I'm curious about players that are in contract disputes..what they do, say...basically their PR...and wondering what one does and what they hope to accomplish in their actions and words. A few cases in point...Law in one offseason went on the "Feed my Family" tour with grumblings about his contract, yet he was in camp Day one and was totally professional about it. Seymour said little if nothing, was at the offseason workout program and charity events, but NOT in minicamp or training camp. His holdout was direct, but he kept it from flaring up and it was a lot easier to get to a win-win situation. Branch said little other than a mistruth about what he planned to do early on and a brief basically no coomment chat during the summer. He said little, but his actions, from refusing to negotiate in good faith, to demanding a trade off of showing up training camp on a contract he was under for not being franchised to holding out, to holding out of camp, spoke loudly. Also, his agent talked for him in various ways. The way it ended was little surprise since it was hardly close to a win-win situation. With Samuel, I am really unsure what and why he is spouting off so much. The inconsistency of at first saying he was "honored" to be franchised has now turned into words of the Patriots NOT appreciating him. What is he gaining by going public by all this?? Years ago, players usually went public to get the aid of fans to put pressure on management to get more money, and in some cases of outstanding play (Seymour) a player doesn't have to say anything to have fans on their side. I think with the Patriots, it's a bit harder because of the salary cap and the team's rule of NOT overpaying and the fans understanding of this. But what is Samuel gaining by spouting words now?? Is he attempting to get fans on his side?? The Patriots know where he stands as do other teams...so what is he trying to do..just cause problems?? And how is that REALLY helping him?? I truly think sometimes more gets done with keeping negotiations quiet and professional than bringing them public. Although each of these cases is different, it's obvious to me that with Samuel, it is closer to what happened with Branch than with Seymour and that most likely it will not end in a mutial agreement. I do think it's interesting that Samuel's agent had supposedly wished Samuel not go public. Comments???