1. To those who say anyone who disagrees w/Samuel is just reaction out of pure fanboy emotion: Yeah, assuming that individual is "screaming" in all caps, and making no salient points. Got accused of being a fanboy on a pro/con thread I started, myself. My point was, and is, that eventually it may be wise to make playing hardball a little harder on the players, when you get 3 holdouts in 2 years.
2. To screaming yobs who believe that emotion and opinion are the sine qua non of fan discussion, we have a problem on the internet. From here, we can't see how cool your face paint is, which throwback jersey you just bought at the mall, or your framed Steve Grogan autographed 8 x 10 glossy. We can't respect the content of your rant purely by dint of drunken volume. And we can't see your friends nodding like sheep looking for the next patch to graze. All we can see is what argument you advance.
Writing is thinking on screen or on paper. Just think a little more clearly, and you'll write a little more clearly. Just practice for a while; the effect also works in reverse.
3. The absolute truth is: Samuel's irritating. He's exercising his CBA rights. The Pats are exercising theirs. Samuel (I believe) is the lone high-profile holdout in the league now, but correct me if I'm wrong.
I posted on the "other" thread, that we should just let him hold out, don't call his agents, etc. Return their calls if they call, but tell them "don't waste our time just to generate a news clip."
Let him think a while about his tattoo motto, as he becomes the one player in the NFL that's not getting paid.
All predictions seem to be he'll be in camp mid august. I don't really know about that. And I don't really care.
Yes, it is a business, and no, I have nothing personal against Samuel. I have something personal in favor of solving a business problem when you have a business problem. The sky is not falling, there are all sorts of reasons for it (including success of BB's own scheme,) but the NE Patriots have a business problem here: People hold out against them.
I only ask, can we be doing something better? And no, "better" does not mean just roll over.
If not, all us fanboys will just resign ourselves to this sort of drama every year or two, as a sign of fiscal discipline.
In fact, we should stop calling it the Samuel Talks or the Branch Talks or the Seymour Talks or whatever, and start calling it the Fiscal Discipline Talks. Details change, but the theme is the same.
Well, I'll take the holdouts if they come with the results we've gotten used to. But I am not certain the Pats have ever used the full arsenal of tools at their disposal. I would just say careful, Asante.... at some point, the Pats might want to send a message (as in, hey kids, you can screw yourself playing hardball!) Do you really want to play the role of Western Union to get that one across?
PFnV
