Though Asante Samuel’s tormenting of Peyton Manning this past Sunday is a more pleasant story, reverberations from a Sunday Jackie McMullen piece on the NE cornerback continued to be felt on Monday, the implication being that Samuel had gone public with a contract dispute on the eve of the playoffs.

David Scott of Scott’s Shots finds the timing of the Globe’s publication and lack of full disclosure about when Samuel was quoted more questionable than the player’s remarks themselves.

From this perch, it was important for readers to know WHEN Asante Samuel made the comments he did to MacMullan. The fact that Samuel (above, right) is claiming (in Julian Benbow™s Globe story from Monday) that the interview took place œthree or four weeks ago, indicates that at least Samuel had the good sense not to be stirring the pot in the midst of playoff preparations. It™s quite likely that Samuel had no idea when the story would run. Players grant one-on-one interviews (usually, if not allows, set up through Pats PR) throughout the season and the results of those interviews are used at various times “ not always the day after the interview occurs.

Samuel™s words are his ticket out of town “ that™s almost a given. He broke the œPatriots code of silence on contract matters. It wouldn™t have mattered when they came public, his future is now determined. I for one, however, find it a lot less galling that Samuel would express his desire to be traded in December than on the eve of the opening round of the playoffs, as the Globe story might lead some to believ. Maybe that™s a small distinction, but it™s one that has to be made in order to be fair to the player.

But it says here that MacMullan (or Globe policy) should insist that some background of when the interview with Samuel took place should have been noted within the piece (prominently, and early on).

Giants K Jay Feeley, speaking with the Post’s Paul Schwartz, and doing his best not to come off like Mike Vanderjagt.

“We’re going through training camp and we have guys every day, it looked like they were trying to get the limelight on themselves,” Feely said. “Saying something controversial, calling Coach “an ass,” doing things like that, things that don’t help your team. You don’t hear that coming out of the Patriots. You hear Tom Brady say, ‘Our players need to listen to our coach more,’ and I think we needed a little bit more of that.”

As for Coughlin’s role in improving the chemistry, Feely said, “I think he could foster a better environment that lends players to do that as well.”

Though Feeley will certain encounter those who’d challenge a kicker’s credibilty on such an issue, I doubt the New York Times’ Harvey Araton will be one of those persons.

Somehow, the misadventures always occurred despite Tom Coughlin™s claims that his team was skillfully prepared, armed with an estimable game plan. He always made sure to say he was accountable, usually after blaming the players for whatever went wrong.

œThere you go again, he lectured a reporter after the 23-20 defeat to the Eagles, for daring to question him after another game lost because of an inability to capitalize on first-and-goal chances and the kind of early field position a more opportunistic team would have used to stake itself to a 14- or 17-point lead. Another game squandered in part because of untimely penalties and a new playoff wrinkle, the burning of two timeouts that could have prevented the Eagles from killing all but three seconds of the game clock before David Akers put the Giants out of their misery with his 38-yard field goal.

œIf you™d had the timeouts, you™d have been better off, Coughlin said. œThe great lesson is not to waste your timeouts.

œYour timeouts, which meant the players™ timeouts. Not ours. Not Coughlin™s. There he went again ” failing to acknowledge that the many states of confusion the Giants were in this season must ultimately reflect on the coach more than any single player.