Question of the Day, Jonathan Taylor

Photo: USA Today Sports

Over the next few weeks, we will ask our staff a single question on a variety of topics ranging from a huge news event to a tough fantasy decision or player evaluation.

Yesterday, we looked at Josh Jacobs.

If you like this format, come back tomorrow for another Question of the Day. Today, we'll continue the series with a look at Jonathan Taylor and try to find the most likely resolution to his current impasse with team owner Jim Irsay. Here's the question we asked.

Jonathan Taylor recently requested a trade. Jim Irsay says he'll never trade Taylor. There are three likely outcomes: Taylor sits for at least 11 weeks (so he'll still accrue a year on his contract), Taylor is traded, or cooler heads prevail, seeing Taylor play a full season in Indianapolis. What is the most likely outcome here? Why?

Here's a quick glance at the answers:

• He misses games - 5 votes
• A trade occurs - 0 votes
• Full season in Indy - 8 votes

As was the case with Jacobs' situation, there is some real worry. Here are the full answers. Enjoy!

Jason Wood: Jonathan Taylor will most likely miss a handful of games but report well before the 12th game. The simple truth is he hasn't made enough money yet to credibly sit out the majority of the season unless he's been very frugal with his rookie contract. And he and his agent also know that even if he reports in time to accrue the season, the Colts could tag him in 2024. He has to hope GM Chris Ballard thinks differently than Irsay and is able to get a 2-year deal done that essentially pays Taylor $10-$11mm per season. I doubt that happens, which means Taylor will miss a few weeks, report to start making money again, and be faced with the proposition of another holdout in 2024.

Matt Waldman: The coaching staff and GM will assuage Irsay's ego and do what they can to keep Taylor in the fold this year. The Colts need Taylor to keep the offense on schedule for a young Anthony Richardson to have winnable opportunities on the field. If not, the Colts will rent one of the veteran free agents. Irsay inherited the Colts from his father, Robert, who was notorious for impulsive decisions. You can read Daddy Irsay's Wikipedia page to discover that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Essentially, Jim is the Joffrey Baratheon of the NFL and probably isn't used to dealing with a player like Taylor, who considered studying astrophysics at Harvard before opting for a football scholarship at Wisconsin. Taylor understands his worth not only as a player but also as a grown man. This is, sadly, a negotiation through the media.

Ben Cummins: Although Jim Irsay is doing his best to change it, the most likely outcome still is Taylor plays in enough games with the Colts this year to accrue the year on his contract. I have little doubt teams are going to make offers for Taylor, but the odds are low that the Colts accept one of them. The running back position has been devalued across the league, so the compensation offered likely won't be enough to move the needle for Indianapolis. As for Taylor, he reportedly is very unhappy, and recent pictures of him watching practice back that up. My belief is Taylor is active in Week 1, but there is no guarantee Taylor fights through all the bumps and bruises that accumulate during an NFL season for a franchise he's no longer internally committed to.

Maurile Tremblay: Just a quick public service announcement. There are two distinct concepts that many people conflate.

(1) How many "accrued seasons" a player has determines what kind of free agent he'll become whenever he hits free agency. A player needs four accrued seasons in order to become an unrestricted free agent. A player accrues a season by being on full-pay status (active roster, PUP, injured reserve) for at least six games during that season. Taylor has accrued three seasons so far, so he needs to accrue another season in 2023 in order to become an unrestricted free agent whenever he hits free agency.

(2) Whether a player's contract is tolled affects how long until his current contract expires so that he becomes a free agent. "Tolled" means paused. When a player's contract is tolled for more than half a season, that season effectively doesn't count toward fulfilling his contract, as an extra season gets tacked on to the contract in order to make up for the tolled season. The standard player contract, Appendix A to the CBA, provides: "16. EXTENSION. Unless this contract specifically provides otherwise, if Player ... refuses to perform his services under this contract, then this contract will be tolled between the date of Player’s ... refusal to perform, and the later date of his return to professional football. ... On Player’s return to professional football, the term of this contract will be extended for a period of time equal to the number of seasons (to the nearest multiple of one) remaining at the time the contract was tolled."

Tolling doesn't come up very often because most long holdouts are by players who are not already under contract (think Josh Jacobs currently). Because Taylor is already under contract, he needs to worry about tolling. He needs at least six games to accrue a season, but he likely needs at least nine games to avoid having his contract tolled. The latter point is more important and effectively trumps the first point, since it doesn't matter what kind of free agent Taylor becomes (via accrued seasons) unless and until he actually becomes a free agent (via lack of tolling).

Phil Alexander: I still think it's likely that Taylor will play the full season in Indianapolis. If we've learned anything this offseason, it's that NFL teams are not lining up to trade assets for a running back they would then have to hand an above-market contract extension. We also haven't seen a running back hold out of regular season games since LeVeon Bell in 2018 and Melvin Gordon in 2019, each of which had relatively disastrous results for the player. Ultimately, Taylor will come to understand that there are zero teams willing to reset the running back market for him. And Irsay, for all his foibles, seems to genuinely care about his on-field product. If he wants to make life easier for new franchise quarterback Anthony Richardson, Irsay knows he needs his star running back on the field. A compromise makes the most sense for both parties.

Jeff Tefertiller: Jim Irsay is escalating the situation quickly. Most commentators are talking about Jonathan Taylor's contract situation. Taylor is under contract for 2023 and can be franchised in 2024. The star tailback will be 26 years of age when entering free agency in 2025. Sure, the team may give him a short contract extension, but most teams are hesitant to give deals with guarantees past the back's age-28 season. We must also consider the games missed to injury. Taylor has only played in 43 games during his three-year career. Taylor's carries-per-game average decreased substantially in 2022, from 20 to 15. The injuries and reduced workload make it difficult to warrant the fantasy draft capital, even if the contract situation gets resolved.

Gary Davenport: Jim Irsay’s inability to shut his Tweethole isn’t helping things here, but I still expect Taylor to be out there in Week 1. He just doesn’t have any leverage. Sitting out just long enough to accrue a service year would cost him upwards of 30 percent of his career earnings to date, and it gets him zero steps closer to out of Indianapolis—if there’s an owner who would spite-tag a player, it’s Jim Irsay. Chris Ballard is a good general manager—he’ll bridge this divide with a two-year extension that gets Taylor some signing bonus money but doesn’t make Irsay look like he caved. No one will be happy—but it will get Taylor on the field come September 10. There’s value to be had in Taylor’s falling ADP—if you’re willing to roll the dice.

Dave Kluge: I'd guess that the most probable outcome is a mid-season injury pops up for Jonathan Taylor that sidelines him longer than we expect. The CBA doesn't give much leverage to players on a contract, and especially for running backs. As we saw from Lamar Jackson last year, milking an injury is a great way for an unhappy player to make a statement. The reality is that we don't know how this situation will shake out, but the cloud overhead adds immense risk to Taylor's 2023 outlook.

Jason Wood: I couldn’t disagree more with the “if his ADP falls, he’s a value” angle. There are a million ways this can go wrong, from a faux injury that allows him to get paid without risking a $10mm payday next year to being phased out schematically by Richardson/Steichen to sitting out because of the public contract impasse.