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

[iuswingman]

17 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I said I'd sign him for one year for $10 million. How is that another Leonard, Kelly, or Smith scenario? You would literally have him off the books at the end of the year.

 

I did say I'd sign him to a multi-year contract for $8 million a year, which is slightly more than Miles Sanders, and equal to Dalvin Cook.

 

Seems fair to me.  Unfortunately it doesn't seem like Taylor is looking for fair.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, iuswingman said:

 

Not really.  Technically Colts shouldn't have to do anything given that he is already on contract to play for $4 million.

 

Paying him an extra 6 million just to get him to honor his contract is a steal for Taylor.

Players getting extensions with 1 year left on their deal happens a lot. Technically he could just shut up and play and wait until the season ends to get a deal but I could say that about 100's of other players and Taylor is a great player. It isn't like Taylor is in the middle of a huge 5 year deal and after year 2 he is moaning about his contract. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

McCaffrey is sitting somewhere right now, thinking the Football Gods and he is probably laughing his rear off.

[iuswingman]

15 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Players getting extensions with 1 year left on their deal happens a lot. Technically he could just shut up and play and wait until the season ends to get a deal but I could say that about 100's of other players and Taylor is a great player. It isn't like Taylor is in the middle of a huge 5 year deal and after year 2 he is moaning about his contract. 

 

Just because it happens a lot doesn't mean a whole lot.  Teams don't have to renegotiate before the contract is up.

[TimetobringDfence!]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I said I'd sign him for one year for $10 million. How is that another Leonard, Kelly, or Smith scenario? You would literally have him off the books at the end of the year.

 

I did say I'd sign him to a multi-year contract for $8 million a year, which is slightly more than Miles Sanders, and equal to Dalvin Cook.

If he is injured or not playing well you justed wasted your money...and it relates to the players I mentioned because they all got top market contracts and have costed the team valued money due to injuries. Why risk adding another player to that list...

[TimetobringDfence!]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

The surgery he had was an ankle procedure done back in January that takes 2 months to heal. 

Obviously there is some doubt to his health. I wouldn't pay him until I see him perform back at his level. Everyone would call for Ballard's head if he gave JT 10 mil now and he has an injury riddled season.

[Moosejawcolt]

5 hours ago, Stephen said:

If the eagles had jonathan  taylor they win the super  bowl.

The reason they lost the superbowl was not because they didn't have Taylor or an elite back. They lost because their Defence sucked and Gannon was a horrible play caller.

[Stephen]

Just now, Moosejawcolt said:

The reason they lost the superbowl was not because they didn't have Taylor or an elite back. They lost because their Defence sucked and Gannon was a horrible play caller.

Offense  turned over the football  as well

[csmopar]

“Before camp, Holder previously reported, the Colts requested that Taylor report early for a medical assessment, but the former All-Pro "viewed the request warily," believing it to be "part of an effort to pressure him" into returning to the field. When he did report, Taylor allegedly complained of back and hamstring pain, adding to the Colts' concerns, though Taylor has publicly disputed this.”

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/colts-jonathan-taylor-back-with-team-but-rb-still-wants-to-be-traded-and-remains-on-pup-list-per-report/?fbclid=IwAR2kEXsKhV53fmobVNu8Rq6mSUOzO33Hl59kBC9c0o7wbeQS_qD0bN29SsY_aem_AW22JhCI89DrQqTVVep49vL2bOYuIgBkWDpD1AMqz9da8GyG0AwA-5LRXY4mxFQToVo&mibextid=Zxz2cZ#lldyye7mlzlb1uschn8

 

 

looks like the posturing isn’t over yet. First ankle, then back and now hamstring. So what exactly is Taylor’s injury? And what exactly did he disclose to team docs.

 

[Stephen]

Just now, csmopar said:

“Before camp, Holder previously reported, the Colts requested that Taylor report early for a medical assessment, but the former All-Pro "viewed the request warily," believing it to be "part of an effort to pressure him" into returning to the field. When he did report, Taylor allegedly complained of back and hamstring pain, adding to the Colts' concerns, though Taylor has publicly disputed this.”

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/colts-jonathan-taylor-back-with-team-but-rb-still-wants-to-be-traded-and-remains-on-pup-list-per-report/?fbclid=IwAR2kEXsKhV53fmobVNu8Rq6mSUOzO33Hl59kBC9c0o7wbeQS_qD0bN29SsY_aem_AW22JhCI89DrQqTVVep49vL2bOYuIgBkWDpD1AMqz9da8GyG0AwA-5LRXY4mxFQToVo&mibextid=Zxz2cZ#lldyye7mlzlb1uschn8

 

 

looks like the posturing isn’t over yet. First ankle, then back and now hamstring. So what exactly is Taylor’s injury? And what exactly did he disclose to team docs.

 

Taylor is going  to retire at half time of third preseason  game lol

[Moosejawcolt]

1 minute ago, Stephen said:

Offense  turned over the football  as well

Yes, but I did call it. That D did not face anyone al year and I felt they were way over hyped. I don't expect the Eagles to be as dominant this year.

[Stephen]

Just now, Moosejawcolt said:

Yes, but I did call it. That D did not face anyone al year and I felt they were way over hyped. I don't expect the Eagles to be as dominant this year.

They added to their defense  though

[Moosejawcolt]

1 minute ago, Stephen said:

Taylor is going  to retire at half time of third preseason  game lol

Do u think Irsay is watching Ballard in terms of how he deals with the Taylor situation? I do think Irsay has it in  his heas how he would deal with Taylor if he was GM. I don't think Irsay wil be to happy if Taylor comes back and continues to mope. I hope that Steichen and Ballard get together and don't let it fester. To me, I would send him home  and would not let him walk around with a hoodie. 

[Moosejawcolt]

3 minutes ago, Stephen said:

They added to their defense  though

Yes they did. They got the best rated player in the draft and a pass rusher at the back end of the 1st. This all hinges on Carter being able to stay clean. I think he is a disaster waiting to happen. He makes poor choices but the Eagles will try and insulate him. I don't think he will stay our of trouble. 

[csmopar]

12 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Taylor is going  to retire at half time of third preseason  game lol

At this point I wish he would. 

13 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Taylor is going  to retire at half time of third preseason  game lol

After he runs cone drills and warms up in pregame

[csmopar]

@w87r question for you, 

 

If Taylor isn’t cleared off the PUP by the start of the season, does he then go IR/Regular season PUP and how does that affect the roster 

[MikeCurtis]

3 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I’m thinking they might try to trade Cox for a player at cut down.  Maybe OL or CB.  Safety seems set now.  OL depth is concerning to me.

I agree that the CB spot should be looked at, but in my opinion (not worth much)our rookie CBs need some game reps to get better (A bit like AR)

 

They will (should) get better with time

 

The poor performance at the RG spot  actually effects ARs growth and development

 

Keeping your shiny QB new upright would seem like a good, lower cost investment

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

33 minutes ago, csmopar said:

@w87r question for you, 

 

If Taylor isn’t cleared off the PUP by the start of the season, does he then go IR/Regular season PUP and how does that affect the roster 

I think if he stays on pup he has to miss 6 games I believe. I think he has to be on the 53 then moved in order for him to come back later in the season.

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I think if he stays on pup he has to miss 6 games I believe. I think he has to be on the 53 then moved in order for him to come back later in the season.

So to do that, they’d have to activate him off pup and then put him back on ? Or if he’s not able to be cleared, what happens  is my question? IR for the season?

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

8 minutes ago, csmopar said:

So to do that, they’d have to activate him off pup and then put him back on ? Or if he’s not able to be cleared, what happens  is my question? IR for the season?

Yes I think this is right. He will go on the 53 then go back to regular season PUP or IR. I think IR is 8 games. If they put him on IR before cut downs or beginning of season  his season is over.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, Chucklez said:

And before anyone chimes in with "no RB is worth $10m a year" - yeah.... they are. That's just the premium you pay for an elite RB. Which JT is, so long as he is healthy - if he is cleared and healthy, i have no problem paying him $10m a year for 3 years - maybe somthing like $23m of which is guaranteed.

 

Edit: this screenshot came out very small, copied text here:
 

RANK    PLAYER                      TEAM           2023 SALARY

1            Bijan Robinson            Falcons         $13.72M

2            Christian McCaffrey     49ers            $12M

t-3         Alvin Kamara                Saints          $11M

t-3         Saquon Barkley            Giants          $11M

5            Aaron Jones                 Packers        $10.96M

6            Nick Chubb                  Browns        $10.85M

7            Jahmyr Gibbs               Lions            $10.73M

8            Derrick Henry               Titans          $10.5M

9            Tony Pollard                 Cowboys      $10.09M

10          Dalvin Cook                 Jets               $8.6M

 

First, this data is flawed. You're using 2023 cash earnings, not average salary or cap figures. If the Colts were to sign Taylor for three years, $40m right now, his 2023 cash earnings would probably be more than $20m. So let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples, and the best way to do that is average salary. 

 

Top of the market is $15-16m (McCaffrey, Kamara), then second tier is Henry, Chubb, Jones ($12-12.5m), then three guys on the tag at $10m (Barkley, Jacobs, Pollard), then the next tier is $7m and below. The average for the top ten is just over $11m/year. Josh Jacobs was reportedly asking the Raiders for $12m/year. The Colts haven't made an offer, and we don't know what Taylor is asking for, but I think it's reasonable that he wants to be at least at the top of the second tier, which would be around $13m/year. It's hard to imagine him only wanting $10m/year; that would put him below the top ten average.

 

But let's talk football theory. If you take a good RB away from an average offense, that offense will suffer. Take Taylor away from the 2021 Colts, or Jacobs away from the 2022 Raiders, and those offenses crater. This is not debatable.

 

A better question, though, is do you need a great RB to have a good offense? Do you even need a great RB to have a good rushing attack? The Falcons were a great rushing team in 2022, with a random assortment of ball carriers. The Bears and Ravens led the league in rushing yards, and their top rushers were their QBs by a wide margin. Even the Giants, fifth in rushing yards with Barkley, but Daniel Jones was a big part of their rushing attack. So you don't need a great RB to have a good rushing attack, especially if you're using your QB in the run game.

 

Bigger picture, you don't need a great RB to have a good offense. The teams with the best offenses are almost invariably powered by a great passer, and they mostly do NOT feature a high volume ball carrier. In fact, if you tried to put a high volume ball carrier on an offense with a great passer, you're probably hurting your offense by taking the ball out of the hands of the QB. A great RB is a luxury, not a necessity. And now the Colts have a QB who will likely be a huge part of the run game, which further brings into question the value that a great RB will have on our offense.

 

In a vacuum, yes, I want the best RB we can have. That's true of every position, though. In reality, there is a cost consideration, and that's why it's worthwhile to determine the value of a great RB, especially relative to the available replacement options. Should a team pay near top of market for a RB when the RB isn't central to having a great offense? Should you pay that premium when you can probably replace one player's production with your QB and 2-3 other RBs at a third of the cost? And that's setting aside questions about longevity and continued performance.

 

I don't think it would hamstring the Colts to pay Taylor near top of market, and there are intangible benefits to rewarding your best players. But I do acknowledge that it's probably not the most efficient use of our cap space in the modern NFL. I'd love to have Taylor stick around and be happy with his compensation, but if the goal is to have a good offense so we can win games, it's probably not the best choice that the team can make, purely from a resource management standpoint.

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, csmopar said:

So to do that, they’d have to activate him off pup and then put him back on ? Or if he’s not able to be cleared, what happens  is my question? IR for the season?

 

No they would just keep him on PUP, and he'd stay there for at least six weeks, and would not count against the 53 man roster at any point during that time.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No they would just keep him on PUP, and he'd stay there for at least six weeks, and would not count against the 53 man roster at any point during that time.

Doesn’t he have to go on the 53 first?  I thought I remembered this happens sometimes where a guy gets cut to put someone on the 53 who is injured but then they move the injured guy and the guy cut goes back on 53.

[luv_pony_express]

2 hours ago, iuswingman said:

 

Just because it happens a lot doesn't mean a whole lot.  Teams don't have to renegotiate before the contract is up.

I feel like this is something that should be dealt with in the CBA.

 

The NFLPA would never stand for teams doing the same thing the other way - nor should they.  Both parties to a contract should be held fully accountable to the terms of the contracts they enter into.

 

Of course, the NFLPA would probably insist on adjusting some parameters of the 4-year contract provision for drafted rookies - maybe increase the guarantee scale or something like that.  But these “renegotiate with seasons left on my contract” stuff is infuriating and, IMO, not good for the game.

[iuswingman]

23 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

First, this data is flawed. You're using 2023 cash earnings, not average salary or cap figures. If the Colts were to sign Taylor for three years, $40m right now, his 2023 cash earnings would probably be more than $20m. So let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples, and the best way to do that is average salary. 

 

Top of the market is $15-16m (McCaffrey, Kamara), then second tier is Henry, Chubb, Jones ($12-12.5m), then three guys on the tag at $10m (Barkley, Jacobs, Pollard), then the next tier is $7m and below. The average for the top ten is just over $11m/year. Josh Jacobs was reportedly asking the Raiders for $12m/year. The Colts haven't made an offer, and we don't know what Taylor is asking for, but I think it's reasonable that he wants to be at least at the top of the second tier, which would be around $13m/year. It's hard to imagine him only wanting $10m/year; that would put him below the top ten average.

 

But let's talk football theory. If you take a good RB away from an average offense, that offense will suffer. Take Taylor away from the 2021 Colts, or Jacobs away from the 2022 Raiders, and those offenses crater. This is not debatable.

 

A better question, though, is do you need a great RB to have a good offense? Do you even need a great RB to have a good rushing attack? The Falcons were a great rushing team in 2022, with a random assortment of ball carriers. The Bears and Ravens led the league in rushing yards, and their top rushers were their QBs by a wide margin. Even the Giants, fifth in rushing yards with Barkley, but Daniel Jones was a big part of their rushing attack. So you don't need a great RB to have a good rushing attack, especially if you're using your QB in the run game.

 

Bigger picture, you don't need a great RB to have a good offense. The teams with the best offenses are almost invariably powered by a great passer, and they mostly do NOT feature a high volume ball carrier. In fact, if you tried to put a high volume ball carrier on an offense with a great passer, you're probably hurting your offense by taking the ball out of the hands of the QB. A great RB is a luxury, not a necessity. And now the Colts have a QB who will likely be a huge part of the run game, which further brings into question the value that a great RB will have on our offense.

 

In a vacuum, yes, I want the best RB we can have. That's true of every position, though. In reality, there is a cost consideration, and that's why it's worthwhile to determine the value of a great RB, especially relative to the available replacement options. Should a team pay near top of market for a RB when the RB isn't central to having a great offense? Should you pay that premium when you can probably replace one player's production with your QB and 2-3 other RBs at a third of the cost? And that's setting aside questions about longevity and continued performance.

 

I don't think it would hamstring the Colts to pay Taylor near top of market, and there are intangible benefits to rewarding your best players. But I do acknowledge that it's probably not the most efficient use of our cap space in the modern NFL. I'd love to have Taylor stick around and be happy with his compensation, but if the goal is to have a good offense so we can win games, it's probably not the best choice that the team can make, purely from a resource management standpoint.

 

Good post.

 

I wonder how many of those top 10 paid RBs got their contract before their previous contract was up.   I agree Taylor probably wouldn't accept a 10 million per year average salary but if he gets it now, that first year is pretty much a free $6 million dollar raise over what he should have gotten with finishing the contract he signed.  He won't think of it that way and I think the Colts would be smarter moving on if he is holding out for more than the 10-12m range.  

[iuswingman]

Just now, luv_pony_express said:

I feel like this is something that should be dealt with in the CBA.

 

The NFLPA would never stand for teams doing the same thing the other way - nor should they.  Both parties to a contract should be held fully accountable to the terms of the contracts they enter into.

 

Of course, the NFLPA would probably insist on adjusting some parameters of the 4-year contract provision for drafted rookies - maybe increase the guarantee scale or something like that.  But these “renegotiate with seasons left on my contract” stuff is infuriating and, IMO, not good for the game.

 

I fully agree.   A lot of this huffing and puffing and sulking around would end if contracts couldn't be renewed until the previous contract was up.  

 

May have to make it harder for teams to cancel out of contracts on their side of the coin as well.

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Doesn’t he have to go on the 53 first?  I thought I remembered this happens sometimes where a guy gets cut to put someone on the 53 who is injured but then they move the injured guy and the guy cut goes back on 53.

 

I don't think so. Only players who are physically unable to perform when they report at the start of camp are eligible for PUP, and they are only added to the regular season 53 man roster after they start practicing. If the team keeps them on PUP after cutdowns, they go to PUP/Reserve and have to miss six weeks, and don't count against the 53 man roster.

 

Update: It's actually four weeks, as of 2022. 

 

What you might be thinking of is using the short term IR. I think a player would have to be cleared medically, on the 53 man active roster, and then placed on IR. But to go from preseason PUP to regular season PUP, that's not necessary.

[Solid84]

3 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

That's why I'd offer him $10 million for one year. They are getting 6 and 8 million for one year respectively 

That's likely his worth. Kamara and CMC are anomalies.

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, luv_pony_express said:

Of course, the NFLPA would probably insist on adjusting some parameters of the 4-year contract provision for drafted rookies - maybe increase the guarantee scale or something like that.  But these “renegotiate with seasons left on my contract” stuff is infuriating and, IMO, not good for the game.

 

How often is there a multi year contract for professional services that is not eligible to be renegotiated during the term of that contract? If you sign a contract with your employer for three years, but the market increases drastically after one year, and you're one of the best producers in your industry, are you not allowed to approach your employer to renegotiate your compensation? This happens all the time. The difference is it's usually not a spectator sport. Another difference is that your professional value doesn't dramatically decrease during your early 20s, so you can play the long game.

 

The NFL effectively has a monopoly over professional football players, and collectively bargained details like the draft, no renegotiations in the first three years (two years for UDFAs), franchise tag, etc., are collusive in nature. It's only the NFL's antitrust exemption that allows them to operate in this way.

 

These contract negotiations are typical business. We take it personally because we're fans who want to see our teams do well, and the money is so out of this world that we can't relate. But in reality, the NFL has a lot of control over player contracts, and exercises that control in ways that artificially suppress the earning potential of the players. Good, bad, indifferent... that's a matter of personal viewpoint. But I don't expect any CBA changes that are going to give teams even more control over player contracts than they already have. 

[iuswingman]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

How often is there a multi year contract for professional services that is not eligible to be renegotiated during the term of that contract? If you sign a contract with your employer for three years, but the market increases drastically after one year, and you're one of the best producers in your industry, are you not allowed to approach your employer to renegotiate your compensation? This happens all the time. The difference is it's usually not a spectator sport. Another difference is that your professional value doesn't dramatically decrease during your early 20s, so you can play the long game.

 

The NFL effectively has a monopoly over professional football players, and collectively bargained details like the draft, no renegotiations in the first three years (two years for UDFAs), franchise tag, etc., are collusive in nature. It's only the NFL's antitrust exemption that allows them to operate in this way.

 

These contract negotiations are typical business. We take it personally because we're fans who want to see our teams do well, and the money is so out of this world that we can't relate. But in reality, the NFL has a lot of control over player contracts, and exercises that control in ways that artificially suppress the earning potential of the players. Good, bad, indifferent... that's a matter of personal viewpoint. But I don't expect any CBA changes that are going to give teams even more control over player contracts than they already have. 

 

I don't often deal with contracts with work but if I have a contract for construction or improvements on my house, I definitely wouldn't be renegotiating it midway through.

 

I'm pretty sure the NFL and NFLPA signed an agreement on how things work.    Players can go on to work in the real world if they want but they know even $4m/year is a sweet gig compared to the rest of us.

 

Sorry, the comment that other people's professional value doesn't dramatically decrease after the early 20s is a joke.  If most of us made $4m/year, then most of us wouldn't care if our value decreased over time.  We would be enjoying early retirement.

[Smash Mouth]

2 hours ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

Obviously there is some doubt to his health. I wouldn't pay him until I see him perform back at his level. Everyone would call for Ballard's head if he gave JT 10 mil now and he has an injury riddled season.

He's not getting into football shape on the sidelines either. the likelihood of injuries this year are increasing

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[w87r]

Just now, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

 

They can't sign him to long term deal 

 

Can only increase the one year FranTag number 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

2 minutes ago, w87r said:

They can't sign him to long term deal 

 

Can only increase the one year FranTag number 

Which might happen if he wants to play. 

[w87r]

2 hours ago, csmopar said:

@w87r question for you, 

 

If Taylor isn’t cleared off the PUP by the start of the season, does he then go IR/Regular season PUP and how does that affect the roster 

Seems Superman has explained it pretty well.

 

But yeah, if he stays on PUP list, it will just transfer over to regular season.

 

Now if we were wanting to IR him, he would have to be activated and put on the final 53 roster, then placed on IR, in order to come back this season.

 

If placed on IR prior to season, he would be out for season.

 

No reason for the Colts to try and put him on the IR really. Now, NFI? That's another question.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Which might happen if he wants to play. 

Yeah, he would be a fool not to play. Raiders can pull that offer at anytime and he would be out on the open market trying to get that $6-$8m contract. Be wise to agree to something fairly quickly, before the rug gets pulled out from underneath him.

[richard pallo]

3 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Which might happen if he wants to play. 

If they rescind the tag he becomes a FA.  Then he probably could resign on a longer deal with the Raiders.  Just guessing.

[w87r]

4 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

If they rescind the tag he becomes a FA.  Then he probably could resign on a longer deal with the Raiders.  Just guessing.

Nope.

 

Only 1yr.

[hoosierhawk]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

First, this data is flawed. You're using 2023 cash earnings, not average salary or cap figures. If the Colts were to sign Taylor for three years, $40m right now, his 2023 cash earnings would probably be more than $20m. So let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples, and the best way to do that is average salary. 

 

Top of the market is $15-16m (McCaffrey, Kamara), then second tier is Henry, Chubb, Jones ($12-12.5m), then three guys on the tag at $10m (Barkley, Jacobs, Pollard), then the next tier is $7m and below. The average for the top ten is just over $11m/year. Josh Jacobs was reportedly asking the Raiders for $12m/year. The Colts haven't made an offer, and we don't know what Taylor is asking for, but I think it's reasonable that he wants to be at least at the top of the second tier, which would be around $13m/year. It's hard to imagine him only wanting $10m/year; that would put him below the top ten average.

 

But let's talk football theory. If you take a good RB away from an average offense, that offense will suffer. Take Taylor away from the 2021 Colts, or Jacobs away from the 2022 Raiders, and those offenses crater. This is not debatable.

 

A better question, though, is do you need a great RB to have a good offense? Do you even need a great RB to have a good rushing attack? The Falcons were a great rushing team in 2022, with a random assortment of ball carriers. The Bears and Ravens led the league in rushing yards, and their top rushers were their QBs by a wide margin. Even the Giants, fifth in rushing yards with Barkley, but Daniel Jones was a big part of their rushing attack. So you don't need a great RB to have a good rushing attack, especially if you're using your QB in the run game.

 

Bigger picture, you don't need a great RB to have a good offense. The teams with the best offenses are almost invariably powered by a great passer, and they mostly do NOT feature a high volume ball carrier. In fact, if you tried to put a high volume ball carrier on an offense with a great passer, you're probably hurting your offense by taking the ball out of the hands of the QB. A great RB is a luxury, not a necessity. And now the Colts have a QB who will likely be a huge part of the run game, which further brings into question the value that a great RB will have on our offense.

 

In a vacuum, yes, I want the best RB we can have. That's true of every position, though. In reality, there is a cost consideration, and that's why it's worthwhile to determine the value of a great RB, especially relative to the available replacement options. Should a team pay near top of market for a RB when the RB isn't central to having a great offense? Should you pay that premium when you can probably replace one player's production with your QB and 2-3 other RBs at a third of the cost? And that's setting aside questions about longevity and continued performance.

 

I don't think it would hamstring the Colts to pay Taylor near top of market, and there are intangible benefits to rewarding your best players. But I do acknowledge that it's probably not the most efficient use of our cap space in the modern NFL. I'd love to have Taylor stick around and be happy with his compensation, but if the goal is to have a good offense so we can win games, it's probably not the best choice that the team can make, purely from a resource management standpoint.

How does the cap work if the Colts agreed to keep his contract in place and offer incentives such as X Million for 1,000,X more for 1,200 and x more for1,500 etc. Same type incentive for TDs. I believe Taylor would play a huge part in Richardson's success and they could be dynamite in the RPO offence. 

Don't know if Taylor would go for such a thing but could be a win-win for both Taylor and the Colts. If he had a great year the Colts likely would be willing to sign him to a very competitive contract next year. I think incentives in contract are common in the NFL, are they not?  

[csmopar]

31 minutes ago, w87r said:

Seems Superman has explained it pretty well.

 

But yeah, if he stays on PUP list, it will just transfer over to regular season.

 

Now if we were wanting to IR him, he would have to be activated and put on the final 53 roster, then placed on IR, in order to come back this season.

 

If placed on IR prior to season, he would be out for season.

 

No reason for the Colts to try and put him on the IR really. Now, NFI? That's another question.

 

 

Yeah, he would be a fool not to play. Raiders can pull that offer at anytime and he would be out on the open market trying to get that $6-$8m contract. Be wise to agree to something fairly quickly, before the rug gets pulled out from underneath him.

I think they were considering it prior to the leak about it and I’m pretty sure just for a metrics look, they won’t do it now. If anything. They’ll let him rot in PUP a few more weeks and then leave him there until they have to IR him. 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

How does the cap work if the Colts agreed to keep his contract in place and offer incentives such as X Million for 1,000,X more for 1,200 and x more for1,500 etc. Same type incentive for TDs. I believe Taylor would play a huge part in Richardson's success and they could be dynamite in the RPO offence. 

Don't know if Taylor would go for such a thing but could be a win-win for both Taylor and the Colts. If he had a great year the Colts likely would be willing to sign him to a very competitive contract next year. I think incentives in contract are common in the NFL, are they not?  

 

Categories for incentives are defined in the CBA. But yeah, they could say $1m for 1,000 yards, $1m for 10 TDs, $1m for All Pro, etc. Team incentives also. 

 

The way it affects the cap is incentives are separated into two categories. First, "likely to be earned" (LTBE) are incentives that the player would have hit in the previous season. So if Player A has a 1,000 yard incentive for this season, and had 1,000 yards in the previous season, that incentive would be considered LTBE. It would be counted against this year's cap. This is true for individual incentives and team incentives.

 

Then, there are "not likely to be earned" incentives (NLTBE). If the player did not hit that threshold in the previous season -- for example, if JT had a 1,000 yard incentive in 2023, it would be considered NLTBE because he didn't hit 1,000 yards last year -- then it is not counted against this year's cap.

 

At the end of the season, incentives are reconciled. If a player does not hit his LTBE incentives, the team gets an adjusted credit toward the next year's cap. If a player does hit his NLTBE incentives, the team has an adjusted charge against next year's cap. 

 

So if the Colts adjusted Taylor's contract in 2023 with some incentives, and they were all considered NLTBE, then it would not affect the Colts 2023 cap figure. However, if he hits those incentives in 2023, then the 2024 cap would be affected.

 

Long story short, player incentives do count against the cap, but the team cap figure gets reconciled as those incentives are met or missed.