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

[w87r]

 

 

[RollerColt]

1 hour ago, BCoop said:

I haven't seen it mentioned, but I think there's a chance this has nothing to do with a lingering injury or contract extension this year. JT is a traditional RB that needs an old school system to maximize his impact and therefore his value to a prospective franchise. I think there's a chance his current "holdout" is an effort to be traded to a run heavy team because he knows he doesn't fit into the Steichen system. To get as many snaps as he has to this point, he will need to prove himself capable as a runner, pass-catcher, and blocker. I can see JT believing that this confrontation with the front office is less costly than playing his last year before an extension with the expectation that he fills all of those roles effectively. 

It’s been mentioned by several posters. If his asking price is truly 16-20 million then yeah he’s definitely wanting out and using a high demand as a way to do it.

[Aces101]

As I’ve said previously, he’s another prima donna who doesn’t like that he’s not the franchise guy anymore…AR is. He also doesn’t want to see his carries decrease at the benefit of a running QB or RB by committee. 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, csmopar said:

“

Taylor's level of anger about his situation caught the Colts off guard, according to multiple sources, who said Irsay and Ballard were particularly surprised.

Sure, the player had been seeking a contract extension, and the Colts had made no promises he'd get one. Taylor wasn't happy about it, but he knew what the situation was when he arrived July 25.

Much of Taylor's bitterness originated from a request by the team for Taylor to return to Indianapolis in advance of training camp so its medical staff could assess him, multiple sources said. The team saw it as a reasonable request, sources said, after Taylor underwent an arthroscopic procedure on his right ankle Jan. 25. It was a minimally invasive procedure during which small incisions were made to remove debris. Taylor was expected to make a full recovery in a few weeks to a month.

But Taylor viewed the request warily, according to sources. He believed it was part of an effort to pressure him to return to the field for the start of camp, despite his stance that he needed more time to recover.

”

he’s had 6 months to recover from a scope that everyone else recovers from in less than a month and he’s peeved because the colts asked him to come in early for an evaluation? Asked? Not required? Dude is a bigger cry baby than I ever imagined 

Scope?   Recover in less than a month?   Have you read that someplace, because I haven’t.   I don’t think a high ankle sprain gets scoped.   All the Colts off-season talk was about JT needing the whole off-season to get healthy again.   So something is not adding up here.   
 

And I’d say when a guy like JT who’s had a spotless record in college and his 3 years as a Colt is THIS UNHAPPY, he might have good reason and not just a cry baby.

[Indyfan4life]

19 minutes ago, w87r said:

 

 

Oh I’m sure he’s unhappy. 

[csmopar]

8 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Scope?   Recover in less than a month?   Have you read that someplace, because I haven’t.   I don’t think a high ankle sprain gets scoped.   All the Colts off-season talk was about JT needing the whole off-season to get healthy again.   So something is not adding up here.   
 

And I’d say when a guy like JT who’s had a spotless record in college and his 3 years as a Colt is THIS UNHAPPY, he might have good reason and not just a cry baby.

Read the article and better yet, read the quote 

[NewColtsFan]

16 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Read the article and better yet, read the quote 

Thanks, you are correct about the scope and the apparent timeline. 
 

But the article also notes the team encouraged JT to play down the stretch last year AFTER he had already suffered the high ankle sprain.   And the story says he suffered two MORE ankle injuries.   And for what?    What was the point?   Saturday had already told Leonard to take the rest of the year off.   Why didn’t the Colts do the same thing with Taylor?    Seems Taylor feels like things were done to him that weren’t in his best long-term interest.  Feels like he’s lost trust.   That’s a bad thing because it’s hard to get back. 
 

 

[ShuteAt168]

20 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Thanks, you are correct about the scope and the apparent timeline. 
 

But the article also notes the team encouraged JT to play down the stretch last year AFTER he had already suffered the high ankle sprain.   And the story says he suffered two MORE ankle injuries.   And for what?    What was the point?   Saturday had already told Leonard to take the rest of the year off.   Why didn’t the Colts do the same thing with Taylor?    Seems Taylor feels like things were done to him that weren’t in his best long-term interest.  Feels like he’s lost trust.   That’s a bad thing because it’s hard to get back. 
 

 

I’ve read Holder’s story. Nowhere does it say the team pressured him or encouraged him to “play down the stretch last year after he had already suffered the high ankle sprain.” Where does it suggest this? 

[Scott Pennock]

1 hour ago, Peter Nova said:

 

That doesn't make the problem go away. You've got Z. Franklin bumping his gums on twitter in support of JT. There is divide within the organization. Who's next Pittman?

Pittman has handled it like a professional.

 

JT is not. He's acting like a petulant child. I have not seen Zaire's tweets because I don't do social media like that.....

 

If the organization caves who's the next crybaby that pouts and stomps his feet to get their way? Kenny Moore II tried that last year and found out it doesn't work.

 

Seriously, Jim Irsay has a proven record of paying his players and also has a record of cutting bait with injured players that were unpopular but the correct decision. 

[NewColtsFan]

50 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

I’ve read Holder’s story. Nowhere does it say the team pressured him or encouraged him to “play down the stretch last year after he had already suffered the high ankle sprain.” Where does it suggest this? 

You’re right.   I misread.   It doesn’t.   
 

That said, it’s not a stretch to think Taylor is as upset as he is now because he played hurt for the team down the stretch in meaningless games — got hurt twice more — and now the team is using that against him.   Seems most everyone here has noted how un-Taylor-like JT has been.   The article writes about that.    

 

As I said to another poster, if someone (Taylor) with a pristine record both in college and the NFL suddenly has done a 180 and is behaving differently, there might be good reason.   
 

Thanks for the correction. 

[Moosejawcolt]

42 minutes ago, Scott Pennock said:

Pittman has handled it like a professional.

 

JT is not. He's acting like a petulant child. I have not seen Zaire's tweets because I don't do social media like that.....

 

If the organization caves who's the next crybaby that pouts and stomps his feet to get their way? Kenny Moore II tried that last year and found out it doesn't work.

 

Seriously, Jim Irsay has a proven record of paying his players and also has a record of cutting bait with injured players that were unpopular but the correct decision. 

Well I disagree. Although Taylor has not  handled it well as u say, they r dealing with different circumstances. Taylor sees himself as an elite player who is getting peanuts for his play.  Pittman,if he has any self awareness, knows he is an alright wr who will make over 20 million a year. See what I mean?!!??

[NewColtsFan]

2 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Well I disagree. Although Taylor has not  handled it well as u say, they r dealing with different circumstances. Taylor sees himself as an elite player who is getting peanuts for his play.  Pittman,if he has any self awareness, knows he is an alright wr who will make over 20 million a year. See what I mean?!!??

No surprise,  I don’t agree with a word of this…  but let me put your argument another way…. 
 

As a WR who might catch 100 passes this year, (approx 6 touches per game) Pittman is willing to risk that he won’t suffer a serious injury.   But Taylor knows he might have 20-25 touches a game and is far more likely to suffer a serious injury, perhaps even to a leg.   Taylor is far FAR more at risk than Pittman.    Better?

 

[Scott Pennock]

11 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Well I disagree. Although Taylor has not  handled it well as u say, they r dealing with different circumstances. Taylor sees himself as an elite player who is getting peanuts for his play.  Pittman,if he has any self awareness, knows he is an alright wr who will make over 20 million a year. See what I mean?!!??

No, I don't. A contract is a contract is a contract...............he signed it in good faith, and he should play it out in good faith. He's just like every other spoiled child these days that uses social media to be divisive and air dirty laundry......

 

You have your opinion and I have mine. They differ very much and absolutely nothing you say to me will change my stance! I've signed contracts before and honored them.......so my opinion comes from a place of having put ink to paper before.

[crazycolt1]

54 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Well I disagree. Although Taylor has not  handled it well as u say, they r dealing with different circumstances. Taylor sees himself as an elite player who is getting peanuts for his play.  Pittman,if he has any self awareness, knows he is an alright wr who will make over 20 million a year. See what I mean?!!??

The philosophy changes in the NFL has devalued the RB position. Comparing the WR to the RB is now an out dated view. It seems the game has passed you up?

[colts89]

At the beginning of the off season, I thought it would have been pretty smart to give Jonathan Taylor a solid 3-year deal. Now knowing that he still injured/recovering, its really hard to understand why he thinks he could get a contract. He should be smart enough to know that he has no leverage in this situation whatsoever and he's not going to scare the Colts into giving him a contract while he's hurt. Nor are other teams willing to part with the picks needed to trade for him if he's injured.

[krunk]

Meet them in the middle JT. That's about all you're getting. I'm telling you this staff doesn't want to pay 20 million to a RB. They were a top 5-10 rushing team in Philly last year and they didn't need a $20 million dollar runner. Take what you can get this year bc I'm telling you they don't want to pay big money for a bell cow. And I think teams are not stupid when it comes to the most recent model for winning Super Bowls so I'm going to assume there's probably not a ton of teams jumping at the bit to add another $20 mil per for a runner.

 

Sitting out the season isn't going to help bc of the Accrued Season thing which makes you an RFA next year instead of a UFA. All you have on the table for you my dawg is to play and pretty much get tagged next year. Maybe headed to UFA if his year is bad. So I see this guy probably holding out until camp and pre-season is over. Keep in mind he usually doesn't play preseason any way. Then they will kiss a little butt and throw him a partial bone good enough to get him on the field.

[csmopar]

7 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Thanks, you are correct about the scope and the apparent timeline. 
 

But the article also notes the team encouraged JT to play down the stretch last year AFTER he had already suffered the high ankle sprain.   And the story says he suffered two MORE ankle injuries.   And for what?    What was the point?   Saturday had already told Leonard to take the rest of the year off.   Why didn’t the Colts do the same thing with Taylor?    Seems Taylor feels like things were done to him that weren’t in his best long-term interest.  Feels like he’s lost trust.   That’s a bad thing because it’s hard to get back. 
 

 

That’s why I asked the question, who encouraged him, and is that person still here? 
 

but none of that changes the fact of a reasonable request to get checked out prior to camp being how the recovery period should have been long over. If he is still recovering that’s fine,  but why refuse to be checked out 

[ShuteAt168]

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

That’s why I asked the question, who encouraged him, and is that person still here? 
 

but none of that changes the fact of a reasonable request to get checked out prior to camp being how the recovery period should have been long over. If he is still recovering that’s fine,  but why refuse to be checked out 

Where in the article is it noted that JT was encouraged to play hurt? I’ve read it, it’s not there. There’s only one reason JT would be angry about getting checked out prior to a new contract. 

[DattMavis]

8 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

You’re right.   I misread.   It doesn’t.   
 

That said, it’s not a stretch to think Taylor is as upset as he is now because he played hurt for the team down the stretch in meaningless games — got hurt twice more — and now the team is using that against him.   Seems most everyone here has noted how un-Taylor-like JT has been.   The article writes about that.    

 

As I said to another poster, if someone (Taylor) with a pristine record both in college and the NFL suddenly has done a 180 and is behaving differently, there might be good reason.   
 

Thanks for the correction. 

I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that Taylor steadily has been changing as a result of the influence of his agent and possibly others he’s surrounded himself with. The people you surround yourself with can absolutely change how your mind works. My assumption is that his agent has been poisoning his mind, and finally he just snapped.

 

There might be a good reason for him to be acting like this, but I think it’s just as likely that he was played by his agent and “friends.”

[ShuteAt168]

1 minute ago, DattMavis said:

I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that Taylor steadily has been changing as a result of the influence of his agent and possibly others he’s surrounded himself with. The people you surround yourself with can absolutely change how your mind works. My assumption is that his agent has been poisoning his mind, and finally he just snapped.

 

There might be a good reason for him to be acting like this, but I think it’s just as likely that he was played by his agent and “friends.”

JT is an elite athlete. He apparently was very successful in school. He hasn’t failed to get what he wants when he wants it very often, if at all. Maybe this is simply how Taylor acts when he’s told “No.” 

[csmopar]

15 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

Where in the article is it noted that JT was encouraged to play hurt? I’ve read it, it’s not there. There’s only one reason JT would be angry about getting checked out prior to a new contract. 

It’s not. Which is my point 

[Scott Pennock]

This whole thing is bull crap - our front office is tight as a drum so all these national media talking head’s aren’t getting any inside information to publish so it’s all just speculation at this point. 
 

I think JT is acting like a child right now but AT LEAST he’s on the sidelines with his teammates. I mean he looks like he’s pouting 90% of the time, but he is there.

[MikeCurtis]

Tough situation

 

The 2nd contract for RBs isnt really working in most cases these days.......

 

The teams that pay the big money for RBs....... typically ARENT winning SBs

 

There IS a lesson here

 

Would love to keep him, but we MAY be priced out of the market.

 

It seems the best strategy is to get the rookie contract out of the way and then do the one year deals, until you draft another RB

 

High paid, Star running backs and SB teams dont seem to line up any more 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[csmopar]

18 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

Tough situation

 

The 2nd contract for RBs isnt really working in most cases these days.......

 

The teams that pay the big money for RBs....... typically ARENT winning SBs

 

There IS a lesson here

 

Would love to keep him, but we MAY be priced out of the market.

 

It seems the best strategy is to get the rookie contract out of the way and then do the one year deals, until you draft another RB

 

High paid, Star running backs and SB teams dont seem to line up any more 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can’t be priced out of the market when there is no market for said product. The whole issue here is the rapid devaluing of the RB position. 
 

funny thing is, the Colts could mess with him entirely if they wanted. Declare a position change to a Fullback and the cap for a tag is even less

[MikeCurtis]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

Can’t be priced out of the market when there is no market for said product. The whole issue here is the rapid devaluing of the RB position. 
 

funny thing is, the Colts could mess with him entirely if they wanted. Declare a position change to a Fullback and the cap for a tag is even less

Great point..... even if the market is all in his head.......

 

At this stage...... this is a distraction for the team.....

 

 

 

 

LOL on your last point......

[csmopar]

2 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

Great point..... even if the market is all in his head.......

 

At this stage...... this is a distraction for the team.....

 

 

 

 

LOL on your last point......

Oh it’s hilarious. I actually heard a caller on JMV last night mention it and I had to look into it. The team technically can move him to a different position as long as they declare such a move by a certain date pre season. And there’s really nothing short of sitting out that a player can do to stop it.  But if JT is upset with the 10.091 million that RB tag is, the full back tag is even less than he’s making now… he’s making 4.3 million this year and the FB tag is 4.01 million this year and goes up to barely 4.2 million next. 

[jvan1973]

10 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Can’t be priced out of the market when there is no market for said product. The whole issue here is the rapid devaluing of the RB position. 
 

funny thing is, the Colts could mess with him entirely if they wanted. Declare a position change to a Fullback and the cap for a tag is even less

The NFLPA would nix that.   

[csmopar]

3 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

The NFLPA would nix that.   

Not much they can do. Under the CBA it is allowed. As long as the player is paid per that new position scale. The NFLPA and another player it happened to sued over it and the courts upheld the league and teams decision. 
 

that said, it would NEVER happen to JT by the Colts. They won’t play that dirty. But it would be kind of funny if they did. Funny in a dark humor kind of way

[jvan1973]

Just now, csmopar said:

Not much they can do. Under the CBA it is allowed. As long as the player is paid per that new position scale. The NFLPA and another player it happened to sued over it and the courts upheld the league and teams decision. 

The collective bargaining agreement says player is whichever position he played the most snaps at in the prior year.

 

No way they could away with tagging him as a full back when they rarely run 2 back sets

[Tsarquise]

9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

You’re right.   I misread.   It doesn’t.   
 

That said, it’s not a stretch to think Taylor is as upset as he is now because he played hurt for the team down the stretch in meaningless games — got hurt twice more — and now the team is using that against him.   Seems most everyone here has noted how un-Taylor-like JT has been.   The article writes about that.    

 

As I said to another poster, if someone (Taylor) with a pristine record both in college and the NFL suddenly has done a 180 and is behaving differently, there might be good reason.   
 

Thanks for the correction. 

How were they meaningless games? If I recall, he didn't play late in the season when the Colts were eliminated. 

[csmopar]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

The collective bargaining agreement says player is whichever position he played the most snaps at in the prior year.

 

No way they could away with tagging him as a full back when they rarely run 2 back sets

You are correct. To a point.

 

“A player’s position can be changed from previous year’s played position if declared changed and league notified prior to the first preseason game of the new season “

 

that’s straight out of the NFL CBA. 

[jvan1973]

Just now, csmopar said:

You are correct. To a point.

 

“A player’s position can be changed from previous year’s played position if declared changed and league notified prior to the first preseason game of the new season “

 

that’s straight out of the NFL CBA. 

I don't think the franchise tag differentiates running back and full back anyway.   I guess they could say he is a backup punter

[csmopar]

3 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

The collective bargaining agreement says player is whichever position he played the most snaps at in the prior year.

 

No way they could away with tagging him as a full back when they rarely run 2 back sets

As for getting away with it, I don’t think they’d do it just to avoid the look. I think the NIL or IR is more likely. 
 

which if they IR him, things get even more complicated. At first glance, he would get paid whatever his guaranteed salary for this year is, plus have medical and rehabilitation services covered by the team. But it also states that the team can get out of paying the guaranteed salary should a player not be following medical professionals recovery and rehabilitation instructions 

[csmopar]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

I don't think the franchise tag differentiates running back and full back anyway.   I guess they could say he is a backup punter

It goes by position. Average of the top 5 players at the designated tag position plus 20 percent.  Which is why the RBs get tagged at a much lower rate than say QB, which is over 20million a year. 

[jvan1973]

Just now, csmopar said:

It goes by position. Average of the top 5 players at the designated tag position plus 20 percent.  Which is why the RBs get tagged at a much lower rate than say QB, which is over 20million a year. 

Yeah I get that.   But the tag for full back and running back would be the same.   

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, csmopar said:

It goes by position. Average of the top 5 players at the designated tag position plus 20 percent.  Which is why the RBs get tagged at a much lower rate than say QB, which is over 20million a year. 

 

I don't think there's a separate tag for RB vs FB, just like there's no separate tag for OT vs OG vs C.

 

And if there were, I think the NFLPA would sue, and win. The only times this has come up in the past, from what I remember, is something like when an edge player wants to be classified as a DE instead of a LB, and I don't think any of those situations ever went far enough to established a precedent.

 

The other one was Jimmy Graham, who wanted to be considered a WR instead of a TE for franchise tag purposes, and he had a reasonable argument IMO, although it was a losing one. The arbitrator ruled that he was a TE, and part of the reasoning is that both he and the team had always classified him as a TE, up until he wanted to influence his franchise tag value. I think that same reasoning would hold true if a team tried to change a player's position to reduce his tag value. (The arbitrator also went over the typical duties of a TE, viewed video of plays, examined Graham's usage by the Saints, etc. Graham had argued that, when split out wide, he wasn't blocking defensive linemen; the arbitrator stated that TEs don't block only DL, and in fact there was video of Graham blocking DL and LBs and DBs from a wide split. So it was pretty detailed from a football standpoint.)

 

Long story short, no chance that would hold up, even if there was a separate tag level for FBs.

[AKB]

21 hours ago, PRnum1 said:

I don't believe this tweet at all.

 

Why force Taylor to play ?  We were already losing.  It wasn't like playing a hobbled Taylor was going to suddenly win us games.

 

I can't see either Saturday or Frank insisting that Taylor play injured.  The season was already down the tubes.

 

Frank was a dead man walking until he got fired.

I don't remember what games Taylor played, but wasn't he mainly playing when Reich was coach? Or do I have that backwards

[Superman]

13 hours ago, w87r said:

What say you?

 

Taylor Trade Packages:

KC - Taylor

IND - 2024 1st, Edwards-Helaire

 

BUF - Taylor

IND - 2024 1st, 2025 4th

 

SEA - Taylor

IND - 2024 2nd, Kenneth Walker

 

MIA - Taylor

IND - 2024 1st, Devon Achane(SP?)

 

SF - Taylor

IND - 2024 1st, Eli Mitchell

 

TB - Taylor

IND - 2024 1st, Rachon(SP?) White

 

 

Before I hear, "we won't get packages like that",  ok, then he will not be traded, simple as that. In order for us to trade him now, it will be a big package.(2nd and conditional 4th(turn to 3rd) is the floor, and likely won't even move the needle to make the Colts consider it.)

 

Taylor's contract is cheap, so SB contending teams that are tight to the cap can fit it in. It also isn't a rental, whoever trades for him will have control of the future with the tag, if they can't come to an extension agreement.

 

Can you imagine if KC or BUF added Taylor, what he would do for those teams? Be crazy to not throw a late 1st out there for Taylor.

 

Anyone giving me a first and a useful young player has my attention. I don't need it to be a RB, either. I'd take Tampa's 2024 first + OL or DB.

 

I'd like to see a great runner like JT on the Chiefs, to test my theory that he wouldn't have a ton of volume playing next to a great QB. 

 

And you're absolutely right, if no team is knocking my socks off with a trade offer, I'm not trading JT. 

[AKB]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Anyone giving me a first and a useful young player has my attention. I don't need it to be a RB, either. I'd take Tampa's 2024 first + OL or DB.

 

I'd like to see a great runner like JT on the Chiefs, to test my theory that he wouldn't have a ton of volume playing next to a great QB. 

 

And you're absolutely right, if no team is knocking my socks off with a trade offer, I'm not trading JT. 

I don't think any team in this league would consider giving a 1st rounder for Taylor. I really don't. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, AKB said:

I don't remember what games Taylor played, but wasn't he mainly playing when Reich was coach? Or do I have that backwards

 

His last game was the Vikings game, he played two snaps. So a total of five games after Reich was fired, and 11 total game appearances. He was dealing with the injury all season, but he didn't get shut down until Week 15.