It's hard to call what Peters did a slow burn rebuild. We've all lived through a lot of coach transitions. I don't know that we have ever seen anyone raze a roster like Peters did ours in 2024. He cut or demoted 80% of the roster. When the dust cleared, we were left with an expansion team. I went back and counted 10 players that we kept (starters and backups) from the 2023 roster and I might have been generous. So, during the first part of the rebuild he dynamited the place. Now, I get that's not what you are talking about, but the demolition is part of the rebuild. The demolition was fast-tracked like I've never seen. The reconstruction bit is what we are all unhappy with, but a substantial part of why we are so unhappy with 2025 were also the injuries. We were forced to start our sixth and seventh DEs for much of the season. We started off the street level wide receivers for at least 2/3s of the season. Our QB played 5 games. Our best vet running back played in how many games? So, how do we judge the speed of that rebuild when we never got to see the team on the field? We basically were playing the squad from the fourth quarter of a preseason game against everyone else's starters. I don't think any team has the kind of depth to overcome that no matter how fast their rebuild has been.
Now, the counter to the injuries narrative is some of the declines and injuries were foreseeable and we've discussed that, but it's still true that the roster we trotted out was decimated to such an extent that we may never have seen the team Peters and Quinn intended to put out there for even a single game. last year.
Then, comes the question of what more could he have done? Clearly, Peters has gutted the team again (on defense) and reconstructed it at lightning pace. So obviously he, like the rest of us, gave himself a failing grade with his first attempt at rebuilding this roster. This year, from what we've read, he swung for Linderbaum, Pierce, swung and Dobbs , but struck out. Should he have broke the bank for them? We could have? Would you be happier if we paid Linderbaum 30m/year or Pierce 50m/year?
After Peters failed to get the offensive players in free agency he wanted he pivoted to defense because he doesn't believe in paying top dollar long term money for mid level players. Worse, we didn't have the draft resources to really trade for more players (unless we decide to use 2027 capitol). And yet, ultimately that's what we are all frustrated about. We all see the holes at WR and corner or if we're optimistic at CB depth. And it worries us how much money we've bet on a 3rd round rookie to pick up the slack even if we like him. Now, in Peters favor I would argue that the tight end room and the running backs room look pretty good. On top of that, the o line looks better than solid and QB will be excellent if Daniels can stay healthy. So really, what all this boils down to (from a roster construction POV) is that we're missing one or two pieces.
So, I while I'm dissatisfied, too, I can't say Peters has been slow rolling it. He's rebuilt the o line, the running backs room, the tight ends room, the QB room, the DL, and the LBs, in two years. They all are now solid/promising units. He has not succeeded at wide receiver. Part of that is because neither Lane nor McCaffrey have proved to be good picks and that sucks. Same with corner although while I think we're happy to see Sainristil and Amos over Forbes and BSJ, we can admit the room is good enough or deep enough yet.
Off season 1: This was largely a patchwork approach—short-term veteran signings, mostly one-year deals. And to be clear, they were
good signings. But I don’t think—even based on what beat writers were saying at the time—that the intention was to make a Super Bowl run. By their own admission, they were surprised by how well it all clicked.
That said, this was Peters’ best work so far. This was his high point. And I've had his back plenty about that year. It's part of the reason why I grade him C plus. Slightly above average. I don't think he's sucked. But IMO to overcome the work that Rivera has done. You need to be better than just a little better than OK.
With the benefit of hindsight, though, they absolutely had the opportunity to do a much more significant overhaul. Six picks in the top 100 is a massive asset—it’s how you reshape a roster quickly. The intention may have been there, but the execution just hasn’t landed. Outside of Jayden Daniels, those picks haven’t produced impact players yet or at a minimum no stars.
And that matters. If even one of those other picks had turned into a clear difference-maker—or even just a very good player—the entire perception of that class shifts. But right now, it hasn’t happened. Maybe one emerges, sure. But today, it doesn’t feel like it.
Offseason 2:
The clear weaknesses coming out of Year 1 were: secondary, wide receiver, edge, and offensive line.
They chose to aggressively address two of those—O-line and corner—and effectively left WR and edge to chance.
I know you and I have disagreed on the WR piece before, but even the team’s own messaging doesn’t really support the idea that they fully addressed it. Keim has said multiple times:
A. They
knew they were leaving WR and DE partially unaddressed—that those rooms weren’t significantly upgraded.
B. They believed it would take
another offseason to fully build out the roster.
Unless Keim is completely off—which is rare let alone on points he's repeated in multiple podcasts—that’s basically an acknowledgment that they didn’t go all-in on fixing the roster in that cycle.
And the results reflect that. Just like in Year 1, there was a real effort to improve—but the impact hasn’t matched the opportunity. Those six top-100 picks (again, outside of Jayden) haven’t yielded difference-makers.
As for the positions they
did prioritize:
- O-line: clear progress, that worked.
- Secondary: major disappointment.
Offseason 3:
The remaining weaknesses were obvious: secondary, edge, and WR.
To their credit, they’ve attacked edge—and attacked it aggressively. I like that. It mirrors how they went after the O-line the year before.
But again, it’s not an all-hands-on-deck approach. There hasn’t been the same urgency at WR or in the secondary. It’s still selective, not comprehensive.
And at this point—Year 3—I don’t think Peters gets a pass for circling back to problems he already tried to fix and missed on. The secondary was a priority last year. It didn’t work. That’s not bad luck—that’s on him.
Same with the draft. If the 2024 class (outside of Jayden) hasn’t produced a star—or even a clearly high-end starter—that’s not leftover damage from Ron. That’s Peters’ class.
Could that change? Sure. Maybe one of those guys breaks out. Maybe they land someone like a Brandon Aiyuk–type addition and it hits big. But those are
possibilities, not results. Right now, they’re question marks.
And this is where I think the bigger philosophical difference comes in. I don’t see the same urgency here that you’re seeing from teams like Chicago or New England.
The Chicago Bears didn’t just fix one issue—they attacked everything. They rebuilt a bad O-line, then
flooded Caleb Williams with weapons. Their defense isn’t elite, but it’s opportunistic and better than ours.
The New England Patriots are doing the same. Stronger O-line (per PFF), potentially adding a top-tier receiver, deep WR room, multiple pass-catching tight ends, and a defense that went from bad to one of the better units.
That’s not “pick two spots and come back next year.” That’s “attack the roster—top to bottom—right now.”
And that’s really the core of my argument: It’s not about whether Peters has done
some good things. He has. It’s about whether the approach matches the moment—and whether “gradual improvement” is enough when you already have your quarterback and the window is open.
Right now, it feels like they’re still building like they’re searching for the QB. But they’re not anymore.
 }})
