RB Jonathan Taylor, IND (1 Viewer)

[barackdhouse]

Is it because he knows he got played and there isn't anything *to* say? IDK if I was healthy I wouldn't be able to restrain myself.

 

[massraider]

In the NFL the only thing that matters in contracts is the guaranteed money. There is no world in which $70 million, or $40, was ever in the cards.

I think this is the biggest thing that isn't really talked about.

I think the biggest mistake the Colts are making is not even discussing a contract with him. If they franchise him next year, that's probably around 16 mill for this year and next. OK< well, how much guaranteed money do you think Taylor can expect on a four year deal? $25 mill? Maybe? He knows the market for RBs is depressed, it's not like he is unaware.

I would have loved to have seen the Colts offer a 4 year deal, with 20-24 mill guaranteed, up front. Get him money NOW. Have a bunch of incentives on the back end years to make it look nice, but offer him a slightly lowball offer, with the thinking being that hey you might be underpaid in years 3 and 4, but you made a big chunk up front that you were able to invest.

The angle is: Hey, we can pay you 4 mill for this year, and maaaybe franchise you next year, and you will collect another 12 mill by December 2024, or we can give you 15-18 mill today, on a contract that is in our favor.

He's 24 years old, and is one of the best backs in the league. Not even considering investing him is just a mistake.

 

[LawFitz]

Why isn't the Taylor camp livid and public right now if he is healthy and ready to play?

Maybe b/c their goal was not to play and to get paid anyway. And to accrue four games while rehabbing a 'sore' ankle. Saying things certain people don't want to hear, I know.

And FTR, this does not mean I think Jon Taylor is a POS. It means I think Jon Taylor might think Jim Irsay is a POS. And that he may be right about that.

 

[menobrown]

Also, he didn't PUP himself.

Sooooo many people don't seem to get this.

I think he kind of did though.

Well I know what you mean and I agree. You're talking in terms of the consequences of his actions. I'm saying only the GM gets to actually put someone on PUP. In the literal sense. And I do think the differentiation is getting lost out here. Why isn't the Taylor camp livid and public right now if he is healthy and ready to play?

I’d say he’s got no room to be livid he can’t play for a few reasons but most importantly is that he does not want to play for the Colts under this contract. Associated with that is I think it would be difficult to both tell the Colts that his ankle is in pain and still somehow have the gall to say he’s upset he can’t play when he claims to be in so much pain he’s not so much has practiced since last season.

In the literal sense, as you said, the Colts made the choice to put him on PUP. He’d obviously prefer an extension and/or trade to that outcome but I think he’d rather sit on the PUP then suit up for the Colts under this contract.

I would not say he gave the Colts no choice in the matter, but I’d say he did not give them a ton of wiggle room either.

 

[barackdhouse]

Also, he didn't PUP himself.

Sooooo many people don't seem to get this.

I think he kind of did though.

Well I know what you mean and I agree. You're talking in terms of the consequences of his actions. I'm saying only the GM gets to actually put someone on PUP. In the literal sense. And I do think the differentiation is getting lost out here. Why isn't the Taylor camp livid and public right now if he is healthy and ready to play?

I’d say he’s got no room to be livid he can’t play for a few reasons but most importantly is that he does not want to play for the Colts under this contract. Associated with that is I think it would be difficult to both tell the Colts that his ankle is in pain and still somehow have the gall to say he’s upset he can’t play when he claims to be in so much pain he’s not so much has practiced since last season.

In the literal sense, as you said, the Colts made the choice to put him on PUP. He’d obviously prefer an extension and/or trade to that outcome but I think he’d rather sit on the PUP then suit up for the Colts under this contract.

I would not say he gave the Colts no choice in the matter, but I’d say he did not give them a ton of wiggle room either.

I'm still saying this all means he really is hurt. Or else he and his agent are morons. And that is what makes it similar to Bell. Not so much the details as much as the concept that no RB has any leverage whatsoever. I guess I have it all wrong but I thought the downside here was that he must be active to accrue the games. And that it won't be up to him to be active or not. So I thought the whole thing was that Indy can just decide to **** him to make a point or for fun (because Irsay is the kind of guy to do it) and if he doesn't go active then he is stuck in the same spot next year. Which if I understood those terms correctly (that was how Shefty explained it live the other day but I know jack compared to you and others on contract stuff), would mean he loses a prime year of his career, pay or not, and can still be ****ed again the next year. So now I'm assuming I have it wrong because how could Taylor possibly have walked into this? Only thing I can come up with is that he really is hurt. Or his agent should be burned at the stake.

 

[barackdhouse]

Let's assume all parties agree he is healthy come week 5. There is no real reason the Colts have to activate him. He is just one more football player. With an expensive contract so it would be in their interest to convince him to play, but assuming that doesn't come to fruition then they must trade him. Which they may decide or may have already decided is their best course of action, which would mean not ever activating him prior to the trade deadline. Then, if a trade doesn't happen, they keep him inactive and the year never tolls or whatever, no? And then he gets franchised again, right? So at what point would it make sense for him to do this? I guess my disconnect is the assumption that they're going to get him to play. Or that they want him to play if he is a trade chip. And I thought he had to play to get the year so that is throwing me. None of it makes sense short of injury.

 

[menobrown]

Also, he didn't PUP himself.

Sooooo many people don't seem to get this.

I think he kind of did though.

Well I know what you mean and I agree. You're talking in terms of the consequences of his actions. I'm saying only the GM gets to actually put someone on PUP. In the literal sense. And I do think the differentiation is getting lost out here. Why isn't the Taylor camp livid and public right now if he is healthy and ready to play?

I’d say he’s got no room to be livid he can’t play for a few reasons but most importantly is that he does not want to play for the Colts under this contract. Associated with that is I think it would be difficult to both tell the Colts that his ankle is in pain and still somehow have the gall to say he’s upset he can’t play when he claims to be in so much pain he’s not so much has practiced since last season.

In the literal sense, as you said, the Colts made the choice to put him on PUP. He’d obviously prefer an extension and/or trade to that outcome but I think he’d rather sit on the PUP then suit up for the Colts under this contract.

I would not say he gave the Colts no choice in the matter, but I’d say he did not give them a ton of wiggle room either.

I'm still saying this all means he really is hurt. Or else he and his agent are morons. And that is what makes it similar to Bell. Not so much the details as much as the concept that no RB has any leverage whatsoever. I guess I have it all wrong but I thought the downside here was that he must be active to accrue the games. And that it won't be up to him to be active or not. So I thought the whole thing was that Indy can just decide to **** him to make a point or for fun (because Irsay is the kind of guy to do it) and if he doesn't go active then he is stuck in the same spot next year. Which if I understood those terms correctly (that was how Shefty explained it live the other day but I know jack compared to you and others on contract stuff), would mean he loses a prime year of his career, pay or not, and can still be ****ed again the next year. So now I'm assuming I have it wrong because how could Taylor possibly have walked into this? Only thing I can come up with is that he really is hurt. Or his agent should be burned at the stake.

If he does not come off the PUP by the 6th game of the season his contract tolls into next year. Which he absolutely does not want of course.

If I had to guess, and I am, I think the Colts are sort of calling his bluff. Basically saying if your ankle is hurt now then fine, we’ll put you on PUP and mandate a rehab schedule. If after 4 weeks you are still saying your ankle is in pain we’ll keep you on the PUP(barring a trade) and your contract will carry over into next season .

If they activated him in week one they would not have this card to play.

One area I see it differently then you is that I’d think he and his agent are morons if his ankle really is messed up and they still think the Colts should give him a big extension or trade him to someone who will. Additionally Taylor and his agent would have to understand that if he’s traded he has to pass a physical so if his ankle really is messed up I don’t know how they ever thought they could pull of a trade and extension.

I’d come around to thinking his ankle is really an issue if he’s still saying it hurts to much to play when we reach week 6 and he’s still on the PUP. But he’s still got time to say he’s feeling fine and get in a enough of a season to not toll his contract.

 

[barackdhouse]

Also, he didn't PUP himself.

Sooooo many people don't seem to get this.

I think he kind of did though.

Well I know what you mean and I agree. You're talking in terms of the consequences of his actions. I'm saying only the GM gets to actually put someone on PUP. In the literal sense. And I do think the differentiation is getting lost out here. Why isn't the Taylor camp livid and public right now if he is healthy and ready to play?

I’d say he’s got no room to be livid he can’t play for a few reasons but most importantly is that he does not want to play for the Colts under this contract. Associated with that is I think it would be difficult to both tell the Colts that his ankle is in pain and still somehow have the gall to say he’s upset he can’t play when he claims to be in so much pain he’s not so much has practiced since last season.

In the literal sense, as you said, the Colts made the choice to put him on PUP. He’d obviously prefer an extension and/or trade to that outcome but I think he’d rather sit on the PUP then suit up for the Colts under this contract.

I would not say he gave the Colts no choice in the matter, but I’d say he did not give them a ton of wiggle room either.

I'm still saying this all means he really is hurt. Or else he and his agent are morons. And that is what makes it similar to Bell. Not so much the details as much as the concept that no RB has any leverage whatsoever. I guess I have it all wrong but I thought the downside here was that he must be active to accrue the games. And that it won't be up to him to be active or not. So I thought the whole thing was that Indy can just decide to **** him to make a point or for fun (because Irsay is the kind of guy to do it) and if he doesn't go active then he is stuck in the same spot next year. Which if I understood those terms correctly (that was how Shefty explained it live the other day but I know jack compared to you and others on contract stuff), would mean he loses a prime year of his career, pay or not, and can still be ****ed again the next year. So now I'm assuming I have it wrong because how could Taylor possibly have walked into this? Only thing I can come up with is that he really is hurt. Or his agent should be burned at the stake.

One area I see it differently then you is that I’d think he and his agent are morons if his ankle really is messed up and they still think the Colts should give him a big extension or trade him to someone who will.

That's not seeing it differently than me. That's seeing it exactly as I've been trying to explain this whole time. And if he isn't hurt (that badly), then he should have seen this coming. They're idiots either way. There is one and only one path for JT to come out of this in the way he and his agent would prefer - and that is to be traded. But they have nearly zero control over that and playing mind games about how healthy your ankle is or isn't - is a remarkably stupid way to get oneself traded.

So if the premise is that he would have been ready to ball week 1 had he been traded already, then he 100% was playing idiotic games.

Either he is lying about how bad his ankle is and he and his agents are morons for doing so.
Or he is telling the truth about how bad his ankle is and he and his agents are morons for looking for a big deal.

 

[KingPrawn]

There isn't a team in the league that would trade for Taylor if he isn't completely healthy. That's why a passed physical is always required before a trade is completed.

 

[LawFitz]

I suspect his ankle still has twinges, and that he and his peeps took the stance of not playing until either 100% healthy or paid. Seems a pretty reasonable stance for him all considered.

 

[massraider]

Either he is lying about how bad his ankle is and he and his agents are morons for doing so.

I haven't heard one word from JT or his people about his ankle, have you?

 

[Rubi]

I think his ankle is fine,or will be by week 5. I think he comes off the p.u.p. list and starts in week 5. I have no inside information on this. As an outside observer
I think he played all his cards the way he(or his agent) wanted to play them to try to better himself. He sees what's going on in the running back market.
Barkley and Jacobs played their hands a little differently,given the current situation it worked for them. Hopefully this works out for Taylor and we see him
week 5 on The Red Zone Channel at home having a solid game against The Titans.

 

[menobrown]

Either he is lying about how bad his ankle is and he and his agents are morons for doing so.

I haven't heard one word from JT or his people about his ankle, have you?

Not directly but Ballard said if he's still complaining of pain in his ankle.

 

[massraider]

Not directly but Ballard said if he's still complaining of pain in his ankle

That's a ways away from JT lying about an injury.

 

[menobrown]

Not directly but Ballard said if he's still complaining of pain in his ankle

That's a ways away from JT lying about an injury.

I just answered your question, no idea what that response is about.

 

[massraider]

I just answered your question, no idea what that response is about.

I think people are real casual about assigning some shady actions to JT.

 

[menobrown]

I just answered your question, no idea what that response is about.

I think people are real casual about assigning some shady actions to JT.

Yes and I'm one of them as well tough I'd call it less assigning and speculation, pretty confident speculation as it may be. But I still don't see what that had to do Taylor directly saying his ankle is hurt which is what you asked. Taylor has said nothing as far as I know. I can't recall him speaking to the media since camp arrived.

Unless you don't believe Ballard I don't see what difference it makes who said it because he told us Taylor is complaining about pain in his ankle to the Colts. It's just whether you believe JT or not at the word he's giving the Colts for not being able to play but we know from Ballard what he's telling them.

 

[massraider]

Yes and I'm one of them as well tough I'd call it less assigning and speculation, pretty confident speculation as it may be. But I still don't see what that had to do Taylor directly saying his ankle is hurt which is what you asked. Taylor has said nothing as far as I know. I can't recall him speaking to the media since camp arrived.

Unless you don't believe Ballard I don't see what difference it makes who said it because he told us Taylor is complaining about pain in his ankle to the Colts. It's just whether you believe JT or not at the word he's giving the Colts for not being able to play but we know from Ballard what he's telling them

I see the difference.

See, I think JT is capable of lying about an injury. For sure.

I also think Ballard is capable of lying. That's the difference between you and I.

 

[menobrown]

I also think Ballard is capable of lying. That's the difference between you and I.

It's not that simple.

If Taylor is lying it's a lie that no one in the world but him would know the answer to. As such it can't be proven as a lie. All anyone can do is speculate.

If Ballard is lying about what Taylor is telling them there are multiple people who can refute what he is saying. None of them have.

 

[massraider]

If Ballard is lying about what Taylor is telling them there are multiple people who can refute what he is saying. None of them have.

Taylor has been very quiet all summer. he made one social media post to completely refute some rumors about whether he would report or not.

it's not his job to fact check Ballard. You don't get to say Ballard is incapable of lying because JT didn't correct him, that's really kind of silly.

 

[menobrown]

If Ballard is lying about what Taylor is telling them there are multiple people who can refute what he is saying. None of them have.

Taylor has been very quiet all summer. he made one social media post to completely refute some rumors about whether he would report or not.

it's not his job to fact check Ballard. You don't get to say Ballard is incapable of lying because JT didn't correct him, that's really kind of silly.

Ok

 

[barackdhouse]

If Ballard is lying about what Taylor is telling them there are multiple people who can refute what he is saying. None of them have.

Taylor has been very quiet all summer. he made one social media post to completely refute some rumors about whether he would report or not.

it's not his job to fact check Ballard. You don't get to say Ballard is incapable of lying because JT didn't correct him, that's really kind of silly.

In a normal world for a RB it wouldn't be his job to fact check Ballard. But in this crazy situation, if Ballard was the one making stuff up, and I wouldn't put it past him for a second, then JT would be vocal IMO. And he isn't so IMO he really is banged up or at least saying as much and like Meno said nobody can really prove or disprove that.

I don't believe he wanted to miss games as part of any negotiation tactic and I do believe he could have seen this coming. That is why I believe he really is banged up and everyone is telling the truth. And he's an idiot for asking for so much if he isn't really ready to play. If he is ready to play then why isn't he saying it? If my organization were representing me in trade negotiations as a limping injury risk, and I was ready to play, I'd be pissed and I'd say it.

 

[massraider]

In a normal world for a RB it wouldn't be his job to fact check Ballard. But in this crazy situation, if Ballard was the one making stuff up, and I wouldn't put it past him for a second, then JT would be vocal IMO. And he isn't so IMO he really is banged up or at least saying as much and like Meno said nobody can really prove or disprove that.

I don't believe he wanted to miss games as part of any negotiation tactic and I do believe he could have seen this coming. That is why I believe he really is banged up and everyone is telling the truth. And he's an idiot for asking for so much if he isn't really ready to play. If he is ready to play then why isn't he saying it? If my organization were representing me in trade negotiations as a limping injury risk, and I was ready to play, I'd be pissed and I'd say it.

Listen all I am pointing out is that calling a guy's integrity into question based on speculation by other fantasy dudes on the internet is what is happening here.

 

[titusbramble]

I don't understand what the Colts are trying to accomplish with Taylor. The Colts should be in asset accumulation mode. Any player who does not have 100% buy-in should be traded or released. (see, 2021 Philadelphia Eagles and Carson Wentz)

And if the open market disagrees with your valuation of your asset, what then? Do we just set money on fire to solve a problem?

 

[FarFromHome]

I don't understand what the Colts are trying to accomplish with Taylor. The Colts should be in asset accumulation mode. Any player who does not have 100% buy-in should be traded or released. (see, 2021 Philadelphia Eagles and Carson Wentz)

And if the open market disagrees with your valuation of your asset, what then? Do we just set money on fire to solve a problem?

Not saying I really agree but it's fairly simple what exactly the Colts are doing. They are setting the example that you play your rookie contract out. If they did move him when does the next rookie what to be moved or more money? They are making simple business decisions. The problem with business decisions is that they can alienate employees. Which it has.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

On the radio this morning they were deeply questioning why the colt didn’t just in essence “buy out” the next 2 franchise tags.

Win / win

They wouldn’t have to pay top of the market price, JT gets paid, Colts have a great RB to help ARich’s development.

That sounded extremely sensible to me.

ETA: they also said there’s no way in hell they should have dealt him unless someone made them a godfather offer, which clearly no one was going to do.

 

[eighsse2]

The problem with business decisions is that they can alienate employees. Which it has.

Sure ... the Colts' decisions alienated Taylor. That's what happened ...

 

[barackdhouse]

In a normal world for a RB it wouldn't be his job to fact check Ballard. But in this crazy situation, if Ballard was the one making stuff up, and I wouldn't put it past him for a second, then JT would be vocal IMO. And he isn't so IMO he really is banged up or at least saying as much and like Meno said nobody can really prove or disprove that.

I don't believe he wanted to miss games as part of any negotiation tactic and I do believe he could have seen this coming. That is why I believe he really is banged up and everyone is telling the truth. And he's an idiot for asking for so much if he isn't really ready to play. If he is ready to play then why isn't he saying it? If my organization were representing me in trade negotiations as a limping injury risk, and I was ready to play, I'd be pissed and I'd say it.

Listen all I am pointing out is that calling a guy's integrity into question based on speculation by other fantasy dudes on the internet is what is happening here.

Yeah sure I don't think anyone sees that differently. Of course we're speculating. The whole thing stinks.

 

[massraider]

Sure ... the Colts' decisions alienated Taylor. That's what happened ...

The owner made some bizarre statements (well, not for him, but for sane sober people) about how they wouldn't trade Taylor ever, even if Irsay died, and some other weirdness. Then Ballard comes and when asked about a new contract for Taylor makes some comment about how the team lost last year, so ya know......implying that no one was getting a raise because the team sucked. So because Taylor was on a losing team, he shouldn't ask for a raise.

That Ballard thing is pretty offensive, mainly because it's insulting to Taylor's intelligence that oh gee we would love to talk contract with you, but we only won 4 games last year so bad luck.

Please also remember that it was Chris Ballard who said this, the QB whisperer himself, who brought you Carson Wentz and Matt Ryan---who are employed by the same number of NFL teams as I am.

That's the guy who, when asked why not pay Jonathan Taylor, he said, we won four games. That's the guy.

GD right they alienated Taylor. If they did not, he's a bigger man than me.

 

[menobrown]

On the radio this morning they were deeply questioning why the colt didn’t just in essence “buy out” the next 2 franchise tags.

Win / win

They wouldn’t have to pay top of the market price, JT gets paid, Colts have a great RB to help ARich’s development.

That sounded extremely sensible to me.

ETA: they also said there’s no way in hell they should have dealt him unless someone made them a godfather offer, which clearly no one was going to do.

Agree or not the answer is pretty easy and it's because they just don't have to do that. If we are including his pay this year that's roughly $27M guaranteed and that's probably a low end projection.

Or they can just pay him a little over $4m this year and re-assess after this season.

Personally if I had to pay him $27 over the next 3 years to lock him up and that would make him happy I'd do it. But this is a hard used RB who for the first time in his life started missing games and practice with injuries so I'm not going to say the Colts position is hard to understand.

 

[menobrown]

I don't understand what the Colts are trying to accomplish with Taylor. The Colts should be in asset accumulation mode. Any player who does not have 100% buy-in should be traded or released. (see, 2021 Philadelphia Eagles and Carson Wentz)

And if the open market disagrees with your valuation of your asset, what then? Do we just set money on fire to solve a problem?

Not saying I really agree but it's fairly simple what exactly the Colts are doing. They are setting the example that you play your rookie contract out. If they did move him when does the next rookie what to be moved or more money? They are making simple business decisions. The problem with business decisions is that they can alienate employees. Which it has.

You are right the business decision to not offer him any contract did in fact seem to alienate him.

Where people seem to have it mixed up is Taylor requested a trade and entered training camp with that constant sullen malcontent look on his face well before Irsay sent otu that tweet about the CBA, before he invited him on his bus and said the world moves on without them. That is all after the fact stuff. None of it helped, but it's not what got things to this point. It was simply choosing to let him play out his contract instead of making any offer.

 

[JohnnyU]

I don't understand what the Colts are trying to accomplish with Taylor. The Colts should be in asset accumulation mode. Any player who does not have 100% buy-in should be traded or released. (see, 2021 Philadelphia Eagles and Carson Wentz)

And if the open market disagrees with your valuation of your asset, what then? Do we just set money on fire to solve a problem?

Not saying I really agree but it's fairly simple what exactly the Colts are doing. They are setting the example that you play your rookie contract out. If they did move him when does the next rookie what to be moved or more money? They are making simple business decisions. The problem with business decisions is that they can alienate employees. Which it has.

You are right the business decision to not offer him any contract did in fact seem to alienate him.

Where people seem to have it mixed up is Taylor requested a trade and entered training camp with that constant sullen malcontent look on his face well before Irsay sent otu that tweet about the CBA, before he invited him on his bus and said the world moves on without them. That is all after the fact stuff. None of it helped, but it's not what got things to this point. It was simply choosing to let him play out his contract instead of making any offer.

He has a contract. Why would the Colts offer an injured RB a big contract now?

 

[FarFromHome]

I don't understand what the Colts are trying to accomplish with Taylor. The Colts should be in asset accumulation mode. Any player who does not have 100% buy-in should be traded or released. (see, 2021 Philadelphia Eagles and Carson Wentz)

And if the open market disagrees with your valuation of your asset, what then? Do we just set money on fire to solve a problem?

Not saying I really agree but it's fairly simple what exactly the Colts are doing. They are setting the example that you play your rookie contract out. If they did move him when does the next rookie what to be moved or more money? They are making simple business decisions. The problem with business decisions is that they can alienate employees. Which it has.

You are right the business decision to not offer him any contract did in fact seem to alienate him.

Where people seem to have it mixed up is Taylor requested a trade and entered training camp with that constant sullen malcontent look on his face well before Irsay sent otu that tweet about the CBA, before he invited him on his bus and said the world moves on without them. That is all after the fact stuff. None of it helped, but it's not what got things to this point. It was simply choosing to let him play out his contract instead of making any offer.

He has a contract. Why would the Colts offer an injured RB a big contract now?

Yep. I will say and I'm speculating here. I think Taylor was told something about a new contract at some point late last season, then it just never happened. He didn't like how he was told one thing and then nothing happened. They started to nit pick, then he wanted a trade. Colts played a game of chicken and Taylor really has no move other then say "they told me I was gonna get a contract." Well Mr Taylor, welcome to the sports world.

 

[humpback]

If Ballard is lying about what Taylor is telling them there are multiple people who can refute what he is saying. None of them have.

Taylor has been very quiet all summer. he made one social media post to completely refute some rumors about whether he would report or not.

it's not his job to fact check Ballard. You don't get to say Ballard is incapable of lying because JT didn't correct him, that's really kind of silly.

He completely refuted the claim that he ever had or reported back pain. Didn't say a word about his ankle though.

https://twitter.com/JayT23/status/1685838099232747520

 

[Chaka]

I don't understand what the Colts are trying to accomplish with Taylor. The Colts should be in asset accumulation mode. Any player who does not have 100% buy-in should be traded or released. (see, 2021 Philadelphia Eagles and Carson Wentz)

And if the open market disagrees with your valuation of your asset, what then? Do we just set money on fire to solve a problem?

Not saying I really agree but it's fairly simple what exactly the Colts are doing. They are setting the example that you play your rookie contract out. If they did move him when does the next rookie what to be moved or more money? They are making simple business decisions. The problem with business decisions is that they can alienate employees. Which it has.

You are right the business decision to not offer him any contract did in fact seem to alienate him.

Where people seem to have it mixed up is Taylor requested a trade and entered training camp with that constant sullen malcontent look on his face well before Irsay sent otu that tweet about the CBA, before he invited him on his bus and said the world moves on without them. That is all after the fact stuff. None of it helped, but it's not what got things to this point. It was simply choosing to let him play out his contract instead of making any offer.

He has a contract. Why would the Colts offer an injured RB a big contract now?

No one is suggesting a bank breaking deal at this point.

But the smart play would have been an atta boy bump for the season like the Raiders gave to Jacobs.

He's their best player, he earned a bump.

Better than alienating him and sending this message to the rest of the team.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Listen all I am pointing out is that calling a guy's integrity into question based on speculation by other fantasy dudes on the internet is what is happening here.

why do you hate fun?

 

[massraider]

Listen all I am pointing out is that calling a guy's integrity into question based on speculation by other fantasy dudes on the internet is what is happening here.

why do you hate fun?

Funny thing is, I think protecting himself is a viable strategy. 12 million on the line. One blown ACL in a game and it's over.

It's a contract, not an Unbreakable Vow he made being Hogwarts. This is business.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Funny thing is, I think protecting himself is a viable strategy. 12 million on the line. One blown ACL in a game and it's over.

It's a contract, not an Unbreakable Vow he made being Hogwarts. This is business.

I’ve said that several times in here.

Playing unprotected is silly. And other GMs will understand this.

 

[ffmail4me]

I just took him at 7.8 in a PPR redraft. That was far enough a fall

 

[humpback]

No one is suggesting a bank breaking deal at this point.

But the smart play would have been an atta boy bump for the season like the Raiders gave to Jacobs.

He's their best player, he earned a bump.

Better than alienating him and sending this message to the rest of the team.

Are we sure he isn't suggesting a bank breaking deal? It's easy to say just give him a bump for this year or a "reasonable" ~3 year extension that gets through the tag options, and if I were in charge I would certainly discuss both, but we have no idea what he's looking for or if those would make him happy at all.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I don't understand what the Colts are trying to accomplish with Taylor. The Colts should be in asset accumulation mode. Any player who does not have 100% buy-in should be traded or released. (see, 2021 Philadelphia Eagles and Carson Wentz)

And if the open market disagrees with your valuation of your asset, what then? Do we just set money on fire to solve a problem?

Sometimes it's better to get what you can for a player just to get him away from your locker room. Addition by subtraction.

I used the Eagles and Carson Wentz as an example previously. The Eagles signed Wentz to a 4 year, $128M contract extension in 2019. He was their franchise QB. In 2021, they fired Pedersen and brought in Sirianni and when Wentz didn't buy-in, the Eagles traded him, took a massive dead cap hit ($33.8M) and were left entering the season with unproven 2nd year player Jalen Hurts. The Eagles didn't say, "you're the franchise QB, act like it", they didn't hold him hostage, they traded him for the best package they could get (a 3rd and conditional 2nd). The Eagles were willing to take a step back to take two steps forward.

You have to get buy-in from the players and all of them have to be working toward a common goal. If they're not, you're done. The Colts leadership could turn this culture around real quick, just like Philly did, by getting rid of any players who aren't going to buy-in. Keeping Taylor around this team could fracture the locker room.

 

[FarFromHome]

I don't understand what the Colts are trying to accomplish with Taylor. The Colts should be in asset accumulation mode. Any player who does not have 100% buy-in should be traded or released. (see, 2021 Philadelphia Eagles and Carson Wentz)

And if the open market disagrees with your valuation of your asset, what then? Do we just set money on fire to solve a problem?

Sometimes it's better to get what you can for a player just to get him away from your locker room. Addition by subtraction.

I used the Eagles and Carson Wentz as an example previously. The Eagles signed Wentz to a 4 year, $128M contract extension in 2019. He was their franchise QB. In 2021, they fired Pedersen and brought in Sirianni and when Wentz didn't buy-in, the Eagles traded him, took a massive dead cap hit ($33.8M) and were left entering the season with unproven 2nd year player Jalen Hurts. The Eagles didn't say, "you're the franchise QB, act like it", they didn't hold him hostage, they traded him for the best package they could get (a 3rd and conditional 2nd). The Eagles were willing to take a step back to take two steps forward.

You have to get buy-in from the players and all of them have to be working toward a common goal. If they're not, you're done. The Colts leadership could turn this culture around real quick, just like Philly did, by getting rid of any players who aren't going to buy-in. Keeping Taylor around this team could fracture the locker room.

I hear what your saying. I will say, in this example, we have reports of Wentz being kind of a non likeable teammate. Where Taylor seems to be liked and respected.

 

[DeaLerZ]

Need Jonathan Taylor to get traded or start playing week 5. drafted him for $15 in my keeper league. Definitely a steal for next year at $25

 

[Banger]

Need Jonathan Taylor to get traded or start playing week 5. drafted him for $15 in my keeper league. Definitely a steal for next year at $25

I’d love the Dolphins to snag him.

 

[dipandglide]

I got him in the 7th rd in a 1QB , PPR. My first share!

 

[FarFromHome]

I got him in the 7th rd in a 1QB , PPR. My first share!

Welcome!!!

 

[MCFootball123]

Got him 9.1 in 10 team PPR redraft. Don't like a lot about this situation, but there is a line!

 

[Gatorman]

I got him in the 7th rd in a 1QB , PPR. My first share!

I did the same. cmac, Aaron Jones, Pacheco and Taylor. Wait weeks and hope it gets solved.

 

[DeaLerZ]

This dude is sitting on his couch pretending to be hurt watching every other player get paid except for him.

not mad at him though... If I played through an injury all last year and showed my dedication to the organization especially after the season he had in 2021 I'd be pretty upset too

 

[Anarchy99]

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.

Highly unlikely Taylor would earn a 3rd round compensatory pick. There were guys that signed for over $11M a year that only fetched 5th round picks.