Training camp day one 7/26

[w87r]

11 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I don’t think you are considering LBs age and mileage when this was going down.  There have been few great backs around 30 and above ever in the history of the league.

He was 26 in 2018 and 27 in 2019

 

 

It wasn't just his ability fell off. Situation changed and was being used differently. Had a young QB instead of Big Ben. Worse OL, worst weapons on the outside. Which put all focus on him offensively from a defensive perspective.

 

19 minutes ago, Nickster said:

You’re assuming he would have been great in 2019, I’m not after 412 touches

2018, and yes, that Steelers offense was loaded.

 

He put moderate stats in 2019 despite the personel issues above. Still had 66 rec, ypc was low, but that goes back to personel issues as well. No RB on team averaged over 4ypc.

 

Bell deserves the blame as well. Came back not in peak shape and was rusty. Never recovered from slow start. That Jets line wasn't very good though, no doubt.

[Nickster]

11 minutes ago, w87r said:

He was 26 in 2018 and 27 in 2019

 

 

It wasn't just his ability fell off. Situation changed and was being used differently. Had a young QB instead of Big Ben. Worse OL, worst weapons on the outside. Which put all focus on him offensively from a defensive perspective.

 

2018, and yes, that Steelers offense was loaded.

 

He put moderate stats in 2019 despite the personel issues above. Still had 66 rec, ypc was low, but that goes back to personel issues as well. No RB on team averaged over 4ypc.

 

Bell deserves the blame as well. Came back not in peak shape and was rusty. Never recovered from slow start. That Jets line wasn't very good though, no doubt.

He would have been 27 28 29 and 30 during a 4 year contract.

[w87r]

26 minutes ago, Nickster said:

He would have been 27 28 29 and 30 during a 4 year contract.

That's what he was anyway, when the Jets signed him. 

 

Either way, I'm tired of discussing Leveon Bell. Lol, no offense

[Nickster]

47 minutes ago, w87r said:

That's what he was anyway, when the Jets signed him. 

 

Either way, I'm tired of discussing Leveon Bell. Lol, no offense

 

I know man.  I think he fleeced the Jets.  I think he likely got more money than he would have gotten in total by holding out because I think his high mileage had probably used him up.  If he'd a had a sub par year in 2019 playing on the Tag, he would not have been signed by anyone for 13 mill in 2020. 

 

IN any event the holdouts of Leveon Bell and potentially JT are not as cut and dried as many see to think IMO Eight Seven.

 

I'm tired of talking about Bell too.  Never did care for the guy too much. 

 

 

[Superman]

15 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

The reason the offense didn’t get better had nothing to do with Taylor.   It had to do with QB play.   It had to do with the play of the offensive line. 
 

I think your argument falls under the old saying….    Lies, damn lies, and statistics.  
 

This feels like an intellectual argument. Can you make the argument that Taylor isn’t as valuable as one might think?   Yes, you can.   I just feel like the things you point to have a counter-argument.  

 

To the bolded, aren't we making the same point? We had the best RB in the league in 2021, but without good QB play, our offense was still capped. Even with a great RB, he likely can't power a playoff caliber offense. (What the Titans did with Derrick Henry and Ryan Tannehill was pretty smart, so there's a way to make it work, but you're still pretty limited.)

 

And I agree, the discussion about RB value is an intellectual argument. I think, setting aside player attachment and emotion and 'we pay our guys,' the smartest, most efficient way to handle the position is probably to churn and burn RBs through the draft. But I admit that there's some value in rewarding good players, even if the strictest assessment of the value of RB production suggests that it's not cost-effective to pay top tier money at the position.

 

Which brings me to this...

 

15 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

FWIW:  

 

I’ve re-read this post.   And I’m a little puzzled.   As you know I try to read your posts.   I believe in the last few weeks you tossed around numbers for Taylor like 3/40 and 3/36 and Tag x2.   
 

Interesting, because those are my numbers too.    
 

Yet your last sentence is an argument for NOT paying Taylor at all.   Doesn’t that feel like an intellectual argument position to take?   What’s the point of expressing you’d like to keep him and pay him, yet sum up by saying the stats say the best decision is let him go.   (I’m assuming after this season?).  

 

As an intellectual exercise, yeah I was arguing that it's not cost-effective to pay a big second contract to a RB. I thought that was pretty clear in that post, especially in response to another poster that I felt was being overly sensitive about the RB position. I said that would be the cold, heartless way to handle it, based on just the statistical reality. 

 

However, because I think JT is really good, and I can appreciate the benefit of paying your best player even if he's a RB, I'd be okay with the Colts paying JT for the next 3 years or so. I acknowledge that it would not be the most efficient use of our cap resources, but I'd be okay with it.

[Superman]

16 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

Pay the man. Taylor in 2021 was no doubt the best at running the football.in the NFL. Led the league in about every category. Long runs , yardage after contact plus way more yards than his competition.. He was hurt in 2022 and still was pretty good. He played with 2 horrible QB's and the O line regressed. Those that say he didn't elevate the offense beyond what it was the year before , bewilder me a bit.

 

Reminds me of what Branch Rickey told Ralph Kinder in 1952. Kiner after leading the league for the 7th straight time asked the Pirates GM Brach Rickey for a raise. Brach Rickey asked ,"where did we finish last year." Kiner replied "last." Ricky then said "well , we can finish last without you" and refused the request for a raise. It's called a "rabbit hole."  

 

So I pretty much agree with your side of the argument and yes Superman is correct when he states a team cannot win with bad QB play. BUT... why should Taylor be punished for the Colts bringing in horrible QB's ? How is say Pittman worth 20 million a year and Taylor not woth 12-13 ? I guess it come down to some of us think we can replace Taylor with some 3rd round rookie. Or some will point to the short "lives" of RBs in the NFL. I'm not going to research it but IMO , the really good backs certainly can last 7-8 years. Taylor takes care of his body and other than the high ankle sprain has held up well.

 

We're taking a very generalized comment -- even good RBs don't raise the ceiling of your offense -- and applying it to one player in basically one season. In doing so, the point has become distorted. 

 

To simplify, what are you getting from a great RB for $13m/year that you can't get from a stable of replacement level players for $4-5m? And is that difference really changing the outlook of your team?

 

Take it a step further. Once you have a good QB, that QB is elevating the play of everyone around him. That would include your replacement level RB room. So now we're probably shrinking the gap between your $13m/year RB and the third round rookie that could take his place for a fraction of the cost.

 

And then, what's really going to break people is when I argue that trying to get full value out of your highly paid RB has a good chance of hurting your offense, especially if it means you're taking the ball out of the hands of your good QB. If you put JT on the Chiefs and try to get your money's worth out of him, you're probably restricting Mahomes' ability to power the offense, which is likely going to be counter productive from an efficiency standpoint.

 

I agree that none of this is JT's fault. I have nothing against him, he's been a workhorse, durable, effective, and a good teammate. He shouldn't be punished because the Colts have been bad at QB. But especially in 2021, we saw the limitations that an offense with substandard QB play faces, even when your RB is outstanding.

 

Hopefully JT continues to hold up physically. But the reality is none of the highly paid backs have done so in recent history. CMC has missed significant time, Elliott and Cook got cut as soon as it was tenable, Mixon took a pay cut, etc. We're seeing an obvious trend around Year 5, or sooner, that RBs start to diminish. The exception is Derrick Henry, but we know it's coming. Getting three more good years out of JT would be a huge win.

 

As an aside, just briefly on WRs, I think we're reaching a point where there are so many good WRs in each draft that it's hard to get behind the idea of paying $20m/year for anyone who isn't an absolute game breaker. I like Pittman, but I'd be fine with letting him walk, especially if he's trying to get Terry McLaurin money.

 

[NewColtsFan]

8 hours ago, Nickster said:

 

Leveon Bell made out like a bandit NCF.  He fleeced NYJ for 27 mill guaranteed.  

 

Who’s the smart one?  I am baffled by the Bell argument.  He got paid way above his value.

 

Leveon Bell =

 

Not even a little, Nick.    Leveon Bell is a cautionary tale on what NOT to do, on how NOT to handle your business.   
 

Bell didn’t play at all in 2018, and didn’t collect one dollar of a $14m salary in the prime of his career.   He never recovered his playing form because he’s not the brightest bulb.   
 

Yes, he fleeced the NYJ in 2019, and was in such bad shape and didn’t play well, he was soon enough not a NY Jet anymore.  He could have made much much more had he handled his business well.   He didn’t. 
 

Bell made a series of bad decisions which ultimately cut his own career short and he never made what he could have made had he been smarter.   

 

And I’m sure the situation is much worse for RB’s today.   The situation is dramatically worse.   As you know, the  market has collapsed in the last 2-3 years.  I’m hopeful that JT handles his business far better than Bell handled his 4-5 years ago.  

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

We're taking a very generalized comment -- even good RBs don't raise the ceiling of your offense -- and applying it to one player in basically one season. In doing so, the point has become distorted. 

 

To simplify, what are you getting from a great RB for $13m/year that you can't get from a stable of replacement level players for $4-5m? And is that difference really changing the outlook of your team?

 

Take it a step further. Once you have a good QB, that QB is elevating the play of everyone around him. That would include your replacement level RB room. So now we're probably shrinking the gap between your $13m/year RB and the third round rookie that could take his place for a fraction of the cost.

 

And then, what's really going to break people is when I argue that trying to get full value out of your highly paid RB has a good chance of hurting your offense, especially if it means you're taking the ball out of the hands of your good QB. If you put JT on the Chiefs and try to get your money's worth out of him, you're probably restricting Mahomes' ability to power the offense, which is likely going to be counter productive from an efficiency standpoint.

 

I agree that none of this is JT's fault. I have nothing against him, he's been a workhorse, durable, effective, and a good teammate. He shouldn't be punished because the Colts have been bad at QB. But especially in 2021, we saw the limitations that an offense with substandard QB play faces, even when your RB is outstanding.

 

Hopefully JT continues to hold up physically. But the reality is none of the highly paid backs have done so in recent history. CMC has missed significant time, Elliott and Cook got cut as soon as it was tenable, Mixon took a pay cut, etc. We're seeing an obvious trend around Year 5, or sooner, that RBs start to diminish. The exception is Derrick Henry, but we know it's coming. Getting three more good years out of JT would be a huge win.

 

As an aside, just briefly on WRs, I think we're reaching a point where there are so many good WRs in each draft that it's hard to get behind the idea of paying $20m/year for anyone who isn't an absolute game breaker. I like Pittman, but I'd be fine with letting him walk, especially if he's trying to get Terry McLaurin money.

 

This.  

[Nickster]

42 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Not even a little, Nick.    Leveon Bell is a cautionary tale on what NOT to do, on how NOT to handle your business.   
 

Bell didn’t play at all in 2018, and didn’t collect one dollar of a $14m salary in the prime of his career.   He never recovered his playing form because he’s not the brightest bulb.   
 

Yes, he fleeced the NYJ in 2019, and was in such bad shape and didn’t play well, he was soon enough not a NY Jet anymore.  He could have made much much more had he handled his business well.   He didn’t. 
 

Bell made a series of bad decisions which ultimately cut his own career short and he never made what he could have made had he been smarter.   

 

And I’m sure the situation is much worse for RB’s today.   The situation is dramatically worse.   As you know, the  market has collapsed in the last 2-3 years.  I’m hopeful that JT handles his business far better than Bell handled his 4-5 years ago.  

I just don’t think JT would ruin his career by sitting out man.   I just don’t.  
 

Bell apparently had a bit of a self discipline issue.  I don’t know that JT has that.

 

Agree to disagree.

[dw49]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

We're taking a very generalized comment -- even good RBs don't raise the ceiling of your offense -- and applying it to one player in basically one season. In doing so, the point has become distorted. 

 

To simplify, what are you getting from a great RB for $13m/year that you can't get from a stable of replacement level players for $4-5m? And is that difference really changing the outlook of your team?

 

Take it a step further. Once you have a good QB, that QB is elevating the play of everyone around him. That would include your replacement level RB room. So now we're probably shrinking the gap between your $13m/year RB and the third round rookie that could take his place for a fraction of the cost.

 

And then, what's really going to break people is when I argue that trying to get full value out of your highly paid RB has a good chance of hurting your offense, especially if it means you're taking the ball out of the hands of your good QB. If you put JT on the Chiefs and try to get your money's worth out of him, you're probably restricting Mahomes' ability to power the offense, which is likely going to be counter productive from an efficiency standpoint.

 

I agree that none of this is JT's fault. I have nothing against him, he's been a workhorse, durable, effective, and a good teammate. He shouldn't be punished because the Colts have been bad at QB. But especially in 2021, we saw the limitations that an offense with substandard QB play faces, even when your RB is outstanding.

 

Hopefully JT continues to hold up physically. But the reality is none of the highly paid backs have done so in recent history. CMC has missed significant time, Elliott and Cook got cut as soon as it was tenable, Mixon took a pay cut, etc. We're seeing an obvious trend around Year 5, or sooner, that RBs start to diminish. The exception is Derrick Henry, but we know it's coming. Getting three more good years out of JT would be a huge win.

 

As an aside, just briefly on WRs, I think we're reaching a point where there are so many good WRs in each draft that it's hard to get behind the idea of paying $20m/year for anyone who isn't an absolute game breaker. I like Pittman, but I'd be fine with letting him walk, especially if he's trying to get Terry McLaurin money.

 

 

I agree with some of what you have but I think you are understating the value of a RB like Taylor. There really is not a lot to go back and forth on this. I guess I could try to point out that 12-13 million is not a lot of money in today's NFL. Ryan Kelly is costing 10 mill , Braden Smith 19 mill , seems to me Taylor should be paid . I guess teams value backs differently. This year we had 2 RB's go in the top 12. Other years really good college backs go much later than projected. I guess we just have a different viewpoint on this one.

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

I agree with some of what you have but I think you are understating the value of a RB like Taylor. There really is not a lot to go back and forth on this. I guess I could try to point out that 12-13 million is not a lot of money in today's NFL. Ryan Kelly is costing 10 mill , Braden Smith 19 mill , seems to me Taylor should be paid . I guess teams value backs differently. This year we had 2 RB's go in the top 12. Other years really good college backs go much later than projected. I guess we just have a different viewpoint on this one.

 

Yeah, it's less than 6% of the cap right now (averaged over the next 3 seasons it's probably less than 5% of the projected cap), it's not going to break us. And I've stated that I'd be on board with paying JT $13m/year for about three years.

 

But, generally speaking, the value of the RB like JT is probably not worthy of a top tier contract. Strictly talking about impact on team performance, the difference between JT and a stable of backs is probably not very dramatic, especially if you have a good player and a good QB. 

 

You mentioned the draft, two backs in the top 12 is a clear outlier in recent years. And still, as you say, good backs go in later rounds. The value is there. In fact, the next back drafted in 2023 went at #52.

 

The Falcons were third in the NFL in rushing last year, and they spent $4m on the RB position. They drafted Tyler Allgeier in the 5th round and he gave them 1,000 yards, plus they ran Cordarelle Patterson 144 times. Now I don't necessarily want a patchwork RB room, but it can work.

[Solid84]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

We're taking a very generalized comment -- even good RBs don't raise the ceiling of your offense -- and applying it to one player in basically one season. In doing so, the point has become distorted. 

 

To simplify, what are you getting from a great RB for $13m/year that you can't get from a stable of replacement level players for $4-5m? And is that difference really changing the outlook of your team?

 

Take it a step further. Once you have a good QB, that QB is elevating the play of everyone around him. That would include your replacement level RB room. So now we're probably shrinking the gap between your $13m/year RB and the third round rookie that could take his place for a fraction of the cost.

 

And then, what's really going to break people is when I argue that trying to get full value out of your highly paid RB has a good chance of hurting your offense, especially if it means you're taking the ball out of the hands of your good QB. If you put JT on the Chiefs and try to get your money's worth out of him, you're probably restricting Mahomes' ability to power the offense, which is likely going to be counter productive from an efficiency standpoint.

 

I agree that none of this is JT's fault. I have nothing against him, he's been a workhorse, durable, effective, and a good teammate. He shouldn't be punished because the Colts have been bad at QB. But especially in 2021, we saw the limitations that an offense with substandard QB play faces, even when your RB is outstanding.

 

Hopefully JT continues to hold up physically. But the reality is none of the highly paid backs have done so in recent history. CMC has missed significant time, Elliott and Cook got cut as soon as it was tenable, Mixon took a pay cut, etc. We're seeing an obvious trend around Year 5, or sooner, that RBs start to diminish. The exception is Derrick Henry, but we know it's coming. Getting three more good years out of JT would be a huge win.

 

As an aside, just briefly on WRs, I think we're reaching a point where there are so many good WRs in each draft that it's hard to get behind the idea of paying $20m/year for anyone who isn't an absolute game breaker. I like Pittman, but I'd be fine with letting him walk, especially if he's trying to get Terry McLaurin money.

 

100% agree with this. 
 

[Moosejawcolt]

17 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I was guessing the $6.5 reference was connected to what Sanders received from Carolina. 
 

If by replaceable, you’re factoring in salary,  that wouldn’t happen this year with JT only making $4.3m.     The discussion would come in 24 and 25 when the Colts could use the Tag.   But note, that a number of teams have tagged their top RB,  (Barkley, Jacobs and one other I believe?)  so some NFL teams think Tagging a top RB is still a good idea.  

I don’t think this is as cut and dry as you seem to think it is.   

It is cut and dry. He is coming off an injury. He has one year remaining on his contract. The Colts can franchise him after next year. The rb market has been set. I think what people  r forgetting is Steichen. Does he see Taylor as the guy in his offence? Does he see him as a 3 down back? Does his skill set fit what he wants to do? I feel that people are not taking into a count Steichen's role in wanting to sit back evaluate each player and how they fit this offence moving forward.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Moosejawcolt said:

It is cut and dry. He is coming off an injury. He has one year remaining on his contract. The Colts can franchise him after next year. The rb market has been set. I think what people  r forgetting is Steichen. Does he see Taylor as the guy in his offence? Does he see him as a 3 down back? Does his skill set fit what he wants to do? I feel that people are not taking into a count Steichen's role in wanting to sit back evaluate each player and how they fit this offence moving forward.

This is true.   Ballard said so in his recent 21 minute news conference.   CB stressed the team is coming off a 4-win season season and there’s a new coaching staff.  So some time is needed to see how the new system meshes with the players.   The loser in this scenario is clearly Taylor. 
 

Ballard tried to leave the door open a little by saying he’s open to signing Taylor DURING the season.   Now whether things work out fir this to happen is another story.  A lot of things would have to go right.   Plus Irsay would have to agree, and I’m not convinced he’s ready to do that.  

[NewColtsFan]

7 hours ago, Nickster said:

I just don’t think JT would ruin his career by sitting out man.   I just don’t.  
 

Bell apparently had a bit of a self discipline issue.  I don’t know that JT has that.

 

Agree to disagree.

Agree to disagree?     Huh? 

I’ve been saying what you said in most every Taylor post I’ve made.   That the odds are low (not zero) that he’d screw up his career. 
 

I think we just agreed.   100 percent.  
 

 

[Stephen]

On 7/27/2023 at 2:03 PM, Superman said:

 

Seems like you're being melodramatic to make a point.

 

Here's the harsh, heartless way that a team would handle RBs if they wanted to be fully cutthroat about it. Draft a RB in the top 75 every two years, run them into the ground, and let them walk when they hit free agency. Every once in a while, if you hit on a star level player, trade him after Year 3. The recent history of RBs on second contracts is that the team doesn't get a return for their money, and the player doesn't last to the end of the contract. So don't play in that sandbox at all. Draft young backs, churn and burn, and don't spend a bunch of cap space trying to keep them.

 

Now, I like JT. I'd be okay with the Colts paying a premium to keep him for the next two or three years, because I think he's that good. But having a player like him at RB is a luxury, at best, and probably doesn't raise the ceiling of your team's offense. And if I can get 75-80% of JT's production for 15-20% of the cost, strategically, it makes more sense to replace him than it does to pay him like a star RB on a second contract.

A home run threat like taylor paired with Richardson is a nightmare  scenario for defenses. We need to keep him around for atleast 4 more years

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, Stephen said:

A home run threat like taylor paired with Richardson is a nightmare  scenario for defenses. We need to keep him around for atleast 4 more years

This year and 2 franchise tags = 3 years. Close enough?

[Stephen]

14 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

This year and 2 franchise tags = 3 years. Close enough?

Atleast until we get a suitable replacement 

[w87r]

5 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

This year and 2 franchise tags = 3 years. Close enough?

And it looks like projected tag has dropped to a projected $11.625m next, from $13m. So it has already dropped about $1.5m

 

Which would put the 2nd tag at $13.95m

 

 

That totals $25.575m over the 2 years.

 

With his 2023 $5.1m cap hit($4.3m actually cash), puts the investment with this apply at 3yrs $30m.