Jonathan Taylor comments on his contract/Request trade (Merge)

[Solid84]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

There again, I can say QB's like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Big Ben and Pat Mahomes didn't need a top 5 RB (top 5 paid RB to win a SB). They have accounted for 15 SB wins since 2001, so one RB in 22 years is misleading when 15 times teams had a QB that could just take over a game. Most teams would benefit bigtime with having a top 5 RB/top 5 paid RB because they don't have a Top 5 QB like the guys I mentioned above. Imagine Josh Allen with JT? Bills would probably be unstoppable. I seriously doubt the Bills ever win a SB with Allen because they have very little run game. If I was them, I would go after Cook and pay him big for a couple of years.

 

I would bet my life savings that Daniel Jones never wins a SB without a top 5/top 5 paid RB. Without Barkley, they won't even make the playoffs.

Top QBs win SBs. Top RBs don't. It's rare for a RB to just take over a season and it hasn't really happened in decades. QBs taking over a season happens every year. You chase what wins until you get it, you don't bet your money on something that hasn't worked for a long time, it's just bad business.

 

I'd bet money on Daniel Jones not winning the Super Bowl even with Barkley. Jones is just not that good.

 

When was the last time a less than great to elite QB won the Super Bowl? Flacco in 2012? Then Brad Johnson with the Bucs in 2003? I guess you could argue Eli Manning? The common theme among those teams though were elite defenses, not RBs.

[NFLfan]

2 hours ago, Solid84 said:

When was the last time a less than great to elite QB won the Super Bowl? Flacco in 2012?

 

I like Stafford but he was not a "great or elite" QB when the Rams won its most recent Super Bowl. They had an all-around good team.

 

[Nickster]

11 hours ago, Dingus McGirt said:

The RB position is valuable.  But, the players are so interchangeable - they, as individuals, aren’t.  Sounds nonsensical, eh?

Maybe but it appears to be accurate .

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 hours ago, Solid84 said:

Top QBs win SBs. Top RBs don't. It's rare for a RB to just take over a season and it hasn't really happened in decades. QBs taking over a season happens every year. You chase what wins until you get it, you don't bet your money on something that hasn't worked for a long time, it's just bad business.

 

I'd bet money on Daniel Jones not winning the Super Bowl even with Barkley. Jones is just not that good.

 

When was the last time a less than great to elite QB won the Super Bowl? Flacco in 2012? Then Brad Johnson with the Bucs in 2003? I guess you could argue Eli Manning? The common theme among those teams though were elite defenses, not RBs.

Every Dynasty in the SB era since the 70's had a top 5 RB in the league/top 5 paid RB on their team. My definition of Dynasty = winning 3 or more SB's or at least a team that goes Back to Back.

 

The 70's Steelers - won in 1974/75/78/79, they had Franco Harris.

 

The 70's Dolphins - won in 1972/73 = Back to Back, they had Csonka and Morris. Went undefeated in 1972 and Csonka and Morris both rushed for 1000 yards. Csonka was their main Bell Cow.

 

The 80's 49ers - won in 1981/84/88/89, they had Roger Craig for 3 of those - 84/88/89. Craig was the 1st RB in history to have 1000 Yards rushing and 1000 yards receiving which happened in 1985. 

 

The 90's Cowboys - won in 1992/93/95, they had Emmitt Smith.

 

The 90's Broncos - won in 1997/98 = Back to Back, they had Terrell Davis.

 

The 2000's Patriots - won in 2001/03/04. That was their first run and the last team to win a Back to Back. Corey Dillon was arguably the best RB in football in 2004 with 1635 yards and 12 TD's. He even made the Patriots all 2000's team for the decade. He also made the Patriots all Dynasty team.

 

*Chiefs aren't a Dynasty yet, they need to win 1 more or Back to Back. They are on their way though.

 

Every Dynasty had 1 thing in common, they had a Top 5 RB on their team that was a Bell Cow.

[Peter Nova]

5 hours ago, Solid84 said:

Top QBs win SBs. Top RBs don't. It's rare for a RB to just take over a season and it hasn't really happened in decades. QBs taking over a season happens every year. You chase what wins until you get it, you don't bet your money on something that hasn't worked for a long time, it's just bad business.

 

I'd bet money on Daniel Jones not winning the Super Bowl even with Barkley. Jones is just not that good.

 

When was the last time a less than great to elite QB won the Super Bowl? Flacco in 2012? Then Brad Johnson with the Bucs in 2003? I guess you could argue Eli Manning? The common theme among those teams though were elite defenses, not RBs.

 

It's rare but the Brad Johnson's and Flacco's should not be looked at like these RPO/Dual Threat QBs, who still fail to dominate post season and SB play on a consistent basis.. It may change with the league lacking in elite passers.

[Solid84]

29 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Every Dynasty in the SB era since the 70's had a top 5 RB in the league/top 5 paid RB on their team. My definition of Dynasty = winning 3 or more SB's or at least a team that goes Back to Back.

 

The 70's Steelers - won in 1974/75/78/79, they had Franco Harris.

 

The 70's Dolphins - won in 1972/73 = Back to Back, they had Csonka and Morris. Went undefeated in 1972 and Csonka and Morris both rushed for 1000 yards. Csonka was their main Bell Cow.

 

The 80's 49ers - won in 1981/84/88/89, they had Roger Craig for 3 of those - 84/88/89. Craig was the 1st RB in history to have 1000 Yards rushing and 1000 yards receiving which happened in 1985. 

 

The 90's Cowboys - won in 1992/93/95, they had Emmitt Smith.

 

The 90's Broncos - won in 1997/98 = Back to Back, they had Terrell Davis.

 

The 2000's Patriots - won in 2001/03/04. That was their first run and the last team to win a Back to Back. Corey Dillon was arguably the best RB in football in 2004 with 1635 yards and 12 TD's. He even made the Patriots all 2000's team for the decade. He also made the Patriots all Dynasty team.

 

*Chiefs aren't a Dynasty yet, they need to win 1 more or Back to Back. They are on their way though.

 

Every Dynasty had 1 thing in common, they had a Top 5 RB on their team that was a Bell Cow.

This is what you don’t seem to get - it doesn’t matter what happened 20+ years ago. The game’s vastly different from the 70s, 80s, 90s or even early 2000s. 

Also, if you think the Pats won their rings on the back of a RB you haven’t watched Tom Brady or the Patriots after he left. 
 

You either have an elite QB or a near historically good defense or you lose. That’s the game now. It’s pass first. Teams mostly run to change up the pace and if they run a lot it’s because they have an athletic QB that can catch teams off-balance - not because of a RB. 

[Solid84]

3 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

I like Stafford but he was not a "great or elite" QB when the Rams won its most recent Super Bowl. They had an all-around good team.

 

I don’t agree, but be that as it may. The Rams did have a great defense though. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

23 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

This is what you don’t seem to get - it doesn’t matter what happened 20+ years ago. The game’s vastly different from the 70s, 80s, 90s or even early 2000s. 

Also, if you think the Pats won their rings on the back of a RB you haven’t watched Tom Brady or the Patriots after he left. 
 

You either have an elite QB or a near historically good defense or you lose. That’s the game now. It’s pass first. Teams mostly run to change up the pace and if they run a lot it’s because they have an athletic QB that can catch teams off-balance - not because of a RB. 

I get it but lets see if any teams now become Dynasty's. Chiefs perhaps, 1 team out of 32 without having an elite Top 5 RB. Mahomes is like Brady and Peyton is the only reason why they may win 3 or 4  SB's. If the Bengals had a Top 5 RB, don't you think they would have won the SB over the last 2 years? Same for the Bills? I get it, you just think the RB position is expendable or not important. Of course, every team would love to have a top 5 QB in the league, top 10 at worse. That is the most important position on the field. Not having a top RB to go along with it makes things tough to become a dynasty. If the 2000's Colts from 2003-2009 could've kept Edge James, I have no doubt we would have at least won 2 SB's or maybe a Back to Back in 2006 then in 2007.

 

By your logic and some others in here, why not just get rid of the RB position all together? Lets just have 5 Offensive Lineman, 1 TE, and 4 WR's to go with QB  .

 

Colts all-time team:

QB - Peyton Manning

in the RB slot - TY Hilton

WR1 - Marv

WR2 - Reggie

WR3 - Raymond Berry

TE - John Mackey

Then the 5 O.Lineman. Who needs to run it? We could always let TY run a sweep occasionally. 

 

[Solid84]

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I get it but lets see if any teams now become Dynasty's. Chiefs perhaps, 1 team out of 32 without having an elite Top 5 RB. Mahomes is like Brady and Peyton is the only reason why they may win 3 or 4  SB's. If the Bengals had a Top 5 RB, don't you think they would have won the SB over the last 2 years? Same for the Bills? I get it, you just think the RB position is expendable or not important. Of course, every team would love to have a top 5 QB in the league, top 10 at worse. That is the most important position on the field. Not having a top RB to go along with it makes things tough to become a dynasty. If the 2000's Colts from 2003-2009 could've kept Edge James, I have no doubt we would have at least won 2 SB's or maybe a Back to Back in 2006 then in 2007.

 

By your logic and some others in here, why not just get rid of the RB position all together? Lets just have 5 Offensive Lineman, 1 TE, and 4 WR's to go with QB  .

 

Colts all-time team:

QB - Peyton Manning

in the RB slot - TY Hilton

WR1 - Marv

WR2 - Reggie

WR3 - Raymond Berry

TE - John Mackey

Then the 5 O.Lineman. Who needs to run it? We could always let TY run a sweep occasionally. 

 

I’m not saying we should get rid of the RB position nor have I ever implied it should be gotten rid of. It has a function. It’s just not a particularly valuable position for teams right now and that’s not likely to change soon when the NFL encourages a pass first playstyle. 
 

Honestly, I think the position is going to evolve to focus on pass blocking and safety valve duties as primary traits wanted from RBs. Of course they need to run, but that’s likely to be RBBC style rather than one featured back in my opinion. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I’m not saying we should get rid of the RB position nor have I ever implied it should be gotten rid of. It has a function. It’s just not a particularly valuable position for teams right now and that’s not likely to change soon when the NFL encourages a pass first playstyle. 
 

Honestly, I think the position is going to evolve to focus on pass blocking and safety valve duties as primary traits wanted from RBs. Of course they need to run, but that’s likely to be RBBC style rather than one featured back in my opinion. 

If I have the best QB in the league, obviously I am all for RB by committee and spending my money in other places. Having a Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Pat Mahomes, etc.. Of course that is obvious to anyone as they would do the same. Those QB's are arguably the best that has ever played this game. Without a top 5 RB, I will believe it when I see it as in Burrow, Hurts, or Allen ever winning a SB. Hurts came close last year but had a career year. I am talking about winning it all, not 13-3 every year then losing in the playoffs. Even Brady depended heavily on Dillon in 2004 before he was really Tom Brady that was dominant from 2007-2020.

 

Imagine if Andrew Luck would have had a top 5 RB from 2012-2014? My God, we would have dominated. We had no run game at all during these years and still won 11 games every season.

[Superman]

14 hours ago, Dingus McGirt said:

The RB position is valuable.  But, the players are so interchangeable - they, as individuals, aren’t.  Sounds nonsensical, eh?

 

Don't know if you meant to quote me or not...

 

To be nitpicky, I'd push back slightly on the "interchangeable" part. I think there's a difference between a great runner and a good runner, and there's a difference between a playmaking back and a 'we can run the offense with him' back. And then there are specialty guys, who can't handle a full time role, but can be effective when used in a very specific way. I don't necessary agree that the players are interchangeable. 

 

But I do agree that there is a diminishing return in the overall impact to the offense. If you have a great every down back who can produce at a high level, it's a good thing. But is it worth paying 4-5 times more for that player, compared to a replacement level player + a change of pace player to supplement? Does the great back actually improve your offense enough that it's a competitive advantage for your team to pay him $12-15m/year?

 

If we're talking about the difference between a great QB and a replacement level QB, yes, pay the franchise level guy $50m/year, and figure out the rest, because he makes your team that much better. That's not true of RBs. The Falcons had an amazing rushing attack last year, with the most random collective of backfield players imaginable. 

 

And that's setting aside the discussion about longevity. Let's just say you could go year to year with a player like JT. We still need to answer the question about how much he can actually improve your offense. 

 

I really like JT. Just like a lot of other RBs, he's maybe the best overall athlete on the roster (Richardson might give him a run for his money), his H/W/S is outstanding, he can handle a heavy workload, etc. But like @stitches said earlier, it's probably a competitive disadvantage to pay any RB elite money (whatever that is anymore). And that's even assuming said RB is producing at a high level, let alone if he starts breaking down.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Talking about RB's. Just for craps and giggles, If I had a team and switched things around as in give my RB's all the money and not pay my WR's top dollar I would still be hard to beat even without a great defense or a Top 5 QB, or a Top 5 WR. 

 

Give me just a good defense, they have to be good and a defense that creates Turnovers, give me a Top 10 QB, he has to be Top 10 = Lamar Jackson for example. I could even win the SB. I will just take Pittman and Pierce our WR's and a TE like Andrews so my passing game would still be a threat, give me Barkley and JT in a 2 back offense with Lamar at QB. There is not 1 team that could stop that offense. Opposing teams heads would be spinning and not know what way I am running or who is running it between the 2 backs and even Lamar. They can't play 8 men in the box either because Andrews would eat them alive, or Pittman would have easy slant plays all day for 7 or 8 yards. Hell Pierce would probably have the occasional bomb to him. With at least an above average Line and that running game, I could control the clock (TOP) and wear defenses out by the 4th Qtr. 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

10 hours ago, Solid84 said:

Top QBs win SBs. Top RBs don't. It's rare for a RB to just take over a season and it hasn't really happened in decades. QBs taking over a season happens every year. You chase what wins until you get it, you don't bet your money on something that hasn't worked for a long time, it's just bad business.

 

I'd bet money on Daniel Jones not winning the Super Bowl even with Barkley. Jones is just not that good.

 

When was the last time a less than great to elite QB won the Super Bowl? Flacco in 2012? Then Brad Johnson with the Bucs in 2003? I guess you could argue Eli Manning? The common theme among those teams though were elite defenses, not RBs.

I think your argument is backed up recently because most of the Super Bowls have been won by Brady or Mahomes..

 

I think Nick Foles won the SB very recently, and they invested a lot in the run game, even getting Jay Ajayi during the season, I think...

 

I agree you don't need elite RB, but I don't think having one is a deterrent to winning a SB. You definitely need a great QB or some in-form QB like Foles/Eli/Flacco/Stafford with good scheming around them.

 

So, basically a lot of things need to come together to win a Super Bowl, especially great coaching if you don't have someone like Brady or Mahomes at QB. Even then, it could prove to be unlucky as in the cases of Burrow/ Allen / Hurts. 

 

I don't see there's a case for or against having great RB. Every bit helps.

 

But, paying elite RB money, and elite QB money to slightly above average QB like Vikings have done recently takes the team nowhere. As said earlier, a lot of good need to align at the right time. 

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

I think your argument is backed up recently because most of the Super Bowls have been won by Brady or Mahomes..

 

I think Nick Foles won the SB very recently, and they invested a lot in the run game, even getting Jay Ajayi during the season, I think...

 

I agree you don't need elite RB, but I don't think having one is a deterrent to winning a SB. You definitely need a great QB or some in-form QB like Foles/Eli/Flacco/Stafford with good scheming around them.

 

So, basically a lot of things need to come together to win a Super Bowl, especially great coaching if you don't have someone like Brady or Mahomes at QB. Even then, it could prove to be unlucky as in the cases of Burrow/ Allen / Hurts. 

 

I don't see there's a case for or against having great RB. Every bit helps.

 

But, paying elite RB money, and elite QB money to slightly above average QB like Vikings have done recently takes the team nowhere. As said earlier, a lot of good need to align at the right time. 

An offense needs TD scoring threats, or FD chain moving threats.  Those players require talent.  Its not as easy to rely on the play caller to scheme up the right play at the right time for that Situational Talent to succeed.  A player needs to make plays and can't rely on his OC to put him in the right spot all of the time.

 

I respect JT for his rare speed, which can score a TD on any play.  That makes him worth more than most RBs by a good margin.  But his below average pass blocking really hinders the offense in other ways.  A team can't have a guy back there that really is just only premium at running the ball.  That's the dilemma with JTs value, IMO.

[VikingsFanInChennai]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

An offense needs TD scoring threats, or FD chain moving threats.  Those players require talent.  Its not as easy to rely on the play caller to scheme up the right play at the right time for that Situational Talent to succeed.  A player needs to make plays and can't rely on his OC to put him in the right spot all of the time.

 

 

I think Foles and Stafford did make game changing plays repeatedly while the scheme helped them a lot to play above their usual career level. 

 

The example you're referring to was Jared Goff in SB, of course scheme alone can't help. So much need to come together to win SB, as for QBs, yes, I wouldn't Bank on having average QBs to step above their level to win SB. I would rather try to draft and develop or get a top 10 QB, and hope the stars align sooner after that.

 

Agreed about JT's weakness, I think Colts can draft RB high as they're not in the immediate cusp of being a SB contender. 

[Dingus McGirt]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Don't know if you meant to quote me or not...

 

To be nitpicky, I'd push back slightly on the "interchangeable" part. I think there's a difference between a great runner and a good runner, and there's a difference between a playmaking back and a 'we can run the offense with him' back. And then there are specialty guys, who can't handle a full time role, but can be effective when used in a very specific way. I don't necessary agree that the players are interchangeable. 

 

But I do agree that there is a diminishing return in the overall impact to the offense. If you have a great every down back who can produce at a high level, it's a good thing. But is it worth paying 4-5 times more for that player, compared to a replacement level player + a change of pace player to supplement? Does the great back actually improve your offense enough that it's a competitive advantage for your team to pay him $12-15m/year?

 

If we're talking about the difference between a great QB and a replacement level QB, yes, pay the franchise level guy $50m/year, and figure out the rest, because he makes your team that much better. That's not true of RBs. The Falcons had an amazing rushing attack last year, with the most random collective of backfield players imaginable. 

 

And that's setting aside the discussion about longevity. Let's just say you could go year to year with a player like JT. We still need to answer the question about how much he can actually improve your offense. 

 

I really like JT. Just like a lot of other RBs, he's maybe the best overall athlete on the roster (Richardson might give him a run for his money), his H/W/S is outstanding, he can handle a heavy workload, etc. But like @stitches said earlier, it's probably a competitive disadvantage to pay any RB elite money (whatever that is anymore). And that's even assuming said RB is producing at a high level, let alone if he starts breaking down.

Sorry, Supe.  Certainly didn’t mean repeat something you had said.  Don’t recall reading your original.  Please forgive me!

[stitches]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Don't know if you meant to quote me or not...

 

To be nitpicky, I'd push back slightly on the "interchangeable" part. I think there's a difference between a great runner and a good runner, and there's a difference between a playmaking back and a 'we can run the offense with him' back. And then there are specialty guys, who can't handle a full time role, but can be effective when used in a very specific way. I don't necessary agree that the players are interchangeable. 

 

But I do agree that there is a diminishing return in the overall impact to the offense. If you have a great every down back who can produce at a high level, it's a good thing. But is it worth paying 4-5 times more for that player, compared to a replacement level player + a change of pace player to supplement? Does the great back actually improve your offense enough that it's a competitive advantage for your team to pay him $12-15m/year?

Yep... there is difference in skill... but at RB specifically that difference in skill does NOT manifest in huge difference in production/winning. I've seen some studies that suggest the quality of the RB is about the 3d-4th most important factor for the quality of the run game... the quality of run blocking being the most important, then quality of ... the QB's passing... and then comes the RB's skill. And this in addition to the running game in general not being highly correlated with wins adds even more to the case for not overpaying RBs. 

 

And it's a bit of a shame, because the RBs are among the most fascinating athletes on a football field. Some of the things they do are truly freakish... but it just... doesn't provide the value that would command huge paydays... Here's one from today... 

 

No comment. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

If we're talking about the difference between a great QB and a replacement level QB, yes, pay the franchise level guy $50m/year, and figure out the rest, because he makes your team that much better. That's not true of RBs. The Falcons had an amazing rushing attack last year, with the most random collective of backfield players imaginable. 

Yeah... for some positions the even marginal difference in skill might manifest in big differences in winning. RB is just not one of those...

4 hours ago, Superman said:

And that's setting aside the discussion about longevity. Let's just say you could go year to year with a player like JT. We still need to answer the question about how much he can actually improve your offense. 

 

I really like JT. Just like a lot of other RBs, he's maybe the best overall athlete on the roster (Richardson might give him a run for his money), his H/W/S is outstanding, he can handle a heavy workload, etc. But like @stitches said earlier, it's probably a competitive disadvantage to pay any RB elite money (whatever that is anymore). And that's even assuming said RB is producing at a high level, let alone if he starts breaking down.

I wonder if we would have already paid Taylor had he not suffered that injury last year and had he had a full productive healthy season? I think part of Ballard seemingly not rushing into a Taylor extension is that precisely... once a RB starts breaking down, his value drops significantly. And Taylor himself has taken tons and tons of snaps already. He had someting like 1000 rushing attempts in college. And has now had 750 in his first 3 years for the Colts. A lot of RBs start breaking down when they reach that type of accumulated workload... Maybe that's part of the consideration. 

[Solid84]

32 minutes ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

I think your argument is backed up recently because most of the Super Bowls have been won by Brady or Mahomes..

 

I think Nick Foles won the SB very recently, and they invested a lot in the run game, even getting Jay Ajayi during the season, I think...

 

I agree you don't need elite RB, but I don't think having one is a deterrent to winning a SB. You definitely need a great QB or some in-form QB like Foles/Eli/Flacco/Stafford with good scheming around them.

 

So, basically a lot of things need to come together to win a Super Bowl, especially great coaching if you don't have someone like Brady or Mahomes at QB. Even then, it could prove to be unlucky as in the cases of Burrow/ Allen / Hurts. 

 

I don't see there's a case for or against having great RB. Every bit helps.

 

But, paying elite RB money, and elite QB money to slightly above average QB like Vikings have done recently takes the team nowhere. As said earlier, a lot of good need to align at the right time. 

To the bolded. It’s not about ability. Of course an elite RB is good for the team. It’s the elite money they will demand. RBs just aren’t worth spending big on. If a team is chasing Super Bowls they are likely close to the cap and spending $14-17m/year on a RB takes away from your other (currently) more valuable positions. 
 

Right now, with us possibly 2-5 years away from being anybody, paying JT probably isn’t a huge problem. Or it wouldn’t be if we had the cap space the Bears do. But we’re not rebuilding. We have a cap space of $24-25m and paying JT $14m/year is going to half that cap space. Pittman’s extension is also coming up which would definitely leave us bumping the cap and we’re not even contending yet. 
 

Also, overpaying for QBs isn’t the solution either. 

[NFLfan]

6 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I don’t agree, but be that as it may. The Rams did have a great defense though. 

 

You think Stafford is elite? Do you think Cousins is? I don't but his numbers are very similar if not better than Stafford.

 

I like Stafford  but he is far from an elite QB.

[Peter Nova]

3 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

You think Stafford is elite? Do you think Cousins is? I don't but his numbers are very similar if not better than Stafford.

 

I like Stafford  but he is far from an elite QB.

 

Stafford in his prime was elite QB on some terrible Detroit Lions teams.  Cousins is a good QB, not in the top tier but good. 

[Solid84]

9 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

You think Stafford is elite? Do you think Cousins is? I don't but his numbers are very similar if not better than Stafford.

 

I like Stafford  but he is far from an elite QB.

I rank like this:

 

Elite

Great

Good

Average

Below Average

Bad

Not NFL Level

 

I think you need a QB that’s at least great to have a chance at a Super Bowl title. 
 

QBs worse than great have won Super Bowls, but they’ve either played exceptional games above what their level would suggest and/or had elite defenses. 
 

I think Stafford is great or at least was.  He had some really good years with the Lions, but they’ve been a clown show since forever and wasted his best years. 
 

Cousins has had better teams than Stafford besides the Rams in my opinion. Also, stats don’t measure intangibles. 

[NFLfan]

2 minutes ago, Peter Nova said:

 

Stafford in his prime was elite QB on some terrible Detroit Lions teams.  Cousins is a good QB, not in the top tier but good. 

 

I like Stafford but check out the numbers. Stafford and Cousins have almost identical numbers. Stafford also played with a HoF receiver in Calvin Johnson.

 

Note: I don't think Cousins is elite. 

[NFLfan]

1 minute ago, Solid84 said:

Also, stats don’t measure intangibles. 

 

I do agree with that. Very much so.

[Dunk]

3 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

I like Stafford but check out the numbers. Stafford and Cousins have almost identical numbers. Stafford also played with a HoF receiver in Calvin Johnson.

 

Note: I don't think Cousins is elite. 

 Obviously You do not look at the world through purple colored glasses.

[VikingsFanInChennai]

4 hours ago, Dunk said:

 Obviously You do not look at the world through purple colored glasses.

Even with my purple colored glasses, Cousins makes it hard for him to be called great in the above scale. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I rank like this:

 

Elite

Great

Good

Average

Below Average

Bad

Not NFL Level

 

I think you need a QB that’s at least great to have a chance at a Super Bowl title. 
 

QBs worse than great have won Super Bowls, but they’ve either played exceptional games above what their level would suggest and/or had elite defenses. 
 

I think Stafford is great or at least was.  He had some really good years with the Lions, but they’ve been a clown show since forever and wasted his best years. 
 

Cousins has had better teams than Stafford besides the Rams in my opinion. Also, stats don’t measure intangibles. 

Pretty good scale so I gave you a LIKE.

 

My scale is:

Great

Very good 

Good

Above average 

Average 

Below average 

Bad

 

I have Matt Stafford at the very good level for his career. Cousins on the good level. Great would be Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Patrick Mahomes, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Big Ben. Very good would be Lamar Jackson, Philip Rivers, Matt Ryan, Eli Manning for a few examples. Someone that is above average for his career is a QB like Ryan Tannehill. Not quite good but can win you some games and be good at times. Kirk Cousins is good but not quite very good, jmo.

[stitches]

 

 

[Moosejawcolt]

On 7/21/2023 at 10:18 AM, Solid84 said:

I’m not saying we should get rid of the RB position nor have I ever implied it should be gotten rid of. It has a function. It’s just not a particularly valuable position for teams right now and that’s not likely to change soon when the NFL encourages a pass first playstyle. 
 

Honestly, I think the position is going to evolve to focus on pass blocking and safety valve duties as primary traits wanted from RBs. Of course they need to run, but that’s likely to be RBBC style rather than one featured back in my opinion. 

It's not its not a valued position. It's just that the game has changed. U can plug in play a rb coming out of college. In the old days, u needed that elite talented rb coming out of college. The objective was to stop the run. Now teams employ 3-4:receiver sets leaving a lot more space for rbs to gain yards. Therefore u don't need that elite talent anymore. A lot of these rbs would not flourish in the old days.  They would not be successful running into stacked boxes like the Sanders and Petersons of the day. It is much like wrs now a days. Thry are not being man handled off the line. They r running free off the line and finding open seams in the defensive zone. It is a lot less physical of a game and that's why u r seeing a lot more later picks excelling.

[Moosejawcolt]

On 7/21/2023 at 4:34 PM, NFLfan said:

 

I like Stafford but check out the numbers. Stafford and Cousins have almost identical numbers. Stafford also played with a HoF receiver in Calvin Johnson.

 

Note: I don't think Cousins is elite. 

He is just not on Monday night, Thursday night  or play offs. In other words big time televised games.

[TimetobringDfence!]

On 7/20/2023 at 4:26 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It seems fair but put yourself in Taylor's shoes. Taylor I am sure is going to be like, McCaffrey got 64 Mill over 4 years = 16 Mill a year. He also got 38 Mill guaranteed and plays the same position. Although I get McCaffrey is a better pass catcher but still Taylor could say I led the league in rushing yards and rushing TD's in 2021, McCaffrey has never done either. That is why I don't think Taylor asking for 14 Mill over 3 years at 42 Mill, with 25 Mill guaranteed is that outrageous. 

 

I put what I put in BOLD because I already know someone will say, pass catching 

I agree but McCaffery is on a championship caliber team that could afford that. The Colts really hinder themselves with that kind of contract with the state of the franchise. Taylor is my favorite player and deserves it but I'm not sure Indy can build how they want with that kind of contract this year. We have to see what's up with one of the highest paid olines in football, and hope it can be fixed.

[NewColtsFan]

7 minutes ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

I agree but McCaffery is on a championship caliber team that could afford that. The Colts really hinder themselves with that kind of contract with the state of the franchise. Taylor is my favorite player and deserves it but I'm not sure Indy can build how they want with that kind of contract this year. We have to see what's up with one of the highest paid olines in football, and hope it can be fixed.

FYI:

 

The salary cap is going up.  Way, way up.  At a much faster rate than before.   If the Colts want Taylor, they will have no problem affording him.   The question becomes will Taylor accept the Colts offer?    
 

Plus, a reminder, Taylor still has one more year on his rookie contract.  So he’s covered for 2023.    The Colts can always let him play out his rookie deal and Tag him in 24 and 25.  

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

I agree but McCaffery is on a championship caliber team that could afford that. The Colts really hinder themselves with that kind of contract with the state of the franchise. Taylor is my favorite player and deserves it but I'm not sure Indy can build how they want with that kind of contract this year. We have to see what's up with one of the highest paid olines in football, and hope it can be fixed.

About the salary cap going up….   Here are the numbers from Over The Cap . Com

 

2022:   $208.2

2023:   $224.8.   +16.6m

2024:   $256.      +31.2m

2025:   $282.      +26m

2026:   $308.      +26m

 

And, the cap numbers went down sharply in 20 and 21 because of Covid.  Both sides agreed to adjustments for the good of everyone.  But now there is lots of new TV and Streaming money for all 32 teams.  
 

[Solid84]

It’s a rough situation for RBs because they have their best years during the rookie contract.
It might actually be worth it for some of them to go undrafted, because UDFA contracts are only two years I believe?

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, Solid84 said:

It’s a rough situation for RBs because they have their best years during the rookie contract.
It might actually be worth it for some of them to go undrafted, because UDFA contracts are only two years I believe?

If certain teams are built to run quite a bit, I say quite a bit, then I see 0 reason why that RB should not get at least a 2nd contract. RB's that have been great don't start to fall off until there late 20's on average. That are RB's that have been great. That is going by the 45 years I have watched football. Had the Giants signed Barkley to a 3 yr deal for example, that only takes him upto 28 years old. I really hope with everything going on that it doesn't affect Taylor's way of thinking and he gives it his all/100% in 2023. His contract will be up after 2023, that is going to be interesting.  

[w87r]

8 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

It’s a rough situation for RBs because they have their best years during the rookie contract.
It might actually be worth it for some of them to go undrafted, because UDFA contracts are only two years I believe?

Then they would be ERFAs and get a low tender. That doesn't help. 

 

They need to hope they are drafted as high as possible, to get as much money as possible on rookie deal and try to negotiate extension after 3rd year. That can give them money in the pocket and some security for year 4, 5 and 6.

[2006Coltsbestever]

IMO, it is just my opinion (some may disagree) but Taylor's contract is something we need to take care of this season sometime. Otherwise it is going to be a huge distraction. Look out how the RB's are acting now to what happened to Barkley. Chubb isn't happy either. Get Taylor signed to something like a 3 year deal for 42 million = 14 a year million with 30 million guaranteed and call it a day. I think that is reasonable and I doubt Taylor could really complain about that. That would have to make him feel like he is wanted and important. 

 

I have to be honest, if I was Barkley I would sit out all year or until the Giants pay him what he deserves. I am sure he has enough money in the bank where he isn't eating McDonalds every day - If Barkley doesn't play it will also prove how mediocre the Giants actually are. I can't see them winning more than 7 games without Barkley. 

 

It is a passing league I get it, but there are outliers, Barkley and Taylor are 2 of them.

[Solid84]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If certain teams are built to run quite a bit, I say quite a bit, then I see 0 reason why that RB should not get at least a 2nd contract. RB's that have been great don't start to fall off until there late 20's on average. That are RB's that have been great. That is going by the 45 years I have watched football. Had the Giants signed Barkley to a 3 yr deal for example, that only takes him upto 28 years old. I really hope with everything going on that it doesn't affect Taylor's way of thinking and he gives it his all/100% in 2023. His contract will be up after 2023, that is going to be interesting.  

Well, if RBs’ primes on average are during their rookie contract and they often start dealing with injuries towards the end of their rookie contracts there’re plenty of reasons not to give them a 2nd contract. 
 

Barkley has had two healthy seasons out of five so far. I can certainly understand why the Giants are hesitating to reset the market with him.

   I don’t dispute he’s great, but if you’re looking at him maybe only playing 12-15 games a season, do you really want to pay him $14m+/year when the fall off to the next in line is maybe going to cost you one game over a full season?

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Well, if RBs’ primes on average are during their rookie contract and they often start dealing with injuries towards the end of their rookie contracts there’re plenty of reasons not to give them a 2nd contract. 
 

Barkley has had two healthy seasons out of five so far. I can certainly understand why the Giants are hesitating to reset the market with him.

   I don’t dispute he’s great, but if you’re looking at him maybe only playing 12-15 games a season, do you really want to pay him $14m+/year when the fall off to the next in line is maybe going to cost you one game over a full season?

If he got paid 14 mill a year, he wouldn't be re-setting the market though. McCaffrey is making 16 mill a year over 4 years with 38 Mill guaranteed. Unless I am missing something, I have never heard Barkley say he wanted to be the highest paid back in the league. He just wants a contract that is reasonably great, what he feels he is worth. 10 Mill a year on a franchise tag is an insult but that is my opinion.

 

By the way Barkley played in 16 games last year and was healthy to end the season. He had over 1300 yards with 10 TD's. Another thing is and I didn't even realize he was this great at pass catching but I looked up his stats and he caught 91 balls his rookie season and 57 last year. Despite being a great runner, the guy is capable of being a great receiver too. Catching 91 passes for a back is beyond great for 1 season. 57 is very good.

[Solid84]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If he got paid 14 mill a year, he wouldn't be re-setting the market though. McCaffrey is making 16 mill a year over 4 years with 38 Mill guaranteed. Unless I am missing something, I have never heard Barkley say he wanted to be the highest paid back in the league. He just wants a contract that is reasonably great, what he feels he is worth. 10 Mill a year on a franchise tag is an insult but that is my opinion.

 

By the way Barkley played in 16 games last year and was healthy to end the season. He had over 1300 yards with 10 TD's. Another thing is and I didn't even realize he was this great at pass catching but I looked up his stats and he caught 91 balls his rookie season and 57 last year. Despite being a great runner, the guy is capable of being a great receiver too. Catching 91 passes for a back is beyond great for 1 season. 57 is very good.

All I know is he turned down $11m/year. I’m guessing he’s looking for $13m+/year. 
 

I said he’s played two whole seasons out of five. His rookie year and last year (he sat out the last game to spare him for the playoffs). 
 

Barkley is definitely good in the passing, better than JT I think. I don’t know how good he is as a pass blocker. 
 

My point still stands though. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

All I know is he turned down $11m/year. I’m guessing he’s looking for $13m+/year. 
 

I said he’s played two whole seasons out of five. His rookie year and last year (he sat out the last game to spare him for the playoffs). 
 

Barkley is definitely good in the passing, better than JT I think. I don’t know how good he is as a pass blocker. 
 

My point still stands though. 

If he is looking for 13 Mill a year by your guess, that is reasonable. He has played 5 seasons and has had 1 season where he suffered a year ending injury, that was in year 2. The other 2 years you speak of where he did miss games, he still played in 13 games so it wasn't like he wasn't durable.

 

All I know is this, if Taylor doesn't get re-signed because he only wants a couple of more Mill than what we are offering, I will look at our FO as a joke and really start wondering if we want to win or not. If I was a Giants fan right now I would be livid.