The Front Office: Adam Peters and Roster Construction

[Voice_of_Reason]

But all this does is continue to kick the can down the road and change up the guys Daniels is throwing to. There is no consistency there.

One year deals happen in football. But it’s damn bear entire rooms.

I don’t know. It leaves me uneasy.

I am not disagreeing.

But they had to rebuild the entire room absent Terry anyway.

They have drafted 2 guys. They need those guys to hit and draft more guys and hit on a couple longer term deals

 

[RedWolf]

Like I said a long time ago, it's going to take 4 to 5 years to completely overhaul this roster. AP inherited shit, and he knew that coming into the job. We are building the car while it is driving down the road. I think some people have expectations that are too high. I am sure he already has a plan for JD's new contract and I am very sure that he is aware it's going to be the one of the highest ones, if not the highest, in NFL history

 

[Conn]

Like I said a long time ago, it's going to take 4 to 5 years to completely overhaul this roster. AP inherited shit, and he knew that coming into the job. We are building the car while it is driving down the road. I think some people have expectations that are too high. I am sure he already has a plan for JD's new contract and I am very sure that he is aware it's going to be the one of the highest ones, if not the highest, in NFL history

It’s taking longer because not enough of the picks have been hitting. That has to change, last year was a nice rebound after the sketchy 2024 class that ate so much valuable draft capital. We have a chance to keep improving in next month’s draft. But teams don’t need 4-5 years to rebuild when the picks hit at a high enough rate and the multi-year FA deals hit as well.

We have to improve on the field and off it. Most of this offseason has been a massive improvement, but the WR and RB rooms are a multi-year series of failures coming home to roost that we’re still needing to figure out

 

[Commander Wraith]

In a little weary of all the one year deals again.

Ford, Jefferson, Dyami, Burks, White

Chaisson.

If we get Aiyuk you can bet it’ll be on a one year deal.

I think that is one of my biggest concerns.

Our entire RB and WR room minus Terry and Bill are on one year deals.

Yeah, not ideal. Silver lining is it fits the idea of building through the draft, but it would be nice to actually have some (more) success on that front.

I don’t mind Chaisson, but it is a bit of an issue that he, Armstrong and Wise are all on 1 year deals. If we draft a top guy, I think that issue is heavily mitigated though. Same with RB if we were to draft Love (though I think we mostly agree he won’t be there) or another well rounded guy that proves himself.

Wr probably isn’t getting “fixed” in the same way, though something like Jennings (on a multi-year deal) and Tate gets us a lot further down that road.

 

[KDawg]

Yeah, not ideal. Silver lining is it fits the idea of building through the draft, but it would be nice to actually have some (more) success on that front.

I don’t mind Chaisson, but it is a bit of an issue that he, Armstrong and Wise are all on 1 year deals. If we draft a top guy, I think that issue is heavily mitigated though. Same with RB if we were to draft Love (though I think we mostly agree he won’t be there) or another well rounded guy that proves himself.

Wr probably isn’t getting “fixed” in the same way, though something like Jennings (on a multi-year deal) and Tate gets us a lot further down that road.

The positive of one year deals is it gives you flexibility to get a guy next year who is better inked for more years.

The downside is when most of your roster is one years you have to replace them every year.

We have to get a better hit rate in the draft and with less picks it’s going to be harder to do.

Last offseason really set us back.

 

[RedWolf]

The positive of one year deals is it gives you flexibility to get a guy next year who is better inked for more years.

The downside is when most of your roster is one years you have to replace them every year.

We have to get a better hit rate in the draft and with less picks it’s going to be harder to do.

Last offseason really set us back.

I agree with you but we have a rock solid left tackle for the next three or four years at least

 

[KDawg]

I agree with you but we have a rock solid left tackle for the next three or four years at least

We had one in Williams, too. And Samuels. Didn’t have the QB but we still need to hit on picks.

 

[DWinzit]

The positive of one year deals is it gives you flexibility to get a guy next year who is better inked for more years.

The downside is when most of your roster is one years you have to replace them every year.

We have to get a better hit rate in the draft and with less picks it’s going to be harder to do.

Last offseason really set us back.

I do understand a few of the 1 year contracts but it feels like they haven't learned their lesson here.

The roster turnover year is at why too high of a rate.

Based on their third year in FA, the only way the team is going to better that is with keeping or adding picks each year and hitting on them at a much larger rate

 

[Commander Wraith]

I do understand a few of the 1 year contracts but it feels like they haven't learned their lesson here.

The roster turnover year is at why too high of a rate.

Based on their third year in FA, the only way the team is going to better that is with keeping or adding picks each year and hitting on them at a much larger rate

It’s interesting, because to your point, I understand the 1 year deals - the DEs and receivers are depth pieces (you want to be able to replace them), the RBs probably wanted prove-it deals, and Mariota’s been on a 1 year deal for 3 years now. We also missed out on some guys that would likely have been longer term deals - Pierce/Doubs, Linderbaum, Woolen - though I suppose that might have been canceled out by Peters shifting targets.

And to be fair, they obviously signed a bunch of multi-year deals (more than in ‘24, and Kinlaw for 3 years and Will Harris for 2 years are the only one I recall from ‘25… I maybe forgetting some), as well as extending 3 OL.

However, when you to add the 1 year deals to the guys that are in their final year (Luvu, Armstrong, Payne, etc) in the accounting for future roster turnover, that causes the ‘27 free agent numbers to creep back up into the 20s. Not ideal.

I think they’re trending in the right direction at least. We’ll probably add a handful (3-6?)of draft picks/UDFAs to the 53 this year, and the same the next, which should reduce the turnover further. So, ball parking replacements - high 20s in ‘24, mid 20’s in ‘25, low 20’s in 26’, hopefully high teens in ‘27, and so on.

The key is (obviously) we need to start hitting on a higher percentage of these picks… though the book isn’t written on our drafted players quite yet.

 

[Bulldog]

Part of why the DL signings are one year is these players have shown upside and athletic skills but guys like Chaisson and Omenihu have not been consistent three down starters for several years in the NFL either.

We hope they are going to continue to ascend but there is no guarantee for them.

Obviously the Chiefs and Patriots thought the same thing or they would have resigned these players before they hit free agency.

We may end up getting great production and then have to give Chaisson real money on a multi-year deal at the end of the season.

 

[SkinsLife]

One year deals are fine to build out a roster. Most teams do this. Many players dont want multi year deals because they think they can get more once they show their "true potential"
The bigger issue is the ever changing D philosophy. Peters/ Quinn wasted two years on a unfit DC and now we are building a new D for a new first time DC.. and if that fails.. this team will bring in a new DC and again have to rebuild the D for his vision.

This was my issue with keeping Quinn as a HC.. just prolonging the inevitable.
General issue i have with Peters roster building is that its reactionary... no real plan. At this point his plan for Center seems like a major fuckup. (both in cutting starting center and then willing to pay 25+mil plus for another, and still missing) and no plan B for WR after missing on Pierce.
He's done ok in this FA period .. but the moves HAD to me made.. largely due to his previous roster construction and decisions the last two years. While many of these players might be up and coming, most are above average... still an improvement, but by how much is anyone guess. Too many other factors involved.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

What you want to see when evaluating a roster is how many of the starters are signed to 1 year, stop gap contracts.

The roster isn’t done yet, but the two areas which are most glaring right now in that area are WR and RB.

Most of the other areas, the starters are not on one year deals.

That’s different than last year and very different than 2024.

If they draft a starting RB or WR, that changes the perception there as well.

Filling the roster in with 1 year contracts is smart.

The core of the roster on 1 year contracts means you are rebuilding.

 

[DWinzit]

I see filling the roster with one year players being okay in year one of a build and having a sprinkling of them afterwards, but that's it.

The GM should be selecting players that match the scheme via draft and FA's to multi year deals. One year contracts every year create constant turnover and force to in essence rebuild every year. I just don't see that as healthy.

 

[RedWolf]

I see filling the roster with one year players being okay in year one of a build and having a sprinkling of them afterwards, but that's it.

The GM should be selecting players that match the scheme via draft and FA's to multi year deals. One year contracts every year create constant turnover and force to in essence rebuild every year. I just don't see that as healthy.

It's also relevant to future cap management

 

[heisenberg]

I see filling the roster with one year players being okay in year one of a build and having a sprinkling of them afterwards, but that's it.

The GM should be selecting players that match the scheme via draft and FA's to multi year deals. One year contracts every year create constant turnover and force to in essence rebuild every year. I just don't see that as healthy.

I agree to a certain extent but I'd also rather turn the roster over every year until we fill it with enough quality draft picks and free agents so that we dont have to anymore.

The alternative is to sign aging players and developing players with questionable longevity to contracts we may want to get out of in a year.

So far I've been pretty satisfied with the terms they've offered based on each player's likelihood of out playing their contracts.

When i look down this list I see an almost perfect blend of long contracts for guys most likely to contribute long term down to replacement level players we can walk away from or re-sign based on team fit.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

I agree to a certain extent but I'd also rather turn the roster over every year until we fill it with enough quality draft picks and free agents so that we dont have to anymore.

The alternative is to sign aging players and developing players with questionable longevity to contracts we may want to get out of in a year.

So far I've been pretty satisfied with the terms they've offered based on each player's likelihood of out playing their contracts.

View attachment 14382

When i look down this list I see an almost perfect blend of long contracts for guys most likely to contribute long term down to replacement level players we can walk away from or re-sign based on team fit.

There might be one or two of the one year guys who I wish were longer.

But for the most part, I expect we could bring any of them back if they ball out. And it’s ok not to commit to them long term.

We need another long term WR and RB. One should come in the draft.

 

[DWinzit]

We are going into year 3 of a rebuild and like half our roster was FA's again. That's awful, not the best model for success.

Like I said, a sprinkling of one year contracts makes sense.

We need the number of FA's to dwindle as the build moves forward

 

[heisenberg]

We need the number of FA's to dwindle as the build moves forward

Like I said, I agree, I just dont believe our front office had a much better alternative the way things have shaken out.

Our roster was pathetic and needed to be drastically turned over year one and the choice was sign everybody to longer contracts and deal with the mistakes later in the form of dead cap or deal with a lot of roster turnover as we acquire long term players over the course of several drafts.

Unfortunately we didn't draft very well year one and we made the mistake of running it back year two which extended our need to play the roster turnover game but eventually (god willing) we will build a roster that doesn't need to be turned over every year.

For now though given the choices I dont fault them for signing a lot of mostly replacement level guys to one year deals.

And as of right now we've re-signed three free agents who were on the team last year with potentially more to follow.

 

[RedWolf]

We are going into year 3 of a rebuild and like half our roster was FA's again. That's awful, not the best model for success.

Like I said, a sprinkling of one year contracts makes sense.

We need the number of FA's to dwindle as the build moves forward

Remember that AP inherited a franchise in shambles. 21 draft picks in 3 years and some of them we traded. He had to build the entire organization from the ground up

 

[Primus Porcus]

We are going into year 3 of a rebuild and like half our roster was FA's again. That's awful, not the best model for success.

Like I said, a sprinkling of one year contracts makes sense.

We need the number of FA's to dwindle as the build moves forward

What’s the alternative when you’ve deemed that all but 5 players from the previous regime need replacing within 3 years?

Tress Way
Jeremy Reaves
Chris Paul
Terry Mclaurin
Daron Payne


There is no way to find long term solutions at all of those vacated positions… there are a few from the 2024 offseason that we may have liked a longer signing of but that season was surprising to everyone. Would have loved to have Chinn, Zaccheus, some others, but there were plenty that were fine letting go. To this point Noah I and CRod are the only two of our free agents that have signed elsewhere… not exactly a bunch of missed opportunities for long term answers