If you were forced to choose between a fun, family-centric culture or a culture that shows a win at all costs mentality...

[rayzor]

5 hours ago, GoPanthers123 said:

Since when are these mutually exclusive?   Get competent professionals and work hard.  

They don't have to be,of course, but if your choice was between one of the two, which would you value more? That's the question.

[kungfoodude]

2 minutes ago, raleigh-panther said:

In pro sports, it’s winning 

my issue with McDaniels is he has either performed poorly as a head coach and evaluator of talent in Denver and his very poor behavior with Indy

here is a scenario. He is signed here and he signs, god forbid for 5 years.

at end of year two, Bellinchek finally retires and NE comes calling, do you trust him to stay here and finish his contract?.  Do you trust him at all?

i don’t 

josh McDaniels is the Lane Kiffin of the NFL 

I have no issue judging McDaniels on his past but judging him on his potential future is kind of foolish. This isn't college football where coaches may have a loyalty to some school. An NFL coach is going to want to be where they can be the most successful. If that means that McDaniels is leaving for New England in 3-5 years, then I would say that probably means he wasn't successful here. Conversely, people make the assumption that the Pats will be a high demand job that everyone will want. Look at the history of that franchise prior to Belichick. It isn't Green Bay or Pittsburgh where they have decades of success.

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, rayzor said:

They don't have to be,of course, but if your choice was between one of the two, which would you value more? That's the question.

I would value winning/success more than a feel good workplace. The fans want wins, period. Perhaps not at all costs but winning is the goal for fans. 

[rayzor]

1 hour ago, onmyown said:

I don’t understand the title, I am not sure how a culture can be ‘fun’ and not winning.

So I guess that answers it for me.

If you're content just being mediocre, pretty much what has been the case for well over a decade. Guys were used to not being great and we're ok with losing. They just liked being together.

[aGDevil2k]

Winning is fun for the whole family.   I couldn't care less if the coach hurts some players' feelings - they are millionaires.  

[KillerKat]

WIN

[raleigh-panther]

13 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I have no issue judging McDaniels on his past but judging him on his potential future is kind of foolish. This isn't college football where coaches may have a loyalty to some school. An NFL coach is going to want to be where they can be the most successful. If that means that McDaniels is leaving for New England in 3-5 years, then I would say that probably means he wasn't successful here. Conversely, people make the assumption that the Pats will be a high demand job that everyone will want. Look at the history of that franchise prior to Belichick. It isn't Green Bay or Pittsburgh where they have decades of success.

The point is exactly as you made it.  

He, or the contrived coach, looks out for himself while the team he leaves is in shambles,

I want Green Bay or Pittsburgh and there is absolutely no reason why it cannot be     

[1of10Charnatives]

Winning is my priority as a fan, but it is not at all costs. It must be done without cheating, and I cannot cheer for players or coaches who have done morally reprehensible things. If the Panthers ever signed Vontaze Burfict for example, they would lose my support until he was off the team.

winning is great, and is the biggest reason most of us follow sports, but in the scheme of life,  there are things more important to me than just winning, and I will not put those things aside for the sake of winning. But let’s make a clear distinction, merely a warm and fuzzy friendly atmosphere  isn’t one of those things.

McDorkface strikes me as a jerk, but if he becomes our head coach and leaves the cheating behind in Foxborogh, stays on the right side of the law and the rules and wins, he’ll be a jerk I can live with.

[davos]

We’re fans, show me an awesome winning product. I don’t care if they’re like remember the titans behind the scenes.

[thefuzz]

21 minutes ago, rayzor said:

If you're content just being mediocre, pretty much what has been the case for well over a decade. Guys were used to not being great and we're ok with losing. They just liked being together.

Was chatting with a fan on twitter the other day.  She was questioning the "tank" that we could be looking at saying that all she really wanted was for her favorite players to be on the team, and for us to just be at least decent.

Decent.

That way of thinking perplexes me.

[rayzor]

5 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

Was chatting with a fan on twitter the other day.  She was questioning the "tank" that we could be looking at saying that all she really wanted was for her favorite players to be on the team, and for us to just be at least decent.

Decent.

That way of thinking perplexes me.

Same here and I've seen it for years. So many fans would rather just be "decent" (read "mediocre") and have players or coaches they like than ones they don't like who won, and usually it's just a personality thing. "I don't like the way they act" and end up looking for them to fail. They can't fully enjoy wins because they just don't like the plate or coach. They'd be much happier with someone or a group of people who are "good guys" even if they aren't great.

[tiger7_88]

8 hours ago, rayzor said:

Which would you choose?

I mean, if the "win at all costs" mentality actually won, would you prefer it to a culture like we've become accustomed to where the team had a great mentor and everyone seemed happy, even if it meant not winning it all?

Whats more important to you? 

Would you sacrifice the warm fuzzy family setting for a less embraceable, but more winning culture?

My answer?

Yes.

But I'm not so sure Tepper, who seems to like to pretend he's a football professional while constantly rubbing elbows with the coaches and players, thinks that way.

[kungfoodude]

33 minutes ago, raleigh-panther said:

The point is exactly as you made it.  

He, or the contrived coach, looks out for himself while the team he leaves is in shambles,

I want Green Bay or Pittsburgh and there is absolutely no reason why it cannot be     

Man, every coach does that. If they aren't successful, they usually end up unemployed(same as McDaniels would and did). If they are successful, sometimes they stay to build a franchise or sometimes they move on. That doesn't make McDaniels any different. 

Wanting Green Bay/Pittsburgh and it happening are two different things. Ask Dallas, Oakland, San Francisco or any other of dynasty teams that weren't able to sustain that success like those two franchises have been. In the interim, we need to make a good coaching hire to simply accomplish small things, like back to back winning seasons or sustained divisional success. Getting that kind of success can steadily build towards longevity. But that doesn't happen overnight and it is very difficult to achieve. 

[kungfoodude]

11 minutes ago, rayzor said:

Same here and I've seen it for years. So many fans would rather just be "decent" (read "mediocre") and have players or coaches they like than ones they don't like who won, and usually it's just a personality thing. "I don't like the way they act" and end up looking for them to fail. They can't fully enjoy wins because they just don't like the plate or coach. They'd be much happier with someone or a group of people who are "good guys" even if they aren't great.

Part of that is living in an area devoid of professional sports for decades, part of it is just how ignorant some of the average fans are about the fact that professional sports is a high paying, high pressure business. All of the nasty aspects of it are present. It isn't running the corner store in your small town.