I'm not missing it. I just don't see any relevance to it other than it gives us things to post about, weei things to talk about, and reporters things to write. I don't think any of it has any influence on the Pats decision making and I don't think it had any relevance in the resolution.
I think resolving holdouts comes down to 3 factors, how does the player view his value, how do the Pats view it, and how does the market (other NFL teams) view it.
Seymour views himself as the premier 2 gap DL in the NFL. The Pats view him the same way. So does the market. The negotiations could get done because they were on common ground.
With Branch, he viewed himself as top tier, the Pats thought of him as 2nd tier, and at least a segment of the market (Seattle for one) agreed with Branch. The only way a deal gets made is if one side changed their belief - either Branch by finding out that no one on the market views him that way or the Pats by reassessing his value. Both sides hardened their position and a deal was impossible.
Samuel falls more in line with Branch. He thinks he is an elite player. The Pats may have franchised him but if reports of their LT deal being backloaded with only 13m guarenteed are true, it is clear they do not view him as an elite player. Unless one side was going to change their opinion or Samuel concluded that the market was aginst him, a LT deal was nothing more than a pipe dream. The market can't really be judged accurately by us but it is probably safe to guess that Samuel's side is certain there is a team out there that would give him higher guarenteed $ meaning they see the market on their side.
Not easy being the voice of reason in a sea of emotion. Well done.
I'll take your points one step further. Some people have romanticized Richards holdout because it never became as overtly adversarial as Branch's. What they forget is Richard was a core team leader, first of the group to publicly challenge Belioli philosophically/contractually, and he did that with TWO years remaining on his rookie deal. I'd bet that disappointed Belichick almost as much as when Richard's mentor, another guy he'd gravitated to as a football matters guy, refused to renegotiate in 2003.
Where do some folks think second tier Deion got the idea there might be something to be gained here in holding out except from Richard's example. People forget Richard went on national shows after 2004 and half jokingly reminded viewers that this home town discount contract blather meant nothing to him since his hometown was in GA. Who do you think was the former player who advised Deion's camp that they'd best be ready to go to the mat with their holdout because mere threats don't work here. The same one who admonished his teamates in 2002 to be mindful of getting your props and your money lest you be overlooked in the system. The same one whose voice echoed while Richard lips were moving to state that if he was one of the top or the top DL in the league then he deserved to be paid as such... And isn't that the same basic tennent Asante's team just reiterated on his behalf? It would be great if they could all see themselves in context or see that the price Lawyer paid for getting his due was ending up in Atlanta where the existence of Michael Vick and not football is what has always mattered.
Not every player is self assured or self motivated enough to fit this system on and off the field. Making an example of one who obviously isn't will do nothing but potentially alienate those who are or were. This isn't the gulag. Most players believe that the draft limits their life choices suffuciently upon entering the league that they are entitled to make choices at some point in their NFL career solely based on their wants or needs, whether a franchise or it fan base is comfortable with that or not. That point is FA. They understand the tag exists, even appreciate it to some extent (like Asante's camp who feel it underscored his league wide value at the outset). But they also understand that it was intended not as a means to retain or leverage a second tier player through his prime against his will. It was intended as a means to give small market or lower revevue teams a means to protect themselves from being pillaged at will by the Dan Snyders of the league and remain competitive. It was intended to allow them to retain their top tier franchise talent (not their second tier) short term to whom they would gladly give the mega deal if they could afford it, or at least get some draft value to resrock with in exchange for them in trade to a team who could afford to pay their market.
More interesting to me than the Samuel outcome is what will transpire between Richard and the FO over the next year or two in light of the Freeney and pretty soon Peppers deals. This FO did a very smart thing when they gave him what he said he wanted ($10M) a year early (so it averaged $8M against the cap) and in a short term deal(just 3 years at that price). It bought them time to assess the market and his durability and younger players already on the roster before deciding whether to heavily invest in Richard Seymour for the long haul into his 30's. It also gave them time to further assess his core leadership value. Richard was perhaps the most outspoken of the veteran leaders on the team when Branch was traded. Sure Brady was upset, as BB said he would expect a QB to be when his WR's are at issue, but Tom came out a day later and backed his FO and reiterated his respect for their committment to fiscal responsibility and acknowledged the role it's played in assembling and maintaining a team that could win 3 Lombardi's in 4 seasons. In fact he let it be known he was at least as disappointed with the Branch sides negotiating performance in the final analysis as he was with the FO who didn't find a way to retain him. Richard on the other hand merely whined about how we'd lost a player who represented everything "they" claim to want in their players...
The only hard line this FO needs to maintain is that if money and individual perception is what matters most to you then you probably won't get to remain here and be part of something special. You won't necessarily feel an immediate negative consequence if you make that decision, in fact you may realise a short term gain, but historically that's short lived as players who leave here for money and "respect" end up lamenting the day they did. Either because they toil in obscurity or morph into cap casualties on a team with little foundation on which to base retaining them, or become vagabonds seeking continued employment wherever they can find it, and often end up being more firmly than ever labeled products of a system by coaching staff that can't seem to figure out how to maximize them. Adam is the only one to date who has appeared to have benefitted across the board. But then, he was just a kicker and it's only been one season...