We are NOT one QB away from a SB

[KevinthePRF]

Sorry I'm late on this discussion.... but I think anyone should nod in agreement at that statement. We need DL help, some young offensive guards, an eventual third corner, another WR with Westbrook going, and safety help bad, IMHO.

And with this, I agree with Angry Buddha and tbf. We should give Banks at least a full training camp before throwing him out with the bath water. He isn't a great QB, but we aren't going to get a player like Bledsoe for free. And giving up 1rst round picks, or some daring comment about giving up someone like Davis I read, isn't feasible considering we do have more than one hole to fill.

Yes Banks hasn't been clicking, but he has been throwing to his receivers in a new scheme for 3 months. And we expect and want him to play like a Garcia whose been throwing to his receivers for 3 years. The game yesterday was far from Banks' fault. The game was well out of hand before he ever threw an INT. The Washington Redskins right now are like watching a house of cards. If everything goes without error, it's beautiful, but one mistake/turnover and were a mess. But it isn't because Banks can't throw a pass. It's also because our DL wears down the longer they are on the field, the middle of the field is open season to anyone not playing corner, and our WRs have a heaping case of the dropsies when we don't need it. Putting the game on Banks, or Drew Bledsoe's shoulders at that point is moot. I don't think it would make a difference anyway who is behind center.

What is really the point of going after a quick fix at QB? How much good has it done Tampa Bay? The Ravens? I disagree to anyone who thinks Kordell's and Garcia's situations aren't comparable to Banks'. These were bad QBs 2 years ago whose coaches stuck with them and just gave them time to develop instead of running out and signing the hottest name in free agency.

Please guys, give Marty's system more than a half a season to evolve. With the turnover we had this offseason mixed with the George fiasco, I'm shocked we're in a position to be talking playoffs anyway. I'm happy with what Marty's achived so far, and Banks for that matter, they've both done so much in a very short amount of time. It's suprising.

[Montilar]

No we are not one player away from winning the super bowl. But we are a good Qb from being a legit playoff contender.

To expect more out of Banks than what he's capable of.......is akin to expecting Tre Johnson to stay healthy.

Banks has shown in Washington the same play he's shown in Baltimore, in St. Louis, in Dallas. Six years of the same play kind of puts him in the Jeff George boat to me. A coach killer. Talented enough to tease, bad enough to get you fired.

[Guest B&G]

You're right, we are more than a QB away from the Superbowl.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Tony Banks though, who has had ample opportunity (6 years) with 3 or 4 teams to prove he is capable of being the kind of leader we want and need in DC. His actions on field are still similar to that of a 1st or 2nd year player: staring down the primary receiver, inability to read defenses, inability to adjust by checking off at the line of scrimmage, inopportune interceptions; inability to focus on secondary recievers, stumbling, fumbling...the list goes on and on.

Don't get me wrong, I like Tony. It's just that he will never be the kind of QB the Washington Redskins need to advance to the playoffs. It may be harsh but we have to judge Tony like a stock or bond: While past performance may not be a guarantee of performance in the future, it is the only thing we have to go by. Sure, Tony is not the only problem on our team; however, until we get a reliable QB, the other problems are moot.

I think we need a pass rushing DE almost as much as we need a QB and that would be my second pick if we had to give up a number 1 for an established QB (and I wouldn't give up more than a #1 this year, nor would I give up more than a 3 in 2003). Pick number three would be a solid run stopping DT. Pick Number 4, a solid safety. I would look at Guards, Centers and WR's in Free agency.

[mardi gras skin]

Green, Gus, Gannon, even Johnson. I just wish, one time, we would take one of these guys and stick with him to see how he reacts to a little loyalty from the team.

[bulldog]

Kevin, the course of action you suggest is high risk for the organization.

If we go with Banks and see what he does in a full camp and preseason it will be too late to make a change if Banks doesn't pass muster and we will be stuck muddling through another season with mediocre quarterbacking.

That would be TWO years down the sewer.

At some point this team has to make a real and tangible investment in the most important position on the team.

While the Redskins are not a juggernaut team, I would suggest to you that the Skins ARE a legitimate starting quarterback away from being a team like the Packers.

Look up and down the rosters of the two teams. What makes Green Bay a 9-4 team and the Redskins a 6-7 team. The Packers have some younger legs on the DL but the Skins have the advantage at LB and at CB.

On offense the Redskins have a better line and Davis is at least the equal of Green.

What it comes down to is the ability of the quarterback to make plays.

Brett Favre on the Redskins and Tony Banks on the Packers and you could easily switch the records.

[RySkins]

Exactly right bulldog. Favre is the only difference between the Skins and the Packers.

The importance of the quarterback position cannot be understated. A good quarterback can win you four more games a season.

[Blade]

As much as Brad Johnson's penchant for tossing the INT at critical come-back situations drove me crazy..... I firmly believe that his ability to follow through the progressions would have given us the win in at least 2 or 3 more games.

But I still have alot of respect for Banks... he may suck at going through his reads, but he has shown alot of heart out there laying his body on the line when he scrambles. Its just to bad he doesnt have the presence & vision to be a consistent winner. I hope we are able to keep him... as the backup QB.

[Ignatius J.]

2 huge holes in your argument BullDog:

1. You put Farve with the skins and banks with the pack and the redskins would be the better team by a longshot. But Brunnell isn't favre. And Bledsoe isn't warner. etc. etc. The important question is: Will (insert QB name here) win us more games than banks? And I think the answer is no. Don't underestimate experience and stability. Banks will have seen the scheme and will know the receivers. that's huge.

2. Tony Banks has shown improvement here. He has become a leader here, somehting he hasn't really benn known for in the past. He's maturing a lot mentally, and that is very important for a QB. Second he was renowned for fumbles. He has not really turned the ball over that much since he got here. And the fumbled snap problem seemstobe going away too.

I think you are exactly right that Banks is not the QB of the future. But he might be the QB of right now. I say let's take some risks on these high rated QB's coming out this year. Our team is fairly solid and we're not going to be in position to make a play at the DT's anyway. We can shore up some of our positions in Free Agency, so long as we lock up most of our "departing" players. There are some good QB's out there. Let's roll the dice.

-DB

[2cents]

Banks has shown no improvement. Ever since he came in the league, he cannot read defenses and will lock in on one receiver....he will NOT learn it with one MORE training camp. You can't pass up a better QB in the off season hoping Banks will do something he has not done in six previous off seasons.

[redman]

What all of you Banks supporters always seem to leave out of your analysis is what it will cost to sign him? What are your limits? And more importantly, what are his limits?

The guy wants a big free agent contract, and he wants one that I'm sure is at least 4 years in length. He considers himself a veteran, starting caliber QB, so he'll ask for money in that league. He'll ask for something like 5 years for $25M with a $8M signing bonus, or some such thing.

The point is that the one-more-season-wait-and-see-what-Tony-does-with-training-camp scenario is going to be an awfully expensive gamble. That might make sense if you're talking about a guy with another year or two on his contract who you're considering whether to cut or not. But it makes no sense for us to swallow that kind of contract with a mediocre QB like Tony Banks, only to allow us to give him more time to see if he's the kind of QB who warrants that kind of money.

------------------

<IMG SRC="http://www.thelocker-room.com/images/RedskinLogo.jpg" border=0> "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

[mardi gras skin]

Redman, I think Buddah set up a pretty sharp contract in another thread. It works out that he gets 1 million a year if he's a back-up and up to 8 mill a year if he turns out to be the second coming of Warner. Don't know how likely it is that something that incentive laden could be done, but it looks pretty fair.

[SonnyJ]

The argument of comparing Garcia/Stewart with Banks holds no water. Those clubs "stuck" with those players because they had no alternative.

The Steelers, a notoriously cheap team, had given Stewart a huge contract after the '97 season. They were financially committed to him. Even still, they seriously looked at replacing him. I think they even had him playing WR at some point last year. Basically, if they could have, they would have dropped him. So, yes, their patience has paid off, but it cost them 3 mediocre years.

You think the 49ers wanted Garcia to be QB? They had no cap room to try anything different. They drafted two QBs last year. They were going to be a lousy team either way. It cost them nothing to have Garcia play the position. They've been as surprised as anyone by his progression.

We have no financial committment to Banks. His track record speaks for itself. You have alternatives. As others have stated, even Graham would be a better fit for this offense than Banks, if you don't want to spend much in the way of draft picks or cash. How does this make Banks our best alternative for the near future and warrant any sort of financial commitment?

[KevinthePRF]

Gosh I wish I could get on more so I could keep up:

bulldog, I agree strongly that if we switch Farve and Banks we can switch records of this team. But realistically there is no Farve in our immediate future. No possible free agent/trade/draftee name that has been tossed around here even comes close to that category. But IMO this team is NOT a QB away from being the Packers. But that more has to do with the difference of this being Marty and his system's first year, included with the holes on our team I noted above.

redman, If Banks' agent demands the contract you gave as an example above, I let him walk. He is an average QB right now. I give him an average contract right now. Around 4.5 mil bonus tops. His base should be low next year and have a leap in 2003. So if he's playoff starter quality next year. He'll get rewarded.

Sonny J, the way I see it. We have no real alternative just as the Steelers or 49ers. We would have to give up something big to get Bledsoe or Brunnell, which I don't see as feasible considering we have more than one area of need. Any other FA mentioned is in the same category as Banks IMO. And Carr is the only draftee I see worth drafting early and starting early. And he is destined for Houston, Detroit or Cincy.

[The Sisko]

I agree that (as much as I hate to admit it given how much I badmouthed him) Graham may be as good as if not better than Banks in this offense. Plus, "frankly" I don't think Banks really WANTS to be back here next year. He could have had decent $$$ and a longish term contract a few weeks ago when he was playing much better and we had a winning streak going. But he turned up his nose at it. I don't think it was out of greed rather a lack of desire on his part to play here.

However, this is not the year to reach for a QB. I say solidify the lines in the upcoming draft then reach if necessary for a guy in the next one. The quality of the QB's in that one is supposed to be much better anyway so you'd at least increase your chances of success. Also, I'd say to take Rohan Davey in the 3rd this draft if we get a compensatory pick and he's there.

For depth, I'd say to go with Dilfer if we can get him and the cost isn't too high. Who knows, we might be the team that he blossoms with. No, really....it could happen.

[Pete]

The important question is: Will (insert QB name here) win us more games than banks?

If Marty hadn't been so steadfast about George starting, we could have had Dilfer here, and starting. Dilfer would win more games then Banks. If Dilfer knew he had a fair shot at competing for a starting job, he'd be in a Skins Uni right now.

Yup we have areas of concern to address besides QB, but I think with a solid QB at the helm, we could have gone deep into the playoffs this season, if not to the big one

------------------

Steal your face right off your head

[bulldog]

If you look at the career numbers, Bledsoe and Brunell are not Brett Favre, but they are quarterbacks who have been to the Pro Bowl and have taken their teams deep into the playoffs.

And that is what this team is lacking right now, a leader at quarterback with the experience and confidence to get the job done.

Banks is not a confident player. You can see that in his hesitation in calling audibles, in coming off his primary receiver, in holding onto the football at times. And in taking sacks and throwing picks instead of just throwing the ball out of bounds and coming back on the next play.

Those are things a polished veteran does that either a youngster or a guy trying to feel his way along does not.

I think we have the latter. Banks has indeed toughened himself up since he began in St. Louis. He is willing to stand in and get hit to deliver the ball, which he wasn't earlier in his career.

He is also willing to run outside of the pocket, lower his shoulder and go for a first down, something a weakling like Jeff George is afraid to do.

But those qualities alone won't make Banks a superior quarterback.

Those are great assets to have in a backup who can come in and run a set amount of plays he is comfortable with to get a team through the second half of a game or for a few games while the starter is out.

Banks game is just not developed enough to keep the offensive "engine" running for 16 weeks in the NFL. He needs so many other things to go right to be effective. He needs a very productive running game to use his best asset, the play action pass. He needs better than average protection from his line because he doesn't have a quick release and doesn't throw the ball well short. And he needs receivers that are superior athletes because he fails to get them the ball on the run where they can continue to gain yardage, instead forcing them to often cut off routes short or fall down to dig out the low balls.

I say we thank Tony for his performance this season and let him see what he can get in free agency. Evidently he has already turned down a "make it or break it" contract from the Skins for next season, so he is clearly of the mindset that he should be making better than average starter's pay.

He just isn't worth that kind of investment right now. He just hasn't shown that kind of improvement, refinement to his game to warrant it.