All In Posted December 17, 2001 Share Posted December 17, 2001 I watched Banks. He does not read his recievers we all know that. He also has poor football instincts. If the blitz is coming from the right and you know you have a TE releasing out in the flat you should know to throw to your safety valve and not force it to a double covered WR. He made numerous bad reads, again most of it was bad instincts. He has a bad habit of only looking at his first option and doesn't adjust to a blitz. It's not that Graham is better he just throws to the open guy, or the right guy. We don't necessarily need a Bledsoe, we just need a better smarter QB. Banks is not our future. Bad instincts or habits are almost impossible to change. Let someone else change him. Give Graham a chance to win the number two job for next year by playing him Sunday. It wasn't just this game and I'm not saying anything anyone else has it. I'm basing this on what I've seen upon further review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted December 17, 2001 Share Posted December 17, 2001 I agree, give Graham the start. At least he can progress through his reads and make smart decisions. It's disgusting seeing Banks lock his eyes on one reciever, and then fire it to him (usually Garnder), even if Westbrook is wide open down the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted December 17, 2001 Share Posted December 17, 2001 Is that based on this game alone, or on the season in total? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All In Posted December 18, 2001 Author Share Posted December 18, 2001 I've based it on the season. I was hoping that he changed his habits. I watched him this whole game. On ESPN they interviewed one of the Eagles. On the INT he had near the end zone at the end of the 3rd he said he knew Banks was going there, he said Banks never took his eyes of the guy. If the play is designed to go to the first read that's 90% of the time where he's going. Hey it's hard to find the open receiver, but this is the NFL. You can have all the physical ability but if you don't have the football instincts and the ability to read a defense and find the open man, you are always going to lead a team to a .500 record. He's not the answer. Thanks for the effort but we need to move in another direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaudry Posted December 18, 2001 Share Posted December 18, 2001 Banks is limited in that way. On the first redzone pick, he had Gardner running open on the left side. Dawkins was obviously sitting on the Westbrook route, but Banks doesn't see that. Overall, I am happy with Banks play this season. He was brought in late and he's played much tougher than I thought he would. You can tell that the guy is giving all the effort that he can. Does anybody think that maybe Raye & Marty are not letting Banks progress in his reads? I have a feeling that during practice they probably just say, "Tony, throw to Zeron on this play". Graham probably won't help much. He might be worth taking a look at if we fall behind to Chicago. ------------------ ShonyX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 19, 2001 Share Posted December 19, 2001 It wouldn't hurt to see either Graham or Sage. ------------------ Take A Sip of the Marty KoolAid and Believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted December 19, 2001 Share Posted December 19, 2001 Skins_Freak, My opinion from game film that I've seen seems to be in disagreement (mostly Philidelphia game 2, Arizona game 1 and Dallas game 2). We either get someone who is a franchise qb (I like Brunell but I wonder what the he!! those sacks are all about), go with Banks or suffer another lost season. BTW, when a DB is interviewed after an interception, they always say that. [ by OPM on December 19, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted December 19, 2001 Share Posted December 19, 2001 Marty's decisionmaking when it comes to quarterbacks leaves something to be desired. First he sticks with Jeff George despite everyone but Aunt Betty knowing that Jeff is a time bomb waiting to explode. He goes with Todd Husak as the #2 quarterback all the way through the offseason and camp and then cuts him when the time to acquire another capable backup quarterback has long since passed. IMHO he is sticking with Banks too long. If the Redskins were a little closer to being in contention, not just mathematically alive for the last wildcard, I would agree to make a change would be a mistake. But at 6-7 and with two tough conference games against good defenses coming up, we are not going to win throwing the ball for 95-100 yards and expecting Davis to carry the victory home. We have to assemble the elements of a basic passing offense or else this team is going to finish 7-9 or 6-10. Scoring 14 (7 until garbage time) against Dallas and 6 vs. Philly, both at home, does not leave me with much confidence that Banks is going to suddenly find the end zone against the Bears and Saints. With Banks on the field, you better hope like hell that Arrington or Bailey takes one to the house early and we get a lead on the Bears. Otherwise, this team could be in trouble again on the scoreboard. It is depressing when you are asking yourself whether your own offense is capable of scoring in double digits at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Redskin Posted December 19, 2001 Share Posted December 19, 2001 That's why I'm not getting to optimistic about us over coming and slipping into the playoffs. The offense stinks, and until something gives we will fairy tale ourselves into thinking some whoopi dust is going to be sprinkled on Marty's head and we will see a diffrent offense all of a sudden. I just dont't see it. We have tough games left against the Saints and Bears. I'm confident our defense can hold. But for how long while the offense continues to sputter. I think the Bears and Saints both have descent front lines and can cause banks some problems. Especially if we don't open up the offense and start using all the weapons we have that has been under used thus far. When Marty told Raye to attack during the Arizona game, I was vividly expecting something a little more outgoing than what I saw. So I guess for the offense to really start putting up some points, Marty must tell Raye not to Attack but "Kill". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted December 19, 2001 Share Posted December 19, 2001 bulldog, I find that Aunt Betty comment insulting....I have an aunt named Betty, who lives in St Louis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted December 19, 2001 Share Posted December 19, 2001 Dave, do you mean Sage in the Bears game? That would be a massacre... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted December 19, 2001 Share Posted December 19, 2001 Thats true. The Bears defense would grind Sage into a fine powder. Oops I forgot, Sage already is a fine powder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All In Posted December 19, 2001 Author Share Posted December 19, 2001 I'd really like to see Banks correct his flaws. He has the physical talent as many of his former coaches and even Bill Walsh recently have said (heard that on WTEM today). Does he review the film and realize what he should of done so that next time he doesn't do it again? I'm not sure. I just feel like we have this "window" and we need to make or find the rest of the pieces to this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted December 20, 2001 Share Posted December 20, 2001 It's tough to make some Redskin fans happy. First we spend seven years with a coach who shuffled QBs to such an nth degree that even the starter was never fully sure of himself at any point in that coach's tenure. Now we have one that sticks with his guns too long. And all this in 3/4s of ONE season. Go figure. Also I can go into any thread, and repetively read on Banks' failures in different cities as evidence on him just not ever having a chance at developing. But Graham's numerous failures with the Cards, Giants, and Steelers, are now mysteriously moot. We picked him up off the street, and now, based on one half of one game as a Redskin. He is justified to start in some fans minds. Interesting. [ by KevinthePRF on December 20, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted December 20, 2001 Share Posted December 20, 2001 Yep, fans blow way to hot and cold on this stuff. By their reckoning, Conway's a bum too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Fever Posted December 20, 2001 Share Posted December 20, 2001 I'm not saying that Graham is any answer for us but he won 6 out of the last 7 games he started in Pittsburgh if I remember right, one against us. The Giants teams he played on were mediocre at best and the Cards teams he played for were just plain bad. I think, like most QBs, he needs a solid supporting cast to be good. Do I think he’s the answer? I doubt it. I like him though. I’m not willing to go with Banks simply for the sake of continuity. I could get behind the guy if I could see some improvement, but I can’t. He makes the same mistakes now that he made earlier in the season. True it is only one season here, but his track history is not comforting. In his defense he plays hard and seems to care about his teammates, but that should be a given with any player. Banks has something to offer or he would not have been given the chances he has been given. Sometimes players never pan out though. Are you willing to take that risk? Let’s say we give Banks a 3 year deal at starting QB money and he is making the same types of mistakes next year that he does this year. Then what? Right, we’re in the same boat. I think if your going to roll the dice with a player that still needs development we should go with Sage or draft someone. Otherwise we need to go with someone who has at least some type of proven record. ------------------ "To the Smootmobile" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted December 20, 2001 Share Posted December 20, 2001 For those who feel the "get rid of Banks" crowd is too hasty, answer this: was Billick too hasty in benching Banks last year? He only gave him half a season before yanking him. This after giving him a nice contract the previous offseason. You think he would have stuck with him as long if he didn't have a financial committment to him? The Redskins have no financial committment and no indication that this is something that "he needs to snap out of." I'm not saying Banks is holding this team back from winning a Super Bowl, or that putting Graham in there will get them there. But it is reasonable to presume that the Redskins' offense could be at least as good as the Ravens' last year, and probably better - the only advantage for the Ravens being Sharpe. I put Graham and Dilfer in about the same class - not spectacular, will make a few plays and not do stupid things. He put 17 points on the board against the Broncos, in Denver, in bad weather, in about a half of play - his only half of play. Has Banks come close to that level of production? It seems obvious to me that he would be a clear upgrade over what Banks is currently providing, or, for that matter, what Banks has generally provided during his tenure here. What is the downside of playing Graham? The team is barely producing points as it is, even when given outstanding opportunities. What am I missing? Why are people clinging to this guy? [ by SonnyJ on December 20, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted December 20, 2001 Share Posted December 20, 2001 Originally posted by Skins_Freak:I'd really like to see Banks correct his flaws. He has the physical talent as many of his former coaches and even Bill Walsh recently have said (heard that on WTEM today). Does he review the film and realize what he should of done so that next time he doesn't do it again? I'm not sure. I just feel like we have this "window" and we need to make or find the rest of the pieces to this team. BTW, should have given you props for a great analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All In Posted December 20, 2001 Author Share Posted December 20, 2001 Graham is not the long term answer next either. Do you think if we told Tony that we will give him a chance to fight for a starting job with a minimal salary, and that he could possibly play for a rookie or another vet, that he would go with that? I see him looking for more of a payday and somewhat of a guarantee of a starting job. If we try to upgrade at QB what does that say about Banks? That we are looking for a different QB to lead this team, "Thanks but your not good enough to start." Graham would be easier to resign at a lower price for our number two QB. That's the angle I'm looking at for next year. If we are going to attack the FA market, who is going to be our number two? Does Banks, Graham, Sage next year give us the best chance to win or should we upgrade? If Banks' toes get stepped on what will his reaction be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Fever Posted December 20, 2001 Share Posted December 20, 2001 He had the rug pulled out from under him earlier this year and I don't think he would go for a situation where he wasn't named the starter as soon as he signed the contract. He's also going to want starting QB money. Shelling out big $$$$ for Banks is not a good idea when we will have other, possibly better, options. That's not picking on Banks, it's just a fact. ------------------ "To the Smootmobile" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted December 20, 2001 Share Posted December 20, 2001 based on his performance to date, Banks is no position to demand anything. what he has shown is that with a strong defense, a good ground game and an effective line he can step out of the way often enough for the team to record at least a .500 record if not a little better than that in the games he starts. that is what we call mediocrity my friends. 7-9, 8-8 or 9-7 seasons are the norm with that type of offensive philosophy. As has been noted a million times, when the Redskins don't get the early lead and lose the field position battle, they need an aerial attack that can compensate and keep the team in those contests. We don't have that safety net. There were games in 1991 when the Redskins defense gave up points and was not playing well. The offense stepped up and light up the scoreboard to win those contests. Cases in point: win over Dallas 33-31, win over Cincinnati 34-27. You have to have balance. Offense, defense and special teams that are complementary. You can't expect one unit to continually have to carry the rest of the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.