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

[joeb]

On 6/14/2023 at 5:25 PM, w87r said:

I would offer him a 4yr deal $48m, $10m SB with first 2 years guaranteed.

 

Contract look something like this.

 

2023 - $6,304,000 base, $2,813,482 SB, $9,117,482 total cap hit 

2024 - $8,000,000 base, $2,000,000 SB, $10,000,000 total cap hit

2025 - $8,000,000 base, $2,000,000 SB, $10,000,000 total cap hit

2026 - $10,000,000 base, $2,000,000 SB, $12,000,000 total cap hit

2027 - $10,000,000 base, $2,000,000 SB, $12,000,000 total cap hit 

 

 

That is $12m more in his pocket this season($10m SB, $2m base salary bump) $17.1m total with current remaining deal, we can use this year to bring down the average AAV of 24-27 to $11m per year.

 

All money 23-25 guaranteed

 

 

This is a good faith contract for Taylor and protects himself in case of injury this season or next.

 

If he wants more, tag em. Unless it's just a little more. I think this is a good compromise though, if he wants to see the end of the deal.

 

This takes him to his 28 year old season, Colts can get out of deal in 2026 and save $6m if it was needed(performance, injury, need cap room)

That is very close to the numbers I was thinking only i feel slightly more is needed. I don't think another team would give him more.The guarantee clause is a good idea. If the relationship isn't ruined he might accept it. Jim might have have burnt the bridge.

[stitches]

20 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Zach Moss was the main backup, he got hurt. Evan Hull was in the mix, he got hurt. There was a backup plan if Taylor didn't play, and it got undermined by injury.

 

I'll admit I thought Deon Jackson would play better. After one week, I'm wondering if he's just not good.

BTW all those injuries to RBs ... kind of prove the point of being reluctant to pay big money to one... especially since he's already 'hurt'

[Solid84]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

BTW all those injuries to RBs ... kind of prove the point of being reluctant to pay big money to one... especially since he's already 'hurt'

Sshhh, he won’t get injured because he’s elite!!…. 

[GoColts8818]

20 minutes ago, stitches said:

BTW all those injuries to RBs ... kind of prove the point of being reluctant to pay big money to one... especially since he's already 'hurt'

Which is also why they want big money now.  Security.  With that said the side who is handing out the money normally wins over the side that wants it.

[throwing BBZ]

1 hour ago, GoColts8818 said:

Which is also why they want big money now.  Security.  With that said the side who is handing out the money normally wins over the side that wants it.

 

 I hope Jonathan extracts as much money as possible and we meet him and his new team in the SBowl. 

[richard pallo]

I wonder if the Bengals would be interested in a Taylor for Higgins swap at the trade deadline.  He’s in a contract dispute as well but he’s playing.  Ballard was looking for a receiver from the Dolphins and Packers so he would be a perfect candidate.  

[hoosierhawk]

Wow! The disdain for JT is unbelievable. He had one injury in 3 years. About the same as Nelson,Kelly,Smith,etc. Ev ery player in the league wants security from injury. That's why so many guaranteed contracts. My hope is we sign him with incentives and he playss for the next 8 years for the Colts. After Sunday whoever thinks the RBBC is better than an elite RB God help you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[w87r]

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

I wonder if the Bengals would be interested in a Taylor for Higgins swap at the trade deadline.  He’s in a contract dispute as well but he’s playing.  Ballard was looking for a receiver from the Dolphins and Packers so he would be a perfect candidate.  

Ironically they both had similar production in week 1.

 

 

[Solid84]

13 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

Wow! The disdain for JT is unbelievable. He had one injury in 3 years. About the same as Nelson,Kelly,Smith,etc. Ev ery player in the league wants security from injury. That's why so many guaranteed contracts. My hope is we sign him with incentives and he playss for the next 8 years for the Colts. After Sunday whoever thinks the RBBC is better than an elite RB God help you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t have disdain for JT. But I’ve said multiple times I’m against paying elite RBs above market value or even just top market value.
 

I’m especially against paying top dollar for players at a position that notoriously gets substantially more injury prone after their rookie contract. 
 

Do we currently have a need at RB? Possibly. Likely, even. Does that mean you throw $13m year after a position where elite players haven’t won super bowls in two decades on top of them being injury prone? How about no…

[RollerColt]

41 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I wonder if the Bengals would be interested in a Taylor for Higgins swap at the trade deadline.  He’s in a contract dispute as well but he’s playing.  Ballard was looking for a receiver from the Dolphins and Packers so he would be a perfect candidate.  

As a Bengals fan I like Higgins a lot, but he’s not a #1 WR. He’s obviously better than most of the receivers on the team, but not worth swapping our best player for. 

[hoosierhawk]

3 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I don’t have disdain for JT. But I’ve said multiple times I’m against paying elite RBs above market value or even just top market value.
 

I’m especially against paying top dollar for players at a position that notoriously gets substantially more injury prone after their rookie contract. 
 

Do we currently have a need at RB? Possibly. Likely, even. Does that mean you throw $13m year after a position where elite players haven’t won super bowls in two decades on top of them being injury prone? How about no…

Out of the top 15 highest paid QBs in the NFL today 4 have won a superbowl. Top 5 average $50,000,000 per year and out of those 5 one has won 1 superbowl. To pay an elite RB a few Million more a year and a top 5 QB a few million less are you suggesting that you diminish your chance for winning a Superbowl?

My point is only one QB out of 32 teams is going to win a Superbowl each year. Winning the Superbowl is the ultimate but having a winning and an exciting team sells tickets and excites the fan base. If your most exciting player on  your team is an elite RB pay him. In our case the chance of us winning a Superbowl this year is as probable as Ball State winning the national championship. No offense Ball State fans but 2nd place woundn't be bad!😎

 

[Hoosier Kriegs]

32 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

Out of the top 15 highest paid QBs in the NFL today 4 have won a superbowl. Top 5 average $50,000,000 per year and out of those 5 one has won 1 superbowl. To pay an elite RB a few Million more a year and a top 5 QB a few million less are you suggesting that you diminish your chance for winning a Superbowl?

My point is only one QB out of 32 teams is going to win a Superbowl each year. Winning the Superbowl is the ultimate but having a winning and an exciting team sells tickets and excites the fan base. If your most exciting player on  your team is an elite RB pay him. In our case the chance of us winning a Superbowl this year is as probable as Ball State winning the national championship. No offense Ball State fans but 2nd place woundn't be bad!😎

 

So pay an rb even when doing so lessens our chances of winning.

 

No

[csmopar]

4 hours ago, hoosierhawk said:

Wow! The disdain for JT is unbelievable. He had one injury in 3 years. About the same as Nelson,Kelly,Smith,etc. Ev ery player in the league wants security from injury. That's why so many guaranteed contracts. My hope is we sign him with incentives and he playss for the next 8 years for the Colts. After Sunday whoever thinks the RBBC is better than an elite RB God help you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi JT, how’s the ankle

[hoosierhawk]

33 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

So pay an rb even when doing so lessens our chances of winning.

 

No

Are you suggesting we increase our chanse of winning with the RBBC we fielded Sunday? 25 yds on 16 carries and 2 fumbles. Do you really think we have a chance of winning the Superbowl this year. Are you really suggesting that if we paid JT 8M more with incentives we are jeopardizng our chance of winning the Superbowl this year. I'm a Colt fan and I like to see a competitive and best team fielded we can put out on the field each week. 

 

[hoosierhawk]

21 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Hi JT, how’s the ankle

It's getting better. Feel like a million dollars better everday. Thanks for askingCB!😜

[VikingsFanInChennai]

2 hours ago, iuswingman said:

So pay an rb even when doing so lessens our chances of winning.

 

No

Having an elite RB doesn't lessen the chances of winning a Super Bowl.

 

It's one of the most ridiculous arguments floating around here in this forum. 

 

What diminishes exponentially the chance of an SB win is not having a capable elite QB. That's all.

 

And, you need to build around the team to give the best chance for that QB to perform the best. You can build that team with great defense or elite RB or better performers all around the team, but there's no truth in saying elite RB diminishes chance of getting SB win.

 

If the recently SB winning teams didn't have elite RB, that's because elite RBs are very rare in the league too, and having an elite RB and elite QB in the same team that wins the SB is also rare, it's just the law of averages.

 

That doesn't mean teams having an elite RB haven't gone to SB. Philly with Miles Sanders and Bengals with Joe Mixon have reached very recently. Yes, Sanders have averaged close to 5 YPC every season, and that's an elite RB metric. 

 

Teams that have won SB also recently had great coaches and great QB, which seem to be the most consistent criteria in winning SB. Other than that, you can build the team anyway around them to be successful. 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

7 hours ago, hoosierhawk said:

Wow! The disdain for JT is unbelievable. He had one injury in 3 years. About the same as Nelson,Kelly,Smith,etc. Ev ery player in the league wants security from injury. That's why so many guaranteed contracts. My hope is we sign him with incentives and he playss for the next 8 years for the Colts. After Sunday whoever thinks the RBBC is better than an elite RB God help you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, people don't care about RBs until they sit before the TV on Sunday watching the snail move on the field in the form of RB2s they'd rather have, thankful for the millions that the franchise saved.. 

 

I think Ballard and Irsay had plans to extend JT when they've AR in rookie deal, but JT may have ruined that this off-season... They can still mend their ways and get back on track. We'll have to see how it all works out. 

[Solid84]

5 hours ago, hoosierhawk said:

Out of the top 15 highest paid QBs in the NFL today 4 have won a superbowl. Top 5 average $50,000,000 per year and out of those 5 one has won 1 superbowl. To pay an elite RB a few Million more a year and a top 5 QB a few million less are you suggesting that you diminish your chance for winning a Superbowl?

My point is only one QB out of 32 teams is going to win a Superbowl each year. Winning the Superbowl is the ultimate but having a winning and an exciting team sells tickets and excites the fan base. If your most exciting player on  your team is an elite RB pay him. In our case the chance of us winning a Superbowl this year is as probable as Ball State winning the national championship. No offense Ball State fans but 2nd place woundn't be bad!😎

 

Are you really comparing QBs to RBs in this scenario? There is no position in football more important than the QB and no position who’s quality of play is more tied to wins than the QB. 
 

The only thing that can offset a great+ QB is an entire elite defense and the price of that, total, is much more expensive than the QB. 
 

The point is the extra wins added for an elite RB over a good RB is, frankly, neglitible, but the difference in pay can be what amounts to a quality guard for instance. We’re already close to bumping the cap this season and we quite possibly have to sign some big pay checks next year. 
 

I don’t dispute JT is elite or that he is fun as heck to watch gallop down the field, but long term spending big on a RB is bad business. You pay A LOT for the extra 15% performance. And again, that’s just looking at performance and ignoring the fact that RBs get a lot more injury prone after their rookie contract. 
 

I really don’t understand why some here can’t see this. Some just see “good player = must pay”, but the GM has to build a team with a set amount of money. You can’t pay everyone and some positions are a lot more important than others. 

[Solid84]

2 hours ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

Having an elite RB doesn't lessen the chances of winning a Super Bowl.

 

It's one of the most ridiculous arguments floating around here in this forum. 

 

What diminishes exponentially the chance of an SB win is not having a capable elite QB. That's all.

 

And, you need to build around the team to give the best chance for that QB to perform the best. You can build that team with great defense or elite RB or better performers all around the team, but there's no truth in saying elite RB diminishes chance of getting SB win.

 

If the recently SB winning teams didn't have elite RB, that's because elite RBs are very rare in the league too, and having an elite RB and elite QB in the same team that wins the SB is also rare, it's just the law of averages.

 

That doesn't mean teams having an elite RB haven't gone to SB. Philly with Miles Sanders and Bengals with Joe Mixon have reached very recently. Yes, Sanders have averaged close to 5 YPC every season, and that's an elite RB metric. 

 

Teams that have won SB also recently had great coaches and great QB, which seem to be the most consistent criteria in winning SB. Other than that, you can build the team anyway around them to be successful. 

Way to completely miss the point of the argument against paying an elite RB. 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

43 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Way to completely miss the point of the argument against paying an elite RB. 

The comment I replied said

Quote

 

So pay an rb even when doing so lessens our chances of winning.

 

No

 

I had replied that you quoted

 

Quote

Having an elite RB doesn't lessen the chances of winning a Super Bowl.

Not sure what I missed that you'd like to point out 

[stitches]

17 minutes ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

The comment I replied said

I had replied that you quoted

 

Not sure what I missed that you'd like to point out 

Having one doesn't. Having him for 15M a year might lessen your chances... 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

Having one doesn't. Having him for 15M a year might lessen your chances... 

Yeah, like every other position... Capology... Or some team might make it work that way too. It's all about building the entire roster and managing the cap accordingly...

 

Eagles and Rams spent a lot on free agents and made it work too, and they drafted well in some positions and built the roster well while spending the money..

 

There's no one particular way we can say "it doesn't work out".. people used to say that wasting first round draft capital and spending all the cap on FAs wouldn't work out, then the Rams won SB doing so. 

[stitches]

11 minutes ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

Yeah, like every other position... Capology... Or some team might make it work that way too. It's all about building the entire roster and managing the cap accordingly...

 

Eagles and Rams spent a lot on free agents and made it work too, and they drafted well in some positions and built the roster well while spending the money..

 

There's no one particular way we can say "it doesn't work out".. people used to say that wasting first round draft capital and spending all the cap on FAs wouldn't work out, then the Rams won SB doing so. 

They spent a lot on free agents because they didn't spend a lot on RBs. The Eagles whole RB rooms cost them 5M last year and the moment their starter needed to get paid they let him go and replaced him with another cheap option. Same with the Rams - their RBs in their SB season - Sony Michel on rookie deal(1.7M), Cam Akers on rookie deal(under 1M), Darrell Henderson - rookie deal(under 1M)... 3.7M for the whole RB room. 

[Solid84]

2 hours ago, stitches said:

They spent a lot on free agents because they didn't spend a lot on RBs. The Eagles whole RB rooms cost them 5M last year and the moment their starter needed to get paid they let him go and replaced him with another cheap option. Same with the Rams - their RBs in their SB season - Sony Michel on rookie deal(1.7M), Cam Akers on rookie deal(under 1M), Darrell Henderson - rookie deal(under 1M)... 3.7M for the whole RB room. 

[Solid84]

3 hours ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

The comment I replied said

I had replied that you quoted

 

Not sure what I missed that you'd like to point out 

You can’t just look at performance because it’s all relative to how much a players costs. It’s easy to see JT is better than most RBs in this league, but at the cost other players are more valuable. 

[Hoosier Kriegs]

3 hours ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

The comment I replied said

I had replied that you quoted

 

Not sure what I missed that you'd like to point out 

No but paying for an elite rb takes away money from positions that help more in winning 

 

Ergo it is a bad idea.

 

Yes, you missed the point.

[hoosierhawk]

7 hours ago, Solid84 said:

Are you really comparing QBs to RBs in this scenario? There is no position in football more important than the QB and no position who’s quality of play is more tied to wins than the QB. 
 

The only thing that can offset a great+ QB is an entire elite defense and the price of that, total, is much more expensive than the QB. Agree
 

The point is the extra wins added for an elite RB over a good RB is, frankly, neglitible, but the difference in pay can be what amounts to a quality guard for instance. Totally Disagree                                                We’re already close to bumping the cap this season and we quite possibly have to sign some big pay checks next year. 
 

I don’t dispute JT is elite or that he is fun as heck to watch gallop down the field, but long term spending big on a RB is bad business. You pay A LOT for the extra 15% performance. Way low                 And again, that’s just looking at performance and ignoring the fact that RBs get a lot more injury prone after their rookie contract. 
 

I really don’t understand why some here can’t see this. Some just see “good player = must pay”, but the GM has to build a team with a set amount of money. You can’t pay everyone and some positions are a lot more important than others. 

 

[coming on strong]

17 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I don’t have disdain for JT. But I’ve said multiple times I’m against paying elite RBs above market value or even just top market value.
 

I’m especially against paying top dollar for players at a position that notoriously gets substantially more injury prone after their rookie contract. 
 

Do we currently have a need at RB? Possibly. Likely, even. Does that mean you throw $13m year after a position where elite players haven’t won super bowls in two decades on top of them being injury prone? How about no…

deon jackson averaged 1 .1 yards a run ......  if we had taylor teams would be loading boxes and make richardsons life so much easier .    if taylor played that game and gets 100 plus yards rushing we win that game .    starting a rookie QB  with a horrible run game is a bad idea .  we have tons of cap space next year and richardson on a rookie deal , i see nothing wrong with giving taylor a 3 year 12 million a year deal .  

[Solid84]

1 hour ago, coming on strong said:

deon jackson averaged 1 .1 yards a run ......  if we had taylor teams would be loading boxes and make richardsons life so much easier .    if taylor played that game and gets 100 plus yards rushing we win that game .    starting a rookie QB  with a horrible run game is a bad idea .  we have tons of cap space next year and richardson on a rookie deal , i see nothing wrong with giving taylor a 3 year 12 million a year deal .  

I said a good RB can replace an elite RB considering the money a team saves. Deon Jackson isn’t a RB good RB so he’s really outside of this discussion.

1 hour ago, coming on strong said:

deon jackson averaged 1 .1 yards a run ......  if we had taylor teams would be loading boxes and make richardsons life so much easier .    if taylor played that game and gets 100 plus yards rushing we win that game .    starting a rookie QB  with a horrible run game is a bad idea .  we have tons of cap space next year and richardson on a rookie deal , i see nothing wrong with giving taylor a 3 year 12 million a year deal .  

Also, the Jags already loaded the box. What more were they gonna do if JT was in exactly?

[Superman]

12 hours ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

Having an elite RB doesn't lessen the chances of winning a Super Bowl.

 

It's one of the most ridiculous arguments floating around here in this forum. 

 

When has anyone ever argued that having an elite RB lessens the chances of winning a SB? 

[1959Colts]

Interesting piece:

Under-the-radar Colts RB could make Jonathan Taylor expendable

 

https://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/under_the_radar_colts_rb_could_make_jonathan_taylor_expendable/s1_13132_39256014

 

[philba101]

I know hindsight is always 20/20, but the Colts should have traded for Ekeler when he was available this summer. I would rather be paying a RB $8 million/year who catches 100+ plus balls and scores double digit TD's (something none of our current WR's have ever done) than wasting our time teaching a lesson to the current RB on our roster who has made it clear that he no longer wants to play for us. This strategy by Ballard and Irsay (whether they were caught off guard or not) is hurting our group of players that suit up every week. S*** or get off the pot on this one. Trade him for a player that will immediately help our team and never look back. Yes, it is okay to take less for a player than you thought you might get. Why? Because that same player is not worth anything to your team if he refuses to play for it. 

[hoosierhawk]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

When has anyone ever argued that having an elite RB lessens the chances of winning a SB? 

 17 hours ago, iuswingman said:

So pay an rb even when doing so lessens our chances of winning.

 

No

 

There is the quote right there.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

 17 hours ago, iuswingman said:

So pay an rb even when doing so lessens our chances of winning.

 

No

 

There is the quote right there.

 

Do you recognize that there's a difference between having a RB and paying a RB?

[VikingsFanInChennai]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

When has anyone ever argued that having an elite RB lessens the chances of winning a SB? 

It has definitely been argued in this same thread of 150 pages, exactly the same way. 

 

I very well remember vividly people quoting recent SB winners and the fact that these teams didn't have an elite RB.

 

And, even in this recent conversation, what then was the point of the comment I replied to? The comment said " So pay an rb even when doing so lessens our chances of winning." Why would anyone say paying an RB or any particular position would lessen the chances of a win? There won't be an actual evidence to suggest that teams that paid RBs handsomely went on to lose games because of that, and even that would have to be proved that the player was the actual reason for losing games.

 

One can argue that paying an RB will reduce the cap that could be spent on elite players in important positions like QB, Edge, or WR.. same could be said about paying positions like G, LB... Wait, Colts already do that. Anyway, Colts need to get an elite Edge or WR to pay market setting price and they don't have that player to pay. And, Colts would pay to QB position if AR is the real deal. So, what exactly do we suggest saving money on not paying an RB?

 

I have already suggested that Colts would've made a reasonable deal for JT, but he could not wait this off-season, and if Colts don't want to pay more than what they set as limit, that's fair.

 

But, saying that paying an RB lessens chances of winning in any possible way, regular season game or SB? That doesn't make sense to me. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Just now, VikingsFanInChennai said:

It has definitely been argued in this same thread of 150 pages, exactly the same way. 

 

I very well remember vividly people quoting recent SB winners and the fact that these teams didn't have an elite RB.

 

And, even in this recent conversation, what then was the point of the comment I replied to? The comment said " So pay an rb even when doing so lessens our chances of winning." Why would anyone say paying an RB or any particular position would lessen the chances of a win? There won't be an actual evidence to suggest that teams that paid RBs handsomely went on to lose games because of that, and even that would have to be proved that the player was the actual reason for losing games.

 

One can argue that paying an RB will reduce the cap that could be spent on elite players in important positions like QB, Edge, or WR.. same could be said about paying positions like G, LB... Wait, Colts already do that. Anyway, Colts need to get an elite Edge or WR to pay market setting price and they don't have that player to pay. And, Colts would pay to QB position if AR is the real deal. So, what exactly do we suggest saving money on not paying an RB?

 

I have already suggested that Colts would've made a reasonable deal for JT, but he could not wait this off-season, and if Colts don't want to pay more than what they set as limit, that's fair.

 

But, saying that paying an RB lessens chances of winning in any possible way, regular season game or SB? That doesn't make sense to me. 

No one has argued it lessons the chance. Just that a elite RB is not needed.

[VikingsFanInChennai]

3 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

No one has argued it lessons the chance. Just that a elite RB is not needed.

Ok . It might take days or weeks, I will find and post these comments tagging you and @Superman or anyone who hasn't remembered those conversations now, 

 that exactly said that paying an elite RB would lessen chances of winning SB, if that's what you'd like to see to believe. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

No one has argued it lessons the chance. Just that a elite RB is not needed.

Had we had Taylor last week I believe we win the game. We had the lead mid-way through the 4th Qtr but didn't have the running game to control the game and run clock. RB by Committee was a flop last week and that is a fact. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

Ok . It might take days or weeks, I will find and post these comments tagging you and @Superman or anyone who hasn't remembered those conversations now, 

 that exactly said that paying an elite RB would lessen chances of winning SB, if that's what you'd like to see to believe. 

 

You're misrepresenting the argument. I think you know it. 

 

Also, it would help to understand that cap space is cumulative and can be rolled forward into future seasons. So just because you think we don't have anyone to spend money on right now doesn't mean that saving cap space won't be an advantage in the future. (And that's setting aside the fact that we can acquire players via trades and free agency, which would account for some cap space.)

[VikingsFanInChennai]

33 minutes ago, philba101 said:

I know hindsight is always 20/20, but the Colts should have traded for Ekeler when he was available this summer. I would rather be paying a RB $8 million/year who catches 100+ plus balls and scores double digit TD's (something none of our current WR's have ever done) than wasting our time teaching a lesson to the current RB on our roster who has made it clear that he no longer wants to play for us. This strategy by Ballard and Irsay (whether they were caught off guard or not) is hurting our group of players that suit up every week. S*** or get off the pot on this one. Trade him for a player that will immediately help our team and never look back. Yes, it is okay to take less for a player than you thought you might get. Why? Because that same player is not worth anything to your team if he refuses to play for it. 

But, Colts wouldn't have had any idea that JT would do all this, and he's still in his rookie contract.

 

You'd need to trade for Ekeler, and you'd need trade JT away, and JT's cost goes down when teams know you already have Ekeler and you definitely will need to let JT go.

 

And, Chargers didn't seem to have any intention on sending Ekeler away as well.