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

[runthepost]

15 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I was looking at the Dolphins running backs. Lol  In any event Taylor is way better than Mixon.  Taylor’s a difference maker.  Mixon is not.  Lol

You originally said Moss is better than the Bengals RB

[lester]

On 9/15/2023 at 7:25 PM, Indyfan4life said:

I just want JT and AR together. It will only make the offense better. 

 

I want to see that. Shane Steichen wants to see that. Chris Ballard wants to see that. Jim Irsay wants to see that.

 

No one in their right minds wants to pay extra to see that. If it is as good as everyone is hoping, then Jonathan Taylor will be a very wealthy man.

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, runthepost said:

You originally said Moss is better than the Bengals RB

In error.  My point was supposed to be Dolphins RB.  Typed too fast I guess.

[1959Colts]

Watching the Dolphins RBs vs New England, it looked like Miami doesn't need Taylor that badly

[krunk]

On 9/15/2023 at 1:03 PM, richard pallo said:

 

I want to see the Trio of JT, Moss, and Hull. Now that's a nice stable of backs! AR would do well with that group.

[richard pallo]

1 minute ago, krunk said:

I want to see the Trio of JT, Moss, and Hull. Now that's a nice stable of backs! AR would do well with that group.

I agree.  That trio would be an awesome group.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Steichen said today he is looking forward to having Taylor back week 5.

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Just now, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Steichen said today he is looking forward to having Taylor back week 5.

That comment makes you go…

[ADnum1]

2 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Steichen said today he is looking forward to having Taylor back week 5.

Either Irsay or Taylor would have to cave for that to happen

[Solid84]

7 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

Either Irsay or Taylor would have to cave for that to happen

He'll have to play week 5 if he doesn't want to play another year on his rookie deal. After week 5 though is anyone's guess...

[GoColts8818]

10 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Steichen said today he is looking forward to having Taylor back week 5.

My guess is Ballard finally got Taylor to understand the only way to get what he wants is to play and prove it and the Colts believe he can do that.  He probably added in now you saw what the rest of the league thinks of you as no one was willing to pay your value.  We believe in you and if you perform the way we think you will we will reward you.  

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

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

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Glad to see the nfl is taking action with this.

 

 

[cjwhiskers]

12 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Glad to see the nfl is taking action with this.

 

 

Love to see it. The league needed to do this. Players negotiating in bad faith and getting poor recommendations.

 

 

[richard pallo]

25 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

 

My guess is he knows he’s coming back and that he’s ready to go.  

[GoColts8818]

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

My guess is he knows he’s coming back and that he’s ready to go.  

That definitely seems to be the direction things have been pointing the past few weeks 

[coltsblue1844]

46 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

Either Irsay or Taylor would have to cave for that to happen

From everything I've read, it's not Irsay, it's Ballard.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Faking injuries is not the way to get paid.

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

That definitely seems to be the direction things have been pointing the past few weeks 

 

That's what we thought before camp, when Irsay said Taylor was ready to go. 

 

I don't trust anything on this topic right now. 

[NewColtsFan]

14 minutes ago, coltsblue1844 said:

From everything I've read, it's not Irsay, it's Ballard.

On problems of this magnitude on a player of this importance, the owner is always involved.   Remember when Irsay invited Taylor on to his personal bus for an hour during trading camp?  
 

It’s not one or the other.   It’s both, Irsay and Ballard.  

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

TJ Hockerson pulled this card too. But it was just preseason. He did get paid. 

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

On problems of this magnitude on a player of this importance, the owner is always involved.   Remember when Irsay invited Taylor on to his personal bus for an hour during trading camp?  
 

It’s not one or the other.   It’s both, Irsay and Ballard.  

The story that’s out there is Irsay was willing to pay Taylor and Ballard wanted to wait.

[NewColtsFan]

6 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

TJ Hockerson pulled this card too. But it was just preseason. He did get paid. 

The story that’s out there is Irsay was willing to pay Taylor and Ballard wanted to wait.

Can you point me toward that story?   I’d love to read it.    Do you know who wrote it?   

[Superman]

25 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

TJ Hockerson pulled this card too. But it was just preseason. He did get paid. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

Apparently though this was the advice to all players not just RB.

[Jonmal7]

Seems like interesting timing. No way the NFL didn't know about it before now. Any chance this gets ugly to the point of a lockout?

[MB-ColtsFan]

11 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Apparently though this was the advice to all players not just RB.

Sounds like collusion by the NFLPA to me. 

I wonder how the Colts will now be portrayed in the public eye with regards to the JT contract negotiations?  It's definitely not new news, but the NFL making it known that they're pushing back should help the Colts.

 

Not that it matters to CB, but just in general.

[Superman]

25 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Apparently though this was the advice to all players not just RB.

 

I didn't get that impression. I think the NFLPA specifically encouraged that group of RBs to use this strategy, and that's the reason for this grievance.

 

But I do believe that other players at other positions have used this strategy in the past, and any order that results from this grievance would affect all players, not just RBs.

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, Jonmal7 said:

Seems like interesting timing. No way the NFL didn't know about it before now. Any chance this gets ugly to the point of a lockout?

 

No.

 

A lockout is when the NFL doesn't allow the players to work without a ratified union agreement. This CBA doesn't expire until 2030, so that's not even an option.

 

A strike is when the player's union refuses to work until the NFL negotiates more favorable terms. And there's no way the players are going to decide to strike because a handful of RBs don't like how teams are compensating that position.

 

I tend to be sympathetic to the players in these kinds of situations, but the NFLPA leadership has been atrocious, and the CBA greatly favors the teams over the players. And even though the NFLPA makes a lot of noise about things like player safety and franchise tags, when it comes time to negotiate a new deal, the NFLPA agrees to stuff like a 17 game season, with no meaningful concessions for the players.

[Jonmal7]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No.

 

A lockout is when the NFL doesn't allow the players to work without a ratified union agreement. This CBA doesn't expire until 2030, so that's not even an option.

 

A strike is when the player's union refuses to work until the NFL negotiates more favorable terms. And there's no way the players are going to decide to strike because a handful of RBs don't like how teams are compensating that position.

 

I tend to be sympathetic to the players in these kinds of situations, but the NFLPA leadership has been atrocious, and the CBA greatly favors the teams over the players. And even though the NFLPA makes a lot of noise about things like player safety and franchise tags, when it comes time to negotiate a new deal, the NFLPA agrees to stuff like a 17 game season, with no meaningful concessions for the players.

Thanks for the clarification. This could get ugly. Maybe this leads to player benefited changes next CBA, though the past would tell us the NFLPA will fold in 2030.

[bluebombers87]

38 minutes ago, MB-ColtsFan said:

Sounds like collusion by the NFLPA to me. 

I wonder how the Colts will now be portrayed in the public eye with regards to the JT contract negotiations?  It's definitely not new news, but the NFL making it known that they're pushing back should help the Colts.

 

Not that it matters to CB, but just in general.

Largely ignored in respect to possible collusion.

 

If this ends up being proven true, I see two possible outcomes: 

 

A - JT plays and plays well and is traded for a decent haul of picks

 

or

 

B - JT plays and stinks and is cut at the end of the season.

[Solid84]

35 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No.

 

A lockout is when the NFL doesn't allow the players to work without a ratified union agreement. This CBA doesn't expire until 2030, so that's not even an option.

 

A strike is when the player's union refuses to work until the NFL negotiates more favorable terms. And there's no way the players are going to decide to strike because a handful of RBs don't like how teams are compensating that position.

 

I tend to be sympathetic to the players in these kinds of situations, but the NFLPA leadership has been atrocious, and the CBA greatly favors the teams over the players. And even though the NFLPA makes a lot of noise about things like player safety and franchise tags, when it comes time to negotiate a new deal, the NFLPA agrees to stuff like a 17 game season, with no meaningful concessions for the players.

To the bolded and this a little off topic, sorry.

 

I'm not sure how this works, but I thought: more games, more revenue, more money for everyone - including players?

[GoColts8818]

38 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No.

 

A lockout is when the NFL doesn't allow the players to work without a ratified union agreement. This CBA doesn't expire until 2030, so that's not even an option.

 

A strike is when the player's union refuses to work until the NFL negotiates more favorable terms. And there's no way the players are going to decide to strike because a handful of RBs don't like how teams are compensating that position.

 

I tend to be sympathetic to the players in these kinds of situations, but the NFLPA leadership has been atrocious, and the CBA greatly favors the teams over the players. And even though the NFLPA makes a lot of noise about things like player safety and franchise tags, when it comes time to negotiate a new deal, the NFLPA agrees to stuff like a 17 game season, with no meaningful concessions for the players.

Most CBAs also include a no lock out no strike clause while the contract is in effect.

[GoColts8818]

2 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

To the bolded and this a little off topic, sorry.

 

I'm not sure how this works, but I thought: more games, more revenue, more money for everyone - including players?

The players pretty much agreed to more games in exchange for one less pre-season game, stricter rules regarding practice with OTAs and camp, and more money.  

[Superman]

22 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

To the bolded and this a little off topic, sorry.

 

I'm not sure how this works, but I thought: more games, more revenue, more money for everyone - including players?

 

In theory, yes, more games equals more money for players. And that gets to the heart of the issue -- players play this dangerous game primarily because they get paid a fortune, and that's the primary driving factor behind all the decisions that are made. But every time someone gets hurt on a turf field, or in a Thursday night game, a player rep goes on Twitter to talk about how the NFL doesn't care about player safety. In reality, it doesn't seem like either side really cares about player safety, not sufficiently; but they all care about the bottom line. Which is why nothing has really changed.

 

By the way, I don't think the offseason concessions move the needle all that much on player safety. I definitely don't think replacing one preseason game -- in which 30% of your team doesn't even play -- with a regular season game is a safety focused decision.

[GoColts8818]

1 hour ago, bluebombers87 said:

Largely ignored in respect to possible collusion.

 

If this ends up being proven true, I see two possible outcomes: 

 

A - JT plays and plays well and is traded for a decent haul of picks

 

or

 

B - JT plays and stinks and is cut at the end of the season.

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

[TaylorStillTruckedYou]

Man I feel bad for Taylor and all RBs.  This was the year, they were supposed to show that they deserved bigger contracts but they are dropping like flys...That Chubb injury was sickening smh

[jimmy g]

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

[GoColts8818]

1 minute ago, TaylorStillTruckedYou said:

Man I feel bad for Taylor and all RBs.  This was the year, they were supposed to show that they deserved bigger contracts but they are dropping like flys...That Chubb injury was sickening smh

Regarding the Colts I think the Browns will at least call about Taylor but they don’t have their first round pick and I am not sure they will be able to make a deal that makes the Colts happy if the Colts are even willing to listen to offers for Taylor at this point.  
 

I do think the more likely scenario will be the Browns will bring Hunt back.

[TaylorStillTruckedYou]

3 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Regarding the Colts I think the Browns will at least call about Taylor but they don’t have their first round pick and I am not sure they will be able to make a deal that makes the Colts happy if the Colts are even willing to listen to offers for Taylor at this point.  
 

I do think the more likely scenario will be the Browns will bring Hunt back.

Hunts already familiar with the offense and will be much cheaper, so I'd put my money on that scenario than them trading for Taylor