Brandon Banks Performance Issues/WR Position

[SB17]

(looking into my crystal ball ...) RGIII throws him the perfect ball. He catches it. Then, the DB rips the ball out of his hands. Turnover.

My middle son is a sophomore in high school and plays on his school's team (2nd team LB, I believe). He's 5'7" and weighs about 160 lbs. He said he ran a 4.7 40 (I was impressed). A wrong comparison, perhaps, but I just don't see someone his size and (lack of) strength playing in the NFL.

[KDawg]

Every single ball Banks was thrown was thrown horribly or just chucked to him to make a play, he was getting seperation on these DBs. People are over reacting, they were targeting him covered or not for evaluation purposes, to see if he can bring a new facet to his game. By all accounts he has had a good camp and we all know about his speed, one preseason game against the Bills isn't enough to cut a young player with incredible speed and return skills. I believe he led all league kick returners in yards last year?

I disagree completely with this assessment. He got separation but defenders closed when ball was being delivered. His burst gives him a bit of a cushion, but his route running isn't stellar. He also looked lazy with his hands, despite Ike Hilliard's claim he improved. Furthermore, on two of the passes delivered to him, he fell and was laying face first.

His value comes at KR, not at WR. And Richard Crawford looks like he could challenge him on returns.

[@DCGoldPants]

With how much money these teams make, I don't see the point of these roster sizes. If they added 10 more guys per team (which mostly would be young guys, special teams experts, developmental types......Banks would have a spot. Right now, I don't know. We need guy who can do a few different things.

[China]

The coaches seemingly really wanted to see what Banks could do. They gave him many opportunities to shine and be the man. It's only one snapshot, but he hurt his stock. Him and Niles Paul really blew their chances last night. Luckily for both, they have the opportunity to bounce back and prove themselves.

So you're saying it's not A Climbing Stock?

You're welcome.

[Burgold]

So you're saying it's not A Climbing Stock?

You're welcome.

Hehehehe! Thanks. That is certainly something every Redskins fan should own. RGIII's stock is climbing. I hear there's a Kindle and Nook version too.

http://www.amazon.com/A-Climbing-Stock-ebook/dp/B008KRMLPM/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1344604839&sr=1-1&keywords=a+climbing+stock

(See sig for explanation if needed)

[Rocky52Mc]

Are you sure that all the throws to Banks were QB failures? What is the possibility that Banks wasn't were he should have been, thus making it appear that the throw was off, when in fact it may have been Banks who was off?

But how many opportunities did he have? Even some semi decent receivers when thrown at 6 times will be able to make a play to get near the ball. I saw him SITTING behind a CB. Good receivers not only do their part, sometimes they end up doing the QB's part. Banks CLEARLY can't be kept here as a WR. Practice means nothing to the real game, it just doesn't. There's a lot of factors that go into moments in game, pressure, psych, and it he was literally FORCED the ball guys. We wasted a lot of 2nd string time forcing the ball to banks. If that's what they wanted to do that's fine, Niles Paul is another guy who looked sketchy.

[laxpck]

With Crawford and more importantly Morgan on the team, I think Banks is gone.

He got a ton of looks but just cant deliver unless the ball is perfectly placed in space and thats just not realistic.

Some balls you have to GO GET, and getting boxed out by someone 5'10" 195 just cant happen.

[Diesel Hog]

With how much money these teams make, I don't see the point of these roster sizes. If they added 10 more guys per team (which mostly would be young guys, special teams experts, developmental types......Banks would have a spot. Right now, I don't know. We need guy who can do a few different things.

Separate subject, but yeah, I never really understood why the roster is limited to 53. What is college? Like 70 something? Seems like it would be a smart move for the NFL to allow 60 per team. Those extra 7 guys could be a mix of stars, back-ups, and developmental players. Heck, even just a 58 man roster would make more sense. I thought I heard something about increasing the roster during the lockout...guess nothing ever came of that.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

..... His value comes at KR, not at WR .....

And over the past year, even that value has diminished considerably too.

Hail.

[laxpck]

We have lots of kick returners who can play WR. Banks is NOT one of them.

[kleese]

No matter what Banks is going to be behind Garçon, Hankerson, Morgan, and Moss on the depth chart. At very best he will be the 5th WR and when you add in Paul and Davis, possibly the 8th option in the passing game. The question is simple: Does he bring enough as a returner (and maybe with a little wildcat mixed in) to warrant a roster spot over a guy like Briscoe or Robinson who probably have more potential as WR's?

My gut says yes.... Banks is just dangerous enough that I'd like to keep him around.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Separate subject, but yeah, I never really understood why the roster is limited to 53. What is college? Like 70 something? Seems like it would be a smart move for the NFL to allow 60 per team. Those extra 7 guys could be a mix of stars, back-ups, and developmental players. Heck, even just a 58 man roster would make more sense. I thought I heard something about increasing the roster during the lockout...guess nothing ever came of that.

What is even more ridiculous is the inactive list.

53 guys on your roster, all at your expense. And you can't even dress 8 of them on game day.

How the clubs have accepted that for so long is utterly beyond me.

Hail.

[MartinC]

I know this is no excuse, but didn't they have some rain on the turf before the game? Sorry, I didn't see the game, but I know during the pregame on NFLN, they said there could be some weather in Buffalo. I'm watching the game this evening.

Not sure about the state of the turf, though it was dry during the game. I'd say a couple of things about that though if it was slippy - first I did not see anyone else slipping around, second if it is slippy it should favour the receiver over the DB as the receiver knows where he wants to go and finally in slippy conditions a short/shifty guy like Banks with a low centre of gravity should have an advantage over the bigger guys.

[Rocky52Mc]

What is even more ridiculous is the inactive list.

53 guys on your roster, all at your expense. And you can't even dress 8 of them on game day.

How the clubs have accepted that for so long is utterly beyond me.

Hail.

It's a strategy point. You need to be able to maintain health, fatigue, and stamina throughout a game. 11 + 11 = 22 + K + P = 24. The rest are the depth and teams. That's not bad at all. It also comes down to a $$ thing. If you had that many guys, blowouts would look like pre-season games real quick. In College, you have that many players because there's such a large range of guys you have no idea what they're capable of + they're only there for around 4 years. There's major differences here guys.

[MDTERPS27]

What I saw last night with with Brandon Banks did not look like it could only be blamed on soley horrible quarterback play, as some are suggesting. I'm looking forward to watching the game again, but as some have already said, this offense is based heavily on timing, and a quarterback is going to look very bad if he throws the ball where it's supposed to be and the receiver ran a slightly wrong route, or slipped. It was probably a combination of bad routes and a lack of timing with the WR/QB. Also keep in mind that Rex was standing in his own endzone for at least half of his attempts.

Like somebody else said, Rex and Santana or Gaffney could run that comeback route all day long and move the chains. I hope next week in Chicago Kyle doesn't call so many plays targeting Banks so that if he is indeed under-performing at WR (which I believe he is), he doesn't make the quarterbacks look so bad. I would like to see more of Aldrick Robinson and that new guy Briscoe.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I still neither get nor agree with having 8 guys you employ, not being able to dress on game day.

It's all well and good saying after the starters and kickers you've still 21 other guys to cover, but your still restricting 8 of the product we pay good money for through the week.

The Inactive Rule is a serious restriction that again I'm surprised clubs have agreed to for the time it's been in place.

Hail.

[SkinsCrushCowboys]

I am really pulling for Banks, but he did not look good last night. Some can be attributed to the horrible passes from Rex. He also did slip on a cut. The most telling thing to me was the deep ball that was a bit underthrown. He did not get behind the corner and at his size has absolutely no chance to go up and get the ball. Maybe they were just trying too hard to get him some action.

[CrypticVillain]

Yesterday was just one way to use Banks. I suspect that they will be using him in a different way next Saturday night. Maybe some screens and reverses and whatnot. All I know is they better not throw him anymore jump balls.

[maskedsuperstar]

I agree with this. There's a saying that goes "Good big players beat good little players" and unfortunately Brandon's size makes a lot of other players look "big".

I'm a Banks fan, but he has not seemed as electrifying as he was in his rookie season. Factor in the increased team speed on the 'Skinz and Brandon has REALLY got to start making plays as a receiver to earn a roster spot.

Well, somebody forgot to tell Darren Sproles!:cool:

---------- Post added August-10th-2012 at 10:04 AM ----------

I have always loved Banks, and it's early, but his size and performance questions me whether or not he can play for us. Everyone knew him since the Jim Zorn era, but sadly, he has shown thus far he cannot play two positions. In theory, I believe Mike Shanahan wants young players who can play two positions. With the flashes of Crawford today, he could take Bank's job at returns, thus leading banks to nothing really.

Again I know it is early, but it's just a thought. I could see Aldrick Robinson/another WR taking that spot. What do you guys think? He really shows the heart, but he's just so small.

Jim Zorn era?

[Sizzla3000]

We need to sign Plaxico before Dallas does. Plax is even taller than Anthony Mix

[GaryGreenMonk]

No matter what Banks is going to be behind Garçon, Hankerson, Morgan, and Moss on the depth chart. At very best he will be the 5th WR and when you add in Paul and Davis, possibly the 8th option in the passing game. The question is simple: Does he bring enough as a returner (and maybe with a little wildcat mixed in) to warrant a roster spot over a guy like Briscoe or Robinson who probably have more potential as WR's?

My gut says yes.... Banks is just dangerous enough that I'd like to keep him around.

I think keeping Banks on the team just for that and losing Alrick Robinson to another team (because that is what will happen) is not a good plan.

[maskedsuperstar]

No matter what Banks is going to be behind Garçon, Hankerson, Morgan, and Moss on the depth chart. At very best he will be the 5th WR and when you add in Paul and Davis, possibly the 8th option in the passing game. The question is simple: Does he bring enough as a returner (and maybe with a little wildcat mixed in) to warrant a roster spot over a guy like Briscoe or Robinson who probably have more potential as WR's?

My gut says yes.... Banks is just dangerous enough that I'd like to keep him around.

Well, he is the best returner on the team. And I think that just one game isn't going to be the telling factor. Banks has had a very good camp.

---------- Post added August-10th-2012 at 10:07 AM ----------

I think keeping Banks on the team just for that and losing Alrick Robinson to another team (because that is what will happen) is not a good plan.

What has Robinson done to be on this team?

[pjfootballer]

Not sure about the state of the turf, though it was dry during the game. I'd say a couple of things about that though if it was slippy - first I did not see anyone else slipping around, second if it is slippy it should favour the receiver over the DB as the receiver knows where he wants to go and finally in slippy conditions a short/shifty guy like Banks with a low centre of gravity should have an advantage over the bigger guys.

OK. No problem. I didn't see the game, only highlights. I was just going off what I heard pregame. Thanks.

[maskedsuperstar]

We need to sign Plaxico before Dallas does. Plax is even taller than Anthony Mix

Pass

---------- Post added August-10th-2012 at 10:09 AM ----------

I think the Shanny's have more than enough to make a decision. I do agree with giving him a shot with Rg. But Rex and Cousins put balls that an adequate reciever could've made plays on. Would RG give better passes??? He threw six balls, and in training camp he has been wildly inaccurate. Banks is nothing more than a gimic player. His speed is great but he truly lacks size and ability to play WR.

Not true

---------- Post added August-10th-2012 at 10:10 AM ----------

I am really pulling for Banks, but he did not look good last night. Some can be attributed to the horrible passes from Rex. He also did slip on a cut. The most telling thing to me was the deep ball that was a bit underthrown. He did not get behind the corner and at his size has absolutely no chance to go up and get the ball. Maybe they were just trying too hard to get him some action.

He did get behind the corner, and the ball was late.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Here's my somewhat brutal take on Banks:

He's fast. That's about it. We saw Crawford show pretty good vision on a couple returns. We saw every other WR contribute more on offense. I concede that if you put Banks in the perfect position in the open field he might be explosive. But, should it really be that hard hard on the other players and coaching staff to make a backup WR/kick returner succeed? I still contend that a couple other WRs (who might contribute more on offense, kick coverage, etc.) or DBs (who might contribute more on defense, kick coverage, etc.) could do just about what Banks does in the return game.

Edit: Last point...some have mentioned this preseason that what Banks provides as a WR is pretty insignificant since he's always going to be 5th or 6th on the depth chart. While I agree with that point, I still think you want to always be developing guys who can eventually step in and start in a pinch. What if Morgan doesn't pan out and Moss retires in a year? Then we're looking for a #2/3 WR and it would be great if our #5/6 could step into that role. That's what good teams have.

Also, special teams doesn't just mean returns. Someone like Crawford or Robinson could probably return kicks AND cover kicks. I don't see Banks being a gunner. He'll always just be someone who returns a few kicks per game. Unless he's overwhelmingly better at that than anyone else on the roster, you really can't afford to keep him (in my opinion).