The Colts-Jonathan Taylor impasse has showed no signs of ending, as the second week of a training camp observational period begins for the talented running back. Jim Irsay has indicated the Colts will not honor Taylor’s trade request, but this escalating situation might be moving the team toward at least considering a deal.
Trading Taylor is a subject that has not been completely shut down at Colts headquarters, Stephen Holder of ESPN.com reports, adding multiple NFL execs believe a trade market exists for the 24-year-old back. Going into his fourth season, Taylor is a more attractive commodity compared to the lot of late-20-somethings on the free agent market.
A team that acquires Taylor could attempt to slow-play this, as the Colts are doing by indicating no extension offer is coming soon, with a 2024 franchise tag available. But it should be considered likely a team that acquires the contract-year back would have a contract ready to go. Multiple teams are believed to be open to a trade-and-extend scenario involving the former rushing champion.
Indianapolis’ goal remains to retain Taylor, Jeff Howe of The Athletic writes, and have him back in his starting role to begin the Anthony Richardson era (subscription required). As this offseason has shown, running back leverage has cratered. Midlevel free agent contracts, cap-casualty decisions, pay cuts and a franchise tag deadline coming and going without an extension has turned this into a crisis point for the position. Derrick Henry has initiated talks among backs about their position’s standing, per TitanInsider.com’s Terry McCormick, and Taylor voiced frustration after the tag deadline hit without Saquon Barkley, Josh Jacobs or Tony Pollard landing a deal.
A host of anonymous executives informed Howe a trade should not be considered likely, due to the cost of a second contract and the supply-and-demand issue plaguing the position. While Dalvin Cook and Ezekiel Elliott were listed by two such execs as cheaper options, Taylor would represent a higher class of player at this stage of his career. The Colts RB has 860 career touches; Cook and Elliott are at 1,503 and 2,186, respectively. A team could view Taylor as a much better asset and pull off a trade, and an extension — despite the carnage on the RB market this year — could line up well as the salary cap booms. That said, no team has even authorized a $12MM-per-year RB deal since the Browns paid Nick Chubb in July 2021. Due to his age and the cap rise, Taylor could logically be targeting the Christian McCaffrey–Alvin Kamara bracket, but no team has signed off on a $14MM-AAV deal for a back since the Saints inked Kamara in August 2020.
The Colts, particularly Irsay and GM Chris Ballard, have been surprised by Taylor’s attitude at camp, per Holder. Taylor hired a new agent this offseason and has not only become frustrated by his contract situation, but Holder adds the Colts’ approach to injury management has irked the Wisconsin alum. Taylor underwent arthroscopic ankle surgery in January, and the procedure was not expected to keep him out too long. Irsay pronounced him as ready to roll for camp. But Holder adds the Colts wanted Taylor to return to Indianapolis shortly before camp. This request did not go over well with Taylor, who interpreted it as a team push to return to action before he was 100%.
Taylor played hurt during last year’s miserable Colts campaign, finishing the season despite needing ankle surgery. Holder echoes the Sunday report regarding Taylor complaining of back and hamstring pain when coming to camp. Taylor has denied he notified the Colts of back pain, a subject that led to the rumor the Colts could shift him from the PUP list to the NFI list — a matter that could affect Taylor’s salary. That rumor only further intensified this situation, though Holder adds the PUP-to-NFI shift is unlikely.
Still, Taylor remains out of action. It is unclear if the ankle injury sustained in October 2022 is truly keeping him off the field or if this is a hold-in measure. The Colts, who have also lost Zack Moss to a broken arm, worked out Kenyan Drake on Wednesday.
It will be interesting to see if any viable trade offers come in for Taylor, who is set to be part of a big free agency class — one that, as of now, would include Barkley, Jacobs, Pollard, Henry, Austin Ekeler, J.K. Dobbins, AJ Dillon. We are still far away from that point, but it represents another factor that would work against him leaving Indianapolis via a 2023 trade.
Irsay said Taylor will not be traded and the team will not move from Baltimore. End of story.
Dueceball – that was a different Irsay & 40 years ago; so your comment is just whiney BS. End of story.
Foxtrot – I’ll side with Irsay & say they just agreed to a new CBA a year ago, so no changes are due for 8-9 years. All your ideas are irrelevant at this time. Taylor knew all these RB issues existed, but was & is dumb enough to listen to a militant agent who wants him to be the poster boy for RB equity. All he is setting himself up for is a short, unhappy career. He’ll lose $4 mil this year, possibly be fined another $4 mil or so, & be this decades Kaepernick for being too toxic for anyone to take a chance on.
I won’t pretend to know when Taylor decided to play RB, but you have to figure it was at least a decade ago. So no, I’d say he didn’t know all of these RB issues existed then. Peterson got almost 100m, Gurley got 60m, and Zeke got a good deal as recently as 2019. The system is broken for RBs now however. It’s like pulling teeth trying to get paid. Wanting to be paid as much as you contribute isn’t “toxic”.
If RBs have so little value though, I’d argue let them reach FA after 3 years. Of course the league would never do that, which is telling.
Outlaw – he is under his rookie contract. Sitting out, brooding, commenting on social media, asking to be traded just 2 weeks after commenting that he was confident he & the team would work things out & he wanted to retire as a Colt; that is a perfect example of a malcontent, a cancer to a locker room, & yes a toxic situation.
I hope Taylor is traded, and then not paid the new team. That’d be the most amusing outcome possible.
So he’s too injured to practice…but expects someone to pay up in a trade?! Plus pay him top of the market. All while he’s too injured to even practice?? On top of all of this, he’s now shown how he’ll react anytime he’s unhappy. You’d have to be a fool to trade for this guy
If he’s traded, it shows even more how easy it’s to replace a 24 year old good to great RB.
Easiest solution for the NFL would be have the NCAA and NFL limit # of carries a back can have in a season. I dont think we are gonna like stuff coming out from rbs spilling the beans on teams/leagues for rbs to gain leverage. CTE 2.0 type stuff.
Say 150 a season per back. Guys coming into the league after running the ball 200-300 times 2 or 3 years in college and then 200-300 carries on rookie contracts puts a lot of wear and tear on backs.
Nfl has already made rule adjustments to protect QBs and WRs for “player safety” reasons- cant hit qb at the knees cant hit a defenseless receiver. Least they could do is implement new rules for rbs for “player safety”.
Nfl could also amend rules so that rookies cant be franchise tagged coming off their rookie contracts. Instead teams can offer a tag where they can match any offer the player receives or teams receives an original round competitive balance pick if they choose to not match the offer. Running backs are 3rd 4th round picks these days so theyd receive a comp pick after 3rd or 4th rounds.
You can cap the # of carries a back gets, that doesn’t fix that they won’t get paid lol. All that does is validate why they aren’t getting paid. ‘You can only touch the ball 150 times this year why would I pay you?’
On top of that, now to get through a season you have to have 5-6 RBs to carry the weight of the season instead of 2-3 which, in return, means your paying 6 RBs and aren’t going to pay any of them top $.
I’m sorry but this makes everything worse. Then the WRs just say ‘Well I want capped at 50 catches’ Then the DBs say ‘Well hey! No one is helping our safety we want this, and this, and this!’ Then its LBs then it’s OL then it’s kickers and it never comes to an end. The RBs got what they signed up for in the CBA, if they want it to change, then either get a new job or don’t but it’s not the NFL’s issue. And it sure as heck isn’t the NCAA’s issue either.
Carries are different than catches.
No receiver sees 200 targets in a season. Closest last year was Justin Jefferson at 184. Receivers are already capped.
“On top of that, now to get through a season you have to have 5-6 RBs”
Not quite. Last year atlanta led the league with 550 atrtempts. Youd need 4 backs barring injury. And if a guy is injured youd be replacing him regardless of the # of carries they have. 4×150=600. So teams carry 1 extra back instead of the 3 teams usually carry? Some already carry 4.
Idea isnt to pay them more. Idea is to extend careers to allow for earning more over the course of a career.
It is an ncaa issue when guys are jumping into the league after being ran into the ground by their colleges.
But that doesn’t really do that. It may extend their career, yes, but at what cost? If you are negotiating for a 12M/year for 4 years you’d be paid 48M. (just hypothetical not getting into guarantees, bonus, blah blah.) If you take 2M a year, on new contracts, it’d take you 24 years to get that same value. No team is going to pay, in your hypothetical, each RB 3-6M a year. They’ll pay a total of 8M for the whole room. 3 guys on rookie deals, then 2 vets on 1 year 2-4M deals. Even in that sense, it doesn’t stop teams from not paying a RB and reverting to UDFA or late round cheap RBs. So now, instead of the RB signing his extension and getting say 20M over 3 years, he gets his rookie contract and if he’s lucky another couple 1 year deals for low money.
Look at it as of now, guys like Fournette, Hunt, Kenyan Drake, Cook, Zeke they’re not getting even a 1 year deal because they’re extremely disposable.
Benny Snell JR has 275 touches in 4 seasons, no one cares that he has less miles than (insert rb here) at any $ amount he’s not worth it to a roster when they can sign buckwheat as a UDFA out of lower Idaho and get the same production.
OL matters, QB matters, RB really doesn’t. Dime a dozen.
Zeke has 1900 carries and dealt with injuries recently. Cook has 1300 carries. You dont think thered be interest if each of these backs had less mileage on them?
Hunt averaged 3.8 last year. Fournette has 1200 carries and an injury history and averaged 3.5 yards. Drake has 800 carries and an injury history too. Benny Snell has a career 3.6 average.
Theres many reasons theyre unsigned.
Good backs get paid. Not good ones dont. That doesnt change regardless. What does change is rbs enter negotiations with less mileage.
A rookie running back with 600 carries at most averaging 4.3 4.4 4.5 yards an attempt can easily ask for more. Will teams pay. Who knows. But least rbs have a chance to earn mkre over course of longer careers.
It’s a clever idea as it puts a premium on good backs (teams need more of them) and extends their careers (no step knocked off in first three years of heavy use).
Tired of hearing athletes complain about making millions of dollars….feel free to leave the sport and find another career that pays that much money.
I get that they put their body through hell and the potential health complications, but they know that going in, so that is their choice.
I think this constant renegotiation desire can be solved by 1-2 yr contracts only. There is no security in that, but then they can renegotiate every two years.
Because it’s not about making millions of dollars. It’s about making what they’re entitled to. Not so much with Taylor, but some of the other high end RBs like Jacobs are way underpaid for what they produce.
Buffalo should make some cap room and get Taylor. Their window isn’t opening any more than it is now.
True that fellas. Let’s burn one for Johnny boy.