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

[lester]

1 minute ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I really don’t understand why colts didn’t try and up his salary for at least this year. Too late for a compromise now.

 

Because they want to see him play in the new system, first. They aren't paying more money (and have said just as much) for a player that might not fit the 'new' Colts.

 

They already own JT's rights for 2023. Why should they pay more for this year if its possible they don't even want him next year?

[Superman]

31 minutes ago, stitches said:

Because yes, Jonathan Taylor on rookie deal is really nice. But Jalen Hurts or Trevon Diggs or Deebo Samuel or AJ Brown on rookie contracts is much better. 

 

What difference does it make during the rookie contract? You have a good, young player under contract, for significantly less than market value. It doesn't really matter what position he plays.

 

Now if you want to set your draft priorities in order by which positions you think are most likely to play out a second contract, like NCF is saying, that becomes a different exercise. But the first priority is still talent, and the only real exception is when you're looking for a franchise QB.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

We keep hearing about a second mystery team. Let’s say it does exist. Is it possible colts are the mystery team trying to get something done with him?

[1959Colts]

8 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

 

 

 

...So how many pages will this thread be by Halloween?

[NewColtsFan]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What informs the viewpoint that RB value is maximized in R4 as opposed to R2? My thinking is that, if teams are unwilling to draft RBs in the first round, then you're getting the best RBs drafted somewhere in the 30-50 range every year, guys who are elite HWS athletes, have college production, and can play a significant role in basically any offense right away. Taylor would have been a top 5 pick in the early 2000s, we got him at #41, and signed him for $2m/year. 

 

I'm somewhat sympathetic to these RBs. But I think my philosophy would track closer to the rigid, logical 'don't pay for RBs' trend that seems to be taking hold right now. In general, I tend to be more pro player at my core, but in practice, I'm more black and white about applying the rules to each situation.

 

I'm somewhat less sympathetic to Jonathan Taylor in particular. If he just hates playing for the Colts -- and maybe that's the case, we haven't done a great job in the three years he's been here -- that's one thing. But the way he's played his hand this offseason hasn't won me over. I think he and his agent have had an agenda from Day 1.

 

 

We all should get paid for having to read his posts, LOL. 

What informs the view is what we talked about in the previous post.   Length of service.   I don’t want to use a premium pick on a guy that might be gone after four years.   I think the team doesn’t get enough bang for premium draft capital. 
 

I think JT is as high a character kid as you could hope to draft.   If you predicted 6-8 months ago what we’ve all experienced these last 4-5 weeks would happen,  I’d have laughed my head off.   Impossible that JT would do such a 180.   Yet here we are.   I hope no team — especially the Colts — should have to experience this again.  
 

What’s the popular new buzz phrase we hear from GMs?   “We want volunteers, not prisoners”.   So, a franchise wants players who want to be on the team, not players who feel like they’re being held hostage.  I subscribe 1000 percent. 
 

Wouldn’t we all be smashing our heads somewhere years from now if history repeats itself with some talented 2nd round running back we’ve drafted and he pulls a JT 2023 stunt?!?   Why didn’t we learn from that?   I don’t want to go down that road again, once was enough for me. 

[Solid84]

4 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

We keep hearing about a second mystery team. Let’s say it does exist. Is it possible colts are the mystery team trying to get something done with him?

I think that's a reach...

 

At this point I think it's more likely it's something made up by JT's team - I think it's Miami and that's it.

[GoColts8818]

7 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

We keep hearing about a second mystery team. Let’s say it does exist. Is it possible colts are the mystery team trying to get something done with him?

I think the second team is coming from Taylor’s agent trying to get Miami to panic and up their offer.  Think about when you go to buy a car and the salesman will always say “oh someone was just in here looking at that car.”.

[Mikemccoy84]

Not gonna be good for the league if you have teams giving into demands by players who are on rookie contracts. Won’t be long guys be holding out every year after a good year.

[Peter Nova]

3 minutes ago, Mikemccoy84 said:

Not gonna be good for the league if you have teams giving into demands by players who are on rookie contracts. Won’t be long guys be holding out every year after a good year.

No player is bigger than the franchise. Just ask Peyton. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

What informs the view is what we talked about in the previous post.   Length of service.   I don’t want to use a premium pick on a guy that might be gone after four years.   I think the team doesn’t get enough bang for premium draft capital. 
 

I think JT is as high a character kid as you could hope to draft.   If you predicted 6-8 months ago what we’ve all experienced these last 4-5 weeks would happen,  I’d have laughed my head off.   Impossible that JT would do such a 180.   Yet here we are.   I hope no team — especially the Colts — should have to experience this again.  
 

What’s the popular new buzz phrase we hear from GMs?   “We want volunteers, not prisoners”.   So, a franchise wants players who want to be on the team, not players who feel like they’re being held hostage.  I subscribe 1000 percent. 
 

Wouldn’t we all be smashing our heads somewhere years from now if history repeats itself with some talented 2nd round running back we’ve drafted and he pulls a JT 2023 stunt?!?   Why didn’t we learn from that?   I don’t want to go down that road again, once was enough for me. 

 

Here's what I don't think I understand. In your opinion, what prevents a RB who was drafted in the 4th round from doing what Taylor is doing right now? What difference does it make what his draft position was three years ago? 

 

I guess you're saying that the idea of trading a RB who was drafted in the 4th round is more palatable than the idea of trading a RB who was drafted in the 2nd round... Is that it? Because I don't think it matters. To me, you're trading a high quality starter who can contribute to your team. Whether you got him in the 2nd round or the 4th round isn't really important. 

 

I think I can get another high quality RB in the 4th round, but I think I'm more likely to get a standout guy like JT in the 2nd round. 

 

And to be clear, I'm okay with not drafting a RB until the 3rd or 4th round, especially if my team is committed to burning and churning RBs every couple of years. I'm not saying we must go out and draft another RB in the 2nd. Just saying I'm not opposed to it. I think R2 is where the sweet spot will be -- super talented RBs who don't get drafted in R1 simply because they play RB, but are probably blue chip prospects on every team's draft board. I don't think you're getting blue chip RB prospects in R4, and that's probably the main difference.

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, Mikemccoy84 said:

Not gonna be good for the league if you have teams giving into demands by players who are on rookie contracts. Won’t be long guys be holding out every year after a good year.

 

This already happens every year.

[stitches]

26 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What difference does it make during the rookie contract? You have a good, young player under contract, for significantly less than market value. It doesn't really matter what position he plays.

 

Now if you want to set your draft priorities in order by which positions you think are most likely to play out a second contract, like NCF is saying, that becomes a different exercise. But the first priority is still talent, and the only real exception is when you're looking for a franchise QB.

Top 10 WR vs top 10 RB - the difference in value is pretty big(especially for RBs that are not pass-catchers like McCaffrey or Kamara). That's the reason RBs are actually having really hard time getting paid now. Teams are catching up to the realities of what the analytics are saying about the value of RBs. I don't have access to current numbers but the last ones I saw were something like - average WAR for top 10 WRs vs RBs - 0.7 vs 0.2 

 

So... about 3 times more valuable.... it's still valuable to have a top 10 RB on rookie deal... just not as valuable as having a top 10 WR... or CB... or QB... or... 

[Mikemccoy84]

I know you have lots that hold out but I didn’t think many of them were still on rookie deals before they could even be franchised.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

32 minutes ago, lester said:

 

Because they want to see him play in the new system, first. They aren't paying more money (and have said just as much) for a player that might not fit the 'new' Colts.

 

They already own JT's rights for 2023. Why should they pay more for this year if its possible they don't even want him next year?

Is throwing a bone at him and giving a him a little extra really that bad. Maybe JT wouldn’t of felt so offended. 

[Mikemccoy84]

Pittman is on same type of contract and looking at a big payday as well if you give Taylor money are you upset if Pittman turns around and asks for more or sits.

[Superman]

Just now, Mikemccoy84 said:

I know you have lots that hold out but I didn’t think many of them were still on rookie deals before they could even be franchised.

 

Before the 2011 CBA, players would hold out before even signing their rookie contract. Some rookie contracts were 6-7 years long, and players would hold out as soon as they had a good season. 

 

Since then, players are generally not eligible to sign a new contract before finishing Year 3, so early holdouts have been much less frequent. They still happen, though. And then there are cases where the threat of the holdout gives a team incentive to do a new contract or trade a player before negotiations get loud and messy (Titans and AJ Brown). 

[NewColtsFan]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Here's what I don't think I understand. In your opinion, what prevents a RB who was drafted in the 4th round from doing what Taylor is doing right now? What difference does it make what his draft position was three years ago? 

 

I guess you're saying that the idea of trading a RB who was drafted in the 4th round is more palatable than the idea of trading a RB who was drafted in the 2nd round... Is that it? Because I don't think it matters. To me, you're trading a high quality starter who can contribute to your team. Whether you got him in the 2nd round or the 4th round isn't really important. 

 

I think I can get another high quality RB in the 4th round, but I think I'm more likely to get a standout guy like JT in the 2nd round. 

 

And to be clear, I'm okay with not drafting a RB until the 3rd or 4th round, especially if my team is committed to burning and churning RBs every couple of years. I'm not saying we must go out and draft another RB in the 2nd. Just saying I'm not opposed to it. I think R2 is where the sweet spot will be -- super talented RBs who don't get drafted in R1 simply because they play RB, but are probably blue chip prospects on every team's draft board. I don't think you're getting blue chip RB prospects in R4, and that's probably the main difference.

To be clear….  I wouldn’t pretend to suggest a R4 RB is as talented as a R2 RB.  He’s not.   I’m only saying I’d be fine getting a lesser talent, giving him R4 money and try to keep him happy as long as I can.   A team can win with a R4 RB. 
 

Roster churn in the middle or end of the roster is one thing.  It’s expected.  But using a premium pick in a roster churn manner is quite another.  I’d like to avoid that at all costs.   Premium picks are gold.  
 

We are where we are in part because all four of our 2019 Day 2 draft picks didn’t work out.  The last two of our 2018 Day two picks didn’t workout.   Our R3 pick in 2020 hasn’t worked out yet.   We’re still waiting on our top 3 picks of 20221 (R’s 1, 2, and 4) to pan out.   We need much more bang from our premium picks.   So I’m not willing to risk a day 2 pick on another RB and risk that history repeats itself.   I’m willing to take a less talented back (but still good enough) and let the chips fall where they may.  That’s churn I can live with. 
 

[richard pallo]

28 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Is Taylor going to cost the colts a tosstrr spot. Because if he stays on pup he can’t play for the team he is traded for until like we 7 if this keeps going.

 

 

Hard for me seeing Miami being content with a "Loose" deadline strategy.  Being content to letting this drag out when they are in a very competitive division with the Bills and Jets.  Every game is important.  If they see Taylor as the missing piece the quicker he is on board the better.  The waiting actually does them no good imo.  Too much could go wrong for them.  Possibly getting off to a bad start, another team or teams become interested.  If you truly believe he is your difference maker you make it happen asap.  I would want him for all 17 games if I were them.  Colts are in a great spot.  Especially if two teams are involved and Miami has no reason to believe there aren't at this time.  We will know how serious they are soon enough.  

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

This is interesting. So colts changing their mind about giving Taylor more money or willing to trade him for what ever they get.

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

7 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Is throwing a bone at him and giving a him a little extra really that bad. Maybe JT wouldn’t have l felt so offended. 

Yes, agree it’s a good idea.   I like what the Chargers did with Ekler.  Gave him a $1.75 mill sweetener when they didn’t have to.   I think that helped smooth things over. 
 

I don’t know if the Colts offered something similar?   Don’t know if the Colts offered and JT/agent rejected it?   Don’t know if we’ll ever know?    But I think it’s a good idea. 

[Lifetime Colt]

Just now, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I’d throwing a bone at him and giving a him a little extra really that bad. Maybe JT wouldn’t of felt so offended.

Agree. Both JT and the Colts should practice what they instill in all situations, a bad play should be wiped away and its the next play that counts. The Colts should demand a full medical workup, tomorrow, to see if JT is cleared for the active roster. A real exam, CT scan, MRI, etc. contrary to what has been said here before pain can be measured via brain waves and heat radiating from the area, Chiropractors do this all the time. The Colts should commit to opening extension negotiations by weeks 6-8, to verify JT's commitment and fit in the offence. If things don't work out, we all know some team will be in deep trouble with their RB situation via injury the first few weeks, and the trade compensation will be better, or much better than it is now. 

[richard pallo]

2 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

This is interesting. So colts changing their mind about giving Taylor more money or willing to trade him for what ever they get.

 

 

More likely making Taylor happy if you ask me.  They would look pretty foolish giving him away in a trade right now. 

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, stitches said:

Top 10 WR vs top 10 RB - the difference in value is pretty big(especially for RBs that are not pass-catchers like McCaffrey or Kamara). That's the reason RBs are actually having really hard time getting paid now. Teams are catching up to the realities of what the analytics are saying about the value of RBs. I don't have access to current numbers but the last ones I saw were something like - average WAR for top 10 WRs vs RBs - 0.7 vs 0.2 

 

So... about 3 times more valuable.... 

 

We're talking about what happens when the rookie contract is over, right? 

 

We agree that premium picks should be used on the most valuable positions, with respect to team philosophy and contention window. But I'm not drafting a WR over a RB simply because of positional value. The first priority is still talent, and I'm only putting the WR ahead of the RB on my board if I think the WR is the better player. I would still refuse to use a high first rounder on a RB in any circumstance, but after that decision is made, I'm still drafting based on how my players are graded. So it's not 'do I want a WR or a RB?' It's 'who is the best player available based on my evaluation?'

 

But once the rookie contract is over, in my strictest application of theory, I'm not paying the RB, bottom line. I'll pay the WR if he hits, and his contract expectations are reasonable and fit my team. But that's a Year 3 or 4 decision.

[Defjamz26]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

This isn’t Ballard playing hardball.   This is also as much about what Ursay wants as well.   His voice is the most important.  
 

Also, to the best of my knowledge, there are no reports of any team offering two day 2 picks which appears to be what you want.

Last thought….  Do you really want to use a day 2 pick to replace Taylor?   Why?  Why risk another unsatisfied running back with a premium pick?   My hunch is the Colts will use maybe a R4 pick on RBs in the future.    

 

I also haven’t heard anything on what anyone is offering, but I’m assuming that’s what someone would offer. We all know a 1st is out of the question, but 1-2 day two picks doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. Like if someone offered a 2024 2nd and a 2025 3rd, I think that’s a reasonable deal.

 

And yes I’m fine with using another day 2 pick on a RB. Personally, that’s where I’ve always felt RBs should be valued at. If it’s essentially just a 3 year rental, then a 2nd or 3rd round pick isn’t too high. Especially if they produce. As long as they don’t use a 1st, I have no issues with where they draft a RB. People spend day two picks on premium positions that don’t work out just as frequently.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

2 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

More likely making Taylor happy if you ask me.  They would look pretty foolish giving him away in a trade right now. 

He also said in the comments sometimes the heel turn fans don’t want is the best thing. 

[Jonmal7]

2 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

They just late their back walk for like 6 million a year and u think they are going to trade for Taylor and give him north of 19 mill a year? Saunders was a better fit for their offence is than Taylor would be!!

I live in the Philly area. They hated Sanders out here. Sanders was terrible after contact. Rated as one of the worst in the league. The Philly oline made him get his numbers. JT is way better than Sanders.

[csmopar]

58 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I really don’t understand why colts didn’t try and up his salary for at least this year. Too late for a compromise now.

Well let’s put ourselves in the colts shoes. They have an employee who agreed to C amount of dollars for x years. One that just stated 4 months ago he had no qualms about playing out his contracted terms. Then out of the blue, he shows up injured. Demands top dollar in his profession yet he hasn’t given any results in over a year. I wouldn’t be in any hurry to extend him either

[stitches]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

We're talking about what happens when the rookie contract is over, right? 

 

We agree that premium picks should be used on the most valuable positions, with respect to team philosophy and contention window. But I'm not drafting a WR over a RB simply because of positional value. The first priority is still talent, and I'm only putting the WR ahead of the RB on my board if I think the WR is the better player. I would still refuse to use a high first rounder on a RB in any circumstance, but after that decision is made, I'm still drafting based on how my players are graded. So it's not 'do I want a WR or a RB?' It's 'who is the best player available based on my evaluation?'

 

But once the rookie contract is over, in my strictest application of theory, I'm not paying the RB, bottom line. I'll pay the WR if he hits, and his contract expectations are reasonable and fit my team. But that's a Year 3 or 4 decision.

Why put the limit of where you wouldn't draft a RB at high 1st and not at 2nd or 3d or 4th round? Is that driven by any concrete criteria or arbitrary decision? I think (expected) value needs to be considered... it needs to be the main consideration IMO. Not just whether the player is good or not. A good RB is still likely less valuable than an average WR. 

[Lifetime Colt]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

Why put the limit of where you wouldn't draft a RB at high 1st and not at 2nd or 3d or 4th round? Is that driven by any concrete criteria or arbitrary decision? I think (expected) value needs to be considered... it needs to be the main consideration. Not just whether the player is good or not. A good RB is still likely less valuable than an average WR. 

Frank called, he wants to send you his first and second down plays, and a few 3rd and 7-8 yard choices.

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

To be clear….  I wouldn’t pretend to suggest a R4 RB is as talented as a R2 RB.  He’s not.   I’m only saying I’d be fine getting a lesser talent, giving him R4 money and try to keep him happy as long as I can.   A team can win with a R4 RB. 
 

Roster churn in the middle or end of the roster is one thing.  It’s expected.  But using a premium pick in a roster churn manner is quite another.  I’d like to avoid that at all costs.   Premium picks are gold.  
 

We are where we are in part because all four of our 2019 Day 2 draft picks didn’t work out.  The last two of our 2018 Day two picks didn’t workout.   Our R3 pick in 2020 hasn’t worked out yet.   We’re still waiting on our top 3 picks of 20221 (R’s 1, 2, and 4) to pan out.   We need much more bang from our premium picks.   So I’m not willing to risk a day 2 pick on another RB and risk that history repeats itself.   I’m willing to take a less talented back (but still good enough) and let the chips fall where they may.  That’s churn I can live with. 

 

I think a major difference is how we define "premium pick." To me, premium is top 15-20, depending on the year. 

 

Setting aside that distinction, I think there's a lot of meat in the 20-60 range of the draft, and I agree that we need to get more contributions from our picks in that range. But JT is one of the best, most productive picks we've made in that range, despite being a RB. I'd rather have 3-4 years of a RB, and then trade him for a top 75-ish pick (and we'll probably do better than that if we trade JT right now), than the four years of nothing we got from Ben Banogu.

 

I think R2 is the sweet spot for RB is because I think players who would be considered top 10-15 talents in any draft class are being drafted in the second round, simply because they play RB. Compare that to QB, where raw prospects who should probably be ranked in the 30-50 range strictly based on talent and production are going in the top five, simply because they play QB (Trey Lance, for instance). Taking a RB in that range is where you can get a blue chip prospect at a major discount. 

 

Taking a RB in R4, when positional value has started to equalize, you're probably getting a R4 level talent. Not bad value, but no value added, either.

[stitches]

7 minutes ago, Lifetime Colt said:

Frank called, he wants to send you his first and second down plays, and a few 3rd and 7-8 yard choices.

I think I will ... pass on those. 

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, stitches said:

Why put the limit of where you wouldn't draft a RB at high 1st and not at 2nd or 3d or 4th round? Is that driven by any concrete criteria or arbitrary decision? I think (expected) value needs to be considered... it needs to be the main consideration IMO. Not just whether the player is good or not. A good RB is still likely less valuable than an average WR. 

 

You're not drafting a WR in the top 50 if you expect him to be average. If that's the case, just sign a $5m veteran. You're using that pick because you want a player with the potential to be more than average. And if all those considerations go into building your board, then it will probably reflect that the WR with great potential is ranked higher than the really good RB. But you better be ranking those players genuinely, and not just saying 'I like this average talent WR more than this highly talented RB because WAR is three times higher.' Same is true with any other positions.

 

I don't think my limit is arbitrary. I think the main breakpoint in any draft is after the top 15-20 players, the guys that are seen as having the potential to change your team's future. After that, the math changes. And because most teams are not drafting RBs in the top 15-20 (2023 is probably an outlier, but if it becomes a trend, that would affect my opinion on this), the blue chip RB prospects are still available in the late first/early second round.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

You're not drafting a WR in the top 50 if you expect him to be average. If that's the case, just sign a $3m veteran. You're using that pick because you want a player with the potential to be more than average. And if all those considerations go into building your board, then it will probably reflect that the WR with great potential is ranked higher than the really good RB. But you better be ranking those players genuinely, and not just saying 'I like this average talent WR more than this highly talented RB because WAR is three times higher.' Same is true with any other positions.

 

I don't think my limit is arbitrary. I think the main breakpoint in any draft is after the top 15-20 players, the guys that are seen as having the potential to change your team's future. After that, the math changes. And because most teams are not drafting RBs in the top 15-20 (2023 is probably an outlier, but if it becomes a trend, that would affect my opinion on this), the blue chip RB prospects are still available in the late first/early second round.

Yes, but that's the point. if the expected value(lets say WAR) for those elite RB prospects is 0.4 and then you have a good not great WR prospect with expected WAR of 0.5... who are you drafting? Still the RB because he's the elite prospect(potential top 5-10 at the position) or the WR(potential top 30 at the position)? 

[Indeee]

All the metrics in today's NFL is interesting but I truly believe that regardless of the current NFL landscape of valuing RBs, this JT contract dilemma would have been a lot easier if our GM hadn't given elite money to a MLB. <Another position you just don't give money too or even the guard, although the MLB has to take the cake here.

 

I really put most of this on Ballard and unfortunately, even though he might have finally seen the light to where the current NFL positions bread is buttered, we might have to lose a very talented offensive piece in the process. 

 

Let's either get him a Jacobs like extension or get him gone. 

 

 

[danlhart87]

1 hour ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

We keep hearing about a second mystery team. Let’s say it does exist. Is it possible colts are the mystery team trying to get something done with him?

Jim Irsay is currently arguing with himself on what Colts are willing to give up also get back in a trade

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

This if a interesting thought.

 

 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yes, but that's the point. if the expected value(lets say WAR) for those elite RB prospects is 0.4 and then you have a good not great WR prospect with expected WAR of 0.5... who are you drafting? Still the RB because he's the elite prospect(potential top 5-10 at the position) or the WR(potential top 30 at the position)? 

 

I first want to question that expected WAR, historically speaking. You're thinking you'd get WAR 0.5 from the 12th-15th ranked WR, in Years 1-3? I'm thinking that guy is just as likely to be a non factor as he is to be a real contributor.

 

Whereas drafting the 4th-5th ranked RB, I'm expecting him to be a major contributor in Years 1-3, and I think that would work out to him having a higher WAR than the WR taken in the same range. And there's probably less variance among the RBs than there is among the WRs in that range.

 

If my thinking there is flawed based on the historic WAR for those players drafted in similar ranges, then it's time to reevaluate.

[Indeee]

4 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

This if a interesting thought.

 

 

What's funny is I didn't even see this and I just now commented about this very thing. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Going to be fun when Ballard speaks WED no matter which way this goes.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Indeee said:

All the metrics in today's NFL is interesting but I truly believe that regardless of the current NFL landscape of valuing RBs, this JT contract dilemma would have been a lot easier if our GM hadn't given elite money to a MLB. <Another position you just don't give money too or even the guard, although the MLB has to take the cake here.

 

I really put most of this on Ballard and unfortunately, even though he might have finally seen the light to where the current NFL positions bread is buttered, we might have to lose a very talented offensive piece in the process. 

 

Let's either get him a Jacobs like extension or get him gone. 

 

You know what's interesting about this? I don't even think the Colts mind paying a RB top level money. Maybe Steichen does, but Ballard and Irsay would do it. The main reason they haven't is Taylor's ankle, and the second reason is probably because Steichen is telling them to wait and see how the offense looks with Richardson running the show before they lock in major money for a RB.

 

So paying Leonard is irrelevant. They paid him happily, and would have paid Taylor as well.