• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

So, Does Shanny's Pet Squirrel Survive?

Reading this thread I couldn't help but remember Andy Kaufman's first appearance on SNL.

 
Banks on the Redskins reminds me a bit of Tebow in New York.

He's not really a player that fits into a straight NFL starting role, but is a guy that generates buzz and can be productive doing unconventional things.

The thing is though that you usually find players like this on losing teams or teams grasping for playmakers.

You don't see a Banks or Tebow on the Packers, Steelers, Ravens, etc.

And I am not predicting here that Banks necessarily stays on the roster all season.

If there are injuries on the OL or elsewhere his roster spot could be up for re-evaluation, especially if he is not producing on returns or gets dinged.
 
Having said that, I don't trust his judgment. He seems too willing to come out of the endzone every play, on the off chance he will take it to the house, instead of just kneeling sometimes. We joke about the Napoleon complex Snyder has, but it may be that Banks has one too, where he feels he has to prove to the world that he belongs on a football field, I don't know.

I've heard that Danny Smith makes the decision as to whether or not he should come out of the end zone. Another reason to fire that clown.
 
Danny Smith has been part of the problem all along.

A few years ago there were coverage issues. Then there were punting issues. Then there was Suisham and Gano on the horizon as inconsistent performers who missed makeable shorter field goals that could have won key division games.

But in the end it is always the players that are blamed in isolation.

Unlike poor performances on offense or defense, the COACH of the Washington special teams never seems to ever be held responsible for the performance of his units.

In Smith's case, the team and 'insiders' keep insisting to us that Smith is an advocate for personnel on the ST units and has some influence on the final constitution of the squad in that regard.

So, why not the scrutiny when they fail to perform?

Last year when Trent Williams got hurt and the FG unit had break-downs inside you would think after several weeks Smith would have gotten things stabilized using other personnel and working on the new combos in practice.
 
Last edited:
Smith supposedly "Stood on the table" for Little Rocky again this year as cut down took place.

We can only hope that, now, since he has survived, that the little fellar shows up on a consistent basis. It's the ONLY way he can justify keeping a roster spot.
 
Keeping Banks meant not keeping a fourth tight end (Cooley), another OLB (White), etc.

In the end I just hope his 2 or 3 plays a year count more for this team than what a guy could produce that suits up and could conceivably play on a regular basis.
 
Smith supposedly "Stood on the table" for Little Rocky again this year as cut down took place.

We can only hope that, now, since he has survived, that the little fellar shows up on a consistent basis. It's the ONLY way he can justify keeping a roster spot.

I think he'll be on a very short leash this year. Any kind of fumble or muff or a string of poor return performances and he'll be gone. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking, who knows.

Keeping a roster spot specifically for a returner is becoming more en vogue these days - Josh Cribbs in Cleveland, Devin Hester in Chicago, and now Trindon Holliday in Houston.

EDIT: Cribbs is useful on offense, more useful than Banks, anyway.
 
And Hester is playing WR more and more for Chicago. So much, in fact, that it is cutting down on his effectiveness in the return game.
 
I've heard that Danny Smith makes the decision as to whether or not he should come out of the end zone. Another reason to fire that clown.

I think that's urban legend. How would that work anyway? Is Banks watching Smith for a 'signal' of some kind? That hardly seems likely as a return man is going to be 100% focused on the ball. And surely we're not deciding whether to run it out prior to the kick...

I just don't see how Smith making the call is even possible.
 
Unless Smith is tellin the lil' guy "use your own judgement about whether or not to kneel or run", which, given observable results, would, IMO, still make it at least partially a coaching issue.
 
I think that's urban legend. How would that work anyway? Is Banks watching Smith for a 'signal' of some kind? That hardly seems likely as a return man is going to be 100% focused on the ball. And surely we're not deciding whether to run it out prior to the kick...

I just don't see how Smith making the call is even possible.

I've tried Googling it and I can't find the article for the life of me, but I swear I read it somewhere. After the 2010 season, they made the decision to give Smith the call as to whether or not Banks left the endzone; I think it was a direct quote from Banks himself maybe? Anyway, I swear I saw it in print.
 
Unless Smith is tellin the lil' guy "use your own judgement about whether or not to kneel or run", which, given observable results, would, IMO, still make it at least partially a coaching issue.

But that's the whole point serv...what other option does a Special Teams coach HAVE other than relying on his return man to use his own judgement?

That's why having someone who has some judgement in the return role is so critical. Unless I'm missing something here, which kicks Banks or any returner brings out is entirely up to the return man's split decision.

Now - I'll say this. Why you keep giving a guy (who clearly is shaky at best in terms of his decisions to bring balls out of the end zone) the opportunity to make bad decisions, I don't understand. To me, about the 2nd time a return man brings one out of the endzone to the 10 or 15 yard line, he's going to sit if I'm the coach.
 
I've tried Googling it and I can't find the article for the life of me, but I swear I read it somewhere. After the 2010 season, they made the decision to give Smith the call as to whether or not Banks left the endzone; I think it was a direct quote from Banks himself maybe? Anyway, I swear I saw it in print.

I'm not doubting you saw it, I'm doubting it's factual - again, because I can't imagine how a signal from the coaching staff would work in practical use. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see a return man being told to take his eyes off the ball to look for a 'signal'. And if not that method, how would Banks know what Smith wanted him to do? I may ask Murf to ask that question if we have some of those dubious decisions occur in the return game.
 
But that's the whole point serv...what other option does a Special Teams coach HAVE other than relying on his return man to use his own judgement?

That's why having someone who has some judgement in the return role is so critical. Unless I'm missing something here, which kicks Banks or any returner brings out is entirely up to the return man's split decision.

Now - I'll say this. Why you keep giving a guy (who clearly is shaky at best in terms of his decisions to bring balls out of the end zone) the opportunity to make bad decisions, I don't understand. To me, about the 2nd time a return man brings one out of the endzone to the 10 or 15 yard line, he's going to sit if I'm the coach.

Okay, I have a dumb sounding question-would it not be possible for Smith, seeing the lack of production Banks gets on one of his normal run tries from the endzone, simply tell him, don't try it if it's a touchback "gimme?"

My sense of this is that both Smith and Shanahan are enticed by the "high-risk/high reward" possibilities of a good field position as the result of a long Banks return heavily enough toward the "high reward" side to put up with the drops and 15 yard returns from the endzone.

I wonder if either or both of them buy lottery tickets on a regular basis. :biggrin2:
 
I think that's urban legend. How would that work anyway? Is Banks watching Smith for a 'signal' of some kind? That hardly seems likely as a return man is going to be 100% focused on the ball. And surely we're not deciding whether to run it out prior to the kick...

I just don't see how Smith making the call is even possible.

Baseball does it, with a 3rd base coach, so why not ? :)
 
I believe Smith watches the game from the coach's box. It seems possible (albeit slightly impractical) for him to watch the first second or two of the kickoff coverage developing, call down to the sidelines to a coach, who then signals Banks somehow whether or not he should bring it out.

Definitely seems possible in that I think very lowly of Smith's skills as a coach, and that he would have the gumption to try something like that.
 
If the coaches are having Banks look to the sidelines for a "Go/No Go" sign on returns., ever ****in one of them ought to be fired.

And, if it's predetermined, "Bring this one out, regardless" they should all be fired as well.
 
I believe Smith watches the game from the coach's box. It seems possible (albeit slightly impractical) for him to watch the first second or two of the kickoff coverage developing, call down to the sidelines to a coach, who then signals Banks somehow whether or not he should bring it out.

Definitely seems possible in that I think very lowly of Smith's skills as a coach, and that he would have the gumption to try something like that.
Smith has been on the sideline of every game since he's been here.

Do you listen on the radio?
 
Smith has been on the sideline of every game since he's been here.

Do you listen on the radio?

No, but the more I think about it, the more I believe you're right as I remember seeing him on TV congratulating people after big ST plays. So, in the scenario I described, it would be an assistant in the booth calling down to Smith.

Who knows though...the more I think about it, the more impractical it seems.
 
Baseball does it, with a 3rd base coach, so why not ? :)

Interesting point, but I am not sure it's a perfect analogy. Getting thrown out is not frequently a game-changer. Muffing a punt or kickoff and turning the ball over often is. I cannot imagine a coach telling a return man to take his eyes off the ball after a kick to look for a coache's signal. Maybe that's exactly what is happening, but I'm having a hard time believing that's our system.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top