@DCGoldPants Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 My vote goes for Tony Banks. What a waste. Not even worth league min. Dallas even cut him. We need OL and DT help so much more and they sign this bum. WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 I dont know. I'd rather have Banks on the roster right now than Steve Beuerlein ... And Ben Coleman could easily turn into the worst Redskin signing. At least we didn't give Banks a signing bonus. ------------------ "Men, there's nothing to get excited about. The situation is normal; we are surrounded." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkPSkins Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 Why is it such a waste? We need an experienced back-up. Banks will not completely suck in that role, maybe he will. But between a QB that has never played and a guy that has shown some promise I take the latter. There are no DE or DT to sign at the moment, plus we still have some money left when/if one would come available. It's not like he's walking into a starting role. ------------------ As always, my opinions do not reflect the opinions of management and are based on ficticious opinions. Similarities to any opinion living or dead is completely unintentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamaran Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 Well, I've never been a big Banks fan, but already he's managed to heal Husak's abdoman pull and Jeff's shoulder now is pain free. Man, is that positive, or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 Bufford, let me attempt to shed some light on a little known fact. It's IMPOSSIBLE to be the worst of something before anything is displayed. In this example, Banks can't possibly be the worst signing of the offseason, because, Banks hasn't even lined up under center for ONE play. That you don't like the signing is fine and that you don't think Banks will be a solid addition is acceptable. But, if the man steps in, throws for 4000 yards and 30 TDs, I'm betting he might not be the worst signing. Not a prediction mind you, but, you can't put Banks in this category. Not in a heart beat. To this point, the worst offseason signing is between Greer, who was beaten soundly, and Coleman, who hasn't made it on the field. A point of fact that also may have escaped you is that Husak is not practicing much or well due to his discomfort. We presently have Watkins and Rosenfels in camp. At this moment in time, there isn't a need greater than having a body at the quarterback position to complete an occasional pass during practice. We certainly don't need any more offensive lineman at this present time, since we have Samuels, Campbell, Moore, Fischer, Raymer, Jansen, Coleman, Brandt and Fletcher as near mortal locks to make the team, and only Coleman among them is dinged. We do need defensive line help presently, and I think the ideas on Wells are at least mildly interesting. But, Banks fits a clear and present need right away, and has a legitimate chance to make the team and help us if he is called upon down the road. Even if he never sees the field, his signing is a solid football move, if completed, at a very crucial time. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 What Art Said, I'm still hoping that Husak will heal and that it was just the injury that made him look bad. Unfortunately i've heard too many reports from training camp that lead me to beleive injury or no, Husak can't play. Anyway here's to hoping that Banks doesn't make the final cut! -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 16, 2001 Author Share Posted August 16, 2001 I would of rather signed Cortez Kennedy to help stop the run, pay him twice as much and Banks. The guy averages a fumble per game. Not good stats for when its a QB! What does it say about a guy who gets cut from a team who has nobody to replace him with. let me say that I am not against signing another QB, just not THIS QB. I know Husak and Sage have issues. ------------------ Bufford T Justice- Inventor of the Todd Husak "Future Starter" logo.... with the help of Blade <IMG SRC="http://www.extremeskins.com/ubb/ranks/husak2.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://old.theinsiders.com/redskins/images/wash1-sm.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://207.230.156.92/images/thn22.jpg" border=0> "Hi, I'm the best CB in the NFL, who are you?" [ by Bufford on August 16, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCdemolition Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 Okay, I definately think Banks is better than Husak. This is a good move under the circumstances. Denver is NOT giving up Gus Frerotte because Buerlein just tore a tendon or two in some limb. The only other quarterback who is going to be released is Ryan Leaf. If anyone who says that Ryan Leaf/Danny Kannel/John Freiz is a better quarterback than Banks, or that the Redskins' current quarterback situation is perfect and it does not warrant the signing of Banks is seriously mistaken (1) in judging talent and (2) in being realistic about injuries in the NFL and their reprucssions. I understand your dislike for Banks, he doesn't have a great track record, but neither does Jeff George (the guy won his first playoff game in 1999, after 10 seasons in the league!), Husak or Rosenfels. Banks is a solid backup who can run an offense, can you say the same about Husak/Rosieboy? Compare George's and Banks' stats from their first 5 years http://espn.go.com/nfl/profiles/stats/primary/0812.html and http://espn.go.com/nfl/profiles/stats/primary/3502.html They are very similar!! Neither George nor Banks have proven to be "winners" but I don't see any negative posts about George being able to "win" for the Skins.... Bufford: The fact of the matter is that there is no guarantee that George's injury is as "minor" as he or Marty thinks it is. It very well may be that he has a rotator cuff injury. Now, are you secure enough in Husak's ability to lead the team if for some reason George goes down in the 4th or 5th game of the season? I hope he doesn't, but what if he does? You have to have insurance at Quarterback. The signing of Banks over Kannell or anyother QB out there is good. I like this signing. I just remember the Baltimore v. Jacksonville game from last year, where Jacksonville was up by a touchdown or two, Banks lead baltimore back and looked really impressive. The guy has a lot of potential. ------------------ Hail to the Redskins [<IMG SRC="http://www.extremeskins.com/ubb/edited.gif" border=0> by DCdemolition on August 16, 2001.] [ by DCdemolition on August 16, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 What does it say about a guy who gets cut from a team who has nobody to replace him with. In this case I think it says more about the team than the guy. ------------------ "Men, there's nothing to get excited about. The situation is normal; we are surrounded." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 16, 2001 Author Share Posted August 16, 2001 personally, I would of gone with Kannell before Banks. ------------------ Bufford T Justice- Inventor of the Todd Husak "Future Starter" logo.... with the help of Blade <IMG SRC="http://www.extremeskins.com/ubb/ranks/husak2.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://old.theinsiders.com/redskins/images/wash1-sm.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://207.230.156.92/images/thn22.jpg" border=0> "Hi, I'm the best CB in the NFL, who are you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCdemolition Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 why? I can understand you might have a "thing" for how Banks looks or something, but he is sure as hell a better quarterback, with more experience, more mobility and a stronger arm than Kannell. ------------------ Hail to the Redskins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 Bufford, if we were in a skyscraper that was on fire, I'd want you right next to me. However, while the screaming hysteria is helpful when drawing attention of firemen in a burning building, it is a tad less than useful when discussing an acquisition for a football team. As DC Demolition has so ably pointed out, while Banks is not the best quarterback in the league, he's certainly experienced a fairly satisfactory performance level while generally playing with teams that are lacking. Note the word generally above. He was cut from Dallas because Jones wanted him cut. No other reason. In fact, Dallas cut him because Dallas is going to switch offenses. With Banks, the Cowboys had intended to spread the field and utilize Banks' arm and their receiver's speed and go for big plays. But, the Cowboys have recognized the defense there is atrocious and have altered plans to go with an offense designed to hold the ball as long as possible and run as frequently as possible. In that type of offense, the Cowboys have openly admitted, Carter or Wright are better fits. What they are saying is, "I don't care if they can hit the broad side of a barn, they can hand off and get experience, and Banks isn't the future, and why pay him to hand off a whole lot." Be reasonable Bufford when you examine whether a player is helpful or not helpful. Banks has starting experience. He has produced pretty fair numbers. He has played with generally poor teams. He has exceptionally fine physical talents. He's young. You aren't asking him to start. He's accomplished more in the league than Wells, and you'd probably have to get a towel and wash off if we signed him. Desperation doesn't make a move more tasteful. Kannell was desperation. Banks is great fortune given the circumstances. It's IMPOSSIBLE to find a down side to a signing like Banks, if it happens, because he is, simply put, the best available option, and, not too far from the top if you factor the entire offseason availability of quarterbacks. Remember now, Brad Johnson was the cream of this year's crop at quarterback. Banks has more starting experience and better raw tools than he does. And as DC Demo showed, his propensity for fumbling has diminished the last couple of years to a level more in line with what we've seen out of most quarterbacks. Facts are a terrible thing to yell at. Don't pop a vessel unless we're in that building together. ------------------ Doom is in the box. [ by Art on August 16, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 Bufford, for you to have as strong a feeling about Husak as you seem to I have to wonder what you know or have seen that the rest of us have not been privy to? Husak to me is the classic overachiever that will fall short because of limited physical ability. He has intelligence and a good work ethic. However, he does not have good mobility, does not have a strong arm, and is not accurate with his throws even in the short and intermediate zones because of poor footwork and technique. And THAT is our future prospect? The guy who is going to take us the Super Bowl in 3-5 years? I don't think so. No one here is saying that signing Banks is as significant as trading for Sonny Jurgensen or Joe Theismann was to the team. But for 2001, we needed someone behind Jeff that had been in "combat" before on an NFL field. We need to ensure that Rod Gardner and Darnerian McCants continue to develop and that wasn't going to happen when the quarterbacks can't consistency execute basic throws with accuracy. What if Jeff George comes back but is then knocked out by the Chargers in Game 1 and all you have in reserve is a player such as Husak whose only recent "experience" in the NFL is being 3 of 10 for 33 yards? Oh, that's going to fill Stephen Davis and Westbrook and everyone else including your younger receivers with a WHOLE lot of confidence isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCdemolition Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 'After practice, Banks said he can live with being a backup for now. "Jeff George is as talented a quarterback as there is," he said. "I can live with that. But I still consider myself a starter and always will."' A little competition for Jeff George is good, it'll bring the best out in both of them. But I'm sure Jeff probably knows that there is ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROVERSY with this signing. ------------------ Hail to the Redskins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 I'm taking all bets that within one week, if not tomorrow, the Washington Times begins the writing of the potential QB controversy in Washington. And, remember, they already started it, saying with Husak around and George not the future, the controversy is already brewing. Now there's an actual guy who's started before here, so, that brew must be boiling soon. Else how will they sell newspapers . ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkPSkins Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 I'll take the under on that one. ------------------ As always, my opinions do not reflect the opinions of management and are based on ficticious opinions. Similarities to any opinion living or dead is completely unintentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildbill Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 I think this was a very solid addition to our weak QB position.I am not a fan of Banks but just the fact that he has a strong arm will keep defenses off balance if he was pressed into action. Hopefully we will never see him on the field and all this is water under the bridge,but I do feel a little bit more comfortable with Banks on the sideline than what we had there this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfanbu Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 Besides Tony Banks obvious abilities, he's a character guy. When Banks was benched for Dilfer last year, he din't throw a tantrum. He didn't lay out a line of smack against Dilfer, though Dilfer's record could have been Smacked down. He was a good soldier and supported his coaches and the team. There were no locker room politics going on in Baltimore. Banks may or may not work out, but we've gotten a guy who won't rock the boat. We've got a guy who can deliver a football consistently. As much as DC loves a QB controversy, we don't need one now. HTTR, Bill, the FL Chief [ by skinsfanbu on August 16, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCdemolition Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 you're absolutely right, Banks is a good guy and he likes to play football. He has been in 7 different systems dating back to Michigan State, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt one final time... This is what Len Pasquerelli wrote on ESPN.com: One element in Banks' decision to sign with the Redskins was the quarterbacks coach Brian Scottehenheimer, the son of the head coach Marty Schottenheimer, was on the St. Louis staff in 1997. That was Banks' second season with the Rams and he became good friends with the younger Schottenheimer. Marty Schottenheimer also received a strong recommendation on Banks from Kansas City coach Dick Vermeil, who worked with the quarterback in St. Louis. "I feel like I know some people here and that it's a good situation for me," Banks said. "My initial reaction when the Cowboys cut me was to take some time and think about things for a while. But I decided, when this opportunity was there, to make the most of it. It's no fun sitting around at home." Dating back to his Michigan State career, Banks has worked in at least seven different offensive systems, and that lack of continuity has, he acknowledged, been a detriment to his advancement. ------------------ Hail to the Redskins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkPSkins Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 I betcha a buck that another reason he signed with the Skins has something to do with seeing Dallas twice on the schedule. ------------------ As always, my opinions do not reflect the opinions of management and are based on ficticious opinions. Similarities to any opinion living or dead is completely unintentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 Banks is the BEST signing of the offseason. Hey guys, in three weeks we play for real. What if Jeff reinjures his shoulder between now and then? Having Banks to start means we have a legitimate shot at winning the season opener. Can anyone really think that Kannell or Husak or Rosenfels would have given us a legitimate shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 16, 2001 Author Share Posted August 16, 2001 I'm saying that Banks got benched for a guy who isn't even on that team anymore and is a backup somewhere else. The 980 guys are saying that Tony K would be a better QB cause he fumbles less and Banks was cut from dallas because he pulled his groin early in camp and blamed it on a 5 step drop. Then started ****ing his injury. Yeah, he's a winner. Slam me all you guys want but I was one of the few that said Deion wouldn't be cut on June 1st either. Something happened in Dallas where a 2nd round rookie QB who many teams had listed low, outplayed this experienced Vet in camp. ------------------ Bufford T Justice- Inventor of the Todd Husak "Future Starter" logo.... with the help of Blade <IMG SRC="http://www.extremeskins.com/ubb/ranks/husak2.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://old.theinsiders.com/redskins/images/wash1-sm.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://207.230.156.92/images/thn22.jpg" border=0> "Hi, I'm the best CB in the NFL, who are you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 16, 2001 Author Share Posted August 16, 2001 by the way, I'm not Bucs92 here. Lets not go from the throat here. Everybody on this board has an opinion and an azzhole. I'm just stating mine in thinking that Banks is a huge mistake. Nothing more, nothing less. Lets not treat me like a Tampa fan. ------------------ Bufford T Justice- Inventor of the Todd Husak "Future Starter" logo.... with the help of Blade <IMG SRC="http://www.extremeskins.com/ubb/ranks/husak2.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://old.theinsiders.com/redskins/images/wash1-sm.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://207.230.156.92/images/thn22.jpg" border=0> "Hi, I'm the best CB in the NFL, who are you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkPSkins Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 The point is Bufford, is that Tony Banks hopefully will not have a chance to fumble. If he does, he has improved in that area over the past couple of seasons. It's obvious you don't like the guy, but as a backup, he is the best available option. ------------------ As always, my opinions do not reflect the opinions of management and are based on ficticious opinions. Similarities to any opinion living or dead is completely unintentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted August 16, 2001 Share Posted August 16, 2001 Bufford, are you really putting that much stock in the decision-making of Jerry Jones and the Cowboys? Wasn't this the team that decided last year that Randall Godfrey was expendable and that Barron Wortham and Dat Nguyen were more than adequate replacements? Well, Godfrey has blossomed into one of the best middle linebackers in the NFL while Wortham was cut and Nguyen has started 2 games at MLB in the past year. A second example of the "braintrust" in Dallas screwing up is the Galloway deal. Jones gives up 2 #1 draft picks and a $12 million signing bonus to a 29 year old receiver when his team is aging and in the early throes of having to start rebuilding? As a consequence the Seahawks get Koren Robinson and Shaun Alexander the Cowboys have SQUAT Let Dallas go 2-14 or 3-13 with Carter as the starting quarterback. That is not our concern. When we see a player that can help US we should take advanatage of the opportunity. For Dallas Banks was expected to be the starter and make plays on a team with limited talent. Here in Washington, he will be a backup and if pressed into service will have a much better surrounding cast on offense than he would have in Dallas. So, the expectations and circumstances of Banks on the two teams are hardly comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.