Jermaine Kearse won't give hometown discount to Seahawks

[Sgt. Largent]

Let's say he gets 3-4 million from Seattle. Richardson is easily the more talented guy. If he is healthy he could easily beat Kearse out at some point. Do you want to pay 4 million for your #4? His value is in being a contingency for Richardson. For 3-4 million I would rather gamble on a drafted guy, Smith, Williams etc and put t 3-4 million into the line or somewhere else. I think that's the direction the Seahawks will go.

Pulling for him to get paid though, he's worked hard.

I think you're on the right track. Sign Kearse, but nothing's guaranteed.............if Richardson and other receivers in camp jump up and compete with Kearse for his job? See ya.

IMO Richardson not being able to make it back was a bigger deal than people thought. How awesome would our passing game be with Kearse and Baldwin inside and Richardson and Lockett on the outside not allowing safeties to help over the top on TWO go patterns? That'd put a lot of pressure on a D.

 

[WilsonMVP]

If all of our receivers were healthy and you had to assemble a 4-WR set, who would be your guys? That should tell you if we should pay starter money for Kearse.

For me, the 4-WR formation would feature Baldwin, Lockett, Richardson, and Graham.

Kearse is a good enough receiver, but we have better guys ahead of him. His main value comes as a contingency for Richardson.

I agree with all of this. Baldwin and Lockett SHOULD and most likely will be our #1 and #2 WRs. Graham if you have him on the field in a 4WR set SHOULD be out there as well which leaves Richardson/Kearse or whoever else as that 4th WR

 

[WilsonMVP]

Just throwing this out there again:

In four seasons with the Seahawks, he has caught 112 passes for 1,599 yards and 10 touchdowns.

Per season averages:

28 receptions
400 yards
2.5 TD

I don't mean to bag on Jermaine Kearse, because I have supported him throughout his time here, and want him to be on this team moving forward. I think him and Russ have a lot of trust with each other, and he is a serviceable No. 3. He's a very good No. 4 receiver.

But even for a team that hasn't passed the ball a whole lot, those numbers are mediocre. When I look at those numbers, I think of a No. 2 TE on a team with a middle of the pack passing offense. He's made some insanely clutch catches for us, and has also dropped some huge catches as well.

I don't see a team, unless they're just starved for a player that has significant playoff/SB experience, paying him much more than he earned with the Seahawks in 2015 ($2.4M). But who knows, maybe a team will throw him three or four years at $12-15M? In that case, I wouldn't mind if the Seahawks let him go elsewhere. He's still just 25, which is kind of hard to believe, and that will garner some interest.

I'm all for Jermaine maximizing his earning potential. He deserves it. He doesn't owe Seattle a hometown discount. By all accounts, he is an average to slightly above average NFL WR, so his future earning power isn't huge - at all. And if I'm him, I'm doing the same thing, especially for his reasons - he's worked hard, and he wants to help secure the future of his family.

I hope he stays, but will understand if he goes.

Look at his playoff numbers in just the 8 games he had a target though.....

28 catches on 45 targets 471 yards, 6 TD.......

Baldwin in the playoffs
39 catches on 56 targets 518 yards 4TD....

Tate in the playoffs when he was here only had 200ish yards and 1 TD

He has more TDs than Baldwin AND Tate in the playoffs and I am pretty sure he is the Franchise leader in receiving TDs in the postseason but correct me if im wrong. In league history he is tied 26th ALL TIME for TD receptions

If we can retain him for 3-4 mil I think its def worth it. It will be interesting to see how much he makes though since his regular season numbers arent great. He is also about a year and a half younger than Baldwin even though they have been in the league the same time.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Assuming Kearse gets 3-4M average per year, I would've rather re-signed G.Tate for 6M per.

Seems to me (noob) that they'd be better off using this money on the OL instead of Kearse.

If we resigned Tate, we wouldn't have traded up to draft Lockett..........and Tate is set to make 7.3M, 8.3M and over 9M the next 3 years.

Kearse has "pedestrian" numbers, but that's not his value to this team. He has been clutch, especially in the playoffs. So there's some value there.

Having said that, I would not give him north of 3M a year.

 

[Tech Worlds]

Assuming Kearse gets 3-4M average per year, I would've rather re-signed G.Tate for 6M per.

Seems to me (noob) that they'd be better off using this money on the OL instead of Kearse.

If we resigned Tate, we wouldn't have traded up to draft Lockett..........and Tate is set to make 7.3M, 8.3M and over 9M the next 3 years.

Kearse has "pedestrian" numbers, but that's not his value to this team. He has been clutch, especially in the playoffs. So there's some value there.

Having said that, I would not give him north of 3M a year.

If we resigned Tate we are probably back to back Champs.

 

[jammerhawk]

Kearse will get a Doug Baldwin type offer from the team if that isn't enough he'll be allowed to move on. i could see the team trying to keep him if they could but they won't break the bank.

 

[Hasselbeck]

The Hawks have to be moving on from guys not on rookie deals.

Our overall depth as a team has taken a hit because we haven't drafted many replacements and our starters have gotten a lot more expensive so we can't afford high quality depth.

Draft another WR, sign another UDFA WR (we've actually had more luck with them than drafted WRs) give a little more attention to the fringe WRs in developing them, and hope that Richardson stays healthy until Graham gets back.

The Hawks will need to pick up another TE receiving option better than Helfet and Coffman anyway, so that's a little extra receiving help that we didn't have after Graham went down.

The Hawks probably won't replace Kearse with someone who makes as many memorable catches, but up until this season Kearse was very spotty. Besides, if the Hawks improve their poor 1st half offense we won't need many awesome catches in the 4th quarter.

he was predominantly brought in to be our KR/PR for the next decade. The WR thing was a pleasant surprise.

Why would you think this? Before the draft even began, analysts were comparing him to Antonio Brown, giving breakdowns on how great of a WR he is.

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=ch ... io%20brown

I'm sure JS knew what he was doing when he traded up to get him. Would JS give up all those picks if he thought Lockett was just a valuable KR/PR?

I'd have to dig up the quote but Bevell basically said they didn't expect much out of him as a WR this early on.

And yes JS absolutely would have done that deal just to secure a Pro Bowl return man. We were never going to use all those picks last year and there's no way every pick would have made the roster.

 

[massari]

Assuming Kearse gets 3-4M average per year, I would've rather re-signed G.Tate for 6M per.

Seems to me (noob) that they'd be better off using this money on the OL instead of Kearse.

If we resigned Tate, we wouldn't have traded up to draft Lockett..........and Tate is set to make 7.3M, 8.3M and over 9M the next 3 years.

Tate has an average salary of 6.2M with the Lions. I'm guessing the Hawks could've got him for slightly cheaper than that.

They may or may not have traded up for Lockett, but the point was value wise I'd rather have Tate at 6M per over Kearse at 3-4M per.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Assuming Kearse gets 3-4M average per year, I would've rather re-signed G.Tate for 6M per.

Seems to me (noob) that they'd be better off using this money on the OL instead of Kearse.

If we resigned Tate, we wouldn't have traded up to draft Lockett..........and Tate is set to make 7.3M, 8.3M and over 9M the next 3 years.

Tate has an average salary of 6.2M with the Lions. I'm guessing the Hawks could've got him for slightly cheaper than that.

They may or may not have traded up for Lockett, but the point was value wise I'd rather have Tate at 6M per over Kearse at 3-4M per.

The Hawks did try to get him slightly cheaper and he balked.

Tate has nothing to do with Jermaine Kearse. This is a pointless conversation

 

[massari]

Assuming Kearse gets 3-4M average per year, I would've rather re-signed G.Tate for 6M per.

Seems to me (noob) that they'd be better off using this money on the OL instead of Kearse.

If we resigned Tate, we wouldn't have traded up to draft Lockett..........and Tate is set to make 7.3M, 8.3M and over 9M the next 3 years.

Tate has an average salary of 6.2M with the Lions. I'm guessing the Hawks could've got him for slightly cheaper than that.

They may or may not have traded up for Lockett, but the point was value wise I'd rather have Tate at 6M per over Kearse at 3-4M per.

Tate has nothing to do with Jermaine Kearse. This is a pointless conversation

Could've sworn they both played WR for the Seattle Seahawks. Guess not.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Well if we want to compare the two tate was pretty bad in the postseason His only good game was against the Falcons. Outside of that game he played 6 other games with us and had 101 yards total

 

[massari]

Assuming Kearse gets 3-4M average per year, I would've rather re-signed G.Tate for 6M per.

Seems to me (noob) that they'd be better off using this money on the OL instead of Kearse.

If we resigned Tate, we wouldn't have traded up to draft Lockett..........and Tate is set to make 7.3M, 8.3M and over 9M the next 3 years.

Tate has an average salary of 6.2M with the Lions. I'm guessing the Hawks could've got him for slightly cheaper than that.

They may or may not have traded up for Lockett, but the point was value wise I'd rather have Tate at 6M per over Kearse at 3-4M per.

The Hawks did try to get him slightly cheaper and he balked.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -seahawks/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... laughable/

 

[Cyrus12]

Kearse will be lucky to get 5 or 6M per year somewhere else to be a #2 guy with a garbage QB throwing to him.

If Kearse can get that kind of money from any team...god bless him I will drive him to the airport! I am meh on the whole situation if he is back at a reasonable number fine...if he gets out for a big money deal and goes elsewhere then cant blame him. Good luck to him.

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

Kearse is gonna end up in New England!

 

[Cyrus12]

Kearse is gonna end up in New England!

you could be right actually

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

Assuming Kearse gets 3-4M average per year, I would've rather re-signed G.Tate for 6M per.

Seems to me (noob) that they'd be better off using this money on the OL instead of Kearse.

If we resigned Tate, we wouldn't have traded up to draft Lockett..........and Tate is set to make 7.3M, 8.3M and over 9M the next 3 years.

Kearse has "pedestrian" numbers, but that's not his value to this team. He has been clutch, especially in the playoffs. So there's some value there.

Having said that, I would not give him north of 3M a year.

If we resigned Tate we are probably back to back Champs.

This is probably true.

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

Kearse is gonna end up in New England!

you could be right actually

Let's just say, I've got a feeling.

 

[redhawk253]

Thats fine.. let him go.. lockett is better anyways.. maybe richardson can finally come back healthy.. grab a vet in fa.. draft someone.. kearse is overrated and a product of russell wilson more than he is actually a game breaker.. while the dude makes some crazy catches sometimes.. he kills drives with stupid easy drops at times and he is soooooo slow.. like ridiculously slow for a wr..

This is coming from a guy that went to uw.. like him as a person.. like his team first mantra.. but if he can get big money or even decent wr money on the open market i dont think we should consider coming close to it.. i think a 3 mill per year maybe 4 mill per avg max max of 3 years and only 5 or 6 mill guaranteed is all ya do with him. Just too many receivers in the league and even the draft that you can slide in behind lockett who is a better wr than kearse by a lot anyways

 

[Rob12]

At this point I'd honestly offer him three years for $8.5 to 9 million. If that's not enough, let him walk.

 

[Rob12]

Is an average of 28 catches, 400 yards, 3 TD worth that? He's been a good player. Not anywhere near great. I don't think defenses game plan around Jermaine Kearse. $2.5 - 3M should be enough. It really should. Dude is a borderline No. 3/4 in this league.