J. Taylor Contract

[dw49]

3 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

Isn't a blacksmith quite skilled too? 

 

Dunno.... but here's what I found.

 

It takes approximately 14 to 16 years to become a neurosurgeon, including pre-med (undergrad) education, medical school, internship and residency. Neurosurgeons undergo one of the longest training periods of any medical specialty due to the complexity of the field of medicine. 

 

Within the United States, the cost of applying to neurosurgical residency alone costs approximately $10,000,6 and neurosurgical training can cost $1,200,000 for a single resident over the course of their seven year training (Gordon et al., 2020).

 

Although not required, completing a two-year associate's degree in an area like industrial technology, ironworking, welding, applied science or metal working can help you develop a standard knowledge of practices you need to work as a blacksmith.Aug 2, 2023.

 

LOL as I know you're playing around. Just thought I would have some fun too.

[2006Coltsbestever]

17 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Taylor had 15 carries for 91 Yards and 2 TDs today. What is there to complain about? That is 6 yards a carry.

That is the only post I have made on this thread - above. I will say this, Taylor is better than Moss. Taylor deserved his contract. We almost had to sign Taylor because Moss is a free agent after this season. It would have been devastating to lose both these backs. I can see giving Moss a 2 year deal for 16 Mill with 10 Mill guaranteed and see if he bites. Anything more than 8 Mill a year is pushing it. I can see a team that needs an RB desperately give him that kind of contract because he has played good, and great at times. Taylor in 2021 was arguably the best RB in football, he earned his contract.

[rockywoj]

Moss is impressive, but with JT, on any given play there’s just a sense that Taylor can breakaway and take it to the house!  Moss, he will reel off some very nice runs, but I just don’t get that same break it open for a home run feeling. 
 

Having Moss in relief is quite a nice luxury.  Wish the planets would align so he can be brought back, within budget. 

[husker61]

20 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

Isn't a blacksmith quite skilled too? 

exactly, just in a different field!

 

it was a elitist comparison from some that think people in trades aren’t as good as people with college degrees.

[rockywoj]

Just now, husker61 said:

exactly, just in a different field!

 

it was a elitist comparison from some that think people in trades aren’t as good as people with college degrees.

Difference between trades education and university education, really just boils down to getting straight to the nuts and bolts, as it were.  In university, generally, the first two years are spent on general well rounded education, whereas in trades, it just gets straight to specialty training. 

[Tsarquise]

15 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

Dunno.... but here's what I found.

 

It takes approximately 14 to 16 years to become a neurosurgeon, including pre-med (undergrad) education, medical school, internship and residency. Neurosurgeons undergo one of the longest training periods of any medical specialty due to the complexity of the field of medicine. 

 

Within the United States, the cost of applying to neurosurgical residency alone costs approximately $10,000,6 and neurosurgical training can cost $1,200,000 for a single resident over the course of their seven year training (Gordon et al., 2020).

 

Although not required, completing a two-year associate's degree in an area like industrial technology, ironworking, welding, applied science or metal working can help you develop a standard knowledge of practices you need to work as a blacksmith.Aug 2, 2023.

 

LOL as I know you're playing around. Just thought I would have some fun too.

All this did was prove that they are entirely different fields, with different  requirements and skill sets. 

 

Just think it was a poor analogy.

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Moss is impressive, but with JT, on any given play there’s just a sense that Taylor can breakaway and take it to the house!  Moss, he will reel off some very nice runs, but I just don’t get that same break it open for a home run feeling. 
 

Having Moss in relief is quite a nice luxury.  Wish the planets would align so he can be brought back, within budget. 

I would love to have both next year. It depends on what we offer Moss and if Moss just feels like he should be a #1 back fulltime. You can play great for 4 or 5 games in any stretch if you have talent, but do it in a full season like Taylor has = 2021, that is way different.

[husker61]

Moss was the leading rusher in the nfl before Taylor was given most of the carries, fact! You don’t get to be the leading rusher without some big runs, mass had them, fact! I think he would have been the leading rusher at the end of the year if Taylor sat out all year.

[Tsarquise]

3 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Difference between trades education and university education, really just boils down to getting straight to the nuts and bolts, as it were.  In university, generally, the first two years are spent on general well rounded education, whereas in trades, it just gets straight to specialty training. 

 

5 minutes ago, husker61 said:

exactly, just in a different field!

 

it was a elitist comparison from some that think people in trades aren’t as good as people with college degrees.

Yeah, you can't just go straight to operating on human beings with out extensive training and certifications.

 

Poor analogy.  

[masterlock]

 

19 hours ago, dw49 said:

Being one of the posters that thought he was deserving , I have an answer to those that didn't.  He deserved the contract as he's very good at football. Yes Moss gained similar yardage but Taylor gained his yardage with no running room. 

 

In yesterday's game, yes. But Moss has gained yardage in similar situations this year. And he's shown big-play ability. Taylor made a lot out of a little yesterday, and deserves recognition for that. But he also averaged just 2.6 and 3.0 years/carry against Carolina and New England respectively; so there's been some good along with some not-so-good. Overall, I think he's getting back into form, and the big-play ability is still there. But the big, "wow" type plays haven't been there as often as they were in 2021. The numbers pretty much tell the story.

 

2023 Stats:

Moss: 141 carries, 4.8 yrds/carry, 5 TD, long 56
Taylor: 100 carries, 4.1 yrds/carry, 4TD, long 42

 

Taylor got the contract largely based on his 2021 performance. Moss would probably still be near the top of the league had Taylor not cut into his carries. I'm glad Taylor is back, and I'm not saying he doesn't deserve the carries. But the Colts run game wasn't bad without him, and that's just a fact.

 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

One thing to emphasize, the salary cap is about to go way way up due to (A) new and huge TV and Streaming money coming in and I think also an adjustment agreed to during the Covid years.   The cap actually went down in 20 and 21 and I think there will be an adjustment back up if memory serves me. 
 

I now think the Colts might be much more aggressive trying to retain Moss.

 

The Covid money has been equalized, there won't be a bump in future years. However, now that they've paid off the deficit from 2020 and 2021, there's no drag from those previous deficits, and the cap will be going up significantly in 2024.

 

But I don't think we're going to keep Zach Moss. I think they'll be looking for Evan Hull to take his place, and they'll add young RBs in the draft and college FA.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Nesjan3 said:

I mean you look at the last 15 SB winners

 

I think this is a bad starting point for any analysis. The sample size is too small, and is unnecessarily restrictive. It also assumes that each SB winning team had either the best roster in the year they won, or the best constructed roster, and neither of those things is necessarily true. 

[BlackTiger]

We will probably lose Moss and draft a RB.   I dont think JT got too much either, we have plenty of money now.  It didnt hurt the team

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, BlackTiger said:

We will probably lose Moss and draft a RB.   I dont think JT got too much either, we have plenty of money now.  It didnt hurt the team

Moss has become a favorite of mine (he is good) but anyone that thinks he is better than JT is delusional. 

[Nesjan3]

36 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think this is a bad starting point for any analysis. The sample size is too small, and is unnecessarily restrictive. It also assumes that each SB winning team had either the best roster in the year they won, or the best constructed roster, and neither of those things is necessarily true. 

Feel free to go back a lot further than that. Its been a very very long time since any team has won the SB with a RB being their best or probably even a top 3 player. The league in general obviously has similar feelings hence the whole "not paying a RB" saga.

[GoColts8818]

3 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

You did leave out Blackmon but that is fine.  

 

My order of priority would be Gardner Minshew, Michael Pittman, Kenny Moore, Grover Stewart, and then Moss and Blackmon.

Oversight on my part.  Blackmon deserves consideration to keep as well.  Just another mouth to feed and that’s before you get to guys like Lewis they pretty much go year to year with.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

Feel free to go back a lot further than that. Its been a very very long time since any team has won the SB with a RB being their best or probably even a top 3 player. The league in general obviously has similar feelings hence the whole "not paying a RB" saga.

Everyone knows it is more of a passing league today, the RB is still important IMO. Take Lynch off of Seattle, they don't win the SB in 2013 or make it back in 2014. They even had a good QB (Wilson) and a great D but IMO they don't win it all without Lynch. It is not like we are paying Taylor 20 Mill a year like a great WR makes. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Everyone knows it is more of a passing league today, the RB is still important IMO. Take Lynch off of Seattle, they don't win the SB in 2013 or make it back in 2014. They even had a good QB (Wilson) and a great D but IMO they don't win it all without Lynch. It is not like we are paying Taylor 20 Mill a year like a great WR makes. 

Hill makes 30 Mill a year, 1 guy making that much. That is absurd.

[Nesjan3]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Everyone knows it is more of a passing league today, the RB is still important IMO. Take Lynch off of Seattle, they don't win the SB in 2013 or make it back in 2014. They even had a good QB (Wilson) and a great D but IMO they don't win it all without Lynch. It is not like we are paying Taylor 20 Mill a year like a great WR makes. 

Yah I tend to agree. And in my original post I said I am not against the JT contract. I think it was a good time to pay him given where our team is now. Lynch in Seattle then Bettis in Pitt are probably the 2 exceptions since 05. Also thats a good point that since 00 the NFL landscape has changed drastically. Nowadays the real successful teams pay QB's, WR's, LT's and pass rushers.

[Superman]

19 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

Feel free to go back a lot further than that. Its been a very very long time since any team has won the SB with a RB being their best or probably even a top 3 player. The league in general obviously has similar feelings hence the whole "not paying a RB" saga.

 

The problem with the sample size is not the number of years, it's that you're limiting the analysis to only SB winning teams.

 

And I don't disagree with the idea that paying a RB big money isn't the best use of cap space, I just disagree with the argument that 'no team has won a SB with a highly paid RB, so that means it's wrong to pay a RB.' I think that's poor analysis.

[Nesjan3]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The problem with the sample size is not the number of years, it's that you're limiting the analysis to only SB winning teams.

 

And I don't disagree with the idea that paying a RB big money isn't the best use of cap space, I just disagree with the argument that 'no team has won a SB with a highly paid RB, so that means it's wrong to pay a RB.' I think that's poor analysis.

Yah thats fair. I was more trying to emphasize that it would be prudent for Ballard to acquire some players at more premium positions worthy of contracts like JT's. At your own positions pay range of course. I was just using SB winning teams as an example.

[NewColtsFan]

26 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

Feel free to go back a lot further than that. Its been a very very long time since any team has won the SB with a RB being their best or probably even a top 3 player. The league in general obviously has similar feelings hence the whole "not paying a RB" saga.

Not sure you’re aware that the whole league not paying running backs is roughly a year and a half old.   Thats it.  It just bubbled up last year and boiled over this year.   That’s it.   
 

And some teams are still drafting RB’s in the first round.   Atlanta just took Bijan Robinson in the first round this year.   So this idea that everyone agrees on the idea of devalued RB’s is not unanimous and it’s only been very very recent.  

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Nesjan3 said:

Yah thats fair. I was more trying to emphasize that it would be prudent for Ballard to acquire some players at more premium positions worthy of contracts like JT's. At your own positions pay range of course. I was just using SB winning teams as an example.

 

Got it. I think the Colts have a unique two year period where they can get after it. I don't know if it's Ballard's DNA to play in these waters, but the Colts are going to be something like $100m under the cap in 2024, and they have a cost controlled QB. So yeah, we can we absorb a couple years of a highly paid RB, but it only matters if we really improve the roster at other positions -- C/RG, Edge, WR, DB. 

[Nesjan3]

6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Not sure you’re aware that the whole league not paying running backs is roughly a year and a half old.   Thats it.  It just bubbled up last year and boiled over this year.   That’s it.   
 

And some teams are still drafting RB’s in the first round.   Atlanta just took Bijan Robinson in the first round this year.   So this idea that everyone agrees on the idea of devalued RB’s is not unanimous and it’s only been very very recent.  

I am definitely aware of this. Just looking at the real successful teams of recent years. Most not all most have a mid to late round RB's on a small contract doing enough to sustain a respectable run game.

[Nesjan3]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Got it. I think the Colts have a unique two year period where they can get after it. I don't know if it's Ballard's DNA to play in these waters, but the Colts are going to be something like $100m under the cap in 2024, and they have a cost controlled QB. So yeah, we can we absorb a couple years of a highly paid RB, but it only matters if we really improve the roster at other positions -- C/RG, Edge, WR, DB. 

Agreed I think it was the perfect time in this teams trajectory to pay JT. AR and Raiman could very well be  two players at premium worthy of large contracts. The debate is out on Pittman. I think he probably gets a large contract but its my opinion he is a really good number 2. Maybe not a 1 on SB contenders. CB and pass rushers are probably the two positions we lack the most talent. Of course it all really hinges on AR at this point.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

Agreed I think it was the perfect time in this teams trajectory to pay JT. AR and Raiman could very well be  two players at premium worthy of large contracts. The debate is out on Pittman. I think he probably gets a large contract but its my opinion he is a really good number 2. Maybe not a 1 on SB contenders. CB and pass rushers are probably the two positions we lack the most talent. Of course it all really hinges on AR at this point.

 

They could pay Pittman really good #2 money -- $20m/year -- and pay another guy with more speed at the same time. In fact, I think that's where we can probably get the most bang for our buck in FA, because I don't think there are going to be good corners and Edge players on the market, but I think we can get a good WR in free agency.

 

We could also identify a market inefficiency and make a trade for a corner or an Edge player who is already under contract, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[NFLfan]

3 hours ago, Dingus McGirt said:

Love reading posts arguing over very good vs great.

 

That is not a bad thing to have (very good and great).

[chad72]

38 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Not sure you’re aware that the whole league not paying running backs is roughly a year and a half old.   Thats it.  It just bubbled up last year and boiled over this year.   That’s it.   
 

And some teams are still drafting RB’s in the first round.   Atlanta just took Bijan Robinson in the first round this year.   So this idea that everyone agrees on the idea of devalued RB’s is not unanimous and it’s only been very very recent.  

 

Yeah, Bijan has the chance to be an APB like CMC, IMO. Just an upgrade at QB would allow Falcons to be division winners, IMO.

[dw49]

3 hours ago, Tsarquise said:

All this did was prove that they are entirely different fields, with different  requirements and skill sets. 

 

Just think it was a poor analogy.

 

I apologize to all the blacksmiths in the country.

 

It was a kind of tongue in cheek remark but some people would rather make a big deal out of a harmless remark. You're right , it wasn't a good analogy and I should have known someone would make an issue out of it. You should block me.

[Stephen]

4 hours ago, masterlock said:

 

 

In yesterday's game, yes. But Moss has gained yardage in similar situations this year. And he's shown big-play ability. Taylor made a lot out of a little yesterday, and deserves recognition for that. But he also averaged just 2.6 and 3.0 years/carry against Carolina and New England respectively; so there's been some good along with some not-so-good. Overall, I think he's getting back into form, and the big-play ability is still there. But the big, "wow" type plays haven't been there as often as they were in 2021. The numbers pretty much tell the story.

 

2023 Stats:

Moss: 141 carries, 4.8 yrds/carry, 5 TD, long 56
Taylor: 100 carries, 4.1 yrds/carry, 4TD, long 42

 

Taylor got the contract largely based on his 2021 performance. Moss would probably still be near the top of the league had Taylor not cut into his carries. I'm glad Taylor is back, and I'm not saying he doesn't deserve the carries. But the Colts run game wasn't bad without him, and that's just a fact.

 

It was the first  game.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, chad72 said:

Just an upgrade at QB would allow Falcons to be division winners, IMO.

 

Don't look now, but the Falcons are in first place today, and have a manageable schedule moving forward.

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The Covid money has been equalized, there won't be a bump in future years. However, now that they've paid off the deficit from 2020 and 2021, there's no drag from those previous deficits, and the cap will be going up significantly in 2024.

 

But I don't think we're going to keep Zach Moss. I think they'll be looking for Evan Hull to take his place, and they'll add young RBs in the draft and college FA.

Thanks for the good 411 on the Covid money.   As always, you’re a fountain of great information.   
 

If I may, I’d like to ask you about what you think our approach will be with Moss and the RB position.  
 

At the end of the season, what do you imagine we say to Moss?   Thanks for a great year and a half, but we’re going in another direction?   Normally, Ballard might say go out and shop for your best deal,  but please bring it to us to see if we can beat it and keep you.    Do you not think we’d do that?    Hard for me to imagine the Colts are simply letting Moss walk out the door without a second thought.   
 

Honestly, I think the Colts have a strategic advantage in every game they play with the Taylor/Moss duo.   Much less falloff than most teams have with their RB1 and RB2.   I think having the Taylor/Moss combo wears out opposing defenses.  And I don’t know what anyone has seen from Evan Hull to think he’s going to be a good RB2.   And I’d like not to use a precious draft pick to find a quality RB2.   
 

To be clear, I’m sure there’s a number Moss could bring to Ballard and he’d say, congratulations, enjoy your new team.   But I’d like to think the Colts would at least like to TRY and bring him back.   Why let go of a very good weapon for what amounts to a yearly number of just under $7m ??   
 

The plan you alluded to seems to be RB3 level kids trying to fill in at RB2.   I don’t see the advantage?  
 

I may have misunderstood you, so I look forward to hearing from you on a topic of great interest.  

 

[compuls1v3]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think this is a bad starting point for any analysis. The sample size is too small, and is unnecessarily restrictive. It also assumes that each SB winning team had either the best roster in the year they won, or the best constructed roster, and neither of those things is necessarily true. 

Not arguing the other points, but curious as to how 15 SB winners is a small sample size?

[Superman]

24 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Thanks for the good 411 on the Covid money.   As always, you’re a fountain of great information.   
 

If I may, I’d like to ask you about what you think our approach will be with Moss and the RB position.  
 

At the end of the season, what do you imagine we say to Moss?   Thanks for a great year and a half, but we’re going in another direction?   Normally, Ballard might say go out and shop for your best deal,  but please bring it to us to see if we can beat it and keep you.    Do you not think we’d do that?    Hard for me to imagine the Colts are simply letting Moss walk out the door without a second thought.   
 

Honestly, I think the Colts have a strategic advantage in every game they play with the Taylor/Moss duo.   Much less falloff than most teams have with their RB1 and RB2.   I think having the Taylor/Moss combo wears out opposing defenses.  And I don’t know what anyone has seen from Evan Hull to think he’s going to be a good RB2.   And I’d like not to use a precious draft pick to find a quality RB2.   
 

To be clear, I’m sure there’s a number Moss could bring to Ballard and he’d say, congratulations, enjoy your new team.   But I’d like to think the Colts would at least like to TRY and bring him back.   Why let go of a very good weapon for what amounts to a yearly number of just under $7m ??   
 

The plan you alluded to seems to be RB3 level kids trying to fill in at RB2.   I don’t see the advantage?  
 

I may have misunderstood you, so I look forward to hearing from you on a topic of great interest.  

 

 

I don't think the Colts ever intended to have two highly paid RBs on the roster. I expected them to do something about the Hines contract before JT's new contract was due; maybe they didn't intend to move him at the deadline, but bringing back Moss was a convenient swap at a convenient time. So this belief of mine heavily informs my thinking when it comes to how they'll handle Moss moving forward.

 

My thinking is also informed by my opinion that RB production is replaceable. I don't think it's hard to find RB2 level players. And I don't think Moss has any special traits that make me think 'we have to keep him around, he can play a crucial role in our offense.' He's not a speedster, not a scatback type of athlete, he's just a junior version of what we already have in Taylor.

 

If you want to have a 1-2 punch with Taylor and another back, that can be done without spending $7m/year on a backup who gets 8-10 touches a game. That's a luxury you can afford when your lead back is on a rookie contract, but not a luxury I'd pursue when we have JT at $14m/year.

 

I also think the Colts think highly of Evan Hull, and see him as a potential RB2. And if there's one thing I think Steichen has proven, it's that he can scheme production in the run game, even with a mid-level player like Zach Moss. 

[ColtStrong2013]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think the Colts ever intended to have two highly paid RBs on the roster. I expected them to do something about the Hines contract before JT's new contract was due; maybe they didn't intend to move him at the deadline, but bringing back Moss was a convenient swap at a convenient time. So this belief of mine heavily informs my thinking when it comes to how they'll handle Moss moving forward.

 

My thinking is also informed by my opinion that RB production is replaceable. I don't think it's hard to find RB2 level players. And I don't think Moss has any special traits that make me think 'we have to keep him around, he can play a crucial role in our offense.' He's not a speedster, not a scatback type of athlete, he's just a junior version of what we already have in Taylor.

 

If you want to have a 1-2 punch with Taylor and another back, that can be done without spending $7m/year on a backup who gets 8-10 touches a game. That's a luxury you can afford when your lead back is on a rookie contract, but not a luxury I'd pursue when we have JT at $14m/year.

 

I also think the Colts think highly of Evan Hull, and see him as a potential RB2. And if there's one thing I think Steichen has proven, it's that he can scheme production in the run game, even with a mid-level player like Zach Moss. 

 

I'm with you Superman. I think a lot of Moss, but I think his production this season is a lot of scheme and improved o-line play. We're committed to JT, which is the right move. As his production and touches continues to rise down the stretch, I think it will be obvious that Moss is going to be playing for a different team next season. That's not a knock on him, he deserves to get paid what he's worth, which is easily RB1 money on a team in need somewhere. Keep rolling with the duo for a playoff run, and then move on. 

What I'm wondering isn't with Moss, but with Minshew. Do we bring him back on a bigger deal than we'd like? I can't imagine if he leads us to a playoff birth, or even close to it, that we will not want him on roster backing Richardson up moving forward. Regardless, I really enjoy watching this team right now, and Moss has been and will continue to be a strong point of this offense.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

I'm with you Superman. I think a lot of Moss, but I think his production this season is a lot of scheme and improved o-line play. We're committed to JT, which is the right move. As his production and touches continues to rise down the stretch, I think it will be obvious that Moss is going to be playing for a different team next season. That's not a knock on him, he deserves to get paid what he's worth, which is easily RB1 money on a team in need somewhere. Keep rolling with the duo for a playoff run, and then move on. 

What I'm wondering isn't with Moss, but with Minshew. Do we bring him back on a bigger deal than we'd like? I can't imagine if he leads us to a playoff birth, or even close to it, that we will not want him on roster backing Richardson up moving forward. Regardless, I really enjoy watching this team right now, and Moss has been and will continue to be a strong point of this offense.

 

Yeah, I can see a team paying Moss solid veteran starter money, which is more than I think the Colts should offer him. I'd be coming in with a number that's half of what people are saying he'll get next year.

 

I also agree with you on Minshew. I don't think any teams are going to be beating his door down to compete for a starting job, his highest value is as a veteran backup on a team with a young QB1, and his best shot of playing is on a team with a QB who has some history of getting hurt. In short, he's in the perfect situation, IMO. And I'd rather pay extra to have a solid backup QB than to have a solid backup RB. I'd be more open to $7m/year for Minshew than for Moss.

[NewColtsFan]

21 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think the Colts ever intended to have two highly paid RBs on the roster. I expected them to do something about the Hines contract before JT's new contract was due; maybe they didn't intend to move him at the deadline, but bringing back Moss was a convenient swap at a convenient time. So this belief of mine heavily informs my thinking when it comes to how they'll handle Moss moving forward.

 

My thinking is also informed by my opinion that RB production is replaceable. I don't think it's hard to find RB2 level players. And I don't think Moss has any special traits that make me think 'we have to keep him around, he can play a crucial role in our offense.' He's not a speedster, not a scatback type of athlete, he's just a junior version of what we already have in Taylor.

 

If you want to have a 1-2 punch with Taylor and another back, that can be done without spending $7m/year on a backup who gets 8-10 touches a game. That's a luxury you can afford when your lead back is on a rookie contract, but not a luxury I'd pursue when we have JT at $14m/year.

 

I also think the Colts think highly of Evan Hull, and see him as a potential RB2. And if there's one thing I think Steichen has proven, it's that he can scheme production in the run game, even with a mid-level player like Zach Moss. 

I appreciate the time you took to explain your thinking.    Not sure how much I agree with but that’s ok.   Your view points may be exactly what the Colts are thinking.   But I guess we’ll find out soon enough. 

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I appreciate the time you took to explain your thinking.    Not sure how much I agree with but that’s ok.   Your view points may be exactly what the Colts are thinking.   But I guess we’ll find out soon enough. 

 

Maybe, maybe not. I was making the 'RB production is replaceable' argument before the JT contract was done.

 

I might view Moss differently if he was playing like Raheem Mostert -- tilting the field with his speed, or bringing some kind of special trait to the team.

[husker61]

7 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Thanks for the good 411 on the Covid money.   As always, you’re a fountain of great information.   
 

If I may, I’d like to ask you about what you think our approach will be with Moss and the RB position.  
 

At the end of the season, what do you imagine we say to Moss?   Thanks for a great year and a half, but we’re going in another direction?   Normally, Ballard might say go out and shop for your best deal,  but please bring it to us to see if we can beat it and keep you.    Do you not think we’d do that?    Hard for me to imagine the Colts are simply letting Moss walk out the door without a second thought.   
 

Honestly, I think the Colts have a strategic advantage in every game they play with the Taylor/Moss duo.   Much less falloff than most teams have with their RB1 and RB2.   I think having the Taylor/Moss combo wears out opposing defenses.  And I don’t know what anyone has seen from Evan Hull to think he’s going to be a good RB2.   And I’d like not to use a precious draft pick to find a quality RB2.   
 

To be clear, I’m sure there’s a number Moss could bring to Ballard and he’d say, congratulations, enjoy your new team.   But I’d like to think the Colts would at least like to TRY and bring him back.   Why let go of a very good weapon for what amounts to a yearly number of just under $7m ??   
 

The plan you alluded to seems to be RB3 level kids trying to fill in at RB2.   I don’t see the advantage?  
 

I may have misunderstood you, so I look forward to hearing from you on a topic of great interest.  

 

you can’t have two top backs when you are throwing the ball 40+ times a game. I haven’t seen anything from the colts offense that says they are going to be a run heavy offense in spite of having a top line and two rb’s. 
 

I would have let Taylor walk, signed moss, and get the draft pick as compensation. Or maybe Taylor doesn’t get the interest he thought he would and would sign a smaller contract with the colts and they have two top backs. I just don’t understand why the colts gave him that contract when they didn’t have to. They had the nfl leading rusher already!

[NewColtsFan]

25 minutes ago, husker61 said:

you can’t have two top backs when you are throwing the ball 40+ times a game. I haven’t seen anything from the colts offense that says they are going to be a run heavy offense in spite of having a top line and two rb’s. 
 

I would have let Taylor walk, signed moss, and get the draft pick as compensation. Or maybe Taylor doesn’t get the interest he thought he would and would sign a smaller contract with the colts and they have two top backs. I just don’t understand why the colts gave him that contract when they didn’t have to. They had the nfl leading rusher already!

Im sorry my friend.   I agree with almost none of this.   
 

First, I hope we don’t throw 40+ times a game as a routine.   I hope we only do it for an emergency when we’re behind and the running game.   Plenty of teams don’t throw 40+ per game week in or week out.  
 

Second….   I don’t understand your view on JT?    Your attitude appears to be the Colts had leverage and didn’t use it.  You’re mad the Colts didn’t put the screws to JT.   Ballard and Irsay recognize Indianapolis is not a destination franchise for free agents.   If you’re willing to put the screws to JT simply because you can, then you can say goodbye to keeping best guys because they know you’re willing to put the screws to them as well.  So much for having a high quality locker room who help one another.  What you want would blow up the locker-room.   And for what?  
 

There are limitations when you’re a small market franchise.   Trying to make the locker room and keep it a welcoming place to be is not just important — it’s EVERYTHING.    It’s how we keep players, and how the Colts can attract players as well. 
 

Sorry I couldn’t find common ground.