Peters and the one-year deal: A feature or a bug

[burgold]

After two years it's probably safe to say that Adam Peters loves him some one-year deals. He loves them as prove it deals. He loves them as expensive one year rentals. He loves them as a way to get plug and play vets one the field who were once elite but are now probably above average.

Is this a good strategy? Does he go to the one-year well too often? On the plus side, we value competition and you probably maximize competition when every year is your contract year. On the negative side, there's something to be said for building consistency and it's hard to do that when so much of your team is there for a blink. We do want this team to grow together. Notice how the one position group where Peter hasn't gone to the one-year well has been the o-line... at least not for starters. That said, some of our one-year rentals turned out to be multi-year signings. Peter just went back to the ala carte line and re-signed them to another one-year deal.

So, is this overdependence on one-year contracts a bug or a feature? More, do you like it?

 

[httrcirca87]

I think Peters is attempting to accomplish multiple goals at the same time. He wants to field a competitive team that, surprisingly, is also in its Super Bowl window much quicker than expected. He wants to build the team through the draft without being a basement dweller for multiple years. Third they want to build a certain type of organizational culture based around competition. One-year deals allow him to make us competitive in the immediate without tying up resources long term and it keeps the competitive spirit high.

 

[Chris]

It will obviously take time for Peter’s draft classes to mature. In the meantime he is filling in those gaps in a meaningful way with intelligent financial consideration.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

I don’t think anyone who signed a one year deal last year, then signed somewhere else this year will be missed. They were replacement level players, so bringing in a guy on a one year contract to do the same thing the next year seems like a perfectly fine strategy. He’s getting great short term value out of those signings.

 

[Die Hard]

I don’t think the 2 are actually correlated.

Peters is only utilizing the strategy out of necessity (of roster circumstances). I’m absolutely positive that once the team’s draft pick classes fill in and each younger player matures… he’ll pivot accordingly.

There really hasn’t been too many good young free agents the past couple of years for Peters to throw real money at. Those types of players are resigning with their teams.

So unless Peters wants to throw 5 years for $120M at Bobby Wagner/Zachary Ertz… 1-2 year contracts is the really the only way to go. In fact, I’m surprised the players are willing to take 1-year contracts over the 2.

 

[Conn]

I think the starting presumption is flawed, because I don’t agree it’s an “over-dependence” which is already a value judgement with a negative implication.

He inherited a roster that for all intents and purposes hadn’t had a draft class worthy of making an NFL roster in at least four years. That’s frankly kind of unheard of. So he needed to reset the culture alongside Quinn, he needed to get some proven talent in place while he backfilled the roster with rookie contracts and slowly built the foundation for the future, and he needed to support his new franchise QB pick so as not to immediately set back his development—and on a macro level off the field, he needed to help Harris & Co. show that the franchise still had life in it and could serve the fanbase once more, due to the hunt for a permanent home in a new stadium. So lots of things in place to discourage a slow rebuild—including the fact that you only want to slowly rebuild if that’s your ONLY option. When you draft a young elite QB, you always have other options.

So, bringing in proven vets on short deals helped accomplish all of those goals. But taking shots on high ceiling players for short contracts with little risk will always have its place no matter how good your roster is. Some will miss, but it’s always a valid roster-building tool in your toolbox.

So I think the initial idea that such a strategy could be a “bug” are misplaced.

I think questions about whether his early propensity to trade draft picks for guys like Lattimore and Deebo on their remaining contracts (I don’t count Tunail bc anyone would do that) will be a staple of his roster building going forward or not are much more interesting. There’s essentially nothing controversial about the one year signings, and very few potential downsides—unlike the trades, which are clearly an attempt to jumpstart the roster “artificially” and move up our timeline with more risk attached.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

This isn't unique to the Commanders, teams all over the league are doing it. I think it's great for the team but I have no idea why a player like Bobby Wagner would need to prove anything, he showed in his last stop he could still play. So not sure why the players want to go this route instead of locking up more guranteed money with a 2-3 year deal.

 

[Hail Raiser]

The timing of the OYDs is what seems strange to me. It's a solid way to back fill a roster, but it seems like it's a tool to build a roster. Year one, great job. Second year? We'll see. I don't expect to go into year three wielding OYDs for FAs and I'd really like to see more draft picks going forward, not older vets with issues.

 

[Conn]

The timing of the OYDs is what seems strange to me. It's a solid way to back fill a roster, but it seems like it's a tool to build a roster. Year one, great job. Second year? We'll see. I don't expect to go into year three wielding OYDs for FAs and I'd really like to see more draft picks going forward, not older vets with issues.

I don’t think we’ll ever stop bringing in pedigreed older players with playoff experience that can rotate to fill a hole. As our cap space is taken more and more by younger cornerstones on longterm deals, the 1yr/$10M type deals might decrease just because those eat cap space. But it’s not surprising we’re “still” utilizing them in year two imo. This roster didn’t have a real draft to help it out for half a decade

 

[Hail Raiser]

I don’t think we’ll ever stop bringing in pedigreed older players with playoff experience that can rotate to fill a hole. As our cap space is taken more and more by younger cornerstones on longterm deals, the 1yr/$10M type deals might decrease just because those eat cap space. But it’s not surprising we’re “still” utilizing them in year two imo. This roster didn’t have a real draft to help it out for half a decade

Oh yeah, I agree. This Von deal is perfect for us. I find it off putting early in FA. I'd be ecstatic if we OYD'd Gilmore, Simmons and Clowney next.

I was just ranting about the LBers id have drafted in another thread. Bolton and Herbig were huge misses I banged the table for

 

[Conn]

Oh yeah, I agree. This Von deal is perfect for us. I find it off putting early in FA. I'd be ecstatic if we OYD'd Gilmore, Simmons and Clowney next.

I was just ranting about the LBers id have drafted in another thread. Bolton and Herbig were huge misses I banged the table for

Man all the missed opportunities over the years (especially in recent years when the ES draft thread as a collective were imo on absolute fire with hits, you included) is enraging. I choose to chalk it all up as part of the price to lose Snyder though, and that helps me just move on from it. But every offseason as guys re-sign with their teams or hit the market, it’s impossible not to think of the what-ifs.

 

[Phantvm]

Oh yeah, I agree. This Von deal is perfect for us. I find it off putting early in FA. I'd be ecstatic if we OYD'd Gilmore, Simmons and Clowney next.

I was just ranting about the LBers id have drafted in another thread. Bolton and Herbig were huge misses I banged the table for

All 3 would be fantastic. Amos learning from Lattimore and a former DPoY? Yes please.

Simmons would be a massive get because suddenly Harris is elite depth vs a fringe starter. Which I do like Harris vs Chinn personally, but Simmons he is not.

Clowney turns the dline into fringe elite status when you factor in the depth. And honestly, would help soothe some of the anxiety most have felt about signing Kinlaw.

I don’t think it happens, but I’d love it too.

 

[Neophyte]

So, is this overdependence on one-year contracts a bug or a feature? More, do you like it?

Why do you think there is an "overdependence" on one-year contracts?

Do we have more than the average NFL team? Yeah, probably, although I say that without any real numbers in front of me so it's just a guess based on a gut-feeling so mileage will vary.

However, we were a team with more holes than the average NFL team too. Years of fouled off attempts born of trying to go yard in every at bat had left the squad a shell of a real NFL roster. In order to contemplate even average competitivness with a rookie QB, it was necessary to bring in some guys at the end of their career who have experience and something left in the tank.

I keep seeing people talk about the "cap hit" and being critical of the one-yeard deal based on that. I don't see it that way at all though. We have the space this year to do these kinds of deals and it's a "one and done" kind of thing. There is no residual carry over to next year's books, leaving our 2026 cap space intact.

Honestly, it all seems like a win-win to me and trying to find an issue with it is all much ado about nothing.