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

[AKB]

Just now, Superman said:

 

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.

yeah, so my idea that he was probably being encouraged to play to save Reich's job really isn't that unreasonable, or far-fetched. 

[Superman]

Just now, AKB said:

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

 

Neither do I. 

 

This whole thing got big and ugly, seemingly out of nowhere, but this happens every season with some player, somewhere. And the usual outcome is the player gets back to work eventually. Just have to wait out the drama.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, AKB said:

yeah, so my idea that he was probably being encouraged to play to save Reich's job really isn't that unreasonable, or far-fetched. 

 

I don't know how you get there. That seems unsubstantiated. In fact, JT wasn't even active for Reich's last game. He missed 3 out of Reich's 9 games, and 3 out of Saturday's 8 games. I don't know if there's a link to be found there.

 

If anything, I think JT wanted to have an amazing season, knowing he'd be asking for an extension after Year 3. He would have been personally motivated to perform, just as much as anyone else on the team. 

[RollerColt]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know how you get there. That seems unsubstantiated. In fact, JT wasn't even active for Reich's last game. He missed 3 out of Reich's 9 games, and 3 out of Saturday's 8 games. I don't know if there's a link to be found there.

 

If anything, I think JT wanted to have an amazing season, knowing he'd be asking for an extension after Year 3. He would have been personally motivated to perform, just as much as anyone else on the team. 

There are rumors that the team forced JT to play while injured last season. 

[Superman]

@csmopar

 

Another relevant situation, more recently, was Deebo Samuel. With his contract eligibility approaching, he made a big point of not wanting to continue being used out of the backfield in the Niners offense. I always assumed that his position status was a factor. If he started getting more carries than catches, the team might try to tag him as a RB.

 

The point is that, if something like that goes to an arbitrator, they actually look at the way the team uses the player, among other things. 

[Archer]

Wouldn’t surprise me to see JT stay on the PUP at final cuts.  It would put him out for six games (I think that’s still right), but we could still trade him to a contender that loses its RB.  In the thick of a playoff run, someone might be willing to trade and sign him with guaranteed money.  If not, let him rot on the PUP, getting his insulting $4.5 million for doing nothing…

[crazycolt1]

8 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

There are rumors that the team forced JT to play while injured last season. 

There is no substantial proof that is true.  Rumors mean zero till proven otherwise. 

[RollerColt]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

There is no substantial proof that is true.  Rumors mean zero till proven otherwise. 

I agree wholeheartedly. Just didn't know if Supes had seen the rumors or not. That's why many are now asking who would be forcing JT to play. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Holder first said he was forced to play then in his report the next said Taylor wanted to play to help his teammates. So inconsistent reports. I think there is a lot confusion. Seems he didn’t want to return from Arizona early because he was worried colts would want him to practice to don after the ankle. Seems it’s clear he is using injuries as a hold out.

[RollerColt]

Just now, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Holder first said he was forced to play then in his report the next said Taylor wanted to play to help his teammates. So inconsistent reports. I think there is a lot confusion. Seems he didn’t want to return from Arizona early because he was worried colts would want him to practice to don after the ankle. Seems it’s clear he is using injuries as a hold out.

Holder then needs to do a better job of not spreading false information. Verify first! This whole "he said, she said" stuff gives me a headache... 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, RollerColt said:

There are rumors that the team forced JT to play while injured last season. 

 

Rumors? As in, something people are saying on the Internet with no valid evidence? Is there anything substantive to back any of these rumors?

 

We all watched last season. He got hurt against the Titans, the next game was on Thursday night and he wasn't able to go. On this board, everyone hoped he'd be ready the next week, he still didn't play. He came back for two games, didn't look great, then sat out a third game against the Pats. That's three games missed in five weeks. And the team was floundering that entire time, by the way -- OC got fired, QB benched, HC on the hot seat.

 

IMO, that Denver game was pivotal -- four games in, we're 0-2-1 against divisional opponents, and just got spanked by the Titans, again. To me, Reich was on the hot seat already, and I still believe that if we lost to Denver, he would have been fired that week. We barely eked out a win. Then we have another divisional opponent in Week 6. If we're forcing JT to play injured, isn't it going to be somewhere in there?

 

Instead, a few weeks later, Reich sits JT against the Pats, we lose, Reich gets fired. Then Saturday comes in, JT plays against the Raiders and has a great game. He played the next three games, and wasn't awesome, but had decent games, and was on the field for his typical 80-90% of snaps. And then we saw JT get hurt again vs the Vikings, and he never came back. 

 

The narrative doesn't track to me. JT had an ankle injury that the team called 'not overly serious' the day after it happened, then he missed two games while the season was already falling apart. Saying they forced him to play while injured seems like revisionist history. 

[rockywoj]

To me, given the circumstances of Taylor’s previous standing with the team, Taylor asking to be traded is simply pure stupidity!

 

Of course I understand the desire to get a lucrative (yet reasonable) extension before playing out the final year of a contract, as it IS undeniably a career security thing, but in the absence of an extension, you play out the final year and you endeavour to have the best performance possible to maximize your market value.  Instead, JT and his agent now come off as unreasonable malcontents that cause nothing but strife and have shown lack of integrity.  I said it before and I’ll say it again, if I am running a different team, I now look much more less favourably of JT being somebody I want on my team.

 

If I were running the Colts, I’d be offering up a 3 year extension at about 10% below the expected tag value, with about 50% of the contract guaranteed, and incentive bonuses for performances and participation milestones that might increase the payout by maybe 20%.  If he turns it down, assuming the player’s counter offers are not reasonable enough to continue extension negotiations, then I’d be like, ok, just play out your final contract year and we’ll see how you do and then reconvene negotiations after the season.

[RollerColt]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

We all watched last season. He got hurt against the Titans, the next game was on Thursday night and he wasn't able to go.

Why is it always the Titans who injure our star players.... And then those injuries get worse... 

[MikeCurtis]

47 minutes 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.

 

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

At this stage, if we got a 2 and a 3rd AND a player that could start, I would consider

 

Nobody wants to lose JT, BUT........  If he is going to not be on the field this year, why not trade him?

 

If his expectation is to be paid like Christian M's deal with SF ($19.5 M this year) we will NEVER meet his expectations, and we will be discussing his happiness or unhappiness the next few years

 

I loved Zeke in college...... The Cowboys LOVED Zeke on his rookie contract.......  Not so much on his 2nd contract...... they dumped that as soon as they could

 

 

 

 

 

[MikeCurtis]

28 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

 

If I were running the Colts, I’d be offering up a 3 year extension at about 10% below the expected tag value, with about 50% of the contract guaranteed, and incentive bonuses for performances and participation milestones that might increase the payout by maybe 20%.  If he turns it down, assuming the player’s counter offers are not reasonable enough to continue extension negotiations, then I’d be like, ok, just play out your final contract year and we’ll see how you do and then reconvene negotiations after the season.

I would agree, but I really dont see JT signing and playing for 9 -10M per year......... 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I think JT and his agent are taking their frustrations out with the wrong people. They need to take it up with the players association and try and change things when the new CBA is up.

[jvan1973]

33 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

I would agree, but I really dont see JT signing and playing for 9 -10M per year......... 

He will play for that here or the same or less elsewhere 

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

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.

That makes sense. It would not happene anyway. Colts are too classy for that

32 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I think JT and his agent are taking their frustrations out with the wrong people. They need to take it up with the players association and try and change things when the new CBA is up.

Which is not for a long while, March 2030…

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Holder first said he was forced to play then in his report the next said Taylor wanted to play to help his teammates. So inconsistent reports. I think there is a lot confusion. Seems he didn’t want to return from Arizona early because he was worried colts would want him to practice to don after the ankle. Seems it’s clear he is using injuries as a hold out.

I don't think anything is clear at this point.  So much conflicting information  being put out

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, AKB said:

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

Maybe 10 years ago and if he were healthy. Which I honestly believe him not to be

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I think a team that was in their SB window might  give up a first but that would be a long shot. Because chiefs just won a SB with a 7th round rookie.

[Colt.45]

Bill Polian's take

 

https://www.the33rdteam.com/category/front-office-commentary/viewing-jonathan-taylor-situation-through-cba-casts-it-differently/

 

Quote

A Colts fan might ask, “Why are you giving us all this legalese? This is Jonathan Taylor, a great player and a great person. The Colts can’t win without him.”

The answer is Irsay and Ballard, who are loyal and fair to their players, know this is an age-old agent ploy. It is designed to get from a club, by coercion, something to which they are not entitled by the CBA.

I would guess that Taylor’s agent approached Ballard about an extension recently and was told, “No.” Hence, this dustup.

-

-

-

-

-

Jim wasn’t speaking to Jonathan Taylor, a player I know he respects greatly. He was speaking to the agent community and emphatically letting them know this often-used tactic wouldn’t fly with him. That is why I enjoyed working for him so much

 

[Superman]

30 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Which is not for a long while, March 2030…

 

Right. I'm wondering if JT makes it to 2026, he doesn't care about the next CBA, nor should he.

[Superman]

30 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

I don't think anything is clear at this point.  So much conflicting information  being put out

 

I think it's clear. Through all the conflicting information, there's at least one constant: Taylor had routine ankle surgery in January, no one expected the injury to linger into July, and he's surprisingly (based on comments from Irsay and Ballard) on PUP. No one will ever admit it, but he's obviously using the ankle as an excuse to avoid being on the field, so he can report but not practice without fear of being fined.

 

The other alternative is that his ankle is much worse than anyone realized, and I don't think that's the impression JT, his agent, or the RB clan in general wants to be projecting right now.

[csmopar]

23 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think it's clear. Through all the conflicting information, there's at least one constant: Taylor had routine ankle surgery in January, no one expected the injury to linger into July, and he's surprisingly (based on comments from Irsay and Ballard) on PUP. No one will ever admit it, but he's obviously using the ankle as an excuse to avoid being on the field, so he can report but not practice without fear of being fined.

 

The other alternative is that his ankle is much worse than anyone realized, and I don't think that's the impression JT, his agent, or the RB clan in general wants to be projecting right now.

My thoughts exactly 

[CR91]

 

[stitches]

2 hours 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 we are getting a first. We might get a second and future conditional of some sort... That's about the max I can see. Christian McCaffrey got 2nd, 3d, 4th and future 5th, but he was already signed to a contract and he's IMO more valuable due to being one of the best passcatching RBs in the league. I think 2nd and Achane(3d) or something of the sort is about the best we can hope for.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[NewColtsFan]

7 hours 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 

It’s been pointed out that apparently Taylor was NOT pressured.   But something has certainly gone very badly between the two sides.   
 

Taylor has been a high character guy since dating back to college.   He has had a spotless record as a Colt.   His teammates are saying he is NOT a problem in the locker room.   But the relationship seems badly fractured.   Feels like there are pieces of the puzzle missing that would explain things.   

[Superman]

22 minutes ago, stitches said:

I don't think we are getting a first. We might get a second and future conditional of some sort... That's about the max I can see. Christian McCaffrey got 2nd, 3d, 4th and future 5th, but he was already signed to a contract and he's IMO more valuable due to being one of the best passcatching RBs in the league. I think 2nd and Achane(3d) or something of the sort is about the best we can hope for.

 

The Panthers had also paid CM's signing bonus, so the Niners are actually only paying him something like $12m/year.

 

We're not getting anything for Taylor, realistically. What team would make a strong enough offer for him right now, when he's still not practicing several months after ankle surgery, yet trying to get a big extension? No one is going to touch him unless we give him away, and we're not going to give him away.

 

I think his side has badly mishandled this situation. I like Taylor and don't mind us giving him a reasonable contract, but about half of the NFL has moved on from investing big money for RBs. So Taylor just happens to be with one of the few organizations that's actually willing to pay a RB on a second contract, but they're not ready to yet because a) he's not willing to show that he's fully recovered from the ankle, and b) we have a new HC. Not only that, his side has been pretty confrontational about it. The more info that comes out, the more it seems like the Colts have been pretty reasonable all offseason, while Taylor has kept them at a distance and in the dark, while asking them to blindly make a huge investment that probably won't pay off.

 

Aside from Irsay's tweet and an insensitive comment to the media, the Colts have been pretty clear about what the plan is. All that's left is for JT to get to work and play out the season. Because if I'm the Colts, I'm not budging. He wouldn't get an extension this year, and I wouldn't trade him without a huge windfall. 

[NewColtsFan]

5 hours 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.”

I think that might be true if it were someone else other than Jonathan Taylor.  
And your version of events puts 100 percent responsibility on Taylor/agent and zero on the Colts.    I rarely buy that kind of viewpoint.    It typically takes two for things to go this wrong.  
 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

If Pats report and the PFF report are right things might be calming down. Hopefully they can figure this out.

[krunk]

6 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

If Pats report and the PFF report are right things might be calming down. Hopefully they can figure this out.

Taylor has no choice really. He is between a rock and a hard place.

[csmopar]

9 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

If Pats report and the PFF report are right things might be calming down. Hopefully they can figure this out.

It certainly does seem that way

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think that might be true if it were someone else other than Jonathan Taylor.  
And your version of events puts 100 percent responsibility on Taylor/agent and zero on the Colts.    I rarely buy that kind of viewpoint.    It typically takes two for things to go this wrong.  

 

Generally speaking, I agree with the bolded. Let me ask you this, though.

 

Prior to the start of training camp, is there any indication that the Colts did anything to contribute to this drama, other than telling JT 'no extension, not right now'? I ask because this thing went from tepid to scalding in about 30 seconds, at least that's how it looks from the outside. 

 

To me, it seems like JT and his side were ready for a cage match, because they wanted to make the Colts uncomfortable. Recent reports about the Colts asking JT to come in early for a checkup actually make the Colts seem more than reasonable -- initial prognosis was a month of recovery, but he didn't participate in any offseason activities, and six months later he's still not cleared? Something is up, and the team wants to know his status.

 

Taylor responds by reporting 25 minutes late, and then he's surprisingly placed on PUP. That either means that the team was right to be concerned about his ankle, or that he's using the ankle as a ploy for leverage to get an extension offer.

 

And of course, there are bigger issues at play with the market in general, not specific to the Colts and Taylor, but he's (apparently) decided to make himself a poster boy for the larger cause. That's his right and his choice, but it's not an indication that the Colts did anything wrong.

 

So yeah, the team probably hasn't been perfect. I certainly think Irsay stepped in it a couple times recently, but his tweet and comments only came after JT showed up already disgruntled. So the majority of the acrimony, IMO, has come from Taylor. 

 

By the way, this is business, sometimes it gets ugly. It doesn't matter whose side I'm on, and I'm not too concerned with the blame game. But I'm also thinking that JT's stance is about more than him feeling like he hasn't been treated fairly by the Colts, specifically.

[AKB]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know how you get there. That seems unsubstantiated. In fact, JT wasn't even active for Reich's last game. He missed 3 out of Reich's 9 games, and 3 out of Saturday's 8 games. I don't know if there's a link to be found there.

 

If anything, I think JT wanted to have an amazing season, knowing he'd be asking for an extension after Year 3. He would have been personally motivated to perform, just as much as anyone else on the team. 

okay i hear you, im just going based on the report i read that he was encouraged to play injured. 

 

has that report been debunked?

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, AKB said:

okay i hear you, im just going based on the report i read that he was encouraged to play injured. 

 

has that report been debunked?

Pretty much, yes

[AKB]

4 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Pretty much, yes

okay i missed that part. @Superman

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, Tsarquise said:

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

He played and re-injured his ankle in week 15.    As best I can tell, this is the injury that led to the ankle surgery.   He sat out games in weeks 16, 17, 18.  
 

Taylor initially hurt his ankle week 4, and sat out games weeks 5 and 6.   JT came back for week 7, then he sat out two weeks weeks 8 and 9 before coming back under Saturday vs Oakland with his best game of the year.    
 

Taylor played into week 15 where he got hurt again and sat out the rest of the year.  

[Archer]

Doesn’t seem like it on the surface, but I think there’s definitely a chance that Taylor plays the year for Indy on his current contract.  The whole thing could be an elaborate bluff to get more $ on his rookie contract.  But, if we call him out by refusing to budge, he may not be willing to fake his injury beyond TC and collect his pay on the PUP…