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

[2006Coltsbestever]

The market is a funny thing. McCaffrey is making 16 Mill but he is the best Pass catching back in the league. Barkley and Taylor are better pure runners IMO and can catch if used right. I can see those 2 taking it as an insult if they aren't at least paid 13-14 Mill a year over at least 3 years. They are the focal points of their teams offense is another reason why. 

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

The market is a funny thing. McCaffrey is making 16 Mill but he is the best Pass catching back in the league. Barkley and Taylor are better pure runners IMO and can catch if used right. I can see those 2 taking it as an insult if they aren't at least paid 13-14 Mill a year over at least 3 years. They are the focal points of their teams offense is another reason why. 

But to counter that what team with a top 5 runner contract wise, won the Super Bowl?

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, csmopar said:

Oh I agree completely. I’m not faulting the players here. I’m just saying the way it’s being portrayed, someone with little to no knowledge of football or pro sports reading the articles about it could easily draw the conclusion that RBs are paid the equivalent of minimum wage compared to other positions.  
 

but the part I truly shake my head at is this notion of sitting out over a 1-3 million dollar difference in negotiations while giving up 10.5 million. From what I saw, Barkley was offered 13-14 million average per year, effective this year. He allegedly wants 15-17 million average and longer terms. So now, instead of playing in the tag at 10.5 million(which is still a raise) he’s thinking of sitting out, not making a penny, then trying to get a new team to offer him that kind of money in the spring.  Meanwhile, his age goes up and he’s a year out of football shape. And let’s say he does get that 15-17 million over 3-4 years after he sits out this year, it would be year 4 before he made up the loss 10.5 million from sitting out vs the offered contract, assuming hes not cut or retired by injury at that stage. 
 

just all seems “funny” 

Good post.   Good explanation.   
 

Im guessing a guy like Barkley might miss a game or two hoping the Giants might cave to demands if the team struggles at the start.   
 

I know there’s a point in the season that a player does not get credit toward their pension and toward earning credit for the season on their contract.   I think it’s roughly the mid-way point of the season +/-.    At that point,  I think a player like Barkley has to show up.   There’s just too much to lose.   More than just a ton of money which is considerable as it is.   
 

And of course, the same goes for JT.   I think he might be a camp hold out for this year which is the last year of his rookie deal.   But I’m guessing he shows up for the regular season. 
 

Guys like Barkley and Taylor are really good kids.   Smart kids.   Leveon Bell?   Not so much.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 minutes ago, csmopar said:

But to counter that what team with a top 5 runner contract wise, won the Super Bowl?

Emmitt Smith = 3 times (92, 93, 95), Terrell Davis = twice (97, 98). You can say that was the 90's. I can say ok, Marshawn Lynch then in 2013 and he was a hair away in 2014 from winning another. That was just 10 years ago. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Really my main point is, Barkley is the Giants best player and Taylor is ours. If the Giants don't want to sign him and we don't sign Taylor than that is their and our loss. If Barkley sits, they will be lucky to win 7 games. Remember I posted this. Take Lynch off the Seahawks, Wilson has 0 SB wins.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

Good post.   Good explanation.   
 

Im guessing a guy like Barkley might miss a game or two hoping the Giants might cave to demands if the team struggles at the start.   
 

I know there’s a point in the season that a player does not get credit toward their pension and toward earning credit for the season on their contract.   I think it’s roughly the mid-way point of the season +/-.    At that point,  I think a player like Barkley has to show up.   There’s just too much to lose.   More than just a ton of money which is considerable as it is.   
 

And of course, the same goes for JT.   I think he might be a camp hold out for this year which is the last year of his rookie deal.   But I’m guessing he shows up for the regular season. 
 

Guys like Barkley and Taylor are really good kids.   Smart kids.   Leveon Bell?   Not so much.  

If the Giants start 0-2 they may cave in. I know it was a different time but I remember when Emmitt Smith held out in 1993 and Jerry was acting like it was no big deal, like they would win anyway. After all they were the Champs, had a great O.Line, had Troy and Michael, and a great defense. He was thinking he could put anyone behind that line at RB with the overall team he had, he was sadly mistaken. Dallas looked awful without Emmitt and started 0-2. Jerry then made Emmitt the highest paid RB in the league and the rest was history. 

[jvan1973]

Mathis weighing in on the RB position.   

 

 

[Superman]

4 hours ago, csmopar said:

Oh I agree completely. I’m not faulting the players here. I’m just saying the way it’s being portrayed, someone with little to no knowledge of football or pro sports reading the articles about it could easily draw the conclusion that RBs are paid the equivalent of minimum wage compared to other positions.  
 

but the part I truly shake my head at is this notion of sitting out over a 1-3 million dollar difference in negotiations while giving up 10.5 million. From what I saw, Barkley was offered 13-14 million average per year, effective this year. He allegedly wants 15-17 million average and longer terms. So now, instead of playing in the tag at 10.5 million(which is still a raise) he’s thinking of sitting out, not making a penny, then trying to get a new team to offer him that kind of money in the spring.  Meanwhile, his age goes up and he’s a year out of football shape. And let’s say he does get that 15-17 million over 3-4 years after he sits out this year, it would be year 4 before he made up the loss 10.5 million from sitting out vs the offered contract, assuming hes not cut or retired by injury at that stage. 
 

just all seems “funny” 

 

These contract negotiations are always out of control IMO. From an everyman standpoint, I'm not sympathetic to either side.

 

But I definitely don't get worked up over players trying to get what they perceive they're worth. They are basically the product for a multi billion dollar business (one that has an effective monopoly in this field), and they get half of the pie. It's not like the owners are hurting.

 

It's also easy for us to say 'what's the big deal over $1-3m a year?' when it's not our money. Over four years, you're talking about up to $12m. Still, the idea of sitting out doesn't seem financially prudent, which is why almost no one ever does it. 

[stitches]

On 7/19/2023 at 6:28 PM, Superman said:

 

You think he looks slow in that video??

I didn't like how he moves either...  Not sure I would call it slow... but he definitely doesn't look as sharp and explosive as he used to. But that's just my subjective view... no idea what benchmarks he's trying to hit at this point. 

[csmopar]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Emmitt Smith = 3 times (92, 93, 95), Terrell Davis = twice (97, 98). You can say that was the 90's. I can say ok, Marshawn Lynch then in 2013 and he was a hair away in 2014 from winning another. That was just 10 years ago. 

My point exactly.

[Dingus McGirt]

17 hours ago, NFLfan said:

I completely agree with Derrick Henry and I commend him for supporting his fellow RBs who are not getting paid. I don't believe he was implying anything about dual threat QBs. He is right -- the RB position has been devalued. Younger offensive minds do not use RBs the way older coaches of the past did.

 

Having said that, I agree with AKB (Kaine). I think very good to great RBs should be paid. When QBs start missing a lot of time due to injury and overuse, the value of RBs will rise.Hopefully the Colts will pay JT. If not, I'd love to see JT play for my team.

 

Just my opinion.

“Not getting paid” — really?

[ADnum1]

7 hours ago, NFLfan said:

While I support the players here, I think it is not in their best interests to sit out a season like Barkley is considering. Guys like JT and Barkley are too smart to miss time in a contract dispute. Youth is one of their assets and they are not getting younger. Missing time affects their career numbers and their benefits after retirement, in addition to losing money for not playing and losing support of the fans.

 

I recall when Leveon Bell was threatening to sit out. I thought it was not smart to do for so many levels. I'm sure he is regretting it now.

Barkley won't sit out the whole season.

 

He'll come back for the last 6 games so he can "accrue" another season and be a UFA next season.

 

Without that he won't be an UFA.

[ADnum1]

On 7/18/2023 at 10:30 PM, NewColtsFan said:

If you want to make an argument that Taylor isn’t worth the money he wants,  that’s an argument worth having.   It’s fair.  
 

But if you remove salaries, and only consider ability, I can’t imagine anyone thinking the Colts would be better without Taylor than with.   And I can’t imagine anyone thinking Taylor is easily replaceable.   Those last two are your words.   I find that astounding. 
 

I don’t believe the Colts want AR to be the primary running threat.  He’d be a complimentary threat, ideally next to Taylor.   
 

If I’ve misunderstood you, feel free to clarify.  

There was talk if Barkley sat out the whole season, all the Giants would have to do is call Dalvin Cook.

 

They could even get Dalvin Cook cheaper than Barkley.

 

So if Barkley is easily replaceable, why wouldn't JT be ?

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

4 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Really my main point is, Barkley is the Giants best player and Taylor is ours. If the Giants don't want to sign him and we don't sign Taylor than that is their and our loss. If Barkley sits, they will be lucky to win 7 games. Remember I posted this. Take Lynch off the Seahawks, Wilson has 0 SB wins.

Colts are in a different position then giants having a QB under a rookie contract. 
 

It seems these guys are complaining about guaranteed money and it’s not the years or the yearly salary.

[VikingsFanInChennai]

7 hours ago, NFLfan said:

While I support the players here, I think it is not in their best interests to sit out a season like Barkley is considering. Guys like JT and Barkley are too smart to miss time in a contract dispute. Youth is one of their assets and they are not getting younger. Missing time affects their career numbers and their benefits after retirement, in addition to losing money for not playing and losing support of the fans.

 

I recall when Leveon Bell was threatening to sit out. I thought it was not smart to do for so many levels. I'm sure he is regretting it now.

LeVeon Bell just revealed in his Instagram post few days ago that he should not have sat out that year and he shouldn't have left the fan base, and it was all his mistake.

 

I agree, as much as the league continues to devalue the position, the RBs need to find the best possible contract and keep fighting in their career. You never know when their prime comes to an end, they need to make the best of the opportunities and sitting out barely has helped anyone. League actually forgets them even more if they have a down season or if they sit out a year.

 

I think the main reason is that RB position is something many rookies coming out of college do very well in the NFL instantly and teams think there will be no shortage of that as every year passes on. 

[TimetobringDfence!]

8 hours ago, DougDew said:

I think JT would be wise to see how well he fits into the Colts offense, and Ballard probably wants to see it too.  I think JT is at his best as a straight-ish ahead runner where the box is backed off a bit because of the passing threat at QB.  I don't think JT is going to benefit from a running QB, especially this coming season, unless AR can really connect with our WRs down the field.

 

Now, JT will probably have a better year than last year.  But that improved performance alone won't answer those questions, about long term fit, IMO.

 

The dual threat QB has to actually be "dual", and has to have the passing part of it down pretty well, probably even needs to be a better passer than a runner.  Otherwise he's just another runner and I don't see that helping an Alpha RB as well as another team with a passing QB.

I think JT is wanting paid sooner because his oline has been a hot mess and doesn't help with his confidence. If the oline struggles again it hurts a healthy JTs numbers.

[2006Coltsbestever]

10 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Colts are in a different position then giants having a QB under a rookie contract. 
 

It seems these guys are complaining about guaranteed money and it’s not the years or the yearly salary.

That means there is no reason to at least give JT a 3 year deal worth around 42 Mill or so, he is only 24. That is 14 Mill a year and give him like 25 Mill guaranteed. We can afford to do that having a QB that is under a rookie contract. JT is our best player as well.

[AKB]

On 7/19/2023 at 11:28 AM, Superman said:

 

You think he looks slow in that video??

Yes, i do

[TimetobringDfence!]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

That means there is no reason to at least give JT a 3 year deal worth around 42 Mill or so. That is 14 Mill a year and give him like 25 Mill guaranteed. We can afford to do that having a QB that is under a rookie contract. JT is our best player as well.

I think in the 11-12 ball park is fair. Maybe some bonuses if he puts up big numbers or is utilized at a high percentage and stays healthy.

[NewColtsFan]

25 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

There was talk if Barkley sat out the whole season, all the Giants would have to do is call Dalvin Cook.

 

They could even get Dalvin Cook cheaper than Barkley.

 

So if Barkley is easily replaceable, why wouldn't JT be ?

Well….  First off, JT is already on the team.  
 

Second,  I’d rather have HT than Cook.   Just as the NYG would rather have Barkley over Cook.   
 

Third, look at what I wrote that you hi-listed….   I wrote, if you remove money.   Just talking about the player.    Cook is only available because of money.  The issue with JT is about money.   How many off-seasons is there a player if Cook’s ability available at this time of year?   Isn’t this pretty close to the first time? 
 

The people I was responding to don’t think much of Taylor.   They think most any running back can replace him.   I do not. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

23 minutes ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

I think in the 11-12 ball park is fair. Maybe some bonuses if he puts up big numbers or is utilized at a high percentage and stays healthy.

It seems fair but put yourself in Taylor's shoes. Taylor I am sure is going to be like, McCaffrey got 64 Mill over 4 years = 16 Mill a year. He also got 38 Mill guaranteed and plays the same position. Although I get McCaffrey is a better pass catcher but still Taylor could say I led the league in rushing yards and rushing TD's in 2021, McCaffrey has never done either. That is why I don't think Taylor asking for 14 Mill over 3 years at 42 Mill, with 25 Mill guaranteed is that outrageous. 

 

I put what I put in BOLD because I already know someone will say, pass catching 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Mathis weighing in on the RB position.   

 

 

 

He makes a good point. CJ was really good for a bit, but he never really hurt the Colts. In fact, they shut him down pretty regularly.

[2006Coltsbestever]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He makes a good point. CJ was really good for a bit, but he never really hurt the Colts. In fact, they shut him down pretty regularly.

When Johnson was there the Titans weren't any good except his rookie season in 2008. In 2009 when he had his 2000 yard season they were only 8-8. They never had the team to be a threat vs us except in 2008 when Johnson was there. Fred Taylor and MJD were a pain in the rear a lot though in different seasons vs us. We could have realistically went 15-1 in 2006 the year we won the SB as we only got beat 1 time soundly and that was against the Jags. Taylor and Drew ran all over us. Both had over 100 yards against us in the game at Jacks. The other 3 games we lost that season were by a total of 9 points but the Jags took our rear to the cleaners on that 1 day. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

When Johnson was there the Titans weren't any good except his rookie season in 2008. In 2009 when he had his 2000 yard season they were only 8-8. They never had the team to be a threat vs us except in 2008 when Johnson was there. Fred Taylor and MJD were a pain in the rear a lot though in different seasons vs us. We could have realistically went 15-1 in 2006 the year we won the SB as we only got beat 1 time soundly and that was against the Jags. Taylor and Drew ran all over us. Both had over 100 yards against us in the game at Jacks. The other 3 games we lost that season were by a total of 9 points but the Jags took our rear to the cleaners on that 1 day. 

To add insult to injury, Josh Scobee played like Justin Tucker on steroids vs us as well during a long stretch of games over that time frame. 

[Nickster]

6 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Emmitt Smith = 3 times (92, 93, 95), Terrell Davis = twice (97, 98). You can say that was the 90's. I can say ok, Marshawn Lynch then in 2013 and he was a hair away in 2014 from winning another. That was just 10 years ago. 

Just a decade ago.  Man sorry that’s funny.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Just a decade ago.  Man sorry that’s funny.

 

That is not that long ago, take Lynch off the Seahawks and Russell Wilson is an after thought. Lynch was by far their best player.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Since Lynch left the Seahawks, Wilson hasn't won a playoff game 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Since Lynch left the Seahawks, Wilson hasn't won a playoff game 

I meant to say Wilson hasn't won a game that involves a Championship Game or SB without Lynch before someone corrects me. They have won a couple of WildCard games.

[Solid84]

7 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Emmitt Smith = 3 times (92, 93, 95), Terrell Davis = twice (97, 98). You can say that was the 90's. I can say ok, Marshawn Lynch then in 2013 and he was a hair away in 2014 from winning another. That was just 10 years ago. 

So, one in 25 years?…

[NFLfan]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

That is not that long ago, take Lynch off the Seahawks and Russell Wilson is an after thought. Lynch was by far their best player.

 

I disagree. Do you recall that year when Lynch was hurt? That was 2015, one of Wilson's best seasons: Completion percentage was 68%, with over 4000 yds passing, 34 TD, and 8 INT. He played especially well when Lynch was out. Very impressive.

[NFLfan]

5 hours ago, Dingus McGirt said:

“Not getting paid” — really?

 

Okay... "not getting extended" or "not getting second contracts".

[DougDew]

3 hours ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

I think JT is wanting paid sooner because his oline has been a hot mess and doesn't help with his confidence. If the oline struggles again it hurts a healthy JTs numbers.

I tend to agree in that every player wants to get paid sooner rather than later, so it would not surprise me if he wanted a new contract right now.

 

But I also think he would see his longevity/long term finances be dramatically reduced if he was locked in for three years to a team that started the 32nd ranked QB instead of a team that had Trevor Lawrence.

[NewColtsFan]

The Colts have tried to extend players on the last year of their rookie contract.   They did it with guys like luck and Hilton, as well as guys like Nelson, Leonard, Smith and Hines.   There’s a clear track record.  
 

Taylor and Pittman are now in their last year of their rookie contract.   Of course they’d like to be extended.   They’d get their signing bonus money now, up front, and a portion of the new contract would be guaranteed.   Anyone in their right mind would want their second contract ASAP.  
 

EXCEPT, and unless the offer in the second contract is BELOW the expected market rates.   And that’s why we have holdouts and contract disputes all across the NFL. 

[DougDew]

22 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

The Colts have tried to extend players on the last year of their rookie contract.   They did it with guys like luck and Hilton, as well as guys like Nelson, Leonard, Smith and Hines.   There’s a clear track record.  
 

Taylor and Pittman are now in their last year of their rookie contract.   Of course they’d like to be extended.   They’d get their signing bonus money now, up front, and a portion of the new contract would be guaranteed.   Anyone in their right mind would want their second contract ASAP.  
 

EXCEPT, and unless the offer in the second contract is BELOW the expected market rates.   And that’s why we have holdouts and contract disputes all across the NFL. 

That is under the Ballard principal of having a core group of players as the center of the team.  There are some unknowns about how SS views the need for a premium RB as a lynchpin of the O.

[NewColtsFan]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

That is under the Ballard principal of having a core group of players as the center of the team.  There are some unknowns about how SS views the need for a premium RB as a lynchpin of the O.

Yes….  Steichen’s viewpoint is the Great Unknown.   We will have a better idea about JT and MP by week one of the season.   Ballard has always gotten the extensions done by then, if not sooner. 

[Dingus McGirt]

2 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

Okay... "not getting extended" or "not getting second contracts".

Well, I actually meant that as a comment on these guys saying they aren’t “getting paid” - when they are paid millions, but, it’s never enough.  LOL

[Dingus McGirt]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

He makes a good point. CJ was really good for a bit, but he never really hurt the Colts. In fact, they shut him down pretty regularly.

The RB position is valuable.  But, the players are so interchangeable - they, as individuals, aren’t.  Sounds nonsensical, eh?

[NFLfan]

11 minutes ago, Dingus McGirt said:

Well, I actually meant that as a comment on these guys saying they aren’t “getting paid” - when they are paid millions, but, it’s never enough.  LOL

 

Regardless of profession, for those making millions, they can always make more.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

I disagree. Do you recall that year when Lynch was hurt? That was 2015, one of Wilson's best seasons: Completion percentage was 68%, with over 4000 yds passing, 34 TD, and 8 INT. He played especially well when Lynch was out. Very impressive.

Yeah but my main point is, they didn't win anything without Lynch. Wilson has always been a good QB. I don't think anyone would think otherwise. When I said "after thought", that basically meant = a QB that was good but never won a SB. Seattle won a SB because of Lynch and the D as much as it was Wilson.

[2006Coltsbestever]

11 hours ago, Solid84 said:

So, one in 25 years?…

There again, I can say QB's like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Big Ben and Pat Mahomes didn't need a top 5 RB (top 5 paid RB to win a SB). They have accounted for 15 SB wins since 2001, so one RB in 22 years is misleading when 15 times teams had a QB that could just take over a game. Most teams would benefit bigtime with having a top 5 RB/top 5 paid RB because they don't have a Top 5 QB like the guys I mentioned above. Imagine Josh Allen with JT? Bills would probably be unstoppable. I seriously doubt the Bills ever win a SB with Allen because they have very little run game. If I was them, I would go after Cook and pay him big for a couple of years.

 

I would bet my life savings that Daniel Jones never wins a SB without a top 5/top 5 paid RB. Without Barkley, they won't even make the playoffs.