Terrelle Pryor wanted a one-year deal

Getty Images

Terrelle Pryor could have signed a four-year deal with the Browns. He opted for a one-year deal with Washington.

“It’s something that we asked for, myself and my agents, for a one-year deal,” Pryor told Dan Patrick on Tuesday. “It’s kind of like a ‘prove it’ deal almost to a certain extent. I think a lot of people are thinking that this is a one-trick pony, like a one-time thing. You know, just out of nowhere I could catch 79 balls or whatever and go over 1,000 yards. I got a lot to prove and I really can’t wait. I look forward to it.”

Having Kirk Cousins (assuming he’s not traded to, you know, Cleveland) will help Pryor reach his ceiling as a receiver, wherever it may be. The closer he gets to it in 2017, the more likely his next contract will carry more years and/or more money.

That said, more players should push for shorter-term deals. Given that the four- and five-year contracts are typically one- or two-year deals with an annual team option for the rest, anyone who is playing in year three, four, or five of a contract arguably is underpaid — because if the player was overpaid, the contract would be torn up.

Regardless, then, of whether a player is trying to prove himself, it makes sense to do shorter deals and to keep going back to the free-agency trough, especially with the salary cap spiking and no player contracts accounting for that by giving a player a percentage of the total spending allotment.

13 responses to “Terrelle Pryor wanted a one-year deal

  1. He knows the Giants wanted him and couldn’t fit him until they came to terms with JP.

    Next season, they will be able to offer him what he wants, at the terms that both can agree upon IF he excels like he probably should in that offense.

  2. Isn’t every NFL contract essentially a one year deal? There’s rarely guaranteed money except for signing bonuses.

  3. Not a bad rental for the Redskins at the price. I wish they could’ve locked him for one more year. Then again, this team doesn’t really know how to plan for the future all that well :/

  4. It’s a risk, but not an unreasonable one. I’m sure he knows that if he gets stuck with the wrong QB (with QB situations in both Cleveland and Washington dubious at best) it could be a career-killer for him.

    If he makes a big splash in the NFC East, it could set him up for a big contract the following year.

    Maybe Cleveland will turn out to be a place that would have been great for him, but emptying out the QB room isn’t exactly a good selling point for any potential free-agent offensive skill players.

  5. There’s a very obvious reason why more guys don’t want shorter deals. Who wants to have to move every 2-3 years? Especially if you have a young family. Even if you’re single, stability is nice.

    Granted a lot of guys end up bouncing around regardless of their best laid plans, but if you had the option which would you pick?

  6. As a Brown’s fan I wish Pryor the best. He was a shining light on an otherwise dull season.

    As for the deal with the Redskins, I strongly believe he went that direction because the Brown’s offered more but for mire security.

    Pryor should fire his agent because his “prove it” deal has extremely challenging incentive language to reach 8m and in reality is only a 6m deal.

  7. Last year was a ”prove it” year for Pryor, and he did. Wanting a one-year deal makes no sense….unless it became clear that’s all the market was offering.

  8. if he wanted money hed take the offer browns put on the table…shame on his agent! but best of luck in Washington pryor always thought u where a class act in cleveland

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.