[70Chip]

I don't mind substantive, football based criticisms of the Redskins. I often find them thought-provoking and interesting. No one should seal themseves off. The problem with the attacks against Snyder is that they increasingly rely on appealing to a prejudicial caricature of him that is increasingly less relevant.

I believe that a substantive analysis would show that nearly every personell decision the Redskins have made since Joe Gibbs became Head Coach and President has greatly benefitted the team. To wit: Cornelius Griffin, Philip Daniels, Marcus Washington, Sean Taylor (instead of KW2), Carlos Rogers, Joe Salavea, Ryan Clarke, Santana Moss, Chris Cooley, Clinton Portis, Casey Rabach, and several special teams over-achievers. Even Mark Brunell has had his moments. The initial talk that Jason Campbell was not a legitimate 1st round pick has given way to the current league CW that Campbell is a star in the making.

I would also suggest that the defense has not suffered in the absence of Champ Bailey, Fred Smoot, or Antonio Pierce. Quite the opposite actually.

So what explains the insistence on describing the Redskins as extravagant and foolish in their persuit of free agents? To be fair, there is a bias against the Redskins that pre-dates Snyder's ownership. I think this Ante (pre)-Snyderian hate has two root causes:

First, most writers are based in New York and therefore have the same sort of animus towards Washington teams that people who live in the Washington area have for all things New York. In short they love their Giants and see the Redskins success as an impediment to their hopes and dreams as fans. It also causes a certain level of cognitive dissonance in them when they see a non New York organization doing things in a way that is bigger and better than everyone else. This flash and brilliance should be theirs, they believe, if only on a subconcious level. The two best examples of this are Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News and Peter King of Sports Illustrated. To Lupica if it happens outside of New York, it's barely real.

Second, most sports writers are liberal in their politics. The Redskins, unfortunately, were the last NFL club to integrate. In addition, the name itself offends the PC sensibilities of the Mitch Alboms and the Bob Ryans of the world. Furthermore, Joe Gibbs is viewed as a conservative figure, if not politically, then certainly in terms of his values and lifestyle. His religous devotion (he gave a Bible tract to Peter King after an interview last year), his association with Nascar, and his strong stance in the 1980's against allowing women reporters into the locker room after games cause these liberal baby boomers to see him as something of a square. They sing his praises often but I can see in their eyes that they would rather be talking to Gruden.
Which leaves us with the actual Pastabelly type Snyder hating. I would suggest two root causes here as well:

First, we cannot ignore the possibility of a subtle anti-semetism. Notions about Jews and money are deeply ingrained in American culture. A left wing political worldview is by no means a vaccine for this (perhaps) unintentional type-casting. Part and parcel of these stereotypes is the idea that Jews are generally untrustworthy and conniving. I am loathe to attribute these motives to anyone, but the manner in which Snyder is singled out gives me pause. We all agree, for instance, that stereotypes of Irish-Americans as drunken hooligans are sinister and wrong-headed, but does this always prevent us from falling into certain patterns from time to time?

The second reason is that these writers have invested a great deal of ink and energy in convincing their readers that Snyder is the "heavy". As they establish a narrative basis for their work, this is the role they have chosen for Dan. To be sure, Snyder's actions made this an easy choice. In the first few years I think even Snyder would admit that he could have been more cautious in his approach. I believe if he had a mulligan he would have kept Charley Casserly. I think he would further have to admit that the 2000 signings were unnecessary and ill-advised. Having said that, these journalists should remember that their job is to accurately portray the facts as objectively as possible. When those facts are at odds with the comfortable narrative they have built for themselves then they need to have the courage and intellectaul honesty to flout their own conventions.

In short, any writer who cannot acknowledge that the Skins of 2004 and beyond represent a new approachis doing a disservice to his or her readers and ultimately making themsevelves irrelevant.