What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

RB Jonathan Taylor, IND (2 Viewers)

Listening to Pat McAfee show and Michael Lombardi is saying that if the Colts don't pay him and let him walk in FA, the Colts will probably get a 3rd round compensatory pick.


Essentially, the Colts are saying "if you're so good, why are is nobody offering a 1st for you?". Colts would rather make J Taylor honor his contract and get a 3rd rounder compensatory pick, than accept a lowball offer from the rest of the league.



When Lombardi talks, I listen. Guy is as sharp as they get.
 
travdogg said:
Mr. Irrelevant said:
travdogg said:
The problem becomes, let's say Taylor does play 6 games, and then quits. Why would you sign him as a FA, why would you want to sign a quitter?
Click to expand...

Because the NFL is a business, and a cutthroat one.

Lest we forget, the Browns didn't just sign Deshaun Watson, but (a) gave up a million draft picks for the right to do so and (b) handed him 230 million fully-guaranteed American dollars. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that unless JT is keeping kidnapped children in a basement dungeon, whatever actions he has or will take this season pale in comparison.
Click to expand...
Deshaun Watson was a borderline elite QB, something the Browns arguably haven't had since Otto Graham, give or take 1 year of Brian Sipe. They were desperate for a big-time elite franchise player. Jonathan Taylor is not that, not by a mile. No RB is, again not by a mile. This isn't an apples-to-apples argument, or even apples to oranges, its apples to motor oil.

Also, I'd argue quitting on the field, like gambling, is a bigger problem than anything Watson did, to the guys signing paychecks.

FFWhiskey said:
travdogg said:
What's really getting me, is why not put Taylor on the active roster, and then if some Rb gets hurt or whatever. you can still trade him without him having to sit for 4 games. Its not like that 53rd spot matters.

This is a classic, both sides are stupid move. Taylor should have just shown up and played, and if he wasn't going to, then Indy should have traded him, or forced him to suit up. I highly doubt Taylor would actively play poorly, that would instantly kill his value going forward, and he'd never get paid.

Bad teams are bad for a reason, I guess.
Click to expand...

I still stand by my theory that the Colts would rather win 3 games without Taylor and draft Marvin Harrison Jr.

Paying J Taylor and winning 6-8 games is actually bad for the franchise on multiple levels. Let's pay a guy early so he can hurt our chance to draft our former HOFer's son.



J Taylor overplayed his hand. If all they can get is a 2nd, they'll still get a second if dude wants to holdout and be traded next NFL draft.


PUP list is great. Colts can go 0-4 and nobody would blink an eye. Total ********, but that's business baby. Don't bite the hand that feeds.
Click to expand...
I think that theory is pretty out there, especially the part about tanking to draft Harrison. Like, that would be the weirdest way to run a team. To win 3 games, the Colts would need Anthony Richardson to really suck, and like, why would they want that? He's more important than any 2024 pick will be, especially a WR.

The best shot scenario for Indy is some contender loses their RB for the season and offers a 2 for Taylor. I doubt they get more than that, and they'll get even less next offseason when there are SO MANY other options.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to be that literal. My point is, the Colts are not going to make the playoffs.


They could pay J Taylor, win 7 games and pick Top 12. Or they could let J Taylor sit, win 3 games and pick Top 3.



The players are irrelevant. The Colts save money and get a better pick without Taylor. I mention Marvin Harrison Jr because his father played there and they will want to give Richardson some weapons.
 
jvdesigns2002 said:
Kinda feels like Indy and Irsay have no problem sabotaging him and his potential future earnings. It just feels more personal—like they have no problem screwing him if they don’t find anybody to give up a decent amount for him. If they activate him and he plays—he could easily just fake an injury. The true trade deadline hasn’t happened yet—so to me it looks like they are buying more time to see if they can move him before Taylor can purposely or accidentally hurt his value (through a real or fake injury)
Click to expand...
Personally I think we already advanced into the "fake an injury" stage.
 
No reason to believe he won’t start playing week 5 and after that he’ll be a too 10 RB. That’s what I want and dammit that’s what I’m going to get.
 
King of the Jungle said:
Bottom line is Taylor agreed to a contract.
Click to expand...

No, bottom line is he agreed to a rookie deal that was pre-established by a CBA that did not look out for his best interests as an RB. He grossly outplayed that deal in year 2 (of 6), then got hurt in year 3, and saw the writing on the wall that he would be used and abused going forward and most likely discarded like trash as soon as his body broke down, which it may have already to a significant degree.
 
travdogg said:
Why would you sign him as a FA, why would you want to sign a quitter?
Click to expand...

Because he is uber talented (if/when healthy) and you *maybe* *might* understand why he quit and feel it had more to do with circumstance than character.

That said, I think the most likely outcome from and above meltdown scenario would be a year X+1 one-year deal with a team ready to plug him into a featured and productive role, where both parties then benefit if he produces.
 
Every time I hear a player talking about the unfairness of the CBA, I can't help but think of this. Not saying they're wrong or right, just. . .

youtu.be

Threw It On The Ground

Download on iTunes: http://goo.gl/gcVR7THREE T-Shirt designs!: http://goo.gl/jr4sYSo many things to throw on the ground! Featuring Ryan Reynolds and Elijah W...
youtu.be youtu.be
 
timschochet said:
No reason to believe he won’t start playing week 5 and after that he’ll be a too 10 RB. That’s what I want and dammit that’s what I’m going to get.
Click to expand...
There’s some reason to believe he won’t.

• bad OL
• Rookie rushing QB
• coming off injury, no camp, alleged trend of hold-outs who miss camp being more susceptible to injury.
• disgruntled, May dog it, as the kids say.
 
KingPrawn said:
I dont understand the argument that he may dog it or try as hard. He's looking to get paid. Not putting out your best effort is not how you do that.
Click to expand...
I think it's more that NFL players are pretty much all playing through some sort of injury in season. A guy in Taylor's situation is probably less likely to push through something moderate than a guy with a long term deal who is playing on a competitive team. The biggest risk to him getting paid at this point is an injury, as he's got enough good tape from 2021 to interest plenty of teams if he hits the open market at 24/25 years old with no major injuries. Well, injuries, and the franchise tag.
 
jtd13 said:
I think it's more that NFL players are pretty much all playing through some sort of injury in season. A guy in Taylor's situation is probably less likely to push through something moderate
Click to expand...

This.

I would argue, given the acrimony, that once he puts six good games on tape this year, any injury at all could shut him down. Hang-nail IR time.

That said, the Colts could do a ton to rectify the above before it happens. I just have zero confidence they will. My money is they will be so offended by his stance, that they'll say **** you instead, having little realization that they've been saying **** us the whole time.

I speak as Raiders fan who were on a similar precipice with Jacobs (and still might be for intents and purposes).
 
KingPrawn said:
I dont understand the argument that he may dog it or try as hard. He's looking to get paid. Not putting out your best effort is not how you do that.
Click to expand...
You think that if he plays his heart out and massively increases his value that moving him is going to be easier? That’s the problem with how Irsay and the Colts handled this. I‘m not sure Taylor would be happy even if the Colts caved in and gave him a one year deal like Josh Jacobs got. I’m guessing that Taylor is probably thinking that he needs to focus on getting out of Indy first before worrying about his perfect payday at this point.
 
3nOut said:
satch said:
If Taylor is never going to play his best for the Colts ever again, why wouldn’t the Colts simply accept the best offer they received an move on? How do the Colts benefit by having a useless malcontent dragging the team down all season only to see him walk in 2024? Why not get something now instead of nothing later?

By “useless”, I’m referring to Taylor missing games and dogging it all season.
Click to expand...
Many reasons. 1. Because Irsay doesn't want to trade him. He has a contract and wants Taylor to play. 2. Because its bad business and he wants to get full value on his investment. He knows what Taylor's value is right now and what it will be at the end of the contract. Right now, he didn't feel he was offered enough. 3. He does not want to set a precedence for the entire NFL. If Taylor was traded, all RBs would have more leverage and do the same thing moving forward. 3. It is also not in Taylor's own best interest to be a useless malcontent. If he does not not play enough games this year, he does not accrue a year off his contract. If he has an attitude and simply shows up, this will make his value drop for other teams as they wouldn't want to tale a risk on a malcontent down the road when he becomes available. The Colts can bench him this year if he is just going through the motions and also tag him at the end of the year. And if this happens, they'd be in contention for the first overall pick in next year's draft. The Colts actually have nothing to lose.
Click to expand...
You forgot to include a point #3.
 
LawFitz said:
King of the Jungle said:
Bottom line is Taylor agreed to a contract.
Click to expand...

No, bottom line is he agreed to a rookie deal that was pre-established by a CBA that did not look out for his best interests as an RB. He grossly outplayed that deal in year 2 (of 6), then got hurt in year 3, and saw the writing on the wall that he would be used and abused going forward and most likely discarded like trash as soon as his body broke down, which it may have already to a significant degree.
Click to expand...
Like I said, he agreed to a contract. I did not argue the contract was fair. There are many contracts that are not fair (in football as well as many other fields). Are you saying that his body may already be broken down but also saying the Colts should renegotiate his contract and pay him a hefty sum going forward? Fair or not fair, I believe the Colts have the right to draft someone in any round and not resign them if they choose. If they planned based on the mileage he had at Wisconsin that this was going to be a one contract player I do not think there is anything wrong with that. Now if you are saying that running backs are screwed relative to other positions I do agree with you, however that does not mean it is the franchises obligation to put a bad contract in place to try to correct it. It would be nice for that player however that would be a poor decision for the organization. Outplaying deals happens a lot, as does underachieving. I do think having control of a player for 6 years essentially is lunacy and the CBA should make some adjustments in that regard.
 
Michael Pittman signed a similar contract as Jonathan Taylor the same year. I would argue that Pittman has stayed healthy and outplayed his contract. His comment on his contract:

Link
“Do I expect it? I don’t really expect nothing really,” Pittman told reporters Thursday. “If it happens, it happens. And if it doesn’t happen, then yeah I would play it out without an extension.”

Are we just saying because Jonathan Taylor is a running back that has outperformed his contract that his organization is obligated to extend him? Do we ignore health/mileage/market conditions to appease the position? I agree that running backs are currently at the bottom of the totem pole and probably have more risk than the majority of other positions. Fire fighters and police officers also take on more risk at their selected positions and I would argue they are under paid. However you choose your path and the employer can decide whether they want to pay you more or go a different direction. Just like an employee has the right to find a different job or career path. There will always be someone willing to take the contract as an NFL running back as the money relative to most jobs is pretty damn good.
 
massraider said:
King of the Jungle said:
Are we just saying because Jonathan Taylor is a running back that has outperformed his contract
Click to expand...
Has he?

One monster year
Click to expand...
He had a pretty darn good rookie year once given the opportunity, obviously not healthy last year. Not really my main point but I believe he has proven to be talented enough to be paid more than his current salary. Would I be interested as the Colts in giving him an extension that equates to a top three running back? I would not. My reasons are health, mileage, and market conditions. They are most likely not a contender this year, allocating a large sum to a running back would not be my strategy.
 
King of the Jungle said:
LawFitz said:
King of the Jungle said:
Bottom line is Taylor agreed to a contract.
Click to expand...

No, bottom line is he agreed to a rookie deal that was pre-established by a CBA that did not look out for his best interests as an RB. He grossly outplayed that deal in year 2 (of 6), then got hurt in year 3, and saw the writing on the wall that he would be used and abused going forward and most likely discarded like trash as soon as his body broke down, which it may have already to a significant degree.
Click to expand...
Like I said, he agreed to a contract. I did not argue the contract was fair. There are many contracts that are not fair (in football as well as many other fields). Are you saying that his body may already be broken down but also saying the Colts should renegotiate his contract and pay him a hefty sum going forward? Fair or not fair, I believe the Colts have the right to draft someone in any round and not resign them if they choose. If they planned based on the mileage he had at Wisconsin that this was going to be a one contract player I do not think there is anything wrong with that. Now if you are saying that running backs are screwed relative to other positions I do agree with you, however that does not mean it is the franchises obligation to put a bad contract in place to try to correct it. It would be nice for that player however that would be a poor decision for the organization. Outplaying deals happens a lot, as does underachieving. I do think having control of a player for 6 years essentially is lunacy and the CBA should make some adjustments in that regard.
Click to expand...
He's on a rookie deal. So it's not like he had any real wiggle room to negotiate. He could have held out as a rookie but then that means zero money.
 
King of the Jungle said:
. They are most likely not a contender this year, allocating a large sum to a running back would not be my strategy.
Click to expand...
They are not, but I would imagine that they want to see their rookie QB develop into something- surrounding him with garbage skill players does not help with that - I’ve seen it first hand a few times as a Jets fan. I’d also think they’d ideally want to start competing as early as next season which would be Richardson’s second season. They didn’t have to extend him but could have tried harder to smooth it over instead of their idiot owner pouring whiskey on the fire.
 
LawFitz said:
SoBeDad said:
No RB is worth 4 wins. Maybe 1 or 2 wins.
Click to expand...

100% situational, given team and RB. On the right team, the right RB could be worth 4 wins. More even.
Click to expand...
Well, this team and RB only won 4 games total last year, and 2 of them came when Taylor didn't even play- they actually had a slightly better record without him. Even in his insane all-pro 2021 season they still missed the playoffs.

I'm a huge JT fan, but it's clear as day that RBs just aren't that valuable in today's NFL. We don't have to like it, but it's reality.
 
Dr. Octopus said:
King of the Jungle said:
. They are most likely not a contender this year, allocating a large sum to a running back would not be my strategy.
Click to expand...
They are not, but I would imagine that they want to see their rookie QB develop into something- surrounding him with garbage skill players does not help with that - I’ve seen it first hand a few times as a Jets fan. I’d also think they’d ideally want to start competing as early as next season which would be Richardson’s second season. They didn’t have to extend him but could have tried harder to smooth it over instead of their idiot owner pouring whiskey on the fire.
Click to expand...

It's baffling. If you want to give AR weapons, just extend the guy, make him happy and structure the contract so you can move on in 3 years. Instead, the Colts go scorched earth with the guy, don't extend him, don't trade him and now stand the chance that he won't play for them again and they stand to get nothing in return for him when he leaves. Total mismanagement of the situation.
 
humpback said:
LawFitz said:
SoBeDad said:
No RB is worth 4 wins. Maybe 1 or 2 wins.
Click to expand...

100% situational, given team and RB. On the right team, the right RB could be worth 4 wins. More even.
Click to expand...
Well, this team and RB only won 4 games total last year, and 2 of them came when Taylor didn't even play- they actually had a slightly better record without him. Even in his insane all-pro 2021 season they still missed the playoffs.

I'm a huge JT fan, but it's clear as day that RBs just aren't that valuable in today's NFL. We don't have to like it, but it's reality.
Click to expand...

Yet the Colts think he's worth a 1st round pick. So they think he's pretty valuable.
 
Dr. Octopus said:
King of the Jungle said:
. They are most likely not a contender this year, allocating a large sum to a running back would not be my strategy.
Click to expand...
They are not, but I would imagine that they want to see their rookie QB develop into something- surrounding him with garbage skill players does not help with that - I’ve seen it first hand a few times as a Jets fan. I’d also think they’d ideally want to start competing as early as next season which would be Richardson’s second season. They didn’t have to extend him but could have tried harder to smooth it over instead of their idiot owner pouring whiskey on the fire.
Click to expand...
I agree with your premise 100%. Irsay is a moron on how he handled this publicly (and probably privately). Maybe that is why Pittman is not concerned about his contract as he would prefer to exit the organization…
 
King of the Jungle said:
Dr. Octopus said:
King of the Jungle said:
. They are most likely not a contender this year, allocating a large sum to a running back would not be my strategy.
Click to expand...
They are not, but I would imagine that they want to see their rookie QB develop into something- surrounding him with garbage skill players does not help with that - I’ve seen it first hand a few times as a Jets fan. I’d also think they’d ideally want to start competing as early as next season which would be Richardson’s second season. They didn’t have to extend him but could have tried harder to smooth it over instead of their idiot owner pouring whiskey on the fire.
Click to expand...
I agree with your premise 100%. Irsay is a moron on how he handled this publicly (and probably privately). Maybe that is why Pittman is not concerned about his contract as he would prefer to exit the organization…
Click to expand...
Pittman also has the peace of mind knowing he’ll get overpaid either way - even though Taylor is a better football player.
 
The Colts likely have high draft picks in the early rounds. An extra 2nd round pick could be valuable on its own, or to trade up and get an "elite" OL or WR. A late 3rd comp pick is not as valuable, obviously. But, if not paying (relatively) and playing Taylor gets them Harrson Jr or OT Fashanu, I can see the benefit.
 
Snotbubbles said:
humpback said:
LawFitz said:
SoBeDad said:
No RB is worth 4 wins. Maybe 1 or 2 wins.
Click to expand...

100% situational, given team and RB. On the right team, the right RB could be worth 4 wins. More even.
Click to expand...
Well, this team and RB only won 4 games total last year, and 2 of them came when Taylor didn't even play- they actually had a slightly better record without him. Even in his insane all-pro 2021 season they still missed the playoffs.

I'm a huge JT fan, but it's clear as day that RBs just aren't that valuable in today's NFL. We don't have to like it, but it's reality.
Click to expand...

Yet the Colts think he's worth a 1st round pick. So they think he's pretty valuable.
Click to expand...
Yet presumably no other NFL team felt he was worth a 1st round pick, and the Colts think he's so valuable that they're paying him to not play.

It's called negotiating, and we don't even know if they said that never mind actually believe it/would stick to it.
 
King of the Jungle said:
They are most likely not a contender this year, allocating a large sum to a running back would not be my strategy
Click to expand...
Would you allocate a large sum of money to a 29 year old DT? Would you pay a guard 25 million next year? Would you pay Grover Stewart $10 million?



Everyone is trying to put the best team on the field they can, this year.

Jonathan Taylor is their best player (maybe Buckner). He gives them a better chance to win. We have already seen young running QBs win games right off the bat.

The Colts have 19 mill in cap space, and 82.6 million in cap space next year. They don't have 82.6 million worth of good players left to pay on that team. They have plenty of money to pay him.

The theory of not paying RB makes sense, in the abstract. I don't want the Raiders extending Jacobs. But the best chance for the Colts to win involves ARich and Taylor.
 
Snotbubbles said:
It's baffling. If you want to give AR weapons, just extend the guy, make him happy and structure the contract so you can move on in 3 years. Instead, the Colts go scorched earth with the guy, don't extend him, don't trade him and now stand the chance that he won't play for them again and they stand to get nothing in return for him when he leaves. Total mismanagement of the situation
Click to expand...
Pretty much.
 
bcat01 said:
Colts could consider suspending him without pay.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report-colts-may-ponder-suspending-014842363.html
Click to expand...
He would need to do something to warrant suspension. I could certainly be wrong, but Taylor doesn't seem stupid. He will take his physical. He will not hold out and will show up to games. What he does from there, who knows. But I don't see him actively doing anything that would result in him not accruing a season.

A team can't force a player to play through injury, and it would be ground breaking for them to attempt to claim "he's faking it". I do think Irsay is enough of a prick to try that though. I don't see it going well for him or the Colts if he does. Look into the controversy over Fribromyalgia if you think it's as easy as having the team doctor say "I don't think there's anything wrong with him."

The thing that's been mentioned that makes the most sense is they want to tank. While they aren't doing it quite as blatantly as Arizona, it seems pretty evident at this point that's what they want.

On a side note, thank god my keepers didn't need to be declared till today. JT in the 4th seemed like a steal a few months ago lol.
 
Perhaps Taylor thought when they drafted Richardson that this was his opportunity to play hardball. Most seem to think it's a good idea to surround your shiny new highly drafted QB with offensive talent, and maybe Taylor thought this was his chance to get the big payday.
Oops.
Oops all around. Everyone looks dumb here.
 
SoBeDad said:
Is any RB on the Colts rosterable, aside from Taylor?
Click to expand...
I know a majority are saying Deon. The problem is we saw what that looked like last year. Dude looks more like a situational 3rd down back. We also saw a 4 game sample size with Moss. That looked way better. Even though he is hurt I'm taking Moss. Jackson went for 18 of the 100 dollar budget last night in my league while Moss went for 0. Yikes. All my opinion of course.
 
Last edited:
I think the narrative that the Colts, in the end, would actually like to lose to better themselves for next year seems kinda believable. The problem with that is players never want to just lose, but more importantly when you have a young QB you really have to factor what that losing does to his mental makeup. See Joey Harrington. Do you put your future QB in a position where losing this year helps you next year? I'm sure there is a Harvard case study on this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hartliner
2025 RB Lotto Ticket Rankings
4 5 6
Replies
272
Views
23K
Hartliner
Hartliner
JohnnyU
RB Isaiah Davis, Jets
Replies
32
Views
4K
Faust
Faust
JohnnyU
DEVY risers and fallers, & general DEVY discussion, plus 2025 rookies included
2 3
Replies
112
Views
9K
Max Power
Max Power

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top