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

[EasyE]

Lmao, I'm so done with the JT circus but I keep coming here to read, WTH is wrong with me??

[joeb]

4 minutes ago, EasyE said:

Lmao, I'm so done with the JT circus but I keep coming here to read, WTH is wrong with me??

Lol!  Ditto 

[DEColtsLover36]

[chad72]

Nick Chubb just had a gruesome injury vs Steelers. 
 

Maybe we can get a 2024 2nd rounder plus a 5th for him??

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I do t know if this was posted with the original above. This sounds like they are naming Taylor without saying his name. Steichen had been asked if the nfl contacted them and he said no comment.

 

 

[chad72]

1 minute ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I do t know if this was posted with the original above. This sounds like they are naming Taylor without saying his name. Steichen had been asked if the nfl contacted them and he said no comment.

 

 

The NFL leaking this might be advantageous to the Colts. Maybe JT now gets back on the saddle again to give it a go to save some face??

[Fluke_33]

1 hour ago, jimmy g said:

Chubb just got his knee exploded in the Cleveland -Pittsburgh game…

Napoleon Kaufmans knee injury was the worst I’ve seen but that one was pretty bad too. 

[Fluke_33]

29 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I do t know if this was posted with the original above. This sounds like they are naming Taylor without saying his name. Steichen had been asked if the nfl contacted them and he said no comment.

 

 

I wonder if this strategy had anything to do with jt changing management.  Maybe his old agent wouldn’t do it because of ethics.
 

 Pure speculation here. 

[EasyE]

59 minutes ago, joeb said:

Lol!  Ditto 

I want JT payed.. Just find it a waste for Colts to do it when he claims he doesn't want to be a Colt.

[bluebombers87]

8 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

His contract is up at seasons end so to trade him they would have to tag him.  If he doesn’t perform they just let him walk.

Ah good point. 👍

[smittywerb]

6 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I do t know if this was posted with the original above. This sounds like they are naming Taylor without saying his name. Steichen had been asked if the nfl contacted them and he said no comment.

 

 

 

Ooof.  NFL wouldn’t make a claim like that if they didn’t have proof because if JT can prove he’s indeed injured that is a big lawsuit payday for him.  
 

Welp, the clock is ticking.  JT better prove he’s injured (which hurts his stock and also chance for bigger payday) or play.

[Mr. Irrelevant]

8 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I do t know if this was posted with the original above. This sounds like they are naming Taylor without saying his name. Steichen had been asked if the nfl contacted them and he said no comment.

 

 

This certainly puts Taylor under major pressure, directly or indirectly.

[azcolt]

14 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

It would be nice if they threw in some new money for this year. Especially what happened to Barkley yesterday. 

Colts are already throwing in more money. They will pay him for 17 games even though he has been on strike for the first four. 😅

[1959Colts]

https://nesn.com/2023/09/former-patriots-running-back-reportedly-works-out-for-afc-team/

Former Patriots Running Back J.J Jackson Reportedly Worked Out Colts

[GoColts8818]

11 hours ago, EasyE said:

I want JT payed.. Just find it a waste for Colts to do it when he claims he doesn't want to be a Colt.

Remember when Lamar Jackson asked to be traded by the Ravens and didn’t want to be there anymore?  A new contract can fix those things overnight.  I am not saying the Colts should alter their plans and pay Taylor now, I think they should stick to their plans, but if they get to the point they want to extend Taylor all those hurt feelings might go away.

[stitches]

13 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I do t know if this was posted with the original above. This sounds like they are naming Taylor without saying his name. Steichen had been asked if the nfl contacted them and he said no comment.

 

 

About time. I can't believe this wasn't done immediately when it was reported that this was what was being discussed in NFLPA circles. 

[MB-ColtsFan]

1 hour ago, GoColts8818 said:

Remember when Lamar Jackson asked to be traded by the Ravens and didn’t want to be there anymore?  A new contract can fix those things overnight.  I am not saying the Colts should alter their plans and pay Taylor now, I think they should stick to their plans, but if they get to the point they want to extend Taylor all those hurt feelings might go away.

Money does cure a lot of ills (and ill feelings), no doubt.

JT just has to be willing to give it a try before getting the payday.  The Chubb injury may make him feel more impowered to stay his ground. 

[stitches]

7 hours ago, smittywerb said:

 

Ooof.  NFL wouldn’t make a claim like that if they didn’t have proof because if JT can prove he’s indeed injured that is a big lawsuit payday for him.  
 

Welp, the clock is ticking.  JT better prove he’s injured (which hurts his stock and also chance for bigger payday) or play.

He's past faking injury now. Now he wants to play. He even posted a video of him doing some drills in Colts facility. 

[smittywerb]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

He's past faking injury now. Now he wants to play. He even posted a video of him doing some drills in Colts facility. 

yeah I bet he is after that tweet.  Bet he got his act together REAL quick.  NFLPA called him and said “the jig is up!  Hurry up and look happy.” Lol

[richard pallo]

5 minutes ago, stitches said:

He's past faking injury now. Now he wants to play. He even posted a video of him doing some drills in Colts facility. 

Watch him pass it this week.

[stitches]

20 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Hockenson didn't land on PUP. And he wasn't on a Zoom call with a bunch of other TEs and NFLPA reps where they discussed using exaggerated injuries as a negotiation tactic.

 

The NFL is apparently calling out the RB Zoom call, specifically. They're also calling out the fact that the NFLPA appears to have hosted the Zoom call; we already knew JC Tretter and other reps were on the call. One player doing this is underhanded, but the NFLPA coaching and encouraging this is another thing. And the NFL is pushing back.

 

But I hate the timing. Don't know when the ball got rolling on this, but it looks bad the day after Saquon Barkley got hurt while playing on a one year contract. I'm also worried that it sends JT and his agent back into a state of intransigence (assuming they had started to soften in the first place).

New word for me! Thanks...  

[iuswingman]

8 hours ago, smittywerb said:

 

Ooof.  NFL wouldn’t make a claim like that if they didn’t have proof because if JT can prove he’s indeed injured that is a big lawsuit payday for him.  
 

Welp, the clock is ticking.  JT better prove he’s injured (which hurts his stock and also chance for bigger payday) or play.

 

I'm not sure I follow how it would be a big lawsuit pay day for JT if he proves that he is injured.    Who has done anything illegal?  NFL didn't even mention anyone by name or even an exact injury if thinking HIPAA violation.

 

Taylor should have proven he was injured to begin with when the Colts requested him to get a physical.    Declining to take a physical looks just as guilty as pleading the fifth.

[smittywerb]

1 hour ago, iuswingman said:

 

I'm not sure I follow how it would be a big lawsuit pay day for JT if he proves that he is injured.    Who has done anything illegal?  NFL didn't even mention anyone by name or even an exact injury if thinking HIPAA violation.

 

Taylor should have proven he was injured to begin with when the Colts requested him to get a physical.    Declining to take a physical looks just as guilty as pleading the fifth.

I’d assume what the nfl said was sort of a warning.  But behind closed doors they probably have enough info to make that claim.  You can’t just say someone is lying when it comes to contractual obligations without proof or good knowledge.  The most notable running back who hasn’t played because he’s “injured” and also in a contract dispute is JT.  Yes, there hasn’t been any definite filings based upon what the NFL said, I’m just inferring.

[w87r]

2 hours ago, MB-ColtsFan said:

The Chubb injury may make him feel more impowered to stay his ground

Goes both ways 

 

 

Makes the team feel empowered to stand their ground as well.

[chad72]

2 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Watch him pass it this week.

 

 

 

[iuswingman]

30 minutes ago, smittywerb said:

I’d assume what the nfl said was sort of a warning.  But behind closed doors they probably have enough info to make that claim.  You can’t just say someone is lying when it comes to contractual obligations without proof or good knowledge.  The most notable running back who hasn’t played because he’s “injured” and also in a contract dispute is JT.  Yes, there hasn’t been any definite filings based upon what the NFL said, I’m just inferring.

 

The NFL is going up against the NFLPA.  Yea, JT is indirectly involved given his high profile faking of an injury but I don't see any avenue where he would get a pay day in court if he indeed was injured.

[csmopar]

17 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I do t know if this was posted with the original above. This sounds like they are naming Taylor without saying his name. Steichen had been asked if the nfl contacted them and he said no comment.

 

 

Wow I’d missed this but this is potentially huge as it now sets the line that IF the Colts want too pursue the full punishments under the CBA, they can and will have the support of the league.

[GoColts8818]

11 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Wow I’d missed this but this is potentially huge as it now sets the line that IF the Colts want too pursue the full punishments under the CBA, they can and will have the support of the league.

I think something else might be happening.  This might be away to have the league get back at the NFLPA (who Irsay seems to have more of an issue with) without them having to go after their star running back directly who they want back.

[csmopar]

11 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

I think something else might be happening.  This might be away to have the league get back at the NFLPA (who Irsay seems to have more of an issue with) without them having to go after their star running back directly who they want back.

It’s definitely a warning shot to someone. That’s for sure. Gonna be interesting to see what happens 

[ShuteAt168]

I don’t think the Colts will be able to trust JT any more. It’s like a relationship where too many things have been said and done and it’s never the same. Time to move on. 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

I don’t think the Colts will be able to trust JT any more. It’s like a relationship where too many things have been said and done and it’s never the same. Time to move on. 

 

For me, it's not necessarily about the relationship. It's about JT's intentions, which are somewhat unclear IMO. How much of his trade request is about not wanting to play for the Colts, vs being upset that the Colts won't do a new contract right now, vs wanting to get to a specific team? There are a lot of unknowns in there.

 

But if this is all about wanting a new contract -- and big picture, that makes the most sense -- then I think the Barkley and Chubb injuries could cause JT to double down on his holdout strategy. If I were him, I'd be less inclined to play without a new contract than I was last week. If he ever needed any kind of justification for his stance, those two injuries would be exactly what he was looking for. He still has no leverage, so he'd just be hoping that he eventually gets traded to a team that will pay him, or that the Colts change their mind. But if he plays, he's just crossing his fingers and hoping that he doesn't get hurt again.

 

And from the Colts standpoint, they'll be questioning his intentions to play in good faith. And I think this grievance -- which the Colts were no doubt involved in, IMO -- is kind of a shot across the bow, letting JT and his agent know that if he comes back and plays a couple games, then tries to shut it down, they're prepared to take whatever action they deem necessary.

[richard pallo]

22 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

I don’t think the Colts will be able to trust JT any more. It’s like a relationship where too many things have been said and done and it’s never the same. Time to move on. 

I can’t recall a quote coming from JT at all unless I missed it.  His agent sure that’s his role but nothing from JT directly.  He asked for a trade but even that was a quiet ask and wasn’t reported until well after the fact.  I think he’s been very low key actually.  Trying to resolve it behind closed doors.  I think both sides are going out of their way to keep everything civil.  Colts want him back that’s for sure.  I don’t think the door has closed at all.  Nothing here like the LaMar Jackson drama not at all.  This could still work out for both sides with him remaining a Colt imo.

 

[1959Colts]

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/report-kareem-hunt-to-visit-browns

Report: Kareem Hunt to visit Browns

 

...Now that Nick Chubb is out for the season with a gruesome knee injury, the Browns are bringing in Hunt for a visit, Tom Pelissero of NFL Media reports. It is not a surprise given Hunt spent the past four seasons in Cleveland.

He knows the offense. He knows most of the locker room. He knows the coaching staff...

[ShuteAt168]

58 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

For me, it's not necessarily about the relationship. It's about JT's intentions, which are somewhat unclear IMO. How much of his trade request is about not wanting to play for the Colts, vs being upset that the Colts won't do a new contract right now, vs wanting to get to a specific team? There are a lot of unknowns in there.

 

But if this is all about wanting a new contract -- and big picture, that makes the most sense -- then I think the Barkley and Chubb injuries could cause JT to double down on his holdout strategy. If I were him, I'd be less inclined to play without a new contract than I was last week. If he ever needed any kind of justification for his stance, those two injuries would be exactly what he was looking for. He still has no leverage, so he'd just be hoping that he eventually gets traded to a team that will pay him, or that the Colts change their mind. But if he plays, he's just crossing his fingers and hoping that he doesn't get hurt again.

 

And from the Colts standpoint, they'll be questioning his intentions to play in good faith. And I think this grievance -- which the Colts were no doubt involved in, IMO -- is kind of a shot across the bow, letting JT and his agent know that if he comes back and plays a couple games, then tries to shut it down, they're prepared to take whatever action they deem necessary.

These are good points. But the Barkley, Chubb, even Ekeler injuries also support the Colts’ and the NFL’s stance — it’s folly to pay top dollar and give long contracts to RBs. They wear out too fast or get hurt too often. 

[Superman]

34 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

These are good points. But the Barkley, Chubb, even Ekeler injuries also support the Colts’ and the NFL’s stance — it’s folly to pay top dollar and give long contracts to RBs. They wear out too fast or get hurt too often. 

 

I won't argue that. But at this point, we don't know what JT wants in a new contract, so the 'top dollar and long contract' issue is a separate point. 

[ShuteAt168]

44 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I won't argue that. But at this point, we don't know what JT wants in a new contract, so the 'top dollar and long contract' issue is a separate point. 

Yes, but I think we can safely assume he’s not holding out and destroying his popularity in Indy for a low-dollar, one-year deal. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

Yes, but I think we can safely assume he’s not holding out and destroying his popularity in Indy for a low-dollar, one-year deal. 

 

Sure, but would three years, $36-40m qualify as a top dollar, long contract? I don't know whether he would accept that, but I think it would be a measured offer given the current market, at about 75% of the yearly average of the top paid RB right now.

[ShuteAt168]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Sure, but would three years, $36-40m qualify as a top dollar, long contract? I don't know whether he would accept that, but I think it would be a measured offer given the current market, at about 75% of the yearly average of the top paid RB right now.

Ah, I see what you were saying now. Good point. Good question. 

[DougDew]

KC apparently just changed the Mohomes contract and gave him more money.   Teams recognize players who are not compensated to their level of impact....and do it quite often.

 

At page 164, I'll repeat what I said before. 

 

I think JT has shown enough of being a TD maker than he deserves some level of guaranteed money.   I don't know what that level is, but the Colts not recognizing that back in July ...and simply having him play out the contract and at least not OFFERING to guarantee the rather paltry $4.3M this season.....looks chinsy to me.

 

I don't know if JT would have settled for that back in July....before the NFLPA meeting, but the Colts not ever offering something comes off as trying to make a player risk his future career in order to avoid paying him $4.3M if something happens.  The same team who never thought not to pay Luck $125M when he walked away from them. 

 

BTW, Brock Purdy makes something like $667K, which is a joke.  SF thinks so highly of Purdy that they let go of his two competitors...Lance and JG.   I assume SF will OFFER to correct Purdy's compensation at some point this season.

[Moosejawcolt]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

KC apparently just changed the Mohomes contract and gave him more money.   Teams recognize players who are not compensated to their level of impact....and do it quite often.

 

At page 164, I'll repeat what I said before. 

 

I think JT has shown enough of being a TD maker than he deserves some level of guaranteed money.   I don't know what that level is, but the Colts not recognizing that back in July ...and simply having him play out the contract and at least not OFFERING to guarantee the rather paltry $4.3M this season.....looks chinsy to me.

 

I don't know if JT would have settled for that back in July....before the NFLPA meeting, but the Colts not ever offering something comes off as trying to make a player risk his future career in order to avoid paying him $4.3M if something happens.  The same team who never thought not to pay Luck $125M when he walked away from them. 

 

BTW, Brock Purdy makes something like $667K, which is a joke.  SF thinks so highly of Purdy that they let go of his two competitors...Lance and JG.   I assume SF will OFFER to correct Purdy's compensation at some point this season.