How bad was Kearse this year?

[KiwiHawk]

2: "and for those who say his blocking is good. what good is being able to block when our line is so terrible that the running back is getting tackled for a 3 yard loss every time"
This one is simply ridiculous. Kearse is a wide receiver, who blocks defensive backs on the second level, not a fullback. Three yards in the backfield is not second level. The statement demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what WR blocking is about, and almost stopped me from reading the rest of this thread in disgust. This used to be a board where people understood football. Now, not only does this sort of statement get made, but it then gets quoted for truth instead of debunked. Absurd.

This response is absurd, I think you fundamentally did not understand what he is saying. He is basically saying "What is so great about having Kearse's downfield blocking when the RB is getting crushed behind the line because our OLine sucks." This isn't a criticism of Kearse's role as a blocker, it's saying the importance isn't that high on the pecking order due to how bad the oline is.

Your response to my response to the absurd response is also absurd. Kearse doesn't block for the running back unless the play goes spectacularly well. Kearse blocks for his fellow receivers. On short passes, bubble screens, reverses, etc., Kearse is the guy who gets called upon to block. it's part of the quick passing game necessitated by our poor OL.

 

[KiwiHawk]

He might have all the right attributes that coaches look for in a teammate but what accounts for what we just saw and how does the team potentially mitigate it going forward?

I don't understand.

How do you mitigate the QB throwing the ball away? Better OL seems to be the consensus opinion.

How do you keep Wilson from throwing Kearse's way when he's getting rid of the ball? Dunno - maybe ask him to pick on someone else, or run with it, or buy more time for him by improving the OL? Make tell Kearse to be worse at finding space when the play breaks down to sandlot football?

How do you get Kearse higher up the read order? Maybe not use him as a blocker or pick so often. Being the pick means there are guys in his vicinity (have to be, he just scraped them off the hot receiver). Being covered so closely, he's assumed not to be open in the route - at least initially. Once the play breaks down, he's got a good rapport with Wilson, so Wilson does tend to look his way (while running around like a headless chook about to be tackled and often throwing inaccurately because of said pressure).

Kearse isn't always out there to get the catches, so maybe it's just a matter of the fans understanding his role better.

 

[razor150]

2: "and for those who say his blocking is good. what good is being able to block when our line is so terrible that the running back is getting tackled for a 3 yard loss every time"
This one is simply ridiculous. Kearse is a wide receiver, who blocks defensive backs on the second level, not a fullback. Three yards in the backfield is not second level. The statement demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what WR blocking is about, and almost stopped me from reading the rest of this thread in disgust. This used to be a board where people understood football. Now, not only does this sort of statement get made, but it then gets quoted for truth instead of debunked. Absurd.

This response is absurd, I think you fundamentally did not understand what he is saying. He is basically saying "What is so great about having Kearse's downfield blocking when the RB is getting crushed behind the line because our OLine sucks." This isn't a criticism of Kearse's role as a blocker, it's saying the importance isn't that high on the pecking order due to how bad the oline is.

Your response to my response to the absurd response is also absurd. Kearse doesn't block for the running back unless the play goes spectacularly well. Kearse blocks for his fellow receivers. On short passes, bubble screens, reverses, etc., Kearse is the guy who gets called upon to block.

On a run 1st team a receivers ability to block is an extremely important because it can be the difference from a big run and one that just nets a little more than average. Especially when running to the outside, or a team that sets up cutbacks that could go outside. A receiver on our team likely blocks a lot more for a RB than he does for a WR.

Also, as with what you're saying, downfield blocking for a WR on a pass play only happens when a pass play goes really well and the receiver isn't immediately tackled by the CB covering them. The Seahawks as a team only averaged 5 YAC, the team with the highest was just over 6. If you think he is doing enough blocking downfield for receivers to necessitate a roster spot then I don't know what to say.

 

[mrt144]

He might have all the right attributes that coaches look for in a teammate but what accounts for what we just saw and how does the team potentially mitigate it going forward?

I don't understand.

How do you mitigate the QB throwing the ball away? Better OL seems to be the consensus opinion.

How do you keep Wilson from throwing Kearse's way when he's getting rid of the ball? Dunno - maybe ask him to pick on someone else, or run with it, or buy more time for him by improving the OL? Make tell Kearse to be worse at finding space when the play breaks down to sandlot football?

How do you get Kearse higher up the read order? Maybe not use him as a blocker or pick so often. Being the pick means there are guys in his vicinity (have to be, he just scraped them off the hot receiver). Being covered so closely, he's assumed not to be open in the route - at least initially. Once the play breaks down, he's got a good rapport with Wilson, so Wilson does tend to look his way (while running around like a headless chook about to be tackled and often throwing inaccurately because of said pressure).

Kearse isn't always out there to get the catches, so maybe it's just a matter of the fans understanding his role better.

He was third in targets on the team though. That doesn't seem to jibe with the strong belief that he is a role player that is mostly there to not catch passes. Nor does it jibe with his previous work actually catching passes in the same role he's been in. Or any other reciever's work on the team both concurrent and previous.

 

[AustrianHawk]

Didn't even remember that he played, duh.

 

[KiwiHawk]

He was third in targets on the team though. That doesn't seem to jibe with the strong belief that he is a role player that is mostly there to not catch passes. Nor does it jibe with his previous work actually catching passes in the same role he's been in. Or any other reciever's work on the team both concurrent and previous.

That's a silly stat. He's third in targets because other guys weren't out there all year. If Lockett was healthy all year, the top 3 would be different. If Richardson started all year, the top 3 would be different. Hell, if Prosise was there all year the top 3 would look different.

Kearse's role as a receiver has diminished because of the ascendance of others, but he's still out there performing his role as an enabler/decoy.

 

[mrt144]

He was third in targets on the team though. That doesn't seem to jibe with the strong belief that he is a role player that is mostly there to not catch passes. Nor does it jibe with his previous work actually catching passes in the same role he's been in. Or any other reciever's work on the team both concurrent and previous.

That's a silly stat. He's third in targets because other guys weren't out there all year. If Lockett was healthy all year, the top 3 would be different. If Richardson started all year, the top 3 would be different. Hell, if Prosise was there all year the top 3 would look different.

Kearse's role as a receiver has diminished because of the ascendance of others, but he's still out there performing his role as an enabler/decoy.

So unlike Baldwin, his performance doesn't stay intact when his volume rises and he can't fulfill the role that Lockett does but he seemingly was thrust into that role numerous times and in spite of Richardson being a better fit at it.

Maybe we're getting somewhere.

1. RW could have done better actually hitting passes to Kearse and Kearse alone
2. Kearse could have done better playing in a role he isn't suited for
3. Bevell could have used different personnel at times to compensate for the loss of Lockett but didn't.

 

[Seymour]

Wilson to Kearse is not all on Wilson either. Kearse was likely the #3 in progression much of that time. By the time Russell finds Kearse, the heat was on and little to no time left (back to oline problems). So, of course that will mean many crappy off target throws, and there were no doubt quite a few that I remember.

 

[sdog1981]

I think Kearse is a "scramble" WR. He will never beat coverage by running the smoothest routes or be faster/stronger than another player. He was kind of only good when the team would play more of a sandlot style of football.

 

[mrt144]

Wilson to Kearse is not all on Wilson either. Kearse was likely the #3 in progression much of that time. By the time Russell finds Kearse, the heat was on and little to no time left (back to oline problems). So, of course that will mean many crappy off target throws, and there were no doubt quite a few that I remember.

Check out this Red Zone Action. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... plays/2016

I'm gonna fire up the all-22 and see what's up. 50 bucks right now until august 1st.

 

[sdog1981]

Wilson to Kearse is not all on Wilson either. Kearse was likely the #3 in progression much of that time. By the time Russell finds Kearse, the heat was on and little to no time left (back to oline problems). So, of course that will mean many crappy off target throws, and there were no doubt quite a few that I remember.

Check out this Red Zone Action. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... plays/2016

I'm gonna fire up the all-22 and see what's up. 50 bucks right now until august 1st.

The last 14 passes to him have been incomplete? Good god he was awful this season.

 

[mrt144]

Wilson to Kearse is not all on Wilson either. Kearse was likely the #3 in progression much of that time. By the time Russell finds Kearse, the heat was on and little to no time left (back to oline problems). So, of course that will mean many crappy off target throws, and there were no doubt quite a few that I remember.

Check out this Red Zone Action. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... plays/2016

I'm gonna fire up the all-22 and see what's up. 50 bucks right now until august 1st.

The last 14 passes to him have been incomplete? Good god he was awful this season.

Make sure the date sort is right

 

[theincrediblesok]

2013 - He replaced Sidney when he was injured and did well down the stretch, but he was at best our 3rd-4th option because the fear of our running game. We had Tate, Doug, and Sidney at the time playing very well. Not to mention Wilson's and Marshawn's threat. Don't forget Zach Miller doing some damage. We had alot of weapons if you think about it.

2014 - Kearse takes over Sidney's spot, has a rough season only 1 TD, good CBs were able to cover him. Full attention was on him as a starter.

2015 - With the threat of Jimmy Graham and Tyler, Kearse was again able to produce, he did great as our 4th-5th option, teams were too afraid of the Graham and Tyler effect and the emergence of Rawls.

2016 - Jimmy was coming back from an injury and Tyler somehow suffered an injury which put a stop to his speed for awhile until later in the season and then that horrible leg injury happened, but during this time we went back to Kearse to help start. Kearse was getting most of the opportunity so we can let Tyler heal. Our run game was just ok with Christine/Rawls early and again good CBs were able to play well against Kearse. Jimmy who was getting double coverage, so it left Kearse with man to man so I understand why Wilson had to go to him. What I miss is the back shoulder throw to Kearse, always liked those, we barely did it this year it seemed it was mostly contested jump balls.

So next year I bet you anything as long as we have healthy Jimmy, Doug, Lockett, Paul Richardson, probably a better season from Rawls, Kearse will be our 4th-5th option and will once again put up a great stat line with at least 4-5 TD for the season.

 

[classicaaron]

2: "and for those who say his blocking is good. what good is being able to block when our line is so terrible that the running back is getting tackled for a 3 yard loss every time"
This one is simply ridiculous. Kearse is a wide receiver, who blocks defensive backs on the second level, not a fullback. Three yards in the backfield is not second level. The statement demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what WR blocking is about, and almost stopped me from reading the rest of this thread in disgust. This used to be a board where people understood football. Now, not only does this sort of statement get made, but it then gets quoted for truth instead of debunked. Absurd.

This response is absurd, I think you fundamentally did not understand what he is saying. He is basically saying "What is so great about having Kearse's downfield blocking when the RB is getting crushed behind the line because our OLine sucks." This isn't a criticism of Kearse's role as a blocker, it's saying the importance isn't that high on the pecking order due to how bad the oline is.

thank you for grasping exactly what I was saying, didn't think it was that difficult. Kearse is a good a blocker but we didn't need a good blocker this year because he never had much of chance to use it so what does it matter. id rather have a receiver that can get separation and make some catches downfield. pretty sure a 10 or 15 yard catch by a better receiver would be better than him blocking to get the RB 5 extra yards the one time a game he breaks one. in a run first offense with Marshawn getting nice runs all game long his blocking was needed and he warranted a spot on the field. this year with a 60% pass ratio and not getting any good runs it was just a waste of a spot.

and for those saying he fielded the decoy spot, a good offense shouldn't even have a decoy. do you think the packers have players out there for decoys, haha yeah right. and even if that was his sole purpose, how much of a decoy can you be when the defenders know hes terrible and wont make much impact anyways. not like hes drawing double coverages or safety help like Lockette would get cause there afraid they might get beat deep.

 

[RussB]

He wasnt good at all. He is not a number 2 reciever.

 

[KiwiHawk]

2: "and for those who say his blocking is good. what good is being able to block when our line is so terrible that the running back is getting tackled for a 3 yard loss every time"
This one is simply ridiculous. Kearse is a wide receiver, who blocks defensive backs on the second level, not a fullback. Three yards in the backfield is not second level. The statement demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what WR blocking is about, and almost stopped me from reading the rest of this thread in disgust. This used to be a board where people understood football. Now, not only does this sort of statement get made, but it then gets quoted for truth instead of debunked. Absurd.

This response is absurd, I think you fundamentally did not understand what he is saying. He is basically saying "What is so great about having Kearse's downfield blocking when the RB is getting crushed behind the line because our OLine sucks." This isn't a criticism of Kearse's role as a blocker, it's saying the importance isn't that high on the pecking order due to how bad the oline is.

thank you for grasping exactly what I was saying, didn't think it was that difficult. Kearse is a good a blocker but we didn't need a good blocker this year because he never had much of chance to use it so what does it matter. id rather have a receiver that can get separation and make some catches downfield. pretty sure a 10 or 15 yard catch by a better receiver would be better than him blocking to get the RB 5 extra yards the one time a game he breaks one. in a run first offense with Marshawn getting nice runs all game long his blocking was needed and he warranted a spot on the field. this year with a 60% pass ratio and not getting any good runs it was just a waste of a spot.

and for those saying he fielded the decoy spot, a good offense shouldn't even have a decoy. do you think the packers have players out there for decoys, haha yeah right. and even if that was his sole purpose, how much of a decoy can you be when the defenders know hes terrible and wont make much impact anyways. not like hes drawing double coverages or safety help like Lockette would get cause there afraid they might get beat deep.

Once again, pass blocking isn't run blocking. By the time a receiver has to block for a running back, it's already a wildly successful play, and I agree it's a rare opportunity, particularly when a lot of our running yards come between the tackles.

However, we have a guy named Bevel calling the plays, and as long as he is calling them, we will be running bubble screens if for no other reason than to force the corner to respect the double move. We also run reverses, pitches, bootlegs, etc. that involve a runner out on the edge where someone needs to lock up the cornerback or safety. The offensive line isn't going to get there. Willson and Graham have not been spectacular blockers. Who is going to set the block to free the edge?

Baldwin is the guy catching the pass, Lockett and Richardson are too slight to be effective blockers, and McEvoy hasn't broken the lineup very often. That leaves exactly who to set the blocks out there?

 

[Rat]

He wasnt good at all. He is not a number 2 reciever.

I thought he was our most Number 2 receiver.

 

[mrt144]

2: "and for those who say his blocking is good. what good is being able to block when our line is so terrible that the running back is getting tackled for a 3 yard loss every time"
This one is simply ridiculous. Kearse is a wide receiver, who blocks defensive backs on the second level, not a fullback. Three yards in the backfield is not second level. The statement demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what WR blocking is about, and almost stopped me from reading the rest of this thread in disgust. This used to be a board where people understood football. Now, not only does this sort of statement get made, but it then gets quoted for truth instead of debunked. Absurd.

This response is absurd, I think you fundamentally did not understand what he is saying. He is basically saying "What is so great about having Kearse's downfield blocking when the RB is getting crushed behind the line because our OLine sucks." This isn't a criticism of Kearse's role as a blocker, it's saying the importance isn't that high on the pecking order due to how bad the oline is.

thank you for grasping exactly what I was saying, didn't think it was that difficult. Kearse is a good a blocker but we didn't need a good blocker this year because he never had much of chance to use it so what does it matter. id rather have a receiver that can get separation and make some catches downfield. pretty sure a 10 or 15 yard catch by a better receiver would be better than him blocking to get the RB 5 extra yards the one time a game he breaks one. in a run first offense with Marshawn getting nice runs all game long his blocking was needed and he warranted a spot on the field. this year with a 60% pass ratio and not getting any good runs it was just a waste of a spot.

and for those saying he fielded the decoy spot, a good offense shouldn't even have a decoy. do you think the packers have players out there for decoys, haha yeah right. and even if that was his sole purpose, how much of a decoy can you be when the defenders know hes terrible and wont make much impact anyways. not like hes drawing double coverages or safety help like Lockette would get cause there afraid they might get beat deep.

Once again, pass blocking isn't run blocking. By the time a receiver has to block for a running back, it's already a wildly successful play, and I agree it's a rare opportunity, particularly when a lot of our running yards come between the tackles.

However, we have a guy named Bevel calling the plays, and as long as he is calling them, we will be running bubble screens if for no other reason than to force the corner to respect the double move. We also run reverses, pitches, bootlegs, etc. that involve a runner out on the edge where someone needs to lock up the cornerback or safety. The offensive line isn't going to get there. Willson and Graham have not been spectacular blockers. Who is going to set the block to free the edge?

Baldwin is the guy catching the pass, Lockett and Richardson are too slight to be effective blockers, and McEvoy hasn't broken the lineup very often. That leaves exactly who to set the blocks out there?

JFG. But Bevell would prefer to use him to chip block at times so he fits into the mold of a Zach Miller.

And everything you wrote makes me more mad at Bevell - what good are double moves if the O Line can't consistently block for a play involving double moves? If you're putting in all this legwork with average value bubble screens to set up other high value high variance plays, you can't allow half your opportunities with high value high variance plays to go down in flames with a sack. At times it feels like Bevell and by extension Pete gameplan around the roster they wish they had rather than the one they do.

 

[billyberu]

He wasnt good at all. He is not a number 2 reciever.

I thought he was our most Number 2 receiver.

I see what you did there.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[Siouxhawk]

This response is absurd, I think you fundamentally did not understand what he is saying. He is basically saying "What is so great about having Kearse's downfield blocking when the RB is getting crushed behind the line because our OLine sucks." This isn't a criticism of Kearse's role as a blocker, it's saying the importance isn't that high on the pecking order due to how bad the oline is.

thank you for grasping exactly what I was saying, didn't think it was that difficult. Kearse is a good a blocker but we didn't need a good blocker this year because he never had much of chance to use it so what does it matter. id rather have a receiver that can get separation and make some catches downfield. pretty sure a 10 or 15 yard catch by a better receiver would be better than him blocking to get the RB 5 extra yards the one time a game he breaks one. in a run first offense with Marshawn getting nice runs all game long his blocking was needed and he warranted a spot on the field. this year with a 60% pass ratio and not getting any good runs it was just a waste of a spot.

and for those saying he fielded the decoy spot, a good offense shouldn't even have a decoy. do you think the packers have players out there for decoys, haha yeah right. and even if that was his sole purpose, how much of a decoy can you be when the defenders know hes terrible and wont make much impact anyways. not like hes drawing double coverages or safety help like Lockette would get cause there afraid they might get beat deep.

Once again, pass blocking isn't run blocking. By the time a receiver has to block for a running back, it's already a wildly successful play, and I agree it's a rare opportunity, particularly when a lot of our running yards come between the tackles.

However, we have a guy named Bevel calling the plays, and as long as he is calling them, we will be running bubble screens if for no other reason than to force the corner to respect the double move. We also run reverses, pitches, bootlegs, etc. that involve a runner out on the edge where someone needs to lock up the cornerback or safety. The offensive line isn't going to get there. Willson and Graham have not been spectacular blockers. Who is going to set the block to free the edge?

Baldwin is the guy catching the pass, Lockett and Richardson are too slight to be effective blockers, and McEvoy hasn't broken the lineup very often. That leaves exactly who to set the blocks out there?

JFG. But Bevell would prefer to use him to chip block at times so he fits into the mold of a Zach Miller.

And everything you wrote makes me more mad at Bevell - what good are double moves if the O Line can't consistently block for a play involving double moves? If you're putting in all this legwork with average value bubble screens to set up other high value high variance plays, you can't allow half your opportunities with high value high variance plays to go down in flames with a sack. At times it feels like Bevell and by extension Pete gameplan around the roster they wish they had rather than the one they do.

But you don't run plays going in believing that your O line is going to fail. You have to have the catchy Belichick mindset that everyone is going to DO THEIR JOB. And all kiwi is saying is that Kearse has done a decent job of doing the dirty work on the second level that has created explosive plays for us. And we know how much our head coach loves explosive plays. It's part of his formula.