Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The case for Brandon Banks., the 'Mike Nelms' of the new millennium.

Gibbs Hog Heaven

By Gibbs Hog Heaven
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

martytheman

martytheman

Posted
Posted
What?

How do you build a team if you do that? Isn't that what we used to do? Keep good, okay players around, and keep letting younger players go under the assumption that they were "unproven"? That's how you get old in a hurry.

We've cut a lot of good players and replaced them with younger, "unproven" players. You can never improve if your position is "you don't cut a good player to give a position to players who are unproven".

You don't see the problem that he can only run a few routes?

That sort of tips the defense off if they know all you can run is a few very simple routes. It effectively neutralizes your ability to catch a defense off guard if you know one guy is only going to run a select number of offensive concepts.

The more you can do as a receiver, the better.

Your arguement just gets more convoluted as you try to twist and turn things to back up your opinion. It all boils down to one thing though.

IF these magical multifaceted multi role wr's were able to take Banks' job, they had all training camp and preseason to do it, yet were unable to do so.

so if you think BB is soo awful and shouldn't be on the team because he's "one dimensional" what does that say about your self proclaimed saviors of the KR/PR position who couldn't even

knock him out of that one dimension?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alleycat

alleycat

Posted
Posted

I like having BB on the team...I am not sure with the new rules if he is worth it...But he has shown enough to find out !!

BTW...If he tried to be anything like Mike Nelms...He would die within 5 returns !!

Not to mention...Mike played under VERY different rules !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinzplay

skinzplay

Posted
Posted

I wish Banks all the success in the world because his success means the team's success. Is he irreplaceable? No. But I'm sure - or at least I hope - he realizes that he'll have to produce this year or we won't be seeing this debate during the next off-season . . . . . . or maybe not after mid-season. No guarantees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted
Wow. Can we please stop talking about Brandon Banks? Pllllease??? Glad he is on the team' date=' but we have bigger fish to fry (unintended pun), seriously. HTTR :helmet:[/quote']

Actually we don't. This is what we should do. the fact this argument has gone on over 4 weeks and 2 threads says a lot for

A/ the general knowledge of these fans involved to be so in tune as to discuss the 50th or 51st roster slot so passionately,

and B/ the level of competition that Shanahan has fostered that the 50th or 51st spot is contested so fiercely.

Banks made the team now he needs to prove he's worth keeping. I am looking forward to seeing him return a punt or 3 for a TD.

Exactly! All the arguing is done til he shows one way or another.

Me, I think he made the team on those last two punt returns in the second half last week. They were beauties.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinny21

skinny21

Posted
Posted
You know my one gripe about Banks?

Dude.

Lift some weights get a nutritionist and personal trainer/speed trainer and bulk up a little get stronger.

Heck, take some HGH before they start testing for it.

Maybe get up 165-170?

Just wanted to get that off my chest.

Thought I read somewhere that he added 10 or 15 lbs this offseason? I'll see if I can find it.

Personally, I'm on the fence with Banks, but...

I don't recall seeing Banks' detractors explain why he was so good in 2010 and so poor in 2011. The closest I've seen is that a) teams figured him out (I think this one is questionable at best), and B) that the added 5 yards on kick offs was the culprit (didn't his punt returns suffer too?).

The one thing that does fit is a knee injury. Maybe the 5 yd add-on affected his decision-making, but a knee injury would apply to kicks and punts, and is therefore more plausible to me. If he's healthy, I would expect his punt returns to align with his 2010 stats, and his kick returns to at least improve from last year as well.

There are plenty of reasons to doubt Banks (size, hands, ability to stay healthy), but continuously trotting out 2011 as the barometer for this year seems questionable. I think his 'detractors' would get more traction if they admitted to his strengths while arguing that his weaknesses overshadow those strengths.

As a receiver, I do like that defenses will have to adjust to him on the field. I'd rather a 'complete' receiver fill this role, but as others have said - cater to his strengths and he can be an asset.

As an aside, I was shocked that Shanny said in his presser that Banks can be a fill-in at HB. I suppose he just meant the end-arounds, but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinny21

skinny21

Posted
Posted
skinny,

I think it was injuries. Banks game is based on speed. He had those hamstring(?) injuries early on and lost a gear. Being his size, if he can't out run or out juke people he's pretty dead in the water.

Exactly. I'm not a big Banks supporter (or detractor), but I don't know why others don't want to see it. As you said, speed is his game, take it away (due to injury), and of course 2011 is what you get. All I do know is that if he plays more like 2010, his returns should really help this team out (offense and defense). I've got my fingers crossed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KCClybun

KCClybun

Posted
Posted
Exactly. I'm not a big Banks supporter (or detractor), but I don't know why others don't want to see it. As you said, speed is his game, take it away (due to injury), and of course 2011 is what you get. All I do know is that if he plays more like 2010, his returns should really help this team out (offense and defense). I've got my fingers crossed.

The issue I have with that is that he dealt with nagging injuries through much of 2010 and was still pretty effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinny21

skinny21

Posted
Posted
The issue I have with that is that he dealt with nagging injuries through much of 2010 and was still pretty effective.

Interesting. This I didn't know. Do you know if they were injuries that would affect his speed? This is certainly the kind of thing that could change the equation, I'm surprised I haven't seen people use this in their arguments more. Thanks for the input/info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KCClybun

KCClybun

Posted
Posted
Interesting. This I didn't know. Do you know if they were injuries that would affect his speed? This is certainly the kind of thing that could change the equation, I'm surprised I haven't seen people use this in their arguments more. Thanks for the input/info.

His knee had been bugging him for a long time in 2010; I remember as late as the Minnesota Vikings game in 2010 he had issues with his knee; a game where he had some of his best returns. After the Vikings game, his production sort of tailed off for the end of the season. I think he got the problem fixed in the offseason, but the knee was still bugging him by time 2011 happened, which is why Mike classified him as strictly a kick returner. He was on the bubble until the Tampa Bay game where he returned his annual return for a TD, and then he had a down year.

I actually think his production started to tail off after the Detriot Lions game in 2010, he had that great game versus the Vikings, and then cooled off again the rest of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lavarleap56

Lavarleap56

Posted
Posted
Interesting. This I didn't know. Do you know if they were injuries that would affect his speed? This is certainly the kind of thing that could change the equation, I'm surprised I haven't seen people use this in their arguments more. Thanks for the input/info.

I thought it was common knowledge Banks had his knee scoped going into the bye week of 2010. He was suppose to miss 2-3 weeks but ended up missing 0 games. So many pages I thought this would have been mentioned already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KCClybun

KCClybun

Posted
Posted
I thought it was common knowledge Banks had his knee scoped going into the bye week of 2010. He was suppose to miss 2-3 weeks but ended up missing 0 games. So many pages I thought this would have been mentioned already.

Yeah, I think a lot of people forgot about that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mahons21

Mahons21

Posted
Posted

Banks made the team, end of story. There could have been a good discussion about it this offseason because there is a good case to be made for him staying or him leaving. It's too bad that a few loud posters on their holy mission to combat the stupidity wrecked this for all of us.

In the end it seems logical that MS would want someone on the team who will have the opportunity to make an impact each and every game, over an additional o-linemen(fill in any position here), that without injury may never even see the field.

Glad it's over and done with, hopefully next time there's a situation like this posters can actually have a discussion, without the condescending tones that have been taking away from ES this entire offseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greenspandan

greenspandan

Posted
Posted

Banks was on 106.7 this morning with the sports junkies. i only heard part of the interview, but he mentioned that Shannahan told him they were going to try to find ways to get the ball in his hands on offense, including trying him out at running back ( would he be the lightest tailback in NFL history? ) anyway, i like that Shannahan is apparently looking for ways to allow his unique abilities to have an impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinny21

skinny21

Posted
Posted
Yeah, I think a lot of people forgot about that...

I remember the scope, but I didn't put it together with nagging injuries. Makes sense though. If he's healthy now, could you see him putting up similar numbers? I know kick returns will be affected of course, but everyone's in that same boat. I wonder if they give Paul more chances there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...