Standing for something, or standing on ceremony: The Panthers’ principled approach to the NFL

In the roughly 12 hrs since the news broke that Santonio Holmes was traded from Pittsburgh to the New York Jets for a 5^th round pick we have two topics and a bevy of irate fans that the Panthers didn't make a play for the troubled WR. An already quiet offseason coupled with moves (or lack thereof) that fans deem ‘questionable' has helped to create an air of doubt and pessimism in a franchise perceived of lacking competitive desire.

For the Panthers, the beat goes on. As long as Jerry Richardson is the monarch in charge of the Carolina Panthers we're not going to see a guy like Santonio Holmes donning a Panthers' uniform. Today I'm going to look at several reasons why this occurs and hopefully create more understanding so when the next Santonio Holmes or Michael Vick comes available we'll know why the Panthers didn't try to acquire them.

More after the jump

Why didn't CAR didn't bite on Santonio? Easy. You want to be like Pittsburgh, it's neither necessary nor helpful to take on their problems. - Darin Gantt

Being a player in the NFL is an esteemed privilege, not a right. Nobody understands this better than guys like Dan Rooney (Pittsburgh) or Jerry Richardson. In the case of Richardson he understands that privilege intimately as a player, and even more so as an owner. Being the owner of a small market team brings its own unique benefits and challenges to the table. On the one hand there's less competition from other sports, Richardson has been able to bask in being the biggest show in town with little pressure. Even if the Charlotte Bobcats win the NBA championship this season the Panthers will always be the most important franchise in the hearts of the vast majority of Carolinians.

The flipside to this is being under a microscope. There isn't the buffer that allows for player's indiscretions from becoming yesterday's news in the matter of hours. It means your players are able to have a more intimate relationship with the community, but it also means that they fall that much harder when something does occur.

In recent years the most noteworthy example of player misconduct was Steve Smith punching Ken Lucas during training camp in 2008. It's this incident that other teams love to reference when referring to Smith. There is an important difference between Smith's issues and those of Holmes. Smith hit his teammate following a heated on field altercation- it stemmed from his competitiveness and fire. It doesn't make it excusable, but it does make it football related.

When I say Santonio Holmes you might as well lump in Michael Vick, Adam Jones or any other player with a pattern of socially unacceptable behavior and run ins with the law. I'm talking most extensively about Holmes because he's the name on everyone's lips at the moment.

By his own admission Santonio Holmes dealt drugs as a child and teen. I certainly don't believe in holding someone accountable for their childhood (after all, we've all done stupid stuff as a kid) however, when those events from a person's childhood foreshadow their behavior as an adult it must be mentioned.

Holmes was drafted in the first round of 2006, that's four NFL seasons. Here are his off field exploits in that same time period:

• Arrested for disorderly conduct (May 2006)
• Arrested for domestic violence (June 2006)
• Arrested for possession of marijuana (October 2008)
• Reportedly will be suspended for beginning of 2010 season for failing to adhere to the league's substance abuse policy.

When you've amassed as many off-field issues as years in the league it shows a dangerous pattern of behavior. Now, compare this with the level of disgust fans had for Dwayne Jarrett when he was arrested for DUI in 2008. Some fans were calling for Jarrett to be cut by the Panthers for a DUI. Now, I'm certainly not devaluing the crime of driving under the influence, but most would agree that if members of a fan base want a player cut for one indiscretion, how should they feel about four in four years?

Where this becomes difficult for fans is that this principled approach to teambuilding often means fans feel like they are missing out. After all, why should some teams gain so much by taking a gamble while the Panthers stand on ceremony? The answer is simple, role models. Personally, I like the idea of kids being able to look at the Carolina Panthers, all of them and see models for success. The biggest offseason issue in Carolina? Kenny Moore having his Smart car towed outside Jonathan Stewart's apartment; and that's the way I like it.

More power to teams like the Cincinnati Bengals who have made a living pulling in the leagues most lost cases and hoping Marvin Lewis can turn them around, but I'm glad that's not my team. Personally, reformed or not I don't want to feel morally torn between cheering for the team I love and cheering for a player who's behavior I have found reprehensible.

Maybe like the Carolina Panthers I am in the minority, because I would rather see the Panthers have five losing seasons than sacrifice an ounce of their integrity to win. I love Carolina Panther victories as much as anyone, but not at any cost. I would like to think I'm a fan(atic) in the purest form; I'm fanatical about the entire Carolina Panthers' operation and franchise- not just the X's and O's or the W's and L's. I love (blindly sometimes) the way the organization conducts business. While I may not be a father yet, I feel privileged that when I do have kids I can raise them as Panthers fans where I don't need to shy them away from loving a particular player, they can choose who they like and I'll know they have a good role model.