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

[Superman]

3 hours ago, Nickster said:

 

The back thing is a baffler Supe.  

 

I was tracking with at least the reasonableness of the JT camp until that came out.  Like you, I don't think it was a good strategy likely to yield the desired outcome, but the back thing, if he told them he hurt his back in the off season, that's a shocking level of incompetence by the JT team, and a just mystifying lack of critical thinking skills by the Harvard level philosopher.

 

His premises seem flawed to the nth degree.  I guess the logic from there to here could be sound lol. 

 

I'm allowing for the possibility that the reports about the back injury are incomplete, if not entirely false. JT completely denied those reports.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[Nickster]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I'm allowing for the possibility that the reports about the back injury are incomplete, if not entirely false. JT completely denied those reports.

somebody lyin doe.

 

minus JT and or posse mentioning the back, I still think the deal is logically reasonable, but likely not to work.

 

 

[Moosejawcolt]

11 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

He certainly isn't doing himself any favors

https://twitter.com/VSiNLive/status/1686089348779831297?t=eNo9lzfUW5PvqslzHozO1A&s=19

[w87r]

Just now, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

 

Definitely worth repeating 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I'm allowing for the possibility that the reports about the back injury are incomplete, if not entirely false. JT completely denied those reports.

Jake Querry said the source of him having a back injury was as good as you can get. So someone is making it up or JT is lying. Pat Mcafee suspected that the source was Irsay.

[Superman]

4 hours ago, Nickster said:

 

I disagree.  Taylor would be a much much much hotter commodity if the league considered him a better pass catcher and protector.

 

I think that's obvious.

 

I don't think Kamara or McCaffrey would get $16m/year on the open market right now, let alone adding in draft compensation. JMO.

 

But a lot of that comes down to the fact that some of you are far more concerned with the perceived flaws in JT's game than I think is warranted. You obviously think less of his game and ability than I do.

[Nickster]

Just now, w87r said:

Definitely worth repeating 

What’s the gist of the vid.  Don’t watch many.  Just generally baffling or is he supporting any side?

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Two hundred forty SIX

But I wouldn't trust that assessment.  There is no link provided.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Jake Querry said the source of him having a back injury was as good as you can get. So someone is making it up or JT is lying. Pat Mcafee suspected that the source was Irsay.

 

That's fine. But we have an unnamed source, and we have JT directly refuting it. It's at least in question, in my mind.

 

Also, the Colts did NOT put him on NFI, so it suggests that there was no unrelated injury that would warrant the NFI designation. 

 

I'm happy to consider evidence to the contrary, like always.

[jvan1973]

8 minutes ago, Nickster said:

RBs other than Sanders had 107 carries and 40 targets to Sanders 259 and 26.

 

they were at least committeeish 

The Colts backs other than JT had 99 carries and 63 targets in 2021   Is that RBBC?

[w87r]

Just now, Nickster said:

What’s the gist of the vid.  Don’t watch many.  Just generally baffling or is he supporting any side?

I just posted this, because she double posted(repeating )the tweet.

 

 

But the title alone of the tweet was worth repeating without the video.

 

It has been surreal.

 

I was just joking about the double post though.

[Nickster]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I don't think Kamara or McCaffrey would get $16m/year on the open market right now, let alone adding in draft compensation. JMO.

 

But a lot of that comes down to the fact that some of you are far more concerned with the perceived flaws in JT's game than I think is warranted. You obviously think less of his game and ability than I do.

I think his value is hurt because the league doesn’t think he’s a complete back.  

 

RB value is down sure, but if he were adjudged to be a real pass catching type, he’s likely be in a different negotiating position here.

 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, stitches said:

The only thing that makes sense to me is maybe the agent... or JT unofficially mentioned something about his back trying to hint to the Colts that he can always invent an injury and sit out the season, but didn't put in any report officially. But that doesn't jive with the report. Just listen and read to Holder's reporting. If what he's saying is true, I have hard time believing Taylor. Holder has details. He's talking about specific days, he's talking about them doing an actual exam on Taylor to confirm and he's saying what they saw was not an injury that happened during his play with the Colts... even if it is super minor... it means they saw something... 

 

Someone has to be telling a very very nasty false story for... some reason... I don't know what reason. Or Taylor just got caught trying to prime the environment for sitting instead of playing. Someone is lying here. I don't know who... 

 

So why isn't he on NFI then? If the team looked into it and cleared it, then why is it coming up through back channels now? 

[w87r]

5 minutes ago, Nickster said:

What’s the gist of the vid.  Don’t watch many.  Just generally baffling or is he supporting any side?

Starts with Moss getting hurt. Uhhh comment's.

 

Then Taylor changing stance after hiring Malki.

 

Rappaport reiterates his prior report, with a little more time by time breakdown of him posting the trade request.

 

 

Not supporting any side.

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

The Colts backs other than JT had 99 carries and 63 targets in 2021   Is that RBBC?

How many carries did the QB have?  Hurts had 165.  Regardless of that. . .

 

https://www.pff.com/news/fantasy-football-examining-team-running-back-usage-and-tendencies-for-2023

 

71 one percent of snaps IMo and probably pff = RBBCish

 

you lose again.  You are like the Oakland As

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's fine. But we have an unnamed source, and we have JT directly refuting it. It's at least in question, in my mind.

 

Also, the Colts did NOT put him on NFI, so it suggests that there was no unrelated injury that would warrant the NFI designation. 

 

I'm happy to consider evidence to the contrary, like always.

the colts are calling his bluff on a injury he says he has and I think he got caught.

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Holder has been vary clear Taylor wasn’t happy about not getting a new contract and thst id why he changed agents. So him changing his stance was not due to the new agent.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

The Colts backs other than JT had 99 carries and 63 targets in 2021   Is that RBBC?

Jvan.  You can't compare how the Colts value RBS under Frank and how Philly values them with Siranni/SS.

 

Any good HC is going to ride the hot hand.  But that doesn't mean they value that particular RB going into the next contract.

 

What we know is that Philly just let their "non RBBC guy" walk rather than pay him $7M per year.  And we just hired their play caller as our HC.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

the colts are calling his bluff on a injury he says he has and I think he got caught.

 

 

So again, why not put him on NFI?

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So again, why not put him on NFI?

That’s why they are threatening NFI. They got him to admit he isn’t injured. All of a sudden when he realized money is at steak he changed his tune.

 

 

[ShuteAt168]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think Kamara or McCaffrey would get $16m/year on the open market right now, let alone adding in draft compensation. JMO.

 

But a lot of that comes down to the fact that some of you are far more concerned with the perceived flaws in JT's game than I think is warranted. You obviously think less of his game and ability than I do.

I think a lot of it is not knowing what version of JT we have now. All-Pro 1,800-yard JT? 800-yard hobbled JT? a still-injured JT? JT with a back injury? JT with a bad attitude? 
 

It’s confusing. 

[w87r]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So why isn't he on NFI then? If the team looked into it and cleared it, then why is it coming up through back channels now? 

Obviously a lot to still be learned.

 

 

The only thing that makes sense to me, if it is true, is they were trying to keep him happy since they weren't giving him an extension. And he still had the ankle thing as well, so it wouldn't look off.

 

So acknowledge back injury and just put him in PUP until healed?

 

 

Just don't see how the Colts would benefit from putting out false information, at least in these regards. And to be fair, they haven't yet, at least not officially.

[Superman]

49 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

 

 

If it's true that he requested a trade "days before" the bus meeting, then it's possible that request came even before Irsay's tweet about bad faith. Maybe even before camp.

[stitches]

23 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So why isn't he on NFI then? If the team looked into it and cleared it, then why is it coming up through back channels now? 

Because they didn't want to escalate it and wanted to try to work through it? Why is it coming out now? Because JT and his agent are escalating and the Colts are reminding them they still have jokers to play(if it's true)...  I don't know. Not much makes sense to me right now. I still have no idea how we managed to get to this point in such a short period of time.

 

 

 

[Nickster]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So again, why not put him on NFI?

well the bridge is in fire but this would nuke it maybe?

 

using it as a hardball threat perhaps?

 

want him to play 1st 4 games?

 

 

[GoColts8818]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So again, why not put him on NFI?

Probably because one allows them to still pay Taylor his salary and the other causes him to not get paid.  Doing that at the start of the camp would have made a not yet ugly situation very ugly.  It looks like the Colts wanted to deal with this in private and hope Taylor would come to his senses and return to practice.  Once things became public and it became ugly the Colts seemingly said fine you want to play hardball we will too.  
 

With that said there are A LOT of unknowns right now causing people to jump to conclusions right now.  I know it’s not fun but waiting for the facts to work their way out might be the smart play right now.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

If it's true that he requested a trade "days before" the bus meeting, then it's possible that request came even before Irsay's tweet about bad faith. Maybe even before camp.

I think holder confirmed it came before irsays tweet.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

That’s why they are threatening NFI. They got him to admit he isn’t injured. All of a sudden when he realized money is at steak he changed his tune.

 

 

 

I disagree. He's still on PUP with an ankle injury. That tracks logically. He's actually in the perfect position to test this 'exaggerate an injury' ploy, because he had ankle surgery, and hasn't worked out with the team all offseason. Why would he make up a separate injury? Just use the ankle...

 

And nothing about that has changed. He's still on PUP, still protected by the CBA, and the only mention of the team considering putting him on NFI is so far unsubstantiated. And he denied the report about the back.

 

He did NOT deny being injured. He denied having a back injury. He still has the ankle, and the injury ploy -- assuming that's what this is -- is still in play.

[w87r]

14 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

the colts are calling his bluff on a injury he says he has and I think he got caught.

 

Colts would hardly be the first team to take money from a player getting hurt away from team working out.

 

Didn't a Broncos OLman lose big money last year.

[Nickster]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree. He's still on PUP with an ankle injury. That tracks logically. He's actually in the perfect position to test this 'exaggerate an injury' ploy, because he had ankle surgery, and hasn't worked out with the team all offseason. Why would he make up a separate injury? Just use the ankle...

 

And nothing about that has changed. He's still on PUP, still protected by the CBA, and the only mention of the team considering putting him on NFI is so far unsubstantiated. And he denied the report about the back.

 

He did NOT deny being injured. He denied having a back injury. He still has the ankle, and the injury ploy -- assuming that's what this is -- is still in play.

I agree about the ankle.  He could slow play that easily.  All he has to do is say ow after surgery.

 

the back, assuming, he said would be colossally stupid

 

and that’s why I said everything else is logically sound, but not that if true

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Probably because one allows them to still pay Taylor his salary and the other causes him to not get paid.  Doing that the start of the camp would have made a not yet ugly situation very ugly.  It looks like the Colts wanted to deal with this private and hope Taylor would come to his senses and return to practice.  Once things became public and it became ugly the Colts seemingly said fine you want to play hardball we will too.  
 

With that said there are A LOT of unknowns right now causing people to jump to conclusions right now.  I know it’s not fun but waiting for the facts to work their way out might be the smart play right now.

 

I'm not sure, but once he goes on PUP after his physical, I don't think they can put him on NFI for something that happened in the past. So I don't even think it's a weapon that can be wielded at this point, unless he were to report a new injury that the team wasn't previously aware of. In any event, if they put him on NFI, he'd file a grievance, and things would get really interesting.

 

And yeah, we know we don't know a lot. Everyone's discussing the info we have now, because this is the biggest thing going on with the team right now. Not sure why you keep insisting that we leave it alone.

[stitches]

Just now, Superman said:

 

If it's true that he requested a trade "days before" the bus meeting, then it's possible that request came even before Irsay's tweet about bad faith. Maybe even before camp.

Yeah, IMO Ballard told Taylor and his agent that they don't plan on giving him an extension right now and they want to see how he fits with the new HC and system and with AR(pretty much what he told the media). Then Taylor and agent told Ballard "if you are not paying, then trade me". Then Irsay put oil in the fire with his tweet and the agent tried to get his attention and hoped as last resort that Irsay will push Ballard to offer an extension and the meeting in the bus was the final chance for JT to meet Irsay and see where he stands and Irsay stood with his GM. JT knowing he has no more levers to pull within the organization, leaked the news that he's requested a trade right after the meeting. At least that's the timeline I think makes most sense from what I've heard and read on the situation.

[Superman]

Just now, stitches said:

Yeah, IMO Ballard told Taylor and his agent that they don't plan on giving him an extension right now and they want to see how he fits with the new HC and system and with AR(pretty much what he told the media). Then Taylor and agent told Ballard "if you are not paying, then trade me". Then Irsay put oil in the fire with his tweet and the agent tried to get his attention and hoped as last resort that Irsay will push Ballard to offer an extension and the meeting in the bus was the final chance for JT to meet Irsay and see where he stands and Irsay stood with his GM. JT knowing he has no more levers to pull within the organization, leaked the news that he's requested a trade right after the meeting. At least that's the timeline I think makes most sense from what I've heard and read on the situation.

 

Yup, that tracks IMO. You asked earlier how this got out of hand so quickly, and the answer is probably that this has been building for months, and is now coming to a head.

[w87r]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If it's true that he requested a trade "days before" the bus meeting, then it's possible that request came even before Irsay's tweet about bad faith. Maybe even before camp.

Think it's already of been said to of happened before CBA tweet.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

Yeah, IMO Ballard told Taylor and his agent that they don't plan on giving him an extension right now and they want to see how he fits with the new HC and system and with AR(pretty much what he told the media). Then Taylor and agent told Ballard "if you are not paying, then trade me". Then Irsay put oil in the fire with his tweet and the agent tried to get his attention and hoped as last resort that Irsay will push Ballard to offer an extension and the meeting in the bus was the final chance for JT to meet Irsay and see where he stands and Irsay stood with his GM. JT knowing he has no more levers to pull within the organization, leaked the news that he's requested a trade right after the meeting. At least that's the timeline I think makes most sense from what I've heard and read on the situation.

That made me laugh out loud.

Just now, Superman said:

 

Yup, that tracks IMO. You asked earlier how this got out of hand so quickly, and the answer is probably that this has been building for months, and is now coming to a head.

Yes holder said that’s why he changed agents. He hasn’t been happy.

[GoColts8818]

4 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I think holder confirmed it came before irsays tweet.

Yeah time line seems to be:

 

Colts tell Taylor they will not address his contract before the end of the season.

Taylor changed agents

Taylors camp requested a trade and Ballard basically said they would take that under advisement and talk about it.

Taylor placed on PUP

Irsay tweet about CBA and agents 

Taylor agent tweets

Irsay meeting with Taylor

story about wanting trade goes public

Irsay publicly denies trade request

story about putting Taylor on NIL with back injury leaks

Taylor denies reporting and having back injury.

 

I think it’s helpful to remember what both sides want here:

 

Taylor wants a new contract with a big raise

Colts want Taylor to play this year for them under his current contract and they will address his contract after this season.  
 

Everything each side has done is to try to get one of those two things.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I agree about the ankle.  He could slow play that easily.  All he has to do is say ow after surgery.

 

the back, assuming, he said would be colossally stupid

 

and that’s why I said everything else is logically sound, but not that if true

 

It would be really stupid, and unnecessary, and wouldn't help at all. If JT and his side brought up a back injury, then they really don't know what they're doing.

[GoColts8818]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not sure, but once he goes on PUP after his physical, I don't think they can put him on NFI for something that happened in the past. So I don't even think it's a weapon that can be wielded at this point, unless he were to report a new injury that the team wasn't previously aware of. In any event, if they put him on NFI, he'd file a grievance, and things would get really interesting.

 

And yeah, we know we don't know a lot. Everyone's discussing the info we have now, because this is the biggest thing going on with the team right now. Not sure why you keep insisting that we leave it alone.

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-training-camp-roster-faqs-defining-injured-reserve-pup-list-nfi-and-more
 

this is where I got my info.  Clearly I am no CBA expert.

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree. He's still on PUP with an ankle injury. That tracks logically. He's actually in the perfect position to test this 'exaggerate an injury' ploy, because he had ankle surgery, and hasn't worked out with the team all offseason. Why would he make up a separate injury? Just use the ankle...

 

And nothing about that has changed. He's still on PUP, still protected by the CBA, and the only mention of the team considering putting him on NFI is so far unsubstantiated. And he denied the report about the back.

 

He did NOT deny being injured. He denied having a back injury. He still has the ankle, and the injury ploy -- assuming that's what this is -- is still in play.

Exactly.  He can still milk the team for $4.5....uh $4.3M....and maintain his bargaining rights by playing the documented ankle injury as far as he can.  Who knows if he will or not.

 

But it seems like he's going to have to cry UNCLE pretty loudly in order to get back into being a reliable asset to the team.