Jonathan Taylor should have held out in Indianapolis

With big-picture solutions for enhancing the compensation of running backs elusive, it's important for individual players at the position to do what they can to create leverage.

For great running backs who have finished three seasons and are in turn eligible for second contracts, that means doing whatever needs to be done to get one, before the fourth season begins.

Colts running back Jonathan Taylor, the consensus top pick in fantasy football a year ago after rushing for 1,811 yards and scoring 20 touchdowns in his second season, is eligible for a new contract. He hasn't gotten one, but he did not hold out.

He likely decided not to hold out in part because he missed six games in 2022 due to an ankle injury. His closing argument for a new contract was, simply put, not as solid as it could have been. To the extent it was a close call, however, the aggressive comments from owner Jim Irsay might have made a difference.

Irsay wisely held his tongue (or tweet) until Taylor and the rest of the Colts reported. Once players report, it becomes much harder under the labor deal to take a stand.

In hindsight, and given Irsay's strident and condescending remarks about the running back position, Taylor should have refused to show up.

Taylor's agent, Malki Kawa, responded to Irsay's tweet, which suggested bad faith on the part of agents, with this: "Bad faith is not paying your top offensive player." Kalwa separately expressed "doubt" that the relationship between Irsay and the league's running backs generally (and/or Taylor specifically) can be fixed.

So, yes, it's fair to wonder whether Taylor would have held out if Irsay would have sounded off before it was time for Taylor to report. If Taylor's decision was close, Irsay's coarse and inflammatory remarks might have tipped the scales toward Taylor giving Irsay and the Colts the finger — as Taylor should have.