Jonathan Taylor is your 1.01 now.

[Cameron Giles]

so, a running back should just sit as many games as he can, so that he can not take the money he wants, because it's a business and doing business is bad for business.

and a business would be happy to pay a guy whose business model is to sit out two thirds of the working time, because the dangerous job they pay him to do is dangerous.

this doesn't make much sense to me, no wonder i know funk-all about economics!

The biggest bargaining chip RBs have is fresh legs or overall health. Taylor is one significant injury away from essentially losing all of his leverage and negatively altering his future career earnings.

Football teams do not pity RBs who suffer major injuries. They will simply continue to do smart business and those RBs will lose money.

[killer_of_giants]

so, a running back should just sit as many games as he can, so that he can not take the money he wants, because it's a business and doing business is bad for business.

and a business would be happy to pay a guy whose business model is to sit out two thirds of the working time, because the dangerous job they pay him to do is dangerous.

this doesn't make much sense to me, no wonder i know funk-all about economics!

No. Truly smart teams/GMs fully understand that if they give a guy like JT a good and fair contract, that he will be okay putting his body and health on the line to deliver 110%.

for the first season, then rinse and repeat.

[killer_of_giants]

Taylor is one significant injury away from essentially losing all of his leverage and negatively altering his future career earnings.

while other players aren't. oh wait!

[FantasyFreak]

so, a running back should just sit as many games as he can, so that he can not take the money he wants, because it's a business and doing business is bad for business.

and a business would be happy to pay a guy whose business model is to sit out two thirds of the working time, because the dangerous job they pay him to do is dangerous.

this doesn't make much sense to me, no wonder i know funk-all about economics!

They aren't making any sense, IMO. The idea it helps their situation, and that teams would be more willing to pay a guy a lot of money, who's just proven not to honour a contract is a misinterpretation of how GM's and ownership would view it, IMO.

Now perhaps they will not tear their ACL, and will get a deal that's better than nothing, since they are healthy, but no chance they get a deal that would equal what they would get, if they play the full year and play well. Also, again, if a guy refuses to play etc, their will be grievances filed, it's not going to be accepted that a player just walks away, and everybody is OK with it. Faking injuries etc. Grievance. Just not collect a pay check, and say you're done? OK, but the idea you're getting a top end deal after doing that in naive, nobody is going to pay up for a RB who pulls that.

I won't even bother arguing it further, I've read enough on the views on this stuff to know there will be no consensus, on this matter.

[Tvols]

Plays two weeks and walks away from That Idiot Colts owner put on IR with a bruised middle finger.

[hoos89]

so, a running back should just sit as many games as he can, so that he can not take the money he wants, because it's a business and doing business is bad for business.

and a business would be happy to pay a guy whose business model is to sit out two thirds of the working time, because the dangerous job they pay him to do is dangerous.

this doesn't make much sense to me, no wonder i know funk-all about economics!

The real issue is the complete lack of security provided to RBs. They just get stuck with the rookie contract and then if they do well their best case scenario a lot of the time is a 1 year franchise tag. What RBs want is guaranteed money, and the biggest issue they have is that many of the peak years for their position are during the rookie contract. This is something that really needs to be fixed at the CBA level because it's just ludicrously unfair to star RBs to essentially say "We're going to run a significant % of our offense through you. You are going to be the single most likely position on the field to suffer a catastrophic injury this year. Oh, and by the way, even if you do well we won't *ever* reward you with a second contract ... We'll just tag you one year at a time while you're healthy and productive and then kick you to the curb when you're not." Change the CBA to either get rid of the franchise tag or give specifically RBs better rookie deals based on draft position (or perhaps give them significant performance incentives).

JT is set to earn $4.3m for this season. I hope you can see why it might make some sense for him to try to minimize his injury risk this season in hopes of earning $10m+ next season.

[FantasyFreak]

so, a running back should just sit as many games as he can, so that he can not take the money he wants, because it's a business and doing business is bad for business.

and a business would be happy to pay a guy whose business model is to sit out two thirds of the working time, because the dangerous job they pay him to do is dangerous.

this doesn't make much sense to me, no wonder i know funk-all about economics!

The real issue is the complete lack of security provided to RBs. They just get stuck with the rookie contract and then if they do well their best case scenario a lot of the time is a 1 year franchise tag. What RBs want is guaranteed money, and the biggest issue they have is that many of the peak years for their position are during the rookie contract. This is something that really needs to be fixed at the CBA level because it's just ludicrously unfair to star RBs to essentially say "We're going to run a significant % of our offense through you. You are going to be the single most likely position on the field to suffer a catastrophic injury this year. Oh, and by the way, even if you do well we won't *ever* reward you with a second contract ... We'll just tag you one year at a time while you're healthy." Change the CBA to either get rid of the franchise tag or give specifically RBs better rookie deals based on draft position (or perhaps give them significant performance incentives).

Yep, it's rough deal, but not playing won't make it better for their 2nd deal. Like JT sitting out, he'd be throwing away a few million in game checks, and by sitting, he'd lessen the potential deal he'd get next year, because GM's aren't going to want to dish out a big deal for a guy who plays it that way, that's just the reality. Now, he would get more than playing, and suffering a major injury, but not as much as if he balled out, and stayed healthy, then went into FA. It's a risk vs reward thing, he would maximize security by not playing once his season has accrued, but he'd maximize his earnings if he played, and played well, the rest of the year.

Honestly, the tag is something that the players should have likely negotiated out, but because it only affects a minute percentage of the players, it's not a big deal for them, when voting, in terms of the overall vote percentage.

RB position, in all but a few extremes, like a complete weapon like CMC, isn't really worth paying for, that's the reality at this point. There's not much that will likely be done. The RB position doesn't represent a high percentage of the players, so it's unlikely to be a major sticking point for negotiations. It's just not a position of high leverage, or pay at this point in modern football.

It's not likely to change.

[lukkynumber13]

Strictly from a business perspective, it makes no sense for Taylor to play any more than the necessary amount of games to accrue a season.

Otherwise, he's just risking injury with no upside.

It probably will get ugly, but he should absolutely exhaust all his options.

and do what? Stop playing once he's played those games? Think teams will pay up for a guy that does that? The best thing he can do is play the rest of the season, and play well. With Richardson there, he's going to have some real opportunity to put up numbers that will get him a decent sized deal that he's looking for. Playing a few games and bailing isn't going to help him more. Being 2 years removed from being productive will not help him land a better contract than playing well.

I don't think it's "good business" to bail on playing this year and try and land a big deal without production for 2 years, at the most dispensable skilled position.

He needs to come in with a bounce back season, that will be the best thing for him, and he's got the QB that will help him do that. If he plays well from here on out, I think he gets a solid 2nd contract. Not elite, like CMC, as JT isn't a top end pass catcher, but he should get a deal that would get him 2 years guaranteed, in the 20's, guaranteed, and that's the best a RB can hope for right now, on a 2nd deal.

Barkley supposedly turned down 2 years guaranteed, about 25/26 million, he's probably wishing he took that. JT needs to prove he's that guy again this year, not put another year behind him where he isn't, the position is too fungible for that to help his contract situation.

This is 100% correct

I place a ton of stock into what CG has to say on these boards, but I strongly disagree on his take here.

I get what you're saying CG, it's a business yes. But the smart business play is for JT to display his wares in the front glass display case (go play, ideally at a pro-bowl level).

Is it risky? Absolutely. But sitting is risky too.

[Cameron Giles]

Taylor is one significant injury away from essentially losing all of his leverage and negatively altering his future career earnings.

while other players aren't. oh wait!

Surely you understand the difference between Jonathan Taylor being in a contract year and Zack Moss being in a contract year. You may dislike the approach as a fan, but for Taylor there is a lot of logic in it.

If he is not healthy, he has no leverage in contract talks or in steering himself to a new team. If he tears his Achilles tomorrow, it's all over.

[Cameron Giles]

I place a ton of stock into what CG has to say on these boards, but I strongly disagree on his take here.

I get what you're saying CG, it's a business yes. But the smart business play is for JT to display his wares in the front glass display case (go play, ideally at a pro-bowl level. Is it risky? Absolutely. But sitting is risky too.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's a foolproof path to guarantee the contract number he's looking for.

But, objectively there is only one path for Taylor that guarantees him great health and it's not playing 13 games this season.

[murphysxm]

If JT balls out, he gets tagged and is in the same boat next year. You can’t blame him for being the bad guy on both sides of his potential decision.

[FantasyFreak]

If JT balls out, he gets tagged and is in the same boat next year. You can’t blame him for being the bad guy on both sides of his potential decision.

Don't think anybody is blaming anyone. I'm simply discussing the likely realities of the situation. He might get tagged even if he sits out, after his accrual. It's quite possible, that the Colts may do that, because their owner is quite erratic, as discussed, and may do it out of spite, I wouldn't put that past him, though I don't know it's that likely.

I think JT gets a lesser deal if he doesn't play that much, than he would if he balls this year, though his chance of injury would be less if he sits for the year after accruing that year. It really depends on what his level of comfort is in the risk vs rewards department.

[murphysxm]

The Colts historically don’t do the deal. He is tagged if he still a Colt, then he is let to walk. JT knows this.

[Cameron Giles]

If JT balls out, he gets tagged and is in the same boat next year. You can’t blame him for being the bad guy on both sides of his potential decision.

So essentially, if you're Jonathan Taylor right now:

A. Play two games, sit out and get franchise tagged.

or

B. Play 13 games and get franchise tagged.

Hm. Which option protects my health the best while still achieving the same uncontrollable result of getting franchised?

[Shoreline Steamers]

If JT balls out, he gets tagged and is in the same boat next year. You can’t blame him for being the bad guy on both sides of his potential decision.

So essentially, if you're Jonathan Taylor right now:

A. Play two games, sit out and get franchise tagged.

or

B. Play 13 games and get franchise tagged.

Hm. Which option protects my health the best while still achieving the same uncontrollable result of getting franchised?

I do think however that there is option C.

Play 6 games, fulfill the terms of your contract. Get tagged next year (but at least you're no longer under contract with the Colts).