Packers' interest in Jonathan Taylor shows desire to move on from Josh Jacobs and his domestic abuse issues
Jonathan Taylor's almost certain trade from the Indianapolis Colts by the NFL's Nov. 10 trade deadline comes with a multitude of subplots but none more gripping than the interest the Green Bay Packers have in the running back and what that means.
The Packers' interest, at whatever level that has reached, shows the team's willingness to move on from Pro Bowl running back Josh Jacobs, who is currently on their roster but has been a disappointment and something of a headaches because of his legal problems.
It has been widely reported, and confirmed by OutKick and Fox News Digital that the Packers are among the teams that have expressed varying degrees of interest in trading for Taylor – a list that includes the Denver Broncos, Minnesota Vikings, New York Giants and, yes, the Packers.
PACKERS ACTIVATE JOSH JACOBS; RUNNING BACK SET TO PLAY IN FIRST GAME SINCE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ARREST
And while the interest from the other teams is generally tied to a desire get consistent production in their running game, the Packers' interest glows in neon because Jacobs' days with the Packers seem numbered.
Jacobs, 28, has played in two games for Green Bay this season after spending the first six games on the Commissioner’s Exempt List — which is effectively a paid suspension.
That time on the list followed Jacobs pleading no contest in September to battery and criminal-damage-to-property charges stemming from a May domestic incident with his former girlfriend.
But Jacobs remains under serious NFL scrutiny as the league said Saturday it is reviewing previously unreported allegations that Jacobs physically abused three other women.
That review expanded after police records released Oct. 30 showed that the three other women had contacted authorities about alleged physical or verbal abuse by Jacobs in incidents dating to 2021.
Jacobs’ attorneys David Z. Chesnoff, Richard A. Schonfeld, and Clarence F. Duchac III, released a statement Saturday addressing the allegations by saying police had weighed the allegations from the three other women and moved forward with "only two misdemeanor charges."
But that is not the point.
The point is an NFL suspension under the Personal Conduct Policy is in the works and now could include newfound allegations of abuse.
And regardless of when that suspension comes, the new allegations are a black eye against Jacobs and the Packers by extension for continuing to support a player who carries an expanding list of domestic abuse allegations.
So would the Packers be better off with Jonathan Taylor, who is among the league's rushing leaders and is tied for league lead with eight rushing touchdowns? Or would they be prefer to continue carrying Jacobs and his uncertain playing status upon completion of the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy Review?
These are not tough questions. And the Packers' apparent interest in Taylor has already delivered an answer.
The greater problem here is whether the Packers would be willing to pay the heavy price to acquire Taylor. The Colts want a deal founded on the Christian McCaffrey trade of 2022 between the Carolina Panthers and San Francisco 49ers.
The Niners sent Carolina a second-, third-, and fourth-round pick in 2023 and a fifth-rounder in 2024.
If the Packers are willing to pay that price, the jettisoning of Jacobs and his domestic abuse ties seem uncomplicated by comparison.
The Packers could actually trigger in the neighborhood of $5 million in salary cap savings by releasing Jacobs by the trade deadline.
ZERO BS. JUST DAKICH. TAKE THE DON'T @ ME PODCAST ON THE ROAD. DOWNLOAD NOW!
And while there is a dead cap charge the team would have to absorb the remainder of this year and next, the cap savings for 2027, the final year of Jacobs' contract, would be around $13 million.
The math makes sense. The upgrade at the position makes sense. The relief of what has become a growing legal headache makes sense.
The Packers' interest in Jonathan Taylor makes sense in context of moving on from Josh Jacobs.