How the Skins are perceived by casual fans in the UK

[SUFC Skins]

In a recent article in the UK Men's mag 'Loaded' (think Maxim with nipples for you guys in the US), the top flight English soccer teams were compared with teams from the NFL and MLB. For example, Manchester United were compared to the Yankees for the obvious reason that they have a lot of money, win a lot of titles and are widely hated. The Skins were compared to United's cross town rivals, Manchester City, who have recently become the richest team in pro-sports due to Arab oil money. Here's a quote: 'the Skins, like City, are as famous for their comedic fiascos off the pitch as their disasters on it'. The MLB team that completed the comparison was the Mets - not really a franchise we want to model ourselves on, but at least they have made a World Series in the last ten years.

Although the writer of this article was clearly no NFL aficionado, I find it very sad that casual fans in the UK see my beloved team this way. The Skins were easily the most popular team in England when football first became popular in the 80s, mainly because they were the best team out there in the first two seasons when the game was broadcast on UK network TV. They were also an easy team to like, Coach Gibbs, Joe Theismann, the Hogs, Art Monk, the Smurfs, Darrell Green, Dexter Manley (well he seemed likeable at the time), Dave Butz, Mark Moseley - they seemed a decent bunch. Although the Niners arrived as the team of that decade, our Skins hung around and won another pair of titles - they were perennial play-off contenders and usually gave everyone a good game.

What have we become? We have crawled into the postseason on two or three occasions in recent years without ever looking like a genuine threat. We draft poor players. We haven't had a decent QB/Leader since Rypien (and his resume is heavily reliant on that MVP award), and our franchise player (CP) is playing a game that he is totally unsuited for (but he keeps doing it and getting killed which is why we love the guy). It's easy to point the blame at Dan Snyder, but he is obviously a Redskins' nut who can only react to a situation by hurling dollars at it. We need someone to steer the team without emotion and with a timescale and a plan. That's why I would love to see Parcells here as GM. I loathe the man for his time with NYG and the Cowpukes, but he can make the changes we need. I'm not sure Zorn is the long-term answer but he deserves another year and if it doesn't work out, I would like to see Schottenheimer given another chance. We should never have let him go the first time. To me, Marty Ball is Redskins football.

[Deadskins]

I agree with you about Marty, but The Danny would never swallow his pride and bring him back. Also, the 49ers of the 80's played in a division that included the Saints (never saw a winning season to that point), the Falcons (barely better than the Saints), and the Rams (another team with no recent success). It's no wonder they got to the post-season so often. The Skins, on the other hand, endured grueling battles against NFC East opponents (which included the St. Louis version of the Cardinals, who could play surprisingly tough in divisional games). The Redskins were the true team of the '80s. We only won one title in the '90s, but that was perhaps Gibbs' finest team, with all deference to the '83 squad. I'm not sure what fiascoes the author is referring to "off the pitch." I mean, we did have some bad draft picks and FA signings, but no real scandals. Anyway, I think the author doesn't really know much about American football, and was just trying to fill space in his column. .

[Redskin in Canada]

Dan Snyder has given the Redskins a bad name. Period.

Read my signature.

[DEHog]

Dan Snyder has given the Redskins a bad name. Period.

Read my signature.

You know I agree...but like I said in the other thread...God help us if they win a SB.

I'm I the only one who roots for the Skins to win but for DS and VC to lose??

[Redskin in Canada]

I'm I the only one who roots for the Skins to win but for DS and VC to lose??

Does it matter? I think not.

Leadership transpires throughout an entire organization, from units as small as families to the largest corporations, armies and governments around the world.

Bad leadership discourages accountability, sacrifice and selflessness. Great leadership means to put the best contributions of an individual at the service of the whole. In this context, the progress of each member contributes to the success of the whole. This is analogous to what happens in a family where a father actually sacrifices a lot for the good of the family, a CEO sets an example of hard work, a commander puts his life on the line for the unit, and the head of State sets the ethical conduct for the work of everybody around him/her.

Leaders have vision with short-term and long-term plans. Well known corporations, such as IBM, have had great success under good leadership and decline under bad leaders. Interestingly, the most famous line of the best CEO that Hewlett Packard ever had was that the most important part of his job was to decide whom to hire and whom not to hire throughout the entire organization but the higher the job, the more important and difficult the choice.

As long as the core of the tree is rotten, there will be no sweet fruit coming off the branches. Human endeavours are the result of human decisions and anybody who feels that when Teams win, they only do so on the field are mistaken. The play on the field only confirms what team had the better front office. Sun Tzu, who has been quoted endlessly in strategic studies said that the battle only confirms what was known in advance about who would win and lose.

The NFL is one of the most competitive businesses in the world. But the competition starts at the Front Office. Even a small advantage makes a difference in a game and in a season. When we witness teams and owners losing consistently, the fault is at the top. The coaches and players end up being often only the scapegoats.

Cleveland Browns ownership at least understands that their failure this year could not be attributed solely to the failure of Crennel. The GM was fired as well. What are the chances of such high-level accountability take place around here? I say NONE this year.

So, you are not alone but it does not matter. Danny and Vinny do not depend on our support to win. The business is doing fine on the bottom line notwithstanding the results every season, thank you very much.

[riggofan]

Not sure if the UK readers would fully understand this, but I would argue the Redskins are actually most like the L.A. Galaxy here in the MLS:

- paying HUGE money for big names past their prime (see Beckham, David)
- missing or badly underperforming in the playoffs even after said signings
- spending all available money on glamour positions (attacking players) while the defense stinks
- Completely inept general manager (see Lalas, Alexi - possibly a second cousin of Cerrato, Vinny)
- Firing competent coaches (Schmid, Sigi)
- Watching former coach go on to win the title with less talented team the next year
- Excellent marketing team. Awful sports team.

Eerie, don't you think?

[Deadskins]

Not sure if the UK readers would fully understand this, but I would argue the Redskins are actually most like the L.A. Galaxy here in the MLS:

- paying HUGE money for big names past their prime (see Beckham, David)
- missing or badly underperforming in the playoffs even after said signings
- spending all available money on glamour positions (attacking players) while the defense stinks
- Completely inept general manager (see Lalas, Alexi - possibly a second cousin of Cerrato, Vinny)
- Firing competent coaches (Schmid, Sigi)
- Watching former coach go on to win the title with less talented team the next year
- Excellent marketing team. Awful sports team.

Eerie, don't you think?

Not the "while the defense stinks" part.

[SUFC Skins]

Not sure if the UK readers would fully understand this, but I would argue the Redskins are actually most like the L.A. Galaxy here in the MLS:

- paying HUGE money for big names past their prime (see Beckham, David)
- missing or badly underperforming in the playoffs even after said signings
- spending all available money on glamour positions (attacking players) while the defense stinks
- Completely inept general manager (see Lalas, Alexi - possibly a second cousin of Cerrato, Vinny)
- Firing competent coaches (Schmid, Sigi)
- Watching former coach go on to win the title with less talented team the next year
- Excellent marketing team. Awful sports team.

Eerie, don't you think?

I don't follow MLS that closely, but from what I've seen you're spot on - sizzle over substance. Beckham's still an international quality player, but he is past his prime, so I guess that's fair. He bought a teflon coat for life when he got us to the 02 World Cup single handed so I'm not one to give an objective view here.

[Sir_Monk]

In a recent article in the UK Men's mag 'Loaded' (think Maxim with nipples for you guys in the US), the top flight English soccer teams were compared with teams from the NFL and MLB. For example, Manchester United were compared to the Yankees for the obvious reason that they have a lot of money, win a lot of titles and are widely hated. The Skins were compared to United's cross town rivals, Manchester City, who have recently become the richest team in pro-sports due to Arab oil money.

I think it's hard to compare the EPL with professional sports in the U.S. but I think a better comparison might be Leeds, Everton or possibly Tottenham?

I'm curious who they compared Philadelphia with? Rangers?

[VetSkinsFan]

The titlle should have read "How the Skins are perceived by casual fans of the UK

[Deadskins]

The titlle should have read "How the Skins are perceived by casual fans of the UK

Yep, and "casual" is the optimal word there. Not many Americans, casual fans or not, are going to compare an NFL franchise to a soccer franchise.

[amadkins]

The titlle should have read "How the Skins are perceived by casual fans of the UK

Yep, and "casual" is the optimal word there. Not many Americans, casual fans or not, are going to compare an NFL franchise to a soccer franchise.

The only fitting comparison to a soccer team is a pile of dung.

[Bishop Hammer]

I am a bit biased but, I would have preffered the Skins be compared to West Ham, my favorite EPL team (and the only other team that comes close to matching my passion for the Redskins).

Both have loyalest fans and the coolest fight song of their respected leagues.

"I'm forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air,
They fly so high, nearly reach the sky,
Then like my dreams they fade and die.
Fortune's always hiding,
I've looked everywhere,
I'm forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air.
UNITED! (Clap hands) UNITED!(Clap hands)"

[SUFC Skins]

The titlle should have read "How the Skins are perceived by casual fans of the UK

Agreed and done. Please be assured that not all UK football fans are casual.

[fleetus]

Bruce Allen, George Allen's son, former GM of the Raiders (when they went to the Super Bowl with Rich Gannon and Tim Brown) and Tampa was just fired. We could easily do worse to bring in a GM of his caliber and pedigree.

[JansenFan]

Except, if I'm not mstaken, Snyder already offered him the job once and he declined.