Benning on Banker

Mavric

Mavric

Yoda
Staff member
Benning gave a first-person account on the radio this morning of an interaction with Banker some time ago.

Here's the link to the segments. The story starts at about the 14:00 mark of Segment 1 from today's show.

It is an ..... interesting listen. Might also be interesting for the "Banker wasn't necessarily fired because he was bad" crowd along with the "players weren't buying in" crowd.

 
So.... Was Banker losing his damn mind? Losing the guys in the locker room? All of the above probably....He was all over the place towards the end of that story....

 
1. When breaking down X's and O's with Benning, Banker was unsure of his own defense by constantly erasing it.

2. Banker displayed a defense that had major holes in it. Benning points this out when he references 11 personnel and 21 personnel.

3. Banker tried to provide an example of how putting Banderas as a DT would work as along as he knew his assignment...

4. Banker and B. Stewart gave mixed defensive signals on the field during practices

5. Gerry thinks Banker is an idiot and did not want to play for him because of on field confusion.

6. Gerry and Banker bicker and this leads to Gerry tanking it for the NFL.

7. Seniors watch their leader talk back to the D-coordinator which sets a bad example no matter who is at fault.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs said:
Wow. That doesn't look so good on Gerry, either.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it lines up with other things I've heard. The guy was a gifted player for us and when he was on and focused, look out. That said, his main concern was always himself and not the team from what I understand. That and regardless of who his coach was, they weren't using him right.

 
Seems that this probably wasn't all that far off:

Mavric said:
Devil's Advocate:

Look at this from the other way. Gerry wanted to say something that helped explained the team's poor performance so far that year.

Which would have been better for him to say?
- "The players weren't bought in so we need to do better?"
- "We don't think these new coaches know what they're doing?"

Now, how would everyone have reacted had he said the latter, even if it was the truth?

And Riley's firing of Banker more or less said that Riley agreed with the second point of view, at least to some significant extent. So if you looked at it from the other way, perhaps Gerry was trying to take the blame even if he thought it really should be placed everywhere. And I don't really think that's all that far-fetched when they were coming from being one of the best pass defenses in the country to one of the worst. It seems odd to believe that all those players all of the sudden suddenly got worse. Yes, if they weren't doing all they were supposed to that would make the defense worse. But it's not like we were playing against NFL QBs and WRs either. It was a bunch of average-at-best QBs who kept having career days against us. So if you know you should be better but the scheme keeps putting you in poor positions, I don't know how you can help but be frustrated and hesitant. It would suck to keep getting beat like we were.

And the complete change of coverage scheme the next year followed by Banker's firing should really leave no doubt that the 2015 scheme was much more to blame than anything else.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And this is exactly what the defense looked like from my television. I could never understand how a defense could look so chaotic. Now I do.

And regarding Gerry. He seemed to be a mouthy hot head (again from my view, not actual experience) but isn't it statistically possible that a few of your guys will be jerky-and always will be? Other coaches appear to manage these guys.

 
Yes. It's ultimately on the coaches to manage these guys. Sounds like change was needed, and sounds like Diaco's the sort of taskmaster this defense needed.

But man..."tank for the NFL?" That's not how it works.

 
zoogs said:
Yes. It's ultimately on the coaches to manage these guys. Sounds like change was needed, and sounds like Diaco's the sort of taskmaster this defense needed.

But man..."tank for the NFL?" That's not how it works.
Click to expand...
To be fair, that was Vince R.'s take on it. Not Bennings. And they were talking about Gerry not going to class, not his play on the field.

 
Well by "tanking" I meant academically. I should have made that clear.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ahhh. Thanks for the clarification!

Still a little confused. He argues with his DC, which leads to him skipping class? That seems like a bit of a non sequitur.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
krc1995 said:
...but isn't it statistically possible that a few of your guys will be jerky-and always will be?
Click to expand...
I would say it's not just possible, but likely. Many division one football players come from situations where their athletic gifts gave them a lot of attention, and then it's particularly reinforced at a place like Nebraska where the fans are so passionate and the team is so loved.

 
This makes me wonder where Riley was in all of this. I mean, I definitely blame Banker for being incompetent in some areas and losing the respect of a key player. And I know coaches don't like stepping on their coordinators toes but sometimes you have no choice. Two defensive coaches struggling with communication is a really bad look and should have been ironed out in meetings and practices.

 
How long had Riley worked with Banker? How could he not know how incompetent he was? It baffles me he was allowed to bring these losers over from OSU. Imagine were Riley could have this team in year three without Banker, reed and houghes.

 
Hindsight is 20/20, but Riley trusted the coaches he brought with him. It may have been a stroke of naivety in regards to someone like Banker, or perhaps he trusted Banker to do a better job than he was doing. It's difficult to speculate.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top