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

[VikingsFanInChennai]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

 

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.)

I didn't say any of that. I don't think Colts don't have anyone to spend elite dollars, I think there are always performers waiting to be paid. 

 

I mentioned those examples to point out that paying any position doesn't diminish chances of the team winning games.

 

That's all I relate to. 

 

Anyway, you don't seem to remember the comments that I pointed out in the earlier conversation, and I've replied either keeping that in mind (SB wins) or to the current conversation of winning any games while paying an RB (that sounds even more ridiculous to keep saying so).

[hoosierhawk]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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

Sorry I don't get what you are trying to point out. The poist I pointed out asks the question:

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

Then he answers the question with a 'No'

What ammissing?

[Superman]

2 hours ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

I didn't say any of that.

 

 

Quote

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?

 

Maybe you meant something different, but my takeaway from your comment was basically 'the Colts don't have players at premium positions, so why are we trying to save cap space?' Happy to accept any clarification you can offer there.

 

Quote

paying any position doesn't diminish chances of the team winning games.

 

 

Cap space usage is a zero sum game. Every dollar spent is gone, every dollar saved can be spent elsewhere. At a certain point, your spending in one area affects your ability to spend in other areas. That has to be considered with every spending decision, especially the big ones.

 

Spending elite money at RB is a double foul, because not only is it a non premium position, but RBs typically do not produce at an elite level long enough to justify a big second contract. We have several recent examples. So, three years down the line when Richardson is getting paid, and we feel like we need another good WR or we want to shore up the OL, or there's a chance to trade for a hot defensive player, but we're tight on the cap because we're paying a RB $13-15m/year and he's not producing at an elite level, now you're in a situation where paying premium money is diminishing the team's ability to win games.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, hoosierhawk said:

Sorry I don't get what you are trying to point out. The poist I pointed out asks the question:

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

Then he answers the question with a 'No'

What am I missing? 

 

It was a direct question. If you don't see a difference between having an elite RB and paying an elite RB (specifically at an elite salary), then it's a moot point.

[EasyE]

Does a long term JT contract really matter anymore? He has already expressed he doesn't want to be a Colt anymore. So what happens will we be able to trade by the deadline or end up tagging him at end of season then trade? I'm confused on what happens or what team does. The whole situation is depressing I'm a huge JT fan but a bigger Colt fan. I hope both parties get what they want.

[hoosierhawk]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It was a direct question. If you don't see a difference between having an elite RB and paying an elite RB (specifically at an elite salary), then it's a moot point.

So if are you saying having an elite RB is good and paying an elite RB is different as long as you pay on elite money and you pay the other non elite RB money yes I understand. That could be said for any position but what does it mean when it was said 'No' to paying a RB diminishs the chance to win a Super Bowl?

[Superman]

29 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

So if are you saying having an elite RB is good and paying an elite RB is different as long as you pay on elite money and you pay the other non elite RB money yes I understand. That could be said for any position but what does it mean when it was said 'No' to paying a RB diminishs the chance to win a Super Bowl?

 

It's simpler than that. We had JT performing like an elite RB in 2021, but he was on a rookie contract with a $1.8m cap hit. That's a huge value add for a team, but as we saw, there's still a limit to how much a RB can do for your team's prospects.

 

Whereas having an elite RB with a $15m cap hit (for instance), sure it's nice to have the elite performance, but we know his contributions are going to be capped. And now he's taking up a greater share of your available cap space, in effect costing you another player.

 

Long story short, the argument is NOT that simply having an elite RB somehow hurts your team. The argument is that committing major cap resources to having an elite RB is likely taking away from the quality of your roster in other areas.

 

You may or may not agree with that premise, and that's fine. But let's be clear about what the premise is to begin with. Because no one is arguing that having an elite RB is a bad thing. The argument is about the cap strategy of paying an elite RB.

[EasyE]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's simpler than that. We had JT performing like an elite RB in 2021, but he was on a rookie contract with a $1.8m cap hit. That's a huge value add for a team, but as we saw, there's still a limit to how much a RB can do for your team's prospects.

 

Whereas having an elite RB with a $15m cap hit (for instance), sure it's nice to have the elite performance, but we know his contributions are going to be capped. And now he's taking up a greater share of your available cap space, in effect costing you another player.

 

Long story short, the argument is NOT that simply having an elite RB somehow hurts your team. The argument is that committing major cap resources to having an elite RB is likely taking away from the quality of your roster in other areas.

 

You may or may not agree with that premise, and that's fine. But let's be clear about what the premise is to begin with. Because no one is arguing that having an elite RB is a bad thing. The argument is about how the cap strategy of paying an elite RB.

The bold. Do you think that's why Colts never offered him a new contract? I have mixed feelings on that part. I like hearing others opinions on it.

[AKB]

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's simpler than that. We had JT performing like an elite RB in 2021, but he was on a rookie contract with a $1.8m cap hit. That's a huge value add for a team, but as we saw, there's still a limit to how much a RB can do for your team's prospects.

 

Whereas having an elite RB with a $15m cap hit (for instance), sure it's nice to have the elite performance, but we know his contributions are going to be capped. And now he's taking up a greater share of your available cap space, in effect costing you another player.

 

Long story short, the argument is NOT that simply having an elite RB somehow hurts your team. The argument is that committing major cap resources to having an elite RB is likely taking away from the quality of your roster in other areas.

 

You may or may not agree with that premise, and that's fine. But let's be clear about what the premise is to begin with. Because no one is arguing that having an elite RB is a bad thing. The argument is about the cap strategy of paying an elite RB.

but how many years with ballard have we used every dollar available? right now. don't we usually run with about 15m to 20m left over?

[EasyE]

7 minutes ago, AKB said:

but how many years with ballard have we used every dollar available? right now. don't we usually run with about 15m to 20m left over?

I thought that too. but what is cap right now after signing 53 and PS? Plus what players are needing contracts done after this season? I don't know but liked too know. 

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, EasyE said:

The bold. Do you think that's why Colts never offered him a new contract? I have mixed feelings on that part. I like hearing others opinions on it.

 

I think the Colts would pay JT, based on their previous roster/cap decisions, and their recent comments.  So no, I don't really think that's the reason they haven't made an offer to him.

 

That said, it's possible that Steichen's offensive approach is causing Ballard to rethink his roster composition strategy. I could see Steichen saying 'We can make this work with a stable of pretty good backs, I'd rather you get me a dynamic WR with that money.' 

 

As for my thinking, from a strictly strategic standpoint, it's probably best to draft a RB in the 2nd-3rd round every other year, and rotate through them as needed. They'll be somewhat interchangeable, and you'll always have a pipeline as they hit free agency. At times you'll hit on a star talent, and you can trade him after Year 3 and let someone else pay him. That's the coldhearted, analytical approach. 

 

In real life, there should be an intangible value to rewarding good players with second contracts, even if it's not the best value proposition. An example of that was demonstrated, IMO, when Ballard pushed back on the question about what Colts players think about the difficulty of getting paid by the team. The Colts have a track record of taking care of their own players, it starts with the owner, and it's established over more than 20 years. Even still, that value is limited, because while it should be obvious that the Colts take care of their own, that reporter had the audacity to even ask that question in public, and other media folks have been acting like the Colts are being stingy with JT. So maybe the intangible value that we think exists is overstated, maybe even imagined.

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, AKB said:

but how many years with ballard have we used every dollar available? right now. don't we usually run with about 15m to 20m left over?

 

Not really. But even if that was the case, I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.

[AKB]

2 minutes ago, EasyE said:

I thought that too. but what is cap right now after signing 53 and PS? Plus what players are needing contracts done after this season? I don't know but liked too know. 

yeah i dont know either thats why im asking him he probably knows, but my impression was we usually have top 5 in cap avail, even during seasons. but i could be wrong 

[AKB]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Not really. But even if that was the case, I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.

the point is, if you aren't maxing out your cap, is it really that big of a deal to overpay for a talented RB, when you have a rookie QB contract. if we were ever gonna do it, now would be the time. 

 

that isn't to say taylors camp did it the right way. 

 

but with that being said, my impression is we usually are top5  in cap, rarely sign big number guys, we are definitely a team that can pay a running back, and the roster mechanics look pretty much the same anyways. we draft and play rookies, while signing bargain bin players, this has been the same for 6 eyars now. 

 

i don't know the exact numbers, but we usually are towards the top of cap space, even mid-season. 

 

next year projected to have 6th most cap sapce. 

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space

[EasyE]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think the Colts would pay JT, based on their previous roster/cap decisions, and their recent comments.  So no, I don't really think that's the reason they haven't made an offer to him.

 

That said, it's possible that Steichen's offensive approach is causing Ballard to rethink his roster composition strategy. I could see Steichen saying 'We can make this work with a stable of pretty good backs, I'd rather you get me a dynamic WR with that money.' 

 

As for my thinking, from a strictly strategic standpoint, it's probably best to draft a RB in the 2nd-3rd round every other year, and rotate through them as needed. They'll be somewhat interchangeable, and you'll always have a pipeline as they hit free agency. At times you'll hit on a star talent, and you can trade him after Year 3 and let someone else pay him. That's the coldhearted, analytical approach. 

 

In real life, there should be an intangible value to rewarding good players with second contracts, even if it's not the best value proposition. An example of that was demonstrated, IMO, when Ballard pushed back on the question about what Colts players think about the difficulty of getting paid by the team. The Colts have a track record of taking care of their own players, it starts with the owner, and it's established over more than 20 years. Even still, that value is limited, because while it should be obvious that the Colts take care of their own, that reporter had the audacity to even ask that question in public, and other media folks have been acting like the Colts are being stingy with JT. So maybe the intangible value that we think exists is overstated, maybe even imagined.

I think you are on to something in the bold. Kinda what I have been saying to friends and family.

[EasyE]

@Superman

IMO, Ballard would have made deal in a heart beat with JT before training camp. But I think Shane has a bigger say now and It ticked JT and agent off! I could be wrong. But I think Shane has more say in this roster than what most think. JMO

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, AKB said:

the point is, if you aren't maxing out your cap, is it really that big of a deal to overpay for a talented RB, when you have a rookie QB contract. if we were ever gonna do it, now would be the time. 

 

that isn't to say taylors camp did it the right way. 

 

but with that being said, my impression is we usually are top5  in cap, rarely sign big number guys, we are definitely a team that can pay a running back, and the roster mechanics look pretty much the same anyways. we draft and play rookies, while signing bargain bin players, this has been the same for 6 eyars now. 

 

i don't know the exact numbers, but we usually are towards the top of cap space, even mid-season. 

 

next year projected to have 6th most cap sapce. 

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space

 

What I would want Ballard to do is to push hard in the next three years, before Richardson's new contract kicks in. But that's assuming Richardson is THE GUY, and we can legitimately contend with him during his rookie contract years. And I'm also not convinced that Ballard would even do that. But if he did, then every cap dollar matters.

 

And I also think you need to think more big picture. Sometimes people think of the cap as an individual year-to-year amount, but in reality, you have a cumulative amount that can be spent over a period of several years. With rollover, and backloaded contracts, you're basically able to lend and borrow cap space from previous and future seasons. So squandering cap space because 'if we were ever gonna do it, now would be the time' and 'we don't have anyone else to pay, give it to JT' is missing the point. Being disciplined with the cap now will contribute to greater cap flexibility in the future, including when we have a highly paid QB.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, EasyE said:

@Superman

IMO, Ballard would have made deal in a heart beat with JT before training camp. But I think Shane has a bigger say now and It ticked JT and agent off! I could be wrong. But I think Shane has more say in this roster than what most think. JMO

 

It's possible, but I'm also not discounting the role that JT's injury plays. And I think it's possible the Colts' intended to address the contract later in the year, and JT wanted it to happen in the offseason.

 

There's also the possibility that JT's side was trying to manipulate the situation to get a trade to a specific destination, in which case it doesn't really matter how the Colts handled it.

[EasyE]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

It's possible, but I'm also not discounting the role that JT's injury plays. And I think it's possible the Colts' intended to address the contract later in the year, and JT wanted it to happen in the offseason.

 

There's also the possibility that JT's side was trying to manipulate the situation to get a trade to a specific destination, in which case it doesn't really matter how the Colts handled it.

I absolutely agree about the JT side. I stand still though Ballard would have made big deal with JT if Shane doesn't have a say. JMO

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

It's possible, but I'm also not discounting the role that JT's injury plays. And I think it's possible the Colts' intended to address the contract later in the year, and JT wanted it to happen in the offseason.

 

There's also the possibility that JT's side was trying to manipulate the situation to get a trade to a specific destination, in which case it doesn't really matter how the Colts handled it.

I absolutely agree about the JT side. I stand still though Ballard would have made big deal with JT if Shane doesn't have a say. JMO

[csmopar]

25 minutes ago, AKB said:

yeah i dont know either thats why im asking him he probably knows, but my impression was we usually have top 5 in cap avail, even during seasons. but i could be wrong 

Mostly because the way Ballard structures such contracts to be easy/cheap to get out of with little dead money. What is hurting us this year and this year only is May Ryan’s dead money. Roughly 25 million of it

[AKB]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What I would want Ballard to do is to push hard in the next three years, before Richardson's new contract kicks in. But that's assuming Richardson is THE GUY, and we can legitimately contend with him during his rookie contract years. And I'm also not convinced that Ballard would even do that. But if he did, then every cap dollar matters.

 

And I also think you need to think more big picture. Sometimes people think of the cap as an individual year-to-year amount, but in reality, you have a cumulative amount that can be spent over a period of several years. With rollover, and backloaded contracts, you're basically able to lend and borrow cap space from previous and future seasons. So squandering cap space because 'if we were ever gonna do it, now would be the time' and 'we don't have anyone else to pay, give it to JT' is missing the point. Being disciplined with the cap now will contribute to greater cap flexibility in the future, including when we have a highly paid QB.

i don't think its missing the point, i just think it's a different philosophy overall with how to spend cap. every team does it differently, and so far the way we have done it isn't working.

 

and, if we were to follow the way we have been doing it, we would just sign JT, and continue to do nothing in FA. so perhaps with the arrival of shane the roster mechanics and things of that sort are beginning to change. 

 

but to say its missing the point is dismissive. there are certain points in roster turnover, and cap being spent, vs projected players to be paid, maybe teams will spend more than usual on auxillary positions if they have a rookie QB. We squandered cap in so many situations. Devin Funchess, Matt Ryan, Matt Pryor 

 

those were the times to be frugal, but in my opinion, signing taylor, even to a record breaking deal, isn't gonna change the way our roster is built. we've been doing it, for 6 years. draft em, play, pay em. let the ones that are average walk. he's been doing it for half a decade. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What I would want Ballard to do is to push hard in the next three years, before Richardson's new contract kicks in. But that's assuming Richardson is THE GUY, and we can legitimately contend with him during his rookie contract years. And I'm also not convinced that Ballard would even do that. But if he did, then every cap dollar matters.

 

And I also think you need to think more big picture. Sometimes people think of the cap as an individual year-to-year amount, but in reality, you have a cumulative amount that can be spent over a period of several years. With rollover, and backloaded contracts, you're basically able to lend and borrow cap space from previous and future seasons. So squandering cap space because 'if we were ever gonna do it, now would be the time' and 'we don't have anyone else to pay, give it to JT' is missing the point. Being disciplined with the cap now will contribute to greater cap flexibility in the future, including when we have a highly paid QB.

This off-season I think is going to tell us a bunch about Ballard and how much Steichen influence will guide him into making better choices. I really think Steichen is going to have a positive influence on Ballard. I really didn’t think many changes would happen this year because Steichen needs to see these guys play.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, AKB said:

i don't think its missing the point, i just think it's a different philosophy overall with how to spend cap. every team does it differently, and so far the way we have done it isn't working.

 

and, if we were to follow the way we have been doing it, we would just sign JT, and continue to do nothing in FA. so perhaps with the arrival of shane the roster mechanics and things of that sort are beginning to change. 

 

but to say its missing the point is dismissive. there are certain points in roster turnover, and cap being spent, vs projected players to be paid, maybe teams will spend more than usual on auxillary positions if they have a rookie QB. We squandered cap in so many situations. Devin Funchess, Matt Ryan, Matt Pryor 

 

those were the times to be frugal, but in my opinion, signing taylor, even to a record breaking deal, isn't gonna change the way our roster is built. we've been doing it, for 6 years. draft em, play, pay em. let the ones that are average walk. he's been doing it for half a decade. 

 

First, I think this is ironic. He's been doing it for half a decade, and what we've done isn't working, but also keep doing it? I'm not sure which side of the argument you're taking here.

 

I also don't think 'we squandered cap in the past,' so why not squander more now, is a reasonable argument. 

 

More to the point, I'm not dismissing what you're saying. I think what you're saying is unnecessarily limiting the team's use of resources on the basis of what's available now, without proper regard for what those resources can be used for in the future. I don't think your viewpoint is macro enough. Simply put, if we keep snowballing our cap rollover, there's a cumulative effect, and when it's time to spend big (either at QB or on the rest of the roster), we'll have more available cap resources. It's like saving money in your household budget to pay for a big project in the future. Whatever you save now, you can spend later. If you plan on redoing your kitchen in two years, you don't get new countertops right now just because you have a few extra dollars.

 

We've finally hit a reset, after several years of trying to tread water, and then we realized we were actually circling the drain. Now we have a new coach, and a new QB. The hope is the guys we have now are the guys who will get us back to contention. If that reset includes an adjusted roster management strategy, I think that's a good thing. And while I don't want JT to be sacrificed as a part of that adjustment, I certainly would understand if that's the plan.

[AKB]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

First, I think this is ironic. He's been doing it for half a decade, and what we've done isn't working, but also keep doing it? I'm not sure which side of the argument you're taking here.

 

I also don't think 'we squandered cap in the past,' so why not squander more now, is a reasonable argument. 

 

More to the point, I'm not dismissing what you're saying. I think what you're saying is unnecessarily limiting the team's use of resources on the basis of what's available now, without proper regard for what those resources can be used for in the future. I don't think your viewpoint is macro enough. Simply put, if we keep snowballing our cap rollover, there's a cumulative effect, and when it's time to spend big (either at QB or on the rest of the roster), we'll have more available cap resources. It's like saving money in your household budget to pay for a big project in the future. Whatever you save now, you can spend later. If you plan on redoing your kitchen in two years, you don't get new countertops right now just because you have a few extra dollars.

 

We've finally hit a reset, after several years of trying to tread water, and then we realized we were actually circling the drain. Now we have a new coach, and a new QB. The hope is the guys we have now are the guys who will get us back to contention. If that reset includes an adjusted roster management strategy, I think that's a good thing. And while I don't want JT to be sacrificed as a part of that adjustment, I certainly would understand if that's the plan.

im not really saying we should do it, im saying we can do it, and it really wouldn't matter, either way. 

 

in terms of macro i hear you on the rollover, but if its always rolling over, when do we utilize it? to pay a quarterback not on the roster? to sign the worst lineman ever and think it was fine? we choose right now, our best player outside of nelson to finally make a change? that's ironic if anything

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, AKB said:

im not really saying we should do it, im saying we can do it, and it really wouldn't matter, either way. 

 

The bolded is what I would like to disagree with. I think whether we commit $40-50m to a RB over the next 3-4 years would definitely matter.

 

Quote

in terms of macro i hear you on the rollover, but if its always rolling over, when do we utilize it? to pay a quarterback not on the roster? to sign the worst lineman ever and think it was fine? we choose right now, our best player outside of nelson to finally make a change? that's ironic if anything

 

We paid Matt Pryor $5.6m. It's not relevant to this conversation, it's replacement level money, not $50m for a RB. (It was also kind of a fluke. I wasn't thinking Pryor was going to be a lockdown LT, but the evaluation that he could be at least serviceable was legit. Whatever happened to him prior to the 2022 season was unpredictable.)

 

To the bolded, should we utilize it right now? I think we should wait until we know whether we have a QB. Until then, we should keep our powder dry.

 

Also, in my mind, Nelson is very different from Taylor. I think Nelson can live up to his contract. There's little to no chance that Taylor is still playing at a top tier level four years from now.

[EasyE]

5 minutes ago, AKB said:

im not really saying we should do it, im saying we can do it, and it really wouldn't matter, either way. 

 

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

First, I think this is ironic. He's been doing it for half a decade, and what we've done isn't working, but also keep doing it? I'm not sure which side of the argument you're taking here.

 

I also don't think 'we squandered cap in the past,' so why not squander more now, is a reasonable argument. 

 

More to the point, I'm not dismissing what you're saying. I think what you're saying is unnecessarily limiting the team's use of resources on the basis of what's available now, without proper regard for what those resources can be used for in the future. I don't think your viewpoint is macro enough. Simply put, if we keep snowballing our cap rollover, there's a cumulative effect, and when it's time to spend big (either at QB or on the rest of the roster), we'll have more available cap resources. It's like saving money in your household budget to pay for a big project in the future. Whatever you save now, you can spend later. If you plan on redoing your kitchen in two years, you don't get new countertops right now just because you have a few extra dollars.

 

We've finally hit a reset, after several years of trying to tread water, and then we realized we were actually circling the drain. Now we have a new coach, and a new QB. The hope is the guys we have now are the guys who will get us back to contention. If that reset includes an adjusted roster management strategy, I think that's a good thing. And while I don't want JT to be sacrificed as a part of that adjustment, I certainly would understand if that's the plan.

in terms of macro i hear you on the rollover, but if its always rolling over, when do we utilize it? to pay a quarterback not on the roster? to sign the worst lineman ever and think it was fine? we choose right now, our best player outside of nelson to finally make a change? that's ironic if anything

You both are saying accurate and sensible opinions. Carry on I love reading them 

[EasyE]

Just now, EasyE said:

You both are saying accurate and sensible opinions. Carry on I love reading them 

🍿 great points and Im reading until game starts.😁

[AKB]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The bolded is what I would like to disagree with. I think whether we commit $40-50m to a RB over the next 3-4 years would definitely matter.

 

In a perfect world, where no dollars are wasted, sure. Maybe. 

 

We waste more money on a regular basis than what JT is asking for. He's definitely worth 12-14M a year. Without a doubt, that is his value, at a minimum. 

 

So if he wants an extra 1M per year, give it to him. It doesn't make a difference, maybe if your philosophy is never to pay a running back their worth, play them, and let them move on, if that is the idea or philosophy, then yeah, it makes a difference, because the goal is to never pay them. If the goal is to pay your players what they are worth, then yeah it makes total sense to pay him. 

 

The extra 1m-2m he wants does not make a difference on this roster, it just doesn't.  now the argument of what a running back is worth is a whole different topic, but if you slot him behind CMC that's about 13-14M a year, maybe 12 on the low side. 16 on the high side.  

 

They won't trade him like an average back, and won't pay him like an exceptional one. make it make sense. 

 

Matt pryors money is relevant, because we are wasting money. it all matters, like you said. same with the money luck kept, same with the money we wasted on ryan, same with the money we wasted on pryor. and not only did we waste the money on pryor, we ruined our line in one year doing it

[Superman]

Just now, AKB said:

They won't trade him like an average back, and won't pay him like an exceptional one. make it make sense. 

 

This is where we need to separate my opinion from what the Colts intend to do. While we're having a philosophical debate on a message board, I think the Colts intend to pay JT, if he plays well and fits Steichen's system. 

[AKB]

Just now, Superman said:

 

This is where we need to separate my opinion from what the Colts intend to do. While we're having a philosophical debate on a message board, I think the Colts intend to pay JT, if he plays well and fits Steichen's system. 

not to mention the money we gave Brisket. its insane the amount of money we've wasted and splurged, overpaid nelson (arguably)

[EasyE]

1 minute ago, AKB said:

 

In a perfect world, where no dollars are wasted, sure. Maybe. 

 

We waste more money on a regular basis than what JT is asking for. He's definitely worth 12-14M a year. Without a doubt, that is his value, at a minimum. 

 

So if he wants an extra 1M per year, give it to him. It doesn't make a difference, maybe if your philosophy is never to pay a running back their worth, play them, and let them move on, if that is the idea or philosophy, then yeah, it makes a difference, because the goal is to never pay them. If the goal is to pay your players what they are worth, then yeah it makes total sense to pay him. 

 

The extra 1m-2m he wants does not make a difference on this roster, it just doesn't.  now the argument of what a running back is worth is a whole different topic, but if you slot him behind CMC that's about 13-14M a year, maybe 12 on the low side. 16 on the high side.  

 

They won't trade him like an average back, and won't pay him like an exceptional one. make it make sense. 

I don't mean to jump in. But what do we know JT brings to this Offense on the PUP? I know he is elite, is he now after a injury and in a new offense? I'm just asking.

[AKB]

Just now, EasyE said:

I don't mean to jump in. But what do we know JT brings to this Offense on the PUP? I know he is elite, is he now after a injury and in a new offense? I'm just asking.

i think we saw it last week. and btw, to put it out there, I'm not arguing to keep Taylor, I'm just saying if we paid him what he asked for, it wouldn't ruin our roster mechanics, on the most basic level that is what I'm saying 

 

i think if we have a Leonard forunette, a Kareem hunt, that's good enough next to AR. but practice squad running backs are not helping our rookie QB, and that is a big issue right now.

 

I see Taylor coming off the pup and running like he is mad, a very mad man. then he signs somewhere else, we get a stellar 13 games, and then he gets paid. 

 

last week those 4-yard runs AR had to force to get downs, are an issue and will get him injured. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, AKB said:

not to mention the money we gave Brisket. its insane the amount of money we've wasted and splurged, overpaid nelson (arguably)

 

Absolutely agree on this. We should have traded Brissett in 2020 for sure. I understood why they extended him, but keeping him another year was definitely a waste.

 

That doesn't mean we should just keep misspending cap resources.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Looks like colts are also keeping a eye on Fournette.

[AKB]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Absolutely agree on this. We should have traded Brissett in 2020 for sure. I understood why they extended him, but keeping him another year was definitely a waste.

 

That doesn't mean we should just keep misspending cap resources.

yeah i agree with you, im not really disagreeing. the cap has been mismanaged for the greater part of his tenure. 

im just saying why are we using JT as the stopping point. they can pay him, and our roster will be fine. he's really only asking for about 2M more per year than his market value. in my eyes, taylor gives us at least another 3-4 wins per year. compared to Deon Jackson

 

also, to add, I think Hull is going to be a good back. So i would be fine rolling with him, im just pointing out what i see in the situation, not necessarily saying i have a solution, or that paying a running back top dollar leads to super bowls. 

[EasyE]

3 minutes ago, AKB said:

i think we saw it last week. and btw, to put it out there, I'm not arguing to keep Taylor, I'm just saying if we paid him what he asked for, it wouldn't ruin our roster mechanics, on the most basic level that is what I'm saying 

 

i think if we have a Leonard forunette, a Kareem hunt, that's good enough next to AR. but practice squad running backs are not helping our rookie QB, and that is a big issue right now.

 

I see Taylor coming off the pup and running like he is mad, a very mad man. then he signs somewhere else, we get a stellar 13 games, and then he gets paid. 

 

last week those 4-yard runs AR had to force to get downs, are an issue and will get him injured. 

I respect what you are saying I agree but I see Superman comments and agree with him. You both are not wrong. It's the Colts FO that makes the decision. You guys bring up so many good observations. I'm glad, to be here and read it all. This forum is awesome..

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, AKB said:

im just saying why are we using JT as the stopping point.

 

Probably because a) he's hurt and won't participate, and b) we have a new HC. Or vice versa...

[AKB]

1 minute ago, EasyE said:

I respect what you are saying I agree but I see Superman comments and agree with him. You both are not wrong. It's the Colts FO that makes the decision. You guys bring up so many good observations. I'm glad, to be here and read it all. This forum is awesome..

by far my favorite colts fan site

Just now, Superman said:

 

Probably because a) he's hurt and won't participate, and b) we have a new HC. Or vice versa...

yes you are right, the way it has been handled by his camp is definitely wrong.  maybe if he balled out they wouldve just given him the money anyway. but yeah, ur right

[AKB]

3 minutes ago, EasyE said:

I respect what you are saying I agree but I see Superman comments and agree with him. You both are not wrong. It's the Colts FO that makes the decision. You guys bring up so many good observations. I'm glad, to be here and read it all. This forum is awesome..

look at this 

 

[EasyE]

2 minutes ago, AKB said:

look at this 

 

Good thing that wasn't Matt Ryan.. Just one game.. I think we our fine, this is a real evaluation season with all the new changes. JMO