I don't like this "face of" stuff.
In the Triplet Era, could anyone say Smith represented 'the face' of the Cowboys anymore than Aikman? Or vice versa?
Is it is who the general public thinks of first, (right now that would be Parcells) or who the fanbase feels best represents their idea of a "Cowboy" ? In that case it would have to be a very good player, and a home grown one, (no retread, no matter how good). But how could you say Julius, for example was the 'face', and not Jason, or not Roy?
In the absence of one highy elevated "superstar", I think the 'face' idea is passe.
I also dislike the undercurrents of 'face' like I recently read in the Jacksonville media, about Matt Jones now being the face of the Jags. That tells you a lot about the 'climate' there, if Mike Freeman's columns don't.
I think only Vick, whether he has earned it or not, is so associated with one franchise and its marketing, that he could qualify as being the 'face' of the organization. Not even Manning or Brady are as synonymous with a team. Not sound marketing, imo, anyway, as the NBA head honchos discovered when the Jordans, Olejuwans (sic), and Barkleys retired.
Increasingly tho, the head coaches seem to be taking on that 'face', be it Gruden, Tuna, Mumbles, Cowher.
I think 'the face' should be about the type of football a team plays, the public and fanbase identifcation with an approach to the game, more a "team character' than an individual representive.
But saying Roy is more face than Jason, or Jason more than JJ....with the underlyng assumption that player BEST represents the fanbase, is I think a thing of the past, and should be.
/5.jpg)
