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

[2006Coltsbestever]

11 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:

Don't you think that the Dolphins value Waddle as much as they would Taylor?

That would be a pretty even trade. They already have Hill so who knows.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Off topic but Diggs tore his ACL for the Cowboys. Huge blow to that defense.

[DougDew]

32 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:

Don't you think that the Dolphins value Waddle as much as they would Taylor?

Yeah, teams that are in SB-run phase don't give up players.  They give up picks.  Its called mortgaging the future. 

 

I know people here get that, so I'm amazed that there is this suggestion that MIA would give up Waddle.

[DougDew]

29 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I do but I think they view Taylor as the missing piece for them.  You need to be able to run to win as Shane would say.  Pass to score.  I think if they really want Taylor they will relent and give us Waddle.  Also that’s why I’m surprised there isn’t more interest from the Bills.  They have no run game ar all.

And CLE just signed Hunt for 1 yr $4M. 

 

It seems nobody wants JT at his and Irsay's price.

 

Comp pick here we come.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yeah, teams that are in SB-run phase don't give up players.  They give up picks.  Its called mortgaging the future. 

 

I know people here get that, so I'm amazed that there is this suggestion that MIA would give up Waddle.

They could give us a 1st round pick though in 2024 like I wanted earlier, depends on how serious they are at making a SB run. That team would be scary good if they got Taylor and had Hill and Waddle to go with that. They have a pretty good O.Line too.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I hope Colts can be 2-2 after four games then get Taylor back for titans game. 

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

They could give us a 1st round pick though in 2024 like I wanted earlier, depends on how serious they are at making a SB run. That team would be scary good if they got Taylor and had Hill and Waddle to go with that. They have a pretty good O.Line too.

Yes, and that would assume they would have to sign JT to a multi-year deal.  They would have the three headed monster this year and at least two of them next year.  

 

I think Waddle might be a FA? The problem is, is that they would have to replace Waddle via draft, so I would want to keep that 1st round pick if I were them...a low second won't get me that player.

 

I think the team that would give the Colts the most capital is MIA, but I don't think that it would be Waddle now OR their 2024 1st.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Yes, and that would assume they would have to sign JT to a multi-year deal.  They would have the three headed monster this year and at least two of them next year.  

 

I think Waddle might be a FA? The problem is, is that they would have to replace Waddle via draft, so I would want to keep that 1st round pick if I were them...a low second won't get me that player.

 

I think the team that would give the Colts the most capital is MIA, but I don't think that it would be Waddle now OR their 2024 1st.

Some teams do go all in, in a certain year (Rams in 2021), then they worry about the future moving forward. It could get them a Championship and that is priceless. 

[richard pallo]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

And CLE just signed Hunt for 1 yr $4M. 

 

It seems nobody wants JT at his and Irsay's price.

 

Comp pick here we come.

It was already reported Miami had a deal in place for JT they couldn’t agree on the trade compensation.  Hunt was the obvious get for the Browns.  Made sense for Hunt too because he knows the offense.  A marriage made in heaven.  They would have to wait two weeks minimum for Taylor.  Made sense to grab Hunt now.  But a lot could still happen before the deadline.

[richard pallo]

6 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I hope Colts can be 2-2 after four games then get Taylor back for titans game. 

I think we’re going to be 3-1.

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I hope Colts can be 2-2 after four games then get Taylor back for titans game. 

That would be a great place to be in. AR and JT together taking on the hated Titans. We owe them too.

[jskinnz]

41 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

That would be a pretty even trade. They already have Hill so who knows.

Sorry man but in today’s NFL that is not close to an even trade. 
 

They acquired Hill and paid him with Waddle already in the roster.  The fact that they traded and paid a WR with a # 1 already on the roster tells you everything about the way receivers are valued over backs. 

[csmopar]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

What would be the logic in Ballard not accepting that offer?

 

Ballard can keep JT for 4 more months if he wants to.  Two 4ths equals the 3rd round compensation pick JT would give us when JT signs a FA contract with another team this spring.  And if that comp pick is only a 4th, accepting a 2nd 4th now would be a better deal.

 

And, if Ballard signs FAs this spring, the total contracts we sign may offset the comp picks we get by formula...so getting a sure-thing two 4th rounders now may be even a better deal than the nada we would get under that scenario.

 

It becomes moot if JT agrees to a new deal with the Colts. 

 

But if JT doesn't sign with the Colts but plays out his season to earn FA status, one of those above scenarios are highly likely....so getting 2 4ths now is probably Ballard's best deal. 

 

That's the way I would see it if I was a GM negotiating with Ballard, and wasn't going to entertain a bidding war for JT.

We can tag JT for the next 3 years if we wanted to. We are still in the drivers seat here

[2006Coltsbestever]

17 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

Sorry man but in today’s NFL that is not close to an even trade. 
 

They acquired Hill and paid him with Waddle already in the roster.  The fact that they traded and paid a WR with a # 1 already on the roster tells you everything about the way receivers are valued over backs. 

Technically you are right in what you are saying, I would say it is close though. WR's are more valued but Taylor is arguably a top 3 RB in the league. I still like my initial suggestion, as in they trade us their 1st round pick. If they want to go all in to try and win a SB, they should do that.

 

Both sides win. Getting a 1st would ease the pain of losing Taylor.

[jskinnz]

5 minutes ago, csmopar said:

We can tag JT for the next 3 years if we wanted to. We are still in the drivers seat here

That really makes no sense. No one has been tagged 3 years in a row - it is cost prohibitive. 
 

If you do tag someone for that length, why not just offer a long term contract?  Way better cap management that way. 
 

At some point he gets a contract or he gets traded - my guess is that happens this football year (March of 2024)

[chad72]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Off topic but Diggs tore his ACL for the Cowboys. Huge blow to that defense.

 

They got Gilmore and drafted plenty of DBs, should be fine as long as their DL is cooking. Remember the Giants DL - with an outstanding DL, you don't truly need an outstanding secondary, just a good one. LOB doesn't come around every decade in this pass happy era.

 

Cowboys fortified the weakness of their DL, run D, with additions and their pass rush has always been stellar. That is where the strength of the Cowboys D is, more than their secondary.

 

So the rest is up to Dak, to score respectably against elite Ds, somewhere in the 20s and they will be hard to beat if their DL stays healthy.

[csmopar]

29 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

It was already reported Miami had a deal in place for JT they couldn’t agree on the trade compensation.  Hunt was the obvious get for the Browns.  Made sense for Hunt too because he knows the offense.  A marriage made in heaven.  They would have to wait two weeks minimum for Taylor.  Made sense to grab Hunt now.  But a lot could still happen before the deadline.

Yeah maybe 

7 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

That really makes no sense. No one has been tagged 3 years in a row - it is cost prohibitive. 
 

If you do tag someone for that length, why not just offer a long term contract?  Way better cap management that way. 
 

At some point he gets a contract or he gets traded - my guess is that happens this football year (March of 2024)

Oh I know. I’m just saying we have options, however unrealistic they are, we can still use them

[jskinnz]

14 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Yeah maybe 

Oh I know. I’m just saying we have options, however unrealistic they are, we can still use them

Johnny U coming back to QB the team is a more likely scenario than tagging Taylor 3 years in a row

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

That really makes no sense. No one has been tagged 3 years in a row - it is cost prohibitive. 

 

The option of tagging for one year is a good enough deterrent, generally speaking. I'm thinking the backs that got tagged this year will set the market next offseason, and give a baseline for any long term negotiations with JT. So tagging him in 2024 makes sense.

 

Beyond that, yeah, you might as well offer him three years, $40m right now.

[csmopar]

17 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

Johnny U coming back to QB the team is a more likely scenario than tagging Taylor 3 years in a row

Oh I agree.

[csmopar]

Here’s the thing, the next 10 days will be telling. Per the CBA, he has to be in the active game day roster for one week(game) by week 6. He can be activated in 10 days time but has a mandatory two week conditioning period before he can play since he was on PUP all during came. So he HAS to be removed from PuP and pass a physical by week 4…
 

Reason for the week 6 deadline, he loses an accrued season at that point.  If he remains on PUP, at the end of 6 weeks, he goes to IR and because he never passed a physical during camp, and thus the PUP, his contact will toll and basically pause and we retain his rights for next year without having to tag him. Again, all laid out in the CBA and it sounds like it’s automatic, nothing the colts need to file or do for that to happen. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

15 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Here’s the thing, the next 10 days will be telling. Per the CBA, he has to be in the active game day roster for one week(game) by week 6. He can be activated in 10 days time but has a mandatory two week conditioning period before he can play since he was on PUP all during came. So he HAS to be removed from PuP and pass a physical by week 4…
 

Reason for the week 6 deadline, he loses an accrued season at that point.  If he remains on PUP, at the end of 6 weeks, he goes to IR and because he never passed a physical during camp, and thus the PUP, his contact will toll and basically pause and we retain his rights for next year without having to tag him. Again, all laid out in the CBA and it sounds like it’s automatic, nothing the colts need to file or do for that to happen. 

Wait are you saying he can’t even play until week 6?

[2006Coltsbestever]

22 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Wait are you saying he can’t even play until week 6?

Kevin Bowen said this morning, Taylor would be available to play in week 5 vs Tennessee if cleared healthy.

[csmopar]

15 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Wait are you saying he can’t even play until week 6?

Yes. According to article 20, section 2, subsection 1, page 145.

he HAS to be active in week 6 or his contract won’t toll. He will lose an accrued year AND his contract pauses. 
 

it’s due to do automatic triggers per the CBA, both have to be met:

 

player has to be in the final year of his contract 

 

AND

 

had to be on PUP at the start of training camp.

 

Taylor meets both of those. 

 

the catch for Taylor is since his spent ALL of training camp on PUP, he also HAS to have the minimum 2 weeks of conditioning before being activated. Max of 3.

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Kevin Bowen said this morning, Taylor would be available to play in week 5 vs Tennessee if cleared healthy.

Bowen is wrong. That would be true IF Taylor had at least once week of training camp prior to going on regular season PUP. 
 

 

[GoColts8818]

7 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Yes. According to article 20, section 2, subsection 1, page 145.

he HAS to be active in week 6 or his contract won’t toll. He will lose an accrued year AND his contract pauses. 
 

it’s due to do automatic triggers per the CBA, both have to be met:

 

player has to be in the final year of his contract 

 

AND

 

had to be on PUP at the start of training camp.

 

Taylor meets both of those. 

 

the catch for Taylor is since his spent ALL of training camp on PUP, he also HAS to have the minimum 2 weeks of conditioning before being activated. Max of 3.

Bowen is wrong. That would be true IF Taylor had at least once week of training camp prior to going on regular season PUP. 
 

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/colts-rb-jonathan-taylor-to-start-2023-nfl-season-on-pup-list-after-no-trade-wil
 

from the NFL’s own webpage.  
 

Here is one explaining what happens with players on PUP.

 

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/nfl-pup-list-2023/#

 

Also you can’t go on PUP once you’ve practiced.

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Yes. According to article 20, section 2, subsection 1, page 145.

he HAS to be active in week 6 or his contract won’t toll. He will lose an accrued year AND his contract pauses. 
 

it’s due to do automatic triggers per the CBA, both have to be met:

 

player has to be in the final year of his contract 

 

AND

 

had to be on PUP at the start of training camp.

 

Taylor meets both of those. 

 

the catch for Taylor is since his spent ALL of training camp on PUP, he also HAS to have the minimum 2 weeks of conditioning before being activated. Max of 3.

Bowen is wrong. That would be true IF Taylor had at least once week of training camp prior to going on regular season PUP. 
 

 

I just googled it and Google and CBS Sports says he can play in week 5. 

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I just googled it and Google and CBS Sports says he can play in week 5. 

So it looks like there is a clause in page 207, he can practice for 3 weeks prior to coming off PUP, and that would count as his conditioning period, so if he’s practicing now, or working with trainers now, then yes, he would fall back under the one week rule and could play in week 5.

 

so my question is this, is Taylor practicing/working with training staff to condition.

 

my whole point in all of this is that we should have a clearer picture of what route JT and the Colts will be taking within the next week and half. 

[GoColts8818]

2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

So it looks like there is a clause in page 207, he can practice for 3 weeks prior to coming off PUP, and that would count as his conditioning period, so if he’s practicing now, or working with trainers now, then yes, he would fall back under the one week rule and could play in week 5.

 

so my question is this, is Taylor practicing/working with training staff to condition.

 

my whole point in all of this is that we should have a clearer picture of what route JT and the Colts will be taking within the next week and half. 

Well he posted a video suggesting he is.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

So it looks like there is a clause in page 207, he can practice for 3 weeks prior to coming off PUP, and that would count as his conditioning period, so if he’s practicing now, or working with trainers now, then yes, he would fall back under the one week rule and could play in week 5.

 

so my question is this, is Taylor practicing/working with training staff to condition.

 

my whole point in all of this is that we should have a clearer picture of what route JT and the Colts will be taking within the next week and half. 

Not sure but from everything I have read and been hearing = VIA sports talk radio and the internet/CBS sports, they say he can play in week 5. 

[csmopar]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Not sure but from everything I have read and been hearing = VIA sports talk radio and the internet/CBS sports, they say he can play in week 5. 

Which makes sense now. I forgot he posted that video. So this should rapidly be coming to a conclusion of sorts in the very near future

[csmopar]

It won’t let me post the links, but if anyone wants to read the CBA, it’s on the NFLPA website in PDF

[GoColts8818]

6 minutes ago, csmopar said:

It won’t let me post the links, but if anyone wants to read the CBA, it’s on the NFLPA website in PDF

I looked at it and read the section about PUP and it said nothing about having to have a minimum of two weeks of practices to return.

 

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/NFLPA/CBA2020/NFL-NFLPA_CBA_March_5_2020.pdf

 

Also page 207 looks to be about transportation so I think either there is wrong page number or maybe an old CBA?  Either way there is a section I am missing for sure because the section about PUP only talked about players having to be on the active roster by week six to accrue a season if they are in the last year of the contract but we already knew that.  

[csmopar]

6 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

I looked at it and read the section about PUP and it said nothing about having to have a minimum of two weeks of practices to return.

 

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/NFLPA/CBA2020/NFL-NFLPA_CBA_March_5_2020.pdf

 

Also page 207 looks to be about transportation so I think either there is wrong page number or maybe an old CBA?  Either way there is a section I am missing for sure because the section about PUP only talked about players having to be on the active roster by week six to accrue a season if they are in the last year of the contract but we already knew that.  

Same I have. I may have mistyped the page, Hang on I’ll find it again and screenshot it. Give me a few 

[1959Colts]

3 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I’m expecting Miami at the deadline if we trade him and we get Waddle.

Maybe they would let Waddle go? He has something in common with AR5...

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/tyreek-hill-returns-to-full-practice-but-jaylen-waddle-remains-out

Tyreek Hill returns to full practice, but Jaylen Waddle remains out

 

 ...Jaylen Waddle looking less likely to play by the day. He remains out of practice with a concussion.

 

 

[csmopar]

49 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

I looked at it and read the section about PUP and it said nothing about having to have a minimum of two weeks of practices to return.

 

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/NFLPA/CBA2020/NFL-NFLPA_CBA_March_5_2020.pdf

 

Also page 207 looks to be about transportation so I think either there is wrong page number or maybe an old CBA?  Either way there is a section I am missing for sure because the section about PUP only talked about players having to be on the active roster by week six to accrue a season if they are in the last year of the contract but we already knew that.  

I stand corrected. I was reading under the preseason section, which is where that applies. It does not apply to the regular season PuP. My apologies 

[DougDew]

3 hours ago, csmopar said:

We can tag JT for the next 3 years if we wanted to. We are still in the drivers seat here

 

3 hours ago, jskinnz said:

That really makes no sense. No one has been tagged 3 years in a row - it is cost prohibitive. 
 

If you do tag someone for that length, why not just offer a long term contract?  Way better cap management that way. 
 

At some point he gets a contract or he gets traded - my guess is that happens this football year (March of 2024)

 

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

Which makes sense now. I forgot he posted that video. So this should rapidly be coming to a conclusion of sorts in the very near future

Honestly, I had forgotten about the Franchise Tag option for a coming off a rookie deal.  Part of the reason I mentally discarded it is because I think this situation is a bit different.   This JT issue seems to (uncoincidentally?) coincide with a change in HC/scheme.  Just not convinced either side wants to work together that much.  Whereas typically the FT displeasure is strictly a contract thing and the player and team have no issues meshing otherwise, I'm not sure SS wants JTs skills even at FT money.

 

Is JT a franchise money RB for the passing game...and does JT want be that RB?  ARs supposed weakness is the passing game.  So while we can drool over the the prospects of a superior running game with those two together, I don't think that combo enhances the passing game or ARs development as a passer.

 

I've always thought there is more to the root of this issue than money and contract structure, JMO.

 

[csmopar]

Just now, DougDew said:

 

 

Honestly, I had forgotten about the Franchise Tag option for a coming off a rookie deal.  Part of the reason I mentally discarded it is because I think this situation is a bit different.   This JT issue seems to (uncoincidentally?) coincide with a change in HC/scheme.  Just not convinced either side wants to work together that much.  Whereas typically the FT displeasure is strictly a contract thing and the player and team have no issues meshing otherwise, I'm not sure SS wants JTs skills even at FT money.

 

Is JT a franchise money RB for the passing game...and does JT want be that RB?  ARs supposed weakness is the passing game.  So while we can drool over the the prospects of a superior running game with those two together, I don't think that combo enhances the passing game or ARs development as a passer.

 

I've always thought the root of this issue has a little more to do than money and contract structure, JMO.

 

That is a fair assessment and I think that’s why the colts wanted to see how they looked together on the field first

[richard pallo]

40 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:

Maybe they would let Waddle go? He has something in common with AR5...

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/tyreek-hill-returns-to-full-practice-but-jaylen-waddle-remains-out

Tyreek Hill returns to full practice, but Jaylen Waddle remains out

 

 ...Jaylen Waddle looking less likely to play by the day. He remains out of practice with a concussion.

 

 

Looks like he does have something in common with JT.   They do know he’s the player who could get it done.  So we shall see.

[richard pallo]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

 

Honestly, I had forgotten about the Franchise Tag option for a coming off a rookie deal.  Part of the reason I mentally discarded it is because I think this situation is a bit different.   This JT issue seems to (uncoincidentally?) coincide with a change in HC/scheme.  Just not convinced either side wants to work together that much.  Whereas typically the FT displeasure is strictly a contract thing and the player and team have no issues meshing otherwise, I'm not sure SS wants JTs skills even at FT money.

 

Is JT a franchise money RB for the passing game...and does JT want be that RB?  ARs supposed weakness is the passing game.  So while we can drool over the the prospects of a superior running game with those two together, I don't think that combo enhances the passing game or ARs development as a passer.

 

I've always thought the root of this issue has a little more to it than money and contract structure, JMO.

 

I think you’re too hung up on thinking SS is not really wanting JT to be his running back.  There is nothing out there confirming that stance.  His job is not to worry about how much his  contract is.  That’s Ballard’s job.  When the Colts hired him Taylor was under contract and our primary back.  Our primary offensive weapon for that matter.   For all we know he viewed Taylor as a major asset on the offense.  A reason to be interested in the Colts coaching position.  I would guess quarterback was his primary concern not running back.  He had none when he was hired.  Think what you will but for me this is all about money, guaranteed money and some financial security for JT.  If Ballard can find a way to keep JT happy I’m sure SS would be a happy man with one less position to worry about.

[GoColts8818]

2 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I think you’re too hung up on thinking SS is not really wanting JT to be his running back.  There is nothing out there confirming that stance.  His job is not to worry about how much his  contract is.  That’s Ballard’s job.  When the Colts hired him Taylor was under contract and our primary back.  Our primary offensive weapon for that matter.   For all we know he viewed Taylor as a major asset on the offense.  A reason to be interested in the Colts coaching position.  I would guess quarterback was his primary concern not running back.  He had none when he was hired.  Think what you will but for me this is all about money, guaranteed money and some financial security for JT.  If Ballard can find a way to keep JT happy I’m sure SS would be a happy man with one less position to worry about.

I mean Shane said he took the job thinking he would have Jonathan Taylor last week.  That’s pretty much as close to conformation we are going to get that he wants Taylor.  What he’s not going to do is get involved in a contract dispute, as you correctly put that’s Ballard’s job, so he’s just going to focus on the guys he has at his disposal and figure out how to make them work.  That’s his job, and that’s what coaches do, focus on what they do have not what they don’t.