Examining whether the Seahawks will bring back fullback Marcel Reece.

Share story

Marcel Reece was on the Seahawks’ roster for just four regular games and both playoff games last season.

But his performance — especially his role as a lead blocker in the wild card win over Detroit — really seems to have resonated because I’m not sure I have gotten more questions about anything this off-season than whether the Seahawks will re-sign Reece at some point.

So I’m going to devote an entire mailbag post to that topic.

Q: Will the Seahawks re-sign fullback Marcell Reece?

A: It may be too early to tell.

Obviously, the Seahawks have yet to do so as Reece, who played at the University of Washington in 2006-07, remains unsigned — by Seattle or any of the other 31 teams.

But it’s worth remembering that veterans such as Reece — he’s been in the league 10 years and has eight official accrued seasons — are in a little bit different situation than younger players.

Seattle, recall, appears to have three fullbacks on its roster — Malcolm Johnson, a former member of the Cleveland Browns who was on Seattle’s practice squad much of last season after being waived by the Browns; Brandon Cottom, who was re-signed last week; and Algernon Brown, who has been reported to have agreed to terms to sign as an undrafted free agent (the Seahawks have yet to officially announce their UDFA signings and is thought that may not happen until later in the week when the players arrive for rookie mini-camp May 12-14 and sign their contracts).

The Seahawks would almost certainly keep just one fullback, so three players on a 90-man roster competing for one job may be all the team feels it needs.

But that wouldn’t necessarily mean Reece is done.

Recall further that last year when injuries hit the fullback spot — including to Cottom — the Seahawks brought back Will Tukuafu (who it may also be worth pointing out remains a free agent).

The hunch here is that Reece, who turns 32 in June, remains something of a similar insurance policy, a player the team knows it can probably sign at any time if needed — it may be worth remembering that Reece had been a free agent from Sept. 26, 2016, when he was released by the Raiders, until Dec. 5 when he signed with the Seahawks.

The Seahawks may feel it more important to get a good look at younger players in the off-season, already knowing what a veteran like Reece can do.

Also at play are NFL economics.

As a veteran of eight accrued seasons, the minimum the Seahawks can offer Reece is $900,000 — Johnson has a contract for $615,000 (the minimum for a second-year vet) and Cottom’s is $465,000 (the NFL minimum this season, which is also what would be assumed to be Brown’s salary).

A player in Reece’s situation could have a salary cap figure of as low as $615,000 under the veteran minimum benefit rule but the team would still have to pay him more.

But there’s another catch — as a vested veteran, if Reece were to sign and be on the roster the first week of the season, then his entire salary for the season would be guaranteed.

Recall that this came into play in two decisions last year to release both Tukuafu, and as we found out later, guard Jahri Evans.

Each was released prior to the 53-man cutdown date, and in large part (if not solely) so the Seahawks would not have to guarantee their entire salary.

Seattle brought back Tukuafu after the first week, when his salary was no longer guaranteed and he could essentially be paid on a week-to-week basis.

The Seahawks had hoped to do the same with Evans, but the Saints picked him back up.

(Many of these same factors could also be at play in Seattle’s decision so far to not re-sign linebacker Mike Morgan, who has six accrued seasons.)

Who knows? Maybe the Seahawks bring back Reece any minute.

But if they don’t, it may not mean the team has closed the door totally on Reece, just that the timing may be better down the road.