WR Jermaine Kearse re-signs with Seahawks 3yrs/13.5m

[Ozzy]

The target drop ratio doesn't match the eye test. His drops seem to be at the worst possible times which might skew people's perception of his ability to catch as well. His third down drop against NE would of sealed that game for instance. Anyway I hate the post questioning people's fan status by asking if we cheered when he made a clutch play. Of course we did and being a little skeptical of this deal doesn't make someone less of a fan or mean we hate Kearse.....that's ridiculous.

 

[Largent80]

So a new home meant moving from Woodinville to Bellevue.

 

[SomersetHawk]

Local kid who came here undrafted and made good, catching some of the most important balls in franchise history. Nice story.

 

[Ozzy]

That I'll agree with. Good for Kearse and as a Huskies fan, knowing his story its a cool thing to see.

 

[penihawk]

First of all I love the fact that we signed Kearse back and I am guessing that if the details were fully explained by JS as to how it fits our cap scheme from year to year and their ability to move on when they need to there would be much less pissing & moaning?

Thanks to Vin,Kearly & many others for all the great reasons this makes sense compared to very little on why we should have let him walk. I thought before FA that there were three guys we needed back due to age,unique skillsets to our team and being able to afford them. Lane,Kearse & Rubin were those three and Shead was my 4th. I'm so glad the club saw it the same way.

I'm wondering who the worldbeater O-linemen are that we didnt get for the money spent on Kearse? I think the F/O never had a plan to shop for FA linemen til the dust settles and we get to pick through the 1 or 2 year rentals that were cap casualties or also rans. I look for us to take 2 or 3 O-linemen in the draft with the first 5 picks and fully expect a OT at 26 unless a defensive guy they are in love with fell to them. So far I would say JS & PC are having a great start to the new year considering the situation we are in. I wouldn't trade ours for any other team personally. Welcome home Jermaine! :th2thumbs:

 

[Ozzy]

Well losing okung at the cost of keeping Kearse? That's a valid question in regards to this deal.

 

[penihawk]

Ummmm, Yup! I've never been a fan and really didn't think there was that big of difference when fat lazy Bailey was playing for him half the time while he was hurt other than Bailey didn't get 3 false start penalties a game and kill offensive possessions. Besides we may get the bum back anyway.

 

[Hawknballs]

For all the 'meh I was hoping they would draft somebody' people, i'm not sure how a very cheap/modest WR contract to retain a veteran who knows your system who just helped your QB put up an incredible year and has come up with him keeps you from being able to draft anybody.

The only WR locks for the roster are Baldwin, Kearse, and Lockett.

Considering we were running guys out there like BJ Daniels in critical moments of important games last year, I doubt the FO is going to pass up on any stellar draft prospects that they deem a good fit just because Kearse is getting paid.

 

[truehawksfan]

Week 13
RW: 21-27 274 YDS, 3 TDS
RAWLS: 19 CARRIES, 101 YDS
BALDWIN: 5 REC, 94 YDS, 2 TDS
LOCKETT: 7 REC, 90 YDS
KEARSE: 1 REC, 0 YDS
TE's: 7 REC, 45 YDS, 1 TD

Week 14
RW: 23-32 292 YDS, 5 TDS
RUN GAME: 31 CARRIES, 121 YDS
BALDWIN: 6 REC, 82 YDS, 3 TDS
LOCKETT: 6 REC, 102 YDS, 2 TDS
KEARSE: 7 REC, 72 YDS, 0 TDS
TE's: 3 REC, 28 YDS, 0 TDS

Week 15
RW: 21-30, 249 YDS, 3 TDS
RUN GAME: 24 CARRIES, 137 YDS
BALDWIN: 4 REC, 45 YDS, 2 TDS
LOCKETT: 5 REC, 55 YDS, 1 TD
KEARSE: 7 REC, 110 YDS, 0 TD
TE's: 3 REC, 23 YDS, 0 TDS

Week 16 (LOSS -- RAMS)
RW: 25-41 289 YDS, 2 TDS
RUN GAME: 15 CARRIES, 26 YDS, 0 TDS
BALDWIN: 8 REC, 118 YDS, 1 TD
LOCKETT: 3 REC, 33 YDS, 0 TD
KEARSE: 3 REC, 38 YDS, 1 TD
TE's: 4 REC, 44 YDS, 0 TD

Week 17
RW: 19-28 197 YDS, 3 TDS
RUN GAME: 28 CARRIES, 128 YDS, 1 TD
BALDWIN: 5 REC, 45 YDS, 0 TD
LOCKETT: 2 REC, 36 YDS, 0 TD
KEARSE: 3 REC, 34 YDS, 1 TD
TE's: 8 REC, 71 YDS, 1 TD

PLAYOFF - CAROLINA
RW: 31-48 366 YDS, 3 TDS
RUN GAME: 9 CARRIES, 46 YDS, 0 TD
BALDWIN: 8 REC, 82 YDS, 0 TD
LOCKETT: 3 REC, 75 YDS, 1 TD
KEARSE: 11 REC, 110 YDS, 2 TDS
TE's: 4 REC, 54 YDS, O TDS

The reason why I choose week 13? No Jimmy Graham and no Beastmode. This is when the team put the offense on RW's shoulders and he responded.

There's a silly notion that this team will go spread and throw the ball all over the yard, but stats don't lie. They will still be balanced...with/without Beastmode or Rawls. When they don't run the ball, they lose.

Kearse is a major part of this offense. Stats and chemistry between him and RW is real. This is not Madden. This is not fantasy football. I am just sick and tired on this fantasy football mentality. STOP!

I don't care how anyone thinks about this deal. The bigger question is Graham. The offense took off without him and his mega contract. So, how do you sign a top tier O or Dlinemen? By paying him 4Mil a year or 9 Mil a year.

 

[crosfam]

Most posters keep referring to Kearse as our #3 or even potential #4. With this signing, and the evidence over the last few years, Kearse is our solid #2. Locket is amazing, but he is our #3 wildcard receiver (as apposed to wildcat). He shocks the defense that way. Things may change down the road but that is what I see.

Everybody used to say ADB was a good #2 or #3 a few years ago.

 

[Hawkfan77]

Well losing okung at the cost of keeping Kearse? That's a valid question in regards to this deal.

How so?

That's a stretch

 

[McGruff]

For the sake of comparison this contract is slightly smaller than what Rishard Matthews got and slightly larger than what Chris Hogan just received for the Patriots. Both players have similar, most identical, regular season production as Kearse.

But Kearse had the best year in 2015 and has been a productive postseason player.

This is the market.

 

[Fade]

Well losing okung at the cost of keeping Kearse? That's a valid question in regards to this deal.

I think what happened is Seattle went after Okung, and got outbid. Now the Seahawks are in the middle of enacting plan B. Which is go after a cheaper LT solution, and thus leaving enough money in their budget for Kearse.

I woke up this morning, and I still don't like it. Unless the contract for Kearse is a super low cap number for '16, with no dead money for '17 & '18 so you can cut him if necessary. Basically a 1 yr rental deal, dressed up as a 3 yr deal. That's the only way it's a good signing. If it isn't structured this way, this will cost Seattle a good player down the road.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Well losing okung at the cost of keeping Kearse? That's a valid question in regards to this deal.

Who cares if we lose Okung....Im ready to move on. What good is he if he is always playing injured or out with injury or when he is actually playing commiting penalties and getting beat

I guarantee Kearse is actually worth his contract as opposed to what Okung will get. I will not be shocked if Okung gets 10+ million and he is def not worth that

 

[McGruff]

Well losing okung at the cost of keeping Kearse? That's a valid question in regards to this deal.

Even if we do, I understand. The model is to re-sign younger ascending players and let older declining players walk. Kearse is the former, Okung is the later.

Besides, I doubt Kearse will be a barrier to Okung. The team has a price on Okung that fits within their plan. If his market fits their price, they'll bring him back. If it doesn't they won't.

 

[McGruff]

Most posters keep referring to Kearse as our #3 or even potential #4. With this signing, and the evidence over the last few years, Kearse is our solid #2. Locket is amazing, but he is our #3 wildcard receiver (as apposed to wildcat). He shocks the defense that way. Things may change down the road but that is what I see.

Everybody used to say ADB was a good #2 or #3 a few years ago.

The paradigm that still needs to take place is thinking there are only 2 starting WR's per team. The top 3 are starters. End of story. Almost no one trots a FB out there with any regularity, even Seattle. 3 wide or 2 TE is now considered base IMO.

 

[hieroglyphics]

What a bunch of complainers. All of you get spoiled with great on-field play by some of our players and then think their skill set can be easily replaced. I remember the days of Darrell Jackson and Koren Robinson where they'd drop EVERYTHING. So what, we marginally overpay to keep a guy around whose a local kid, great performer on the field, and has great chemistry with our QB.

We had the best receiving core I've ever seen for the Seattle Seahawks in my lifetime last year, and retaining the 3rd piece of it for what is not really a big chunk of the cap seems like a great deal.

We have a top 5 receiving core for next year, MAINTAINING a team strength, especially when we're deplete at running back and OL seems like a no brainer.

I'd rather work on the OL through the draft and keep our WR core together, which next year could be our best unit on both sides of the field, and having a competitive advantage rather than using it to bring in two okay OL. That money was never going to be used on a star OL man, therefore I think it was a great deal.

 

[Fade]

What a bunch of complainers. All of you get spoiled with great on-field play by some of our players and then think their skill set can be easily replaced. I remember the days of Darrell Jackson and Koren Robinson where they'd drop EVERYTHING. So what, we marginally overpay to keep a guy around whose a local kid, great performer on the field, and has great chemistry with our QB.

We had the best receiving core I've ever seen for the Seattle Seahawks in my lifetime last year, and retaining the 3rd piece of it for what is not really a big chunk of the cap seems like a great deal.

We have a top 5 receiving core for next year, MAINTAINING a team strength, especially when we're deplete at running back and OL seems like a no brainer.

I'd rather work on the OL through the draft and keep our WR core together, which next year could be our best unit on both sides of the field, and having a competitive advantage rather than using it to bring in two okay OL. That money was never going to be used on a star OL man, therefore I think it was a great deal.

That is gimped in a run heavy offense.

 

[HawkGA]

I'm happy for Kearse, but I'm not really a fan of the deal. To me it's not an overpay/underpay thing so much as we simply have other areas of need and we actually have okay depth at the WR position. I'd like to see a Baldwin extension and go into the season with Baldwin, Lockett, and then good ol' competition for the rest of the WR slots. To me it feels like Kearse is more of a luxury and I'm not sure the team can afford that luxury.

 

[Seymour]

Ya, I suppose we could have put some of that $$ toward retaining Okung, let Kearse go then still needed another L tackle anyway after Okung misses his typical 4 or so games a year.

If Okung isn't giving a false start / injury prone discount, then we would be overpaying for him as well. I'd rather over pay Kearse slightly (if at all) @ 4.5 than Okung @ 9-10 and still need a solid backup for when he get injured again.