austinslater25":2x6dfals said:
So all the questions I got asked on why I was against the Kearse signing initially this is why. Mathis would of been a nice piece to add to the line in its complete reshuffle. The two guys we just signed were graded deadlast by PFF. I hope they see something glaring that is easily remedied.
When Mathis was available last Summer, Seattle's interest in him was such that they couldn't beat Denver's meager $2.5 million offer. And that was when Mathis was a year younger than he is right now.
It's not a bad signing by Arizona but they definitely paid good money. $6 million is a generous offer for a 35 year old ZBS guard.
And even if Seattle did want Mathis for $6 million, they had enough room to sign him for that much and still stay in the hunt for Russell Okung. It's not like signing Kearse cost them Mathis.
Mathis is a solid addition for Arizona, but the evidence leads me to conclude that he wasn't really on Seattle's radar.
As for Kearse, he's statistically a very good value on his new contract. He's a better WR than Marvin Jones and is making about half as much money. Until Graham recovers or Richardson proves durability, Kearse will remain one of the team's top three receivers in an offense that runs a ton of three WR sets. Kearse might be expendable in 2017, but he's still needed right now. And if he does become expendable in the future, his contract is easy to get out of and easy to trade.
Seattle didn't break the bank to keep Kearse. Rather, they brought him back on a series of team friendly one year options to help hedge their bets in a receiving corps where he might be the only guy you can count all that much to stay healthy.