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

1niksder wrote:

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

Not Bank...

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.

ATX_Skins wrote:

1niksder wrote:

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

Not Bank...

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 have seen Banks catch passes... He is a WR and a return specialist, listed as a WR.

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

skinsfan#33 wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:

1niksder wrote: Not Bank...

I have seen Banks catch passes... He is a WR and a return specialist, listed as a WR.

OK, I'll take your word over Mike Shanahan's. He's a WR that no longer will be played at WR because his HC says he is too valuable to risk at WR.

ATX_Skins wrote:He has played WR in the past, why is it unfeasible that he won't ever again?

1niksder wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:He has played WR in the past, why is it unfeasible that he won't ever again?

Because the coach said he wouldn't, not to mention he is 8th on a depth chart that on any other team would have a max of 5 or 6 players

ATX_Skins wrote:

1niksder wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:He has played WR in the past, why is it unfeasible that he won't ever again?

Because the coach said he wouldn't, not to mention he is 8th on a depth chart that on any other team would have a max of 5 or 6 players

I bet you there is a play in that playbook on offense that includes Banks. Maybe we can ask this the next time we submit questions for an interview.

1niksder wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:

1niksder wrote: Because the coach said he wouldn't, not to mention he is 8th on a depth chart that on any other team would have a max of 5 or 6 players

I bet you there is a play in that playbook on offense that includes Banks. Maybe we can ask this the next time we submit questions for an interview.

They might have put one or two in the playbook for him last year but, since Shanny says he won't line him up at WR or any other spot other than KR/PR, I' think those plays would now go to Austin.

1niksder wrote:

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

Not Bank...

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.

langleyparkjoe wrote:For the record, a hater has no basis for his points... this argument holds a valid point, therefore he's not a hater.

That is all, you may proceed.

Thanks!

DarthMonk wrote:Has anyone seen a couch ... excuse me ... an OLD BROWN COUCH?

Good lord, ATX! You ask a freakin' QUESTION, answer it yes yourself, support the guy, and get called a hater. Along the way you have every syllable parsed and then have your jokes taken seriously.



Since we are very healthy as a team and since we don't have Hester, I agree with ATX - Banks does deserve a roster spot as an emergency WR who might only return kicks this year.



DarhtMonk

cvillehog wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Has anyone seen a couch ... excuse me ... an OLD BROWN COUCH?

Good lord, ATX! You ask a freakin' QUESTION, answer it yes yourself, support the guy, and get called a hater. Along the way you have every syllable parsed and then have your jokes taken seriously.



Since we are very healthy as a team and since we don't have Hester, I agree with ATX - Banks does deserve a roster spot as an emergency WR who might only return kicks this year.



DarhtMonk

Your All NFC-East thread post raises a good question: who's the best PR/KR in the division? I suppose it's Banks, isn't it?

MDSKINSFAN wrote:He is listed as a WR so he technically is a WR but he never will be on the field on offense because Shanahan doesn't want to risk him getting hurt. So he is a WR but he never will play WR. Don't think it is a hard concept to grasp.

ATX_Skins wrote:He has played WR in the past, why is it unfeasible that he won't ever again?

markshark84 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

Give it up. He is listed as a WR on their official roster:

http://www.redskins.com/team/players.html

As well as their depth chart:

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

By your arguement, anyone could be any position and that classifications and position allocations are arbitrary and without true meaning. In reality he is listed as a WR via the official website. I would hope that someone on the coaching staff is providing this information to the website adminstrators -- otherwise there could be some serious problems. It is all fine and good that MS sees him as a returner -- after all, so does everyone else. But the fact is that he is listed as a WR and I am very confident that MS considers him part of the wide receiver corps -- seeing is how that is the team group he joins during team practice drills. He doesn't stand to the side and hang out with our kickers. End of story.

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.

But a special spot has been reserved for Banks because he is THAT much better

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.

Red_One43 wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:He has played WR in the past, why is it unfeasible that he won't ever again?

No one is saying that he will never play WR again.

You ere the one saying that he has ONE JOB - What is that ONE JOB according to you? Returner - NOT WR. Now, you want to say he is a receicer? How many jobs is that? 1 job + 1 job does not equal 1 job ATX.

Score one for ATX_Skins again beating himself!

For right now - Banks, in the eyes of Shanny, is a returner that is also listed as a WR. But when it comes to deciding which receivers play from scrimmage, Shanny says Banks doesn't figure in that because he is too valuable.

Red_One43 wrote:

markshark84 wrote:

Red_One43 wrote: 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

Give it up. He is listed as a WR on their official roster:

http://www.redskins.com/team/players.html

As well as their depth chart:

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

By your arguement, anyone could be any position and that classifications and position allocations are arbitrary and without true meaning. In reality he is listed as a WR via the official website. I would hope that someone on the coaching staff is providing this information to the website adminstrators -- otherwise there could be some serious problems. It is all fine and good that MS sees him as a returner -- after all, so does everyone else. But the fact is that he is listed as a WR and I am very confident that MS considers him part of the wide receiver corps -- seeing is how that is the team group he joins during team practice drills. He doesn't stand to the side and hang out with our kickers. End of story.

Me give it up, Mark? Your earlier statements prove that you agree with Shanny that Banks is listed as a receiver but that is not what he plays. Check out what you said which supports what I said Shanny said.

My whole point Mark and your earlier posts support it that in the mind of Shanny, right now, Banks does not figure in as an 8th receiver. He is listed as a WR because that is the position he came in as and someday when his knee is one hundred percent, we will see him catching screens and running the wildcat, but as you read what Shanny said, he is too valuable to risk right now in multiple positions. Argue all you want that he is listed as a receiver and no one disputes that - the the old you and me know that he only plays WR right now and he has a special spot probably what was the third QB spot last year.

Markshark84 wrote

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.

"Only" returns punts, "does not see the field as a WR"

Matkshark84 wrote:
But a special spot has been reserved for Banks because he is THAT much better

A special spot reserved Markshark? A special slot and not a receiver slot? You speaking out of both sides of you computer mark. You harp on Banks being listed as a receiver but here you say he dosn't have a receiver slot.

Markshark 84 wrote:

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.

Here you acknowledge the fact that we all know that Banks is listed as a receiver, the you clearly accpet the fact that BANKS IS A RETURNER.

One minute, you say he has a special spot. Now, you say he has a WR spot. BUT you say what Shanny said - HE DOESN'T PLAY THE POSITION. Which is what I am saying that he doesn't play the positon right now so stop comparing him to the other WR's and instead of saying that he hasn't earned his keep take a look at some film and check it out as to why his production has dropped. BTW Shanny has. Banks is still as dangerous as he was in the first two games. This isn't a Banks problem, it is a problem the Redskins need to solve to get their ace returner some room to manuever.

BTW Mark, is it a special spot or a WR spot?
Me. Give it up!!! Make up your mind.