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

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, csmopar said:

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. 

 

I think, if they considered it at all, it was before they put him on PUP. Maybe when he was refusing to come in for a pre-camp evaluation. Once they put him on PUP, I think it was too late. And the story came out days after he was put on PUP.

[csmopar]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think, if they considered it at all, it was before they put him on PUP. Maybe when he was refusing to come in for a pre-camp evaluation. Once they put him on PUP, I think it was too late. And the story came out days after he was put on PUP.

Makes total sense actually. Good point .either way, the NFI is water already passed under the bridge. 

[cdgacoltsfan]

4 hours ago, 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.

 

Sounds like a snow boarding injury.

[csmopar]

1 minute ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

Sounds like a snow boarding injury.

Between the ears man

[luv_pony_express]

12 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

 

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.

Well, having taken part in negotiating several CBAs myself, one thing I know is that rarely does either side get something they want without giving up something the other side wants.

 

Obviously, the NFLPA is not just going to willingly give up this right without compensation.  And maybe their demands to do so will be seen as worse than the status quo for the owners.

 

And it’s not something only impacting players on rookie contracts.

[smittywerb]

Cook just signed for $8.6

 

Top 3 highest paid running backs are CMC (16$), Kamara ($15), and Henry ($12).  I would not mind giving JT $12mill/year for what he does as I feel CMC and Kamara command that money because they also can play as WR threats.  JT style is more in line with Henry and Chubb who both make $12million per year.

 

If JT is shooting for anything higher than $12mill per year then he can go.

[Nickster]

8 hours ago, Chucklez said:

This could well be true. JT just needs to realise that isnt what the RB market is.... whether that is fair or not isnt really the point (personally i think RBs are being completely screwed over, but thats also besides the point).

He is worth whatever people are willing to pay him. I could go tell my boss i think I'm worth double my salary as well, doesnt mean i'll get it. He is sour and upset, and i get it, he will just need to realise he isnt going to get what he wants, the only question remaining is have all of the bridges between him and the colts been burnt in the process of that? If they have, thats a massive shame, and it will be his own fault for handling this so poorly. 

Boo yah on the bolded.  I don’t think anyone’s getting screwed personally.  TEs and Gs used to get “screwed” and now their piece of the pie is larger.  With a cap some positions get more and some get less.  It’s determined by the market which consists of 32 Front Offices.  The “fairness” debate is irrelevant IMO.

[luv_pony_express]

2 hours 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. 

 

Well, I own a contracting firm and I can assure you that this virtually never happens in my world.  And I'm not only talking about single project contracts, but also things like defined-term Master Service Agreements and the like.  When you sign one of these, you are binding yourself to them for the duration of the term.

 

Now, they pretty much always contain some kinds of defined and limited provisions for changes.  Both parties anticipate these and agree on how they're to be dealt with.  And, of course, it is hardly uncommon for lawyers to play a game of contract tennis before contracts are executed.

 

But if I went to any of the entities that we're contracted with -- which includes a number of labor unions -- midway during the life of a contract and informed them I wanted to renegotiate it, I'd get laughed out of the room.  People have tried this and they'll try all kinds of tactics to avoid a breach lawsuit, too.  In cases where our performance is bonded, I'm then literally gambling with my own personal assets since these bonds are pretty universally attached to personal guarantee.

 

So let's just say that I strongly disagree with you that this is just typical business.  Not in my experience.

[jvan1973]

19 hours ago, csmopar said:

Of all the posts you and I have had where we’ve disagreed in the past decade plus, this is the first time I find myself shaking my head a post you’ve made. Usually I can see where you’re thinking but this is so terribly false I can’t help but think you didn’t think this one through

Carries from 5 years ago aren't effecting his play this season.   He hasn't had a major injury.   Past injuries are far more important than Past carries.  His college carries aren't effecting his play today

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, luv_pony_express said:

 

Well, I own a contracting firm and I can assure you that this virtually never happens in my world.  And I'm not only talking about single project contracts, but also things like defined-term Master Service Agreements and the like.  When you sign one of these, you are binding yourself to them for the duration of the term.

 

Now, they pretty much always contain some kinds of defined and limited provisions for changes.  Both parties anticipate these and agree on how they're to be dealt with.  And, of course, it is hardly uncommon for lawyers to play a game of contract tennis before contracts are executed.

 

But if I went to any of the entities that we're contracted with -- which includes a number of labor unions -- midway during the life of a contract and informed them I wanted to renegotiate it, I'd get laughed out of the room.  People have tried this and they'll try all kinds of tactics to avoid a breach lawsuit, too.  In cases where our performance is bonded, I'm then literally gambling with my own personal assets since these bonds are pretty universally attached to personal guarantee.

 

So let's just say that I strongly disagree with you that this is just typical business.  Not in my experience.

 

I appreciate your perspective on this. But what you're talking about is more analogous with CBA negotiations than it is with individual player compensation. If the NFLPA goes to the owners three years into a ten year agreement and tries to renegotiate revenue splits, that's not going anywhere. At least not without a strike.

 

But with an individual employee, changed compensation is a matter of negotiation. Unless there's some overarching rule or law that prohibits a renegotiation, it would come down to leverage and motivation. In the NFL, players generally cannot renegotiate until they've completed their third year. After that, it's a matter of leverage and motivation. And even a company (or team) with a self-imposed 'no renegotiations' rule could be motivated to break that rule in a specific situation.

 

It's also not likely that these contracts you deal with completely prohibit early extension negotiations. If you have a five year contract with a union, you probably don't have to wait until the end of Year 5 to negotiate an extension. But that's what you're suggesting should be eliminated at the player level.

 

You even stated that the NFLPA would not take kindly to teams adjusting contracts early, but teams already have the ability to terminate contracts early, and they do this all the time. They even wield this ability to influence players into renegotiating reduced compensation -- the Bengals just did this with Joe Mixon. Leverage and motivation... (Setting aside whether I think it's "good," or "right"... Just recently, Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, and Deshaun Watson got new contracts with increased compensation, while still having multiple years remaining on their previous contracts. That's not typical, but they had leverage, and the teams involved had motivation. On the other hand, Kenny Moore had two years left, and wanted a raise, and the Colts said no. He had no leverage, the team had no motivation.)

 

When I said it's typical business, I was talking in general terms about contract negotiations, not necessarily just early renegotiations. But I do think that there's an overly rigid response along the lines of 'they should honor their contract, and anyone who dares to leverage their market for increased compensation should be punished for even thinking about it.' That response tends to be one-sided, in favor of the team, with virtually no one saying the same thing when teams release players with years remaining on their contracts. And I don't think that type of reaction acknowledges the reality of contracted, performance-based compensation.

[Superman]

Bruh

 

 

[gspdx]

Just now, Superman said:

Bruh

 

 

Wow.  Not much left to say.

[Nickster]

Just now, Superman said:

Bruh

 

 

I guess I shouldn’t laugh because it could be something serious, but dang that’s smells pescatarian lol.

[Nickster]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

Bruh

 

 

You added the holder quote Supe?  Withdrawing my laugh.

[Indyfan4life]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

Bruh

 

 

Yeahhhhhhh I hope everything is alright and not just a front for contract stuff. 

[Boondoggle]

At this point it looks like Taylor will be moved at the trade deadline.  That's the best time to get what you can for a RB of his caliber because in that moment his quality will speak to the contenders.  But it would not surprise me if they move him sooner, though I think that is unlikely as everyone (Irsay and the Colts decision makers) is going to need to marinate in this situation a bit more before the obvious end result is accepted.

[Dingus McGirt]

Personal issue…

[luv_pony_express]

38 minutes ago, Superman said:

That response tends to be one-sided, in favor of the team, with virtually no one saying the same thing when teams release players with years remaining on their contracts. And I don't think that type of reaction acknowledges the reality of contracted, performance-based compensation.

But the contracts (and CBA) very much allow for this.  Teams releasing players is not a breach of contract or any kind of ex post facto adjustment.  Doing so does not relieve the team from its contractual obligations.

 

So that’s not an apt comparison.  If it were, I’d agree with you.  It’s entirely fair to say that both sides need to honor the contracts they sign.

[Superman]

26 minutes ago, luv_pony_express said:

But the contracts (and CBA) very much allow for this.  Teams releasing players is not a breach of contract or any kind of ex post facto adjustment.  Doing so does not relieve the team from its contractual obligations.

 

So that’s not an apt comparison.  If it were, I’d agree with you.  It’s entirely fair to say that both sides need to honor the contracts they sign.

 

You are absolutely right, and that's an important distinction that I'm happy you pointed out, because it seems to be lost on a lot of fans and media. But it's a technical distinction. And when you say "the NFLPA would never stand for teams doing the same thing the other way," it doesn't seem to acknowledge the one-sided nature of contract terminations in the NFL. 

 

Fans are generally unfavorable toward players who ask for increased compensation on the basis of standout performance. Yet, teams have the ability to terminate player contracts if the player is not producing as desired (or for almost any other reason). And that ability gives teams built-in leverage, which they use when they want, like the Bengals with Mixon. Players, on the other hand, only have one real way to try to gain some leverage, and that's by withholding their services. And that strategy is loud, usually not fun for anyone involved, and often doesn't even work, so most players who are unhappy with their contracts generally say/do nothing.

 

 

Long story short, my point is that the CBA already favors teams over players (not a judgment, just stating as a fact). Public perception generally sides against the players in contract negotiations, in large part due to the fact that they make more money than the fans who take team performance even more seriously than the players do. But I don't think the idea of negotiating increased compensation is so outrageous that it should be prohibited. In fact, it often benefits the team and the player simultaneously, so I doubt there's any motivation from either side to restrict early extensions more than they already are.

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

You added the holder quote Supe?  Withdrawing my laugh.

 

Yeah, I added it pretty quickly but it looks like some people missed it. Hopefully JT and his folks are okay.

 

But also, hopefully this is not contract motivated.

[azcolt]

Cliff’s Notes JT summary:

 

He’s healthy and reluctantly will be playing on his contract; no, he won’t play without an extension; he’s in camp with his hoodie but he’s pouting and says he’s still hurt; nope, he’s gone again somewhere to get treatment; huh uh, he and his hoodie definitely are back; nope, he and his pal hoodie are definitely gonzo.

[Happy2BeHere]

3 hours ago, smittywerb said:

Cook just signed for $8.6

 

Top 3 highest paid running backs are CMC (16$), Kamara ($15), and Henry ($12).  I would not mind giving JT $12mill/year for what he does as I feel CMC and Kamara command that money because they also can play as WR threats.  JT style is more in line with Henry and Chubb who both make $12million per year.

 

If JT is shooting for anything higher than $12mill per year then he can go.

JT is no Henry…I mean in my opinion Henry is far more valuable. If we are basing it off your list above JT is more like $9mil at most.

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, Dingus McGirt said:

Personal issue…

 

2 hours ago, Dingus McGirt said:

Personal issue…

He got sand in his shorts

[Chrisaaron1023]

At this point just tell me when JT is going to practice.. these JT ESPN/NFL notifications are getting tiring.. 

 

*ESPN notification sound* 

My heart stops.

 

"Jonathan Taylor colts disgruntled RB, had diarrhea today" 

 

Let me know when something useful happens 

 

 

[JColts72]

Just leave from camp for good. Such a negative me first distraction he has become. 

[smittywerb]

8 hours ago, Happy2BeHere said:

JT is no Henry…I mean in my opinion Henry is far more valuable. If we are basing it off your list above JT is more like $9mil at most.

i agree honestly.  $12 would be the highest I’d go.  But I would offer him $10

[Dingus McGirt]

11 hours ago, csmopar said:

 

He got sand in his shorts

My thought - exactly.

 

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, Dingus McGirt said:

My thought - exactly.

 

lol yeah I had to rewrite what I originally wanted to say but yeah

[Nickster]

I don't believe that the Colts or any org should pay any RB that isn't excellent in pass pro and route running any type of big money long term contract.  

 

That said.  I understand JT's frustration.  He was the best player on the team in 2021 hands down and helped make what is IMO a weaker type of roster playoff relevant for a couple months in the middle of the season.

 

Plus he watched two oft injured teammates in Leonard and Nelson get mega market busting contracts the YEAR BEFORE their deals were done.  This I would suspect is part of why JT is so miffed and I understand why.  It makes sense and is reasonable.

 

That said.  He has no leverage and will either eat with us, get traded for peanuts and less than tag level salary, or starve.  In which case his contract will still loom over him. 

 

I understand the frustration of NFL players on some level to.

 

People talk about honoring the contract he signed.  Rookie 2nd rounders have almost no room to negotiate.  The salary levels are predetermined.  So to say he should honor his contract as some sort of moral imperative is pretty much absurd to me.

 

The only way a kid on a rookie can create leverage is by doing something like what he's doing.  Hold outs have been happening since Curt Flood in 1969 and even before actually.

 

JT has no leverage but I understand why he'd have such a beef.  The messages of the FO (namely Irsay) are hypocritical because they've often signed other players in non premium positions to huge contracts before the contracts were up.

 

The bottom line is that there isn't a market for his services at the pay level he believes he's worth.  This isn't an ethical or moral question IMO.  The Colts seem to be screwing him in the context of the Smith, Leonard, and Shaq deals. 

 

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

Plus he watched two oft injured teammates in Leonard and Nelson get mega market busting contracts the YEAR BEFORE their deals were done.  This I would suspect is part of why JT is so miffed and I understand why.  It makes sense and is reasonable.

 

Leonard had missed a couple games here and there, but when he got his new deal he wasn't a serious injury risk. Nelson had his injury stuff start popping up in 2021, but he was four time All Pro and generally considered a top ten OL. And he hasn't missed a game since then, even though he probably hasn't been at 100%. At the time of their contracts, I see them both differently than a RB who had a lingering ankle injury and still isn't medically cleared more than 7 months after surgery. 

 

And then there's the positional value, especially since our offense will be drastically different than it was when we drafted JT. But if the Colts were expecting to churn and burn at RB, they probably would have drafted someone this year. I don't think Evan Hull qualifies...

 

I understand if he feels he's deserving of a new contract and is being treated differently solely because he's a RB. But I think the Colts have taken a reasonable stance on this one, particularly because JT still isn't recovered from the ankle.

 

I agree with the rest, though. The two sides are at an impasse because until this standoff, JT has done everything he's been asked to do and is a standout producer, but the Colts aren't going to commit big money to him when he's still rehabbing his ankle. I don't blame either side, but JT is coming up short and I understand his frustration. (I do think JT has misplayed his hand, but that's another story.)

[Nickster]

21 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Leonard had missed a couple games here and there, but when he got his new deal he wasn't a serious injury risk. Nelson had his injury stuff start popping up in 2021, but he was four time All Pro and generally considered a top ten OL. And he hasn't missed a game since then, even though he probably hasn't been at 100%. At the time of their contracts, I see them both differently than a RB who had a lingering ankle injury and still isn't medically cleared more than 7 months after surgery. 

 

And then there's the positional value, especially since our offense will be drastically different than it was when we drafted JT. But if the Colts were expecting to churn and burn at RB, they probably would have drafted someone this year. I don't think Evan Hull qualifies...

 

I understand if he feels he's deserving of a new contract and is being treated differently solely because he's a RB. But I think the Colts have taken a reasonable stance on this one, particularly because JT still isn't recovered from the ankle.

 

I agree with the rest, though. The two sides are at an impasse because until this standoff, JT has done everything he's been asked to do and is a standout producer, but the Colts aren't going to commit big money to him when he's still rehabbing his ankle. I don't blame either side, but JT is coming up short and I understand his frustration. (I do think JT has misplayed his hand, but that's another story.)

 

Oh I see it somewhat differently than JT does too.  BUT.  I do understand him if he thinks it's hypocritical because it appears to be. 

 

I'm not for signing him for multiple reasons to a long term big money deal. 

But the org playing hardball with him is probably offensive to him saying they don't need to revisit signed contracts or whatever they said to that effect when they had done it repeatedly during JTs time with the team. 

[Nickster]

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

Leonard had missed a couple games here and there, but when he got his new deal he wasn't a serious injury risk. Nelson had his injury stuff start popping up in 2021, but he was four time All Pro and generally considered a top ten OL. And he hasn't missed a game since then, even though he probably hasn't been at 100%. At the time of their contracts, I see them both differently than a RB who had a lingering ankle injury and still isn't medically cleared more than 7 months after surgery. 

 

I disagree with this and I said as much back when the negotiations were taking place.  I thought and still think that he was to light at the time to absorb the type of punishment that run stopping LBs must endure.  I don't know if size has anything to do with this current issue but I do think playing at 218 isn't a recipe for longevity for a ILB type making 150 tackles a year. 

 

There's more to injury than missed games too.  I am guessing Nelson's dramatically diminished play is back related, and expressed concerns when the contract was being considered. 

[tikyle]

18 hours ago, smittywerb said:

Cook just signed for $8.6

 

Top 3 highest paid running backs are CMC (16$), Kamara ($15), and Henry ($12).  I would not mind giving JT $12mill/year for what he does as I feel CMC and Kamara command that money because they also can play as WR threats.  JT style is more in line with Henry and Chubb who both make $12million per year.

 

If JT is shooting for anything higher than $12mill per year then he can go.

 

15 hours ago, Happy2BeHere said:

JT is no Henry…I mean in my opinion Henry is far more valuable. If we are basing it off your list above JT is more like $9mil at most.

 

6 hours ago, smittywerb said:

i agree honestly.  $12 would be the highest I’d go.  But I would offer him $10

C'mon!

 

We all know how this works.  The next guy to get paid, gets more than the last guy that got paid, especially when the cap keeps increasing.  No QB is better than Mahomes but several make more than him.  JT doesn't have to be better than Henry to make more than him.  I agree he shouldn't get the CMC/Kamara premium of being a RB/WR but he should surely be the highest paid pure RB in the NFL if you think he can stay healthy.  

 

JT is by far the best offensive player on our team who touches the ball and probably the 2nd best offensive player on the team period behind Nelson.  Pay the man.  5 years, $65M with a modest signing bonus and hope we keep him that entire contract because that would mean he's out performing it.

[Old Colt]

7 hours ago, smittywerb said:

i agree honestly.  $12 would be the highest I’d go.  But I would offer him $10

10mm for 2 years; 15mm guaranteed with up to another 4mm/2mm per year in incentives

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

I disagree with this and I said as much back when the negotiations were taking place.  I thought and still think that he was to light at the time to absorb the type of punishment that run stopping LBs must endure.  I don't know if size has anything to do with this current issue but I do think playing at 218 isn't a recipe for longevity for a ILB type making 150 tackles a year. 

 

There's more to injury than missed games too.  I am guessing Nelson's dramatically diminished play is back related, and expressed concerns when the contract was being considered. 

 

That's absolutely fair, just doesn't seem like a concern that the team had at the time. He had a couple of minor things, but since then, it's been a different story. I wouldn't have called him oft-injured...

 

And yeah, Nelson has some questions also, but at the time it looked like one diminished season after three excellent years. To your credit, you weren't on board at the time.

 

I still personally view both situations differently than JT's situation now.

 

Quote

But the org playing hardball with him is probably offensive to him saying they don't need to revisit signed contracts or whatever they said to that effect when they had done it repeatedly during JTs time with the team. 

 

That's not at all what they said. If you take Irsay's statement literally, it could read that way: “Our hope is Jonathan has an outstanding year and that we have a good year as a team and then we get his next contract done. That’s the hope. We think the world of him as a person, as a player. It’s just timing. When your time comes to get paid, then you get paid.” But like you said, the Colts have done extensions with a year remaining several times, so 'when your time comes' doesn't necessarily mean 'at the end of Year 4.' I didn't take Irsay's comment that way.

 

And Ballard said 'he's coming off the injury, and we have a new coaching staff, so we need to see him healthy and make sure he's a good fit for our new offense. And we're not opposed to doing new contracts during the season.' And then Ballard said this week 'he needs to be healthy before we do anything.' So I don't think the Colts have been signaling that JT has to play out Year 4 before they'll talk. 

 

In an environment where some teams are churning and burning at RB, that kind of response from the Colts seems favorable.

 

I could see a world where Taylor had showed up 100%, had a great September, and got an offer from the Colts. Don't know if it would have been what he wants, but to me, the main impediment right now is his health, and the second question is his fit/value.

[Nickster]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I still personally view both situations differently than JT's situation now.

 

Oh I do too, but I can see why JT feels like he's being treated unfairly if that is how he feels when looking at these deals.  The language used with his thing is starkly different than the last couple years.  I don't think JT is being treated unfairly, as a matter of fact, I barely even acknowledge the concept of fairness as a legitimate paradigm in most situations, especially speculative futures' contracts which is what every NFL contract is. 

[csmopar]

8 hours ago, tikyle said:

 

 

C'mon!

 

We all know how this works.  The next guy to get paid, gets more than the last guy that got paid, especially when the cap keeps increasing.  No QB is better than Mahomes but several make more than him.  JT doesn't have to be better than Henry to make more than him.  I agree he shouldn't get the CMC/Kamara premium of being a RB/WR but he should surely be the highest paid pure RB in the NFL if you think he can stay healthy.  

 

JT is by far the best offensive player on our team who touches the ball and probably the 2nd best offensive player on the team period behind Nelson.  Pay the man.  5 years, $65M with a modest signing bonus and hope we keep him that entire contract because that would mean he's out performing it.

I’m 

[jvan1973]

8 hours ago, tikyle said:

 

 

C'mon!

 

We all know how this works.  The next guy to get paid, gets more than the last guy that got paid, especially when the cap keeps increasing.  No QB is better than Mahomes but several make more than him.  JT doesn't have to be better than Henry to make more than him.  I agree he shouldn't get the CMC/Kamara premium of being a RB/WR but he should surely be the highest paid pure RB in the NFL if you think he can stay healthy.  

 

JT is by far the best offensive player on our team who touches the ball and probably the 2nd best offensive player on the team period behind Nelson.  Pay the man.  5 years, $65M with a modest signing bonus and hope we keep him that entire contract because that would mean he's out performing it.

That's not happening unless he has an amazing season 

[DEColtsLover36]

100 page thread here we come!

[smittywerb]

16 hours ago, Old Colt said:

10mm for 2 years; 15mm guaranteed with up to another 4mm/2mm per year in incentives

that’s what I believe the nfl should do to get running backs their money.  I believe that all players should be paid what they’re worth but you can’t refute the drop off of the running back position.  So as a middle ground, make it incentive based.  You think you’re a $20mill guy, then take this $10mill contract with $10mill worth of incentives and get it.  If the player can beat the drop off then he’ll get his money.