyze Banks' returns and then post how it is his fault. I would love to discuss that, but you aren't serious enought to do that - are you?

I have given you the credit on numerous occasions that the lack of production of Banks is a good discussion topic. Which is why I continue to post on these thread and plus it is good practice testing arguments. Even Parks Smith feels feels that your topic is worth writing about in his column. Too bad you and Parks Smith don't want an honest discussion about such a good topic.

Red_One43 wrote:

markshark84 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote: 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.

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.

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.

Trust me, I basically agree with what you are saying. I personally don't believe that there is a guy currently on the roster that can return punts/kickoffs as well or better than BB. Based on what he has done last year and this year, he deserves a spot. Good returners are difficult to come by. If he was released, he would be picked up by another team almost instantly.

As far as the 8 WRs, BB is one of those WRs. If BB wasn't a return man, we would be carrying 7. While I agree that MS can't decide on WRs just yet, it doesn't take away from the fact that BB has a WR spot but doesn't play the position. Therefore, I think that BB is one of the reasons (obviously) we have 8 WRs.

And to your last point, I totally agree in that it isn't just TDs -- it was just the stat I decided best represented my case. Ball position is an enourmous advantage in football -- so much so that it can ultimately decide the outcome of games. But all in all, I agree. My major point was just that in order for BB to "deserve" a spot, he needs to clearly be a better return man than everyone on the roster -- otherwise there is no reason to keep him.

Who has the supposed 3rd QB slot? Perhaps Banks? Just because Banks is called a WR doesn't mean that he is taking a WR spot.

Asking as a matter of fact, where did you read that

the fact that BB has a WR spot

ATX_Skins wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:

markshark84 wrote: Trust me, I basically agree with what you are saying. I personally don't believe that there is a guy currently on the roster that can return punts/kickoffs as well or better than BB. Based on what he has done last year and this year, he deserves a spot. Good returners are difficult to come by. If he was released, he would be picked up by another team almost instantly.

As far as the 8 WRs, BB is one of those WRs. If BB wasn't a return man, we would be carrying 7. While I agree that MS can't decide on WRs just yet, it doesn't take away from the fact that BB has a WR spot but doesn't play the position. Therefore, I think that BB is one of the reasons (obviously) we have 8 WRs.

And to your last point, I totally agree in that it isn't just TDs -- it was just the stat I decided best represented my case. Ball position is an enourmous advantage in football -- so much so that it can ultimately decide the outcome of games. But all in all, I agree. My major point was just that in order for BB to "deserve" a spot, he needs to clearly be a better return man than everyone on the roster -- otherwise there is no reason to keep him.

Who has the supposed 3rd QB slot? Perhaps Banks? Just because Banks is called a WR doesn't mean that he is taking a WR spot.

Asking as a matter of fact, where did you read that

the fact that BB has a WR spot

Dude, Redskins.com - Depth chart.

ATX_Skins wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote: 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.

I asked what has he done lately. You responded with catches and I responded with - specifically "On Kick Offs" what has Hester done lately, which you failed to respond to because you can't prop up your argument when probably the best return man in the game, can't get going without blocking like all returners.

No one is comparing Hester with Banks except for you. I compared Hester's output last night with Bank's output in the last two games which are similar - not the two individuals. You cannot admit that even a great returner needs blocking or it would kill your weak argument that Banks is not living up to his one job.

You said that maybe if Banks had caught 5 passes (and dropped a key long pass - Oh I am sorry, I added that one that you left out) maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion. That is a comparison of the two. Obviously, you do not know the history on Hester's transition to WR. It was not an overnight success. He struggled to get where he is. He is a 6 year vet and you are comparing a second year guy to him.

This is another example of you deflecting and trying to change your subject. The argument of your post was Banks' return production was down in the last two games. Then it became - he has one job. You weren't complaining about one job in game 1 and 2.

The fact is you came out of the woodwork after two games in which Banks had pedestrian stats. Like Smith, you totally discounted that he had two key returns in the first two games and then come up with some idea that returners never go series of games without a big return. Two games and you are jumping all over the guy. You and Parks couldn't even wait until mid season.

Next part of yours and Parks Smiths' ludicrous positions is you do not want to accept the fact that Shanny said that Banks is a returner period. Shanny says he is dangerous - All the one job hype is all that that is - you neglected the first two games to prop up your argument and when it failed, you softened it. Now you want to forget that Shanny's goal before Banks' knee was determined too damaged to sustain the cutting that the receiver's job requires, was to get the ball in Banks' hands as much as possible. Screen passes and wildcat were in the mix. Banks was a rookie last year - he was still learning the offense - most rookies (Hankerson) don't touch the field.

As long as Shanny believes that Banks can break one at any moment the Banks will be seen worth the roster spot even if he has only one job. He production can drop, but Shanny and Co. know why - when it is Banks is fault, as quickly as he made the team, he would be dropped just like Shanny dropped last year early in the season. The fact that guys like you seem to salivate on anything that that guy does that you can perceive to be negative says that you don't really want him on the team period, but you can't say that because just like Shanny you know the guy just might break one on any return - so you tip toe around throwing out a barb here and there. How many turnovers has Banks committed? NONE - but you want to blow up that he muffed two punts (if he would have turned the ball over you would have an argument - BUT he didn't, so you try to make one anyway).

You are the type fan that acentuates the negative and when the negative comes - you are the first to say I told you so - rub it into your own fellow fans faces just like opposing fans would do - then when you are wrong, you jump on the bandwagon and say, Oh, I am glad that I am wrong. You want to be a can't lose guy. Banks fails to deliver - I told you so. Banks - gets a number of good returns - Gee, I am a Redskin fan - I am happy!

Like I said, if you want to have a real discussion instead of always accentuating anything negative - go back and look at video and analyze Banks' returns and then post how it is his fault. I would love to discuss that, but you aren't serious enought to do that - are you?

I have given you the credit on numerous occasions that the lack of production of Banks is a good discussion topic. Which is why I continue to post on these thread and plus it is good practice testing arguments. Even Parks Smith feels feels that your topic is worth writing about in his column. Too bad you and Parks Smith don't want an honest discussion about such a good topic.

Haha, this must have taken you a while...

Why do you have such a hard on for this guy, relax, I like Banks. Why should I feel obligated to give him credit for doing his job. My issue is when he doesn't, be it team issues or his own issues. My argument about him muffing a punt is that he had the opportunity for a return and was not able to.

I'm not sure how many times I need to type "Banks had a good first two games". Unfortunately we have played 4. I have even agreed that he needs help with blocking. BTW, Banks is listed as a WR, it's a fact. Not even disputable really. I guess when shanahan makes a special roster position for him it can be debated then.

I will be re-visiting the "Returning kicks" thread either way this week. If he deserves credit, he will get it, if he screws up, it will be brought up as well.

if you get the ball at the goal line and can't get past the 20 you shouldn't be the guy returning.

If he deserves credit, he will get it, if he screws up, it will be brought up as well

My dog is very good at catching a ball btw, and no matter what the circumstance she always does a good job. She has quick cuts but her legs are not as long as mine so I can always catch her. I taught her not to fumble because it really effects how well she will do afterwards when I am charging at her. I was thinking of getting a Kerrigan Jersey and tossing it two feet away then sacking her to simulate real game situations. What do you think?

ATX_Skins wrote:Red_One, Nobody has the third QB slot on this team.

“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.”

skinsfan#33 wrote:ATX please tell me your dog isn't named after that character from that horrid bk/movie series, Twilight our the horse in THE Wheel of Time series.

Red_One43 wrote:Mike Shanahan said:

“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.”

There you have it, Mike Shanahan, the coach, explaining how he sees Brandon Banks. All the receiver spot stuff is moot.

The team carried three QBs last year and opted not to this year. How are they using the spot gained by not carrying a 3rd QB? It could very well be Banks since Shanny said that he is not looking at him as a receiver. To say that Banks is taking the slot of another receiver is in error based on Shanny's statement. Say what you want about depth charts, the coach clarified it for all.

When it comes to Banks, baseless opinions are entertaining, but when it comes to discussion, getting the facts straight gets us to reality. This quote was posted earlier on this thread and on the "Who Comes Back" thread.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/foo ... _blog.html

The Hogster wrote:Every returner has another "position." DUH

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.