Why is it Seymour's holdout only lasted 4 days into camp? Because the team gave in to his demand for a raise. No doubt part of that was also a willingness to compromise on Seymour's part but make no mistake - he showed up because they gave him his raise.
And it is selective memory to say it lasted 4 days. It lasted months. He skipped minicamp and the start of training camp.
You are right that his holdout did not include the public posturing that went with other holdouts. It was still a holdout. By definition a holdout is a player complaining about his pay.
Again...you have selected memories of that...it was a holdout NO DOUBT about it. But there was no ongoing drama FOR MONTHS of agent and team back and forth as a soap opera as it was with Branch...as it was with Samuel this year. It is true he was not in mini camp, but he had taking part in the offseason program. Gee...did Branch do that??? NO!!! As I said, he was at the charity golf tournament which Branch skipped so easily that was held around mini-camp time. At the time of the year that Branch's agent was not negotiating and then demanding that the franchise tag be removed, there was only quiet non-drama from the so called "Seymour holdout". It was not a two or three month period where there was drama and public posturing etc. How could it last months when he was in the offseason program?? How did it last for months when it's 6 weeks from mini-camp to training camp? There ARE key differences in the two. "No doubt part of that was also a willingness to compromise on Seymour's part" SO part of WHY it worked was compromise..I agree..reasonablenness. I think Seymour WAS totally reasonable and wanted to get the contract out of the way and move on. The Patriot's were reasonable as well and THAT is why it lasted so short a time. The whole way Seymour and his agent did that was in a far different way than that of Branch and Samuel? You can say all you want about it COULD HAVE gotten ugly..but just as easily I can say if Branch and his agent WERE reasonable he could have been in camp with an extension. NEITHER happened that way. The mode, attitude, the style, the vibe, the WAY that Seymour and his agent proceeded with the holdout was so different than the way Branch and Samuel have done. I think THAT certainly contributed to the fact that it was so short. "It lasted months. He skipped minicamp and the start of training camp. " I don't know how one gets "months" from a 6 week period...and as I said, he showed up for the charity gold tournemant..and I DO think that WAS important. To the team, it showed he wished to be a part of it...that business WAS business and while he had skipped the camp days before he would STILL show up there. Branch gave his finger to that event..Samuel by rights was not under contract, so that can be excused. You admit that with Seymour there was no public posturing..and that I believe was one of the reasons it lasted such a short time. It was a holdout, but it was not the longstanding dramas of Branch and Samuel like the last two offseasons. He held out, but it was done in a way...I would say in the right way. The WAY things are done DO matter and DO contribute to the end result. Also large in this is the reasonableness of the demand by the player. Seymour is a top lineman, there's no doubt about that and paying a great deal makes a lot of sense. In neither case is Branch or Samuel in the elite of their respective position. Last year, there were many threads about Branch and without any doubt, the consensus was that he was not in the top 10, but clearly in the top 20. How reasonable is his demand to be paid like he's an elite receiver? Branch was very consistent with his play, but he never had that big break out year. There also was a question of durability. The fact that the Patriots gave in as much as they did shows how UNREASONABLE Branch was. From the figures out there, the Pats deal was similar to what he got in Seattle (making him the 6th most expensive receiver). The issue boiled down to Branch's demand that the current year (last year of his contract) be ripped up. This was not done for either Brady or Seymour. Samuel did have a great last half of the season, but does that small amount of time make him an elite cornerback? He was solid but average in his years before that and his 06 start continued in that vein. I doubt anyone at the half way point in the season last year gave ANY thought at all to franchising Samuel. In fact, at that point, many thought that Graham might have been tagged at year end. Samuel did play great in his last games, but really how consistent is that?? The Patriots did the absolute best thing, giving him an opportunity to show if he was an elite corner with continued great play or show that that half season was an anomalie. With that tag, Samuel is promised the average salary of the top players in his position. I think THAT is far reasonable for the team, but Samuel has basically spit in the face of the team and proclaimed, "it's not enough". How reasonable is that? If one has looked at the other franchised players, they all have showed consistency of play over a FEW YEARS; Samuel has not. He COULD BE an elite corner, but he will have to show that before many put him in that category. I am hoping that he shows reasonableness in signing the tag and showing up and playing this year. He's getting a large sum of money and to turn his nose up at that, I think not all that smart. Maybe he IS an elite corner and if he plays like he did in the last games, he deserves the top pay, but until that time, getting paid more than the franchise tag long term, is silly and th more he demands that, the more I think he's a flash in the pan.
