Look at this draft

[bear trap]

I never said I wanted him to look like tj, all I said is that I can remember numerous times when benson would be running between the tackles and there would be a hole opened up two yards to the left or right and he'd continue to the spot that was closed off. To be a starting rb in this league whether a power runner or a shifty runner you must have the ability, no the vision to see the opening cause without that all you'll do is make it to the los before you're stuffed. This is what benson does. He thinks he can run over or through a 300-350 lb defensive lineman. Not going to happen. He don't have to shift clear to the other side of the field, but when a hole does open up he should be able to make at least one cut and try to hit it. All the great ones could do that, walter,terrell davis, emmit smith, tim brown, etc... its all about the vision and benson lacks it.

[nfoligno]

Agreed that he should be able to make that one cut if a hole opens up, for example, inside the LT when the play was designed to go inside the LG. I disagree that happened as often though as you make out, and further disagree vision was such an issue.

 

The biggest issue I had w/ Benson was, earlier in the season, he seemed hesitant after getting the ball. That was a death toll for him. That split second allowed for penetration, and when he met his first defender, he did not have a head of steam, and was too easily brought down. However, I felt that as the season went on, he showed more and more decisive running. He was harder to bring down as he took the ball and burst toward the LOS. Problem was, there was still penetration, and he often had to fight just to get to the LOS.

 

I am not saying Benson is great. At the same time, i do not believe he is nearly as bad as what fans have made out.

[azbearsfan]

Agreed that he should be able to make that one cut if a hole opens up, for example, inside the LT when the play was designed to go inside the LG. I disagree that happened as often though as you make out, and further disagree vision was such an issue.

 

The biggest issue I had w/ Benson was, earlier in the season, he seemed hesitant after getting the ball. That was a death toll for him. That split second allowed for penetration, and when he met his first defender, he did not have a head of steam, and was too easily brought down. However, I felt that as the season went on, he showed more and more decisive running. He was harder to bring down as he took the ball and burst toward the LOS. Problem was, there was still penetration, and he often had to fight just to get to the LOS.

 

I am not saying Benson is great. At the same time, i do not believe he is nearly as bad as what fans have made out.

 

 

Totally agree.

 

And he didn't seem to have that "vision" problem two years ago when he was giving TJ breaks and looking good.

[madlithuanian]

You mean also before his 2 season ending injuries? Sorry, I just don't think he can be relied upon.

 

Totally agree.

 

And he didn't seem to have that "vision" problem two years ago when he was giving TJ breaks and looking good.

[nfoligno]

Could you name for me a running back who put up solid numbers last year with a poorly performing O-Line?

 

Edge James had about 1,200 yards and 7 TDs behind a pretty weak OL. His YPC was at 3.8, but w/ that OL, I would say he did pretty well. Of coarse, w/ WRs like AZ had, it is understandable.

 

Better example might be McGahee. He had 1,200 yards on 7 TDs also, but did it w/ a 4.1 ypc avg., and w/o any other legit weapons on offense. OL was considered average to below average last year. Ditto at QB and WR.

 

He ended up injured, but Gore had 1,100 yards and a 4.2 ypc average beyind a bad OL and on a bad offense in general.

 

It can be done. There are some backs that can have decent numbers behind weak OLs. These IMHO are the exception, and also, you usually find quicker RBs like Gore, who can make something out of nothing.

[madlithuanian]

Good examples...

 

I was struggling to think os some.

 

Edge James had about 1,200 yards and 7 TDs behind a pretty weak OL. His YPC was at 3.8, but w/ that OL, I would say he did pretty well. Of coarse, w/ WRs like AZ had, it is understandable.

 

Better example might be McGahee. He had 1,200 yards on 7 TDs also, but did it w/ a 4.1 ypc avg., and w/o any other legit weapons on offense. OL was considered average to below average last year. Ditto at QB and WR.

 

He ended up injured, but Gore had 1,100 yards and a 4.2 ypc average beyind a bad OL and on a bad offense in general.

 

It can be done. There are some backs that can have decent numbers behind weak OLs. These IMHO are the exception, and also, you usually find quicker RBs like Gore, who can make something out of nothing.

[Mongo3451]

Mongo and everyone else who said our o-line sucked. Did anyone ever think that it's not just our players on the line but maybe the off line coach. Don't know what his scheme is, but it wasn't that our guys couldn't block, but missed their assignments. Numerous times I saw a LB'er shoot straight up the gut and no one knew who's responsibility it was to pick him up. That isn't only the player's fault but also if not mostly the offensive line coach's fault.

 

I just want to address this point, as it is valid. We don't know why the OL sucked last year, they just did. We have to assume the coaches weren't so bad bad as to ruin the continuity of a veteran OL that had played together for years. The staff has determined by grading game tape and having intimate knowledge that 40% of the OL needed let go. Knowing this, how can we add skill positions with no blockers. It's like buying a race car and putting low octane fuel in it. It will now run like a used Yugo.

[nfoligno]

I sort of liked the car analogy, I think it was Jones', also using a car, but referring to the OL as the tires.

 

Getting a RB this year would be like buying a porshe, but w/ nothing but spare tires. No matter how well the engine revs, a voltwagon beetle will blow past you w/ those weak-A spare tires.

[madlithuanian]

Yeah, but this year the porsche is priced really well (14)...we can get better tires next year!

 

 

 

 

I sort of liked the car analogy, I think it was Jones', also using a car, but referring to the OL as the tires.

 

Getting a RB this year would be like buying a porshe, but w/ nothing but spare tires. No matter how well the engine revs, a voltwagon beetle will blow past you w/ those weak-A spare tires.

[nfoligno]

Yeah, but this year the porsche is priced really well (14)...we can get better tires next year!

 

I agree RB is a good value this year. No argument there. But so is OT. Let me ask you this. What is harder to find. OT or RB. Both are difficult for the bears, but look around the league. I think you will find more solid or better RBs that were not 1st round picks than you will OT.

 

You say we can upgrade the OL next year, but what makes you so confident? According to most sources, this is one of the best OT groups seen in a LONG time. As many as 6 OTs are considered a 1st round grade, maybe 7 if you count Albert, who many feel can be an OT as well. Next year? I simply believe it is harder to find OT, especially LT, than it is RB.

 

More than anything, I think it comes down to how an individual values OL. You have some like Terra, who I believe feels great RBs can make an OL. I am in the other camp. I think a great OL can make a RB far more than the other way around.

 

I would use as an analogy, CB v DL on defense. I believe that, no matter how good of a duo you have at CB, if your DL isn't capable of getting to the QB, those CBs will look very average. NYGs would be the counter point to that. Put together a great DL, and an average pair of CBs will look outstanding. That is how I feel about the OL/RB. Few RBs make look great behind an average or below average OL, while a good/great OL will make an average RB look all-pro.

 

I simply believe you can upgrade the RB position easier, both in the draft and FA, than you can OT. Further, I would argue that RBs in FA are cheaper too. Look at what the top OL got this year, some of whom were not even "that" great, compared to what the top RB (Turner) got.

[madlithuanian]

True enough. THis is a solid OL draft it would appear.

 

I guess I have as much confidence upgrading the OL next year as anyone would figure upgrading an RB. I just think Mendenhall is special. I'm not convinced any of the OL are other than Long (gone by our pick).

 

You may be right about finding a LT being harder than a RB. However, finding a true start ar RB is very tough. I think Mendenhall could be that. Obviously, I could be wrong...and Williams or whoever could be the next Munoz.

 

I do tend to a gree that a great OL will make the running game better. But the opposite also holds true. I guess it's really just down to personal preference and philosophy. I realize a lot is won and lost in the trenches... ...and I feel that RB is virtually a trench position.

 

I think Turner is an unfair comparision to the OL signings. Faneca was a bonafide stud pro bowler. Turner was a 2nd string running back. Also many other OL were starters...it does make a difference. Turner is still pretty much unproven as an every down back.

 

I agree RB is a good value this year. No argument there. But so is OT. Let me ask you this. What is harder to find. OT or RB. Both are difficult for the bears, but look around the league. I think you will find more solid or better RBs that were not 1st round picks than you will OT.

 

You say we can upgrade the OL next year, but what makes you so confident? According to most sources, this is one of the best OT groups seen in a LONG time. As many as 6 OTs are considered a 1st round grade, maybe 7 if you count Albert, who many feel can be an OT as well. Next year? I simply believe it is harder to find OT, especially LT, than it is RB.

 

More than anything, I think it comes down to how an individual values OL. You have some like Terra, who I believe feels great RBs can make an OL. I am in the other camp. I think a great OL can make a RB far more than the other way around.

 

I would use as an analogy, CB v DL on defense. I believe that, no matter how good of a duo you have at CB, if your DL isn't capable of getting to the QB, those CBs will look very average. NYGs would be the counter point to that. Put together a great DL, and an average pair of CBs will look outstanding. That is how I feel about the OL/RB. Few RBs make look great behind an average or below average OL, while a good/great OL will make an average RB look all-pro.

 

I simply believe you can upgrade the RB position easier, both in the draft and FA, than you can OT. Further, I would argue that RBs in FA are cheaper too. Look at what the top OL got this year, some of whom were not even "that" great, compared to what the top RB (Turner) got.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

I posted this as my mock a month or so back and I got blasted because I had us going Mendenhall, Flacco, Hills, Schuening, and then so on. Everyone on here said that going OT that late wouldn't be good, especially since I went with Hills who is very raw.

[azbearsfan]

I posted this as my mock a month or so back and I got blasted because I had us going Mendenhall, Flacco, Hills, Schuening, and then so on. Everyone on here said that going OT that late wouldn't be good, especially since I went with Hills who is very raw.

 

 

lol If it makes you feel any better, I don't like it.

[nfoligno]

Turner may not be a fair comparison to Faneca, but how about Bell. Was Bell a starter? Yes. But come on. You have 5 starting OL on every team and only one RB. Turner was considered a big time FA.

 

The way it used to be, LT was the only big money making position. Soon, Centers started getting paid. Then RTs. Now OGs are getting sick money as well. RBs? I think RBs pay has gone downhill as their careers are simply so much shorter. RBs are considered over the hill and on the downside of their career by 30. OL are not. I think that is a big part of the reason why RBs are not getting paid as much in FA now. Thus, I think RBs are better bargains in FA than OL.

 

Further, I simply believe that finding a RB after the 1st is less difficult than finding a LT.

[AZ54]

After reading 20 posts you hit the one point I wanted to make in this whole argument (and hadn't yet read) that the stud RB career expectancy is far shorter than that of a stud Oline player. Now I wish I had some stats to go with this thought but I don't. I do know that this is the reason most RBs hold out after one great year for a huge contract. They and their agents know that it might be their only chance at getting the big money. You don't see that often for Oline. I can't even remember the last Oline player to hold out on a team while under contract.

[nfoligno]

To be honest, not too long ago, I didn't value the trenches as much as I should have. I recall well making the argument in 2001, when we had Blache's created DL that didn't pass rush, how a solid CB duo could make a mediocre DL look great. After some time, I realize how wrong that is. No matter how good a pair of CBs may be, they can not hold their men forever. On the reverse, if your pass rush is good enough, even average CBs can cover very good WRs for a couple seconds.

 

Ditto on the opposite side. Rarely do you have a great RB behind a mediocre OL, on the other hand, look at Minny. Is Chester Taylor really such a great RB? Everyone talks about AP, but how good did Chester Taylor look behind that OL. Or consider Denver. Mike Anderson was a 1,000 yard rusher.

 

That was when I first started to think trenches first and formost, but then I saw more and more how RBs truly did begin to dive in production right at around 30. On the other hand, you look around the league and find so many 30+ year old OL that are still productive. That was particularly when I saw the value in building a great OL v just worrying about a great RB. A great RB is short term, while a great OL can be much longer for you.

 

I don't know. If this draft was not so solid in OT, I may well have been screaming for Mendenhal, but too I simply think this draft is too solid at OL to pass.

[Mongo3451]

I agree RB is a good value this year. No argument there. But so is OT. Let me ask you this. What is harder to find. OT or RB. Both are difficult for the bears, but look around the league. I think you will find more solid or better RBs that were not 1st round picks than you will OT.

 

You say we can upgrade the OL next year, but what makes you so confident? According to most sources, this is one of the best OT groups seen in a LONG time. As many as 6 OTs are considered a 1st round grade, maybe 7 if you count Albert, who many feel can be an OT as well. Next year? I simply believe it is harder to find OT, especially LT, than it is RB.

 

More than anything, I think it comes down to how an individual values OL. You have some like Terra, who I believe feels great RBs can make an OL. I am in the other camp. I think a great OL can make a RB far more than the other way around.

 

I would use as an analogy, CB v DL on defense. I believe that, no matter how good of a duo you have at CB, if your DL isn't capable of getting to the QB, those CBs will look very average. NYGs would be the counter point to that. Put together a great DL, and an average pair of CBs will look outstanding. That is how I feel about the OL/RB. Few RBs make look great behind an average or below average OL, while a good/great OL will make an average RB look all-pro.

 

I simply believe you can upgrade the RB position easier, both in the draft and FA, than you can OT. Further, I would argue that RBs in FA are cheaper too. Look at what the top OL got this year, some of whom were not even "that" great, compared to what the top RB (Turner) got.

 

Agreed on all counts! I'll go further in saying it will be hard to find a good LT prospect past Sam Baker, who is projected late 1st/early 2nd.

[nfoligno]

Agreed on all counts! I'll go further in saying it will be hard to find a good LT prospect past Sam Baker, who is projected late 1st/early 2nd.

 

Yup. Baker will be gone by the time we pick. There are simply too many teams looking to draft OT this year. Even if he makes it out of the 1st, I simply do not see him getting to us as someone in the top 10 that passed on OT in the 1st will take him.

 

This is a year where you have 6 or 7 top end OL prospects, and after that, you start to find the guys who are more raw or in need of greater development. That would be fine if we had a pair of veterans currently, and were looking to draft a guy to develop for a year or so, but we need an immediate starter, and we are not going to find one later in the draft.

[madlithuanian]

I think we need to discount RB's coming out of Denver as exception an not rules!

 

But regardless, I do follow your line of thinking.

 

I just think Mendenhall will be a stud. I really would hate to pass on him. Granted, if we got a stud LT, I'd be happy too. But let's be honest...it's easier to cheer for a RB than a LT!

 

Turner may not be a fair comparison to Faneca, but how about Bell. Was Bell a starter? Yes. But come on. You have 5 starting OL on every team and only one RB. Turner was considered a big time FA.

 

The way it used to be, LT was the only big money making position. Soon, Centers started getting paid. Then RTs. Now OGs are getting sick money as well. RBs? I think RBs pay has gone downhill as their careers are simply so much shorter. RBs are considered over the hill and on the downside of their career by 30. OL are not. I think that is a big part of the reason why RBs are not getting paid as much in FA now. Thus, I think RBs are better bargains in FA than OL.

 

Further, I simply believe that finding a RB after the 1st is less difficult than finding a LT.

[Lucky Luciano]

The way it used to be, LT was the only big money making position. Soon, Centers started getting paid. Then RTs. Now OGs are getting sick money as well. RBs? I think RBs pay has gone downhill as their careers are simply so much shorter. RBs are considered over the hill and on the downside of their career by 30. OL are not. I think that is a big part of the reason why RBs are not getting paid as much in FA now. Thus, I think RBs are better bargains in FA than OL.

 

Further, I simply believe that finding a RB after the 1st is less difficult than finding a LT.

 

you are correct that longetivity, spreading out salary over 10-15 yrs vs. 5-8 for a RB in the cap age, does have it's merit as to value but there are also a couple of other reasons...

 

1. good+ OLT's were a premium (being scarce) even prior to the start of free agency and the cap. it is compounded now because of the expansion of the league. over the last 25-30 years the league has added 6 teams. there is now even less to choose from than was true in the past making the premium line position of OLT even harder to find. this also is without a doubt, true with your quarterback position. there just is not enough bodies to fill the vacancies because the pool to choose from (college ranks) has basically stayed the same size while the number of teams drawing from this pool has expanded.

 

2. as your good OLT's will rarely or NEVER reach free agency until they are used up, the other positions become more expensive because the salary of your OLT's has dragged them along. this means because of the cap that you can't pay the other line positions comperable money for an extended period of time. thus these very good ROT or interior linemen hit free agency at a high premium and other teams with either a young under contract OLT or an OLT that is average, snap up these players to compensate and make their line as good as possible.

 

this is why the draft is paramount to find offensive linemen especially if you want a primo OLT. it also SHOULD be reasonably easy to find good+ guards in the draft to fill these spots and that is one of angies greatest failures.

 

here are in my opinion the top position, franchise players: first and foremost quarterback. next can be a tossup between OLT's and defensive ends and next your cornerback and finally your runningback/wide receiver position.

 

moving on...

 

i know some have said that zone defenses such as ours means you don't need the good cover corners and i think you said with the rules in play today the cover corner is not as important as before. i disagree with these thoughts. in my opinion it is even more important to get the cover corner.

 

you need someone who is fast and can cover like a demon to make up for these crappy rules the nfl has implimented. also i'd like to mention about our cover 2... it is not true that a good cover corner wouldn't excel in this system as we only use it occasionally (like the old 46) and are asking our corners to cover man in many instances. that is the reason i wanted woodson in chicago when he was a free agent. we would have been SO much better in coverage and it would have given our linemen even more time to get to the qb.

[madlithuanian]

Great analysis!

 

I'm a bit of the mindset that LB's are as important as D ends. But maybe I'm just biassed as a Bears fan!

 

you are correct that longetivity, spreading out salary over 10-15 yrs vs. 5-8 for a RB in the cap age, does have it's merit as to value but there are also a couple of other reasons...

 

1. good+ OLT's were a premium (being scarce) even prior to the start of free agency and the cap. it is compounded now because of the expansion of the league. over the last 25-30 years the league has added 6 teams. there is now even less to choose from than was true in the past making the premium line position of OLT even harder to find. this also is without a doubt, true with your quarterback position. there just is not enough bodies to fill the vacancies because the pool to choose from (college ranks) has basically stayed the same size while the number of teams drawing from this pool has expanded.

 

2. as your good OLT's will rarely or NEVER reach free agency until they are used up, the other positions become more expensive because the salary of your OLT's has dragged them along. this means because of the cap that you can't pay the other line positions comperable money for an extended period of time. thus these very good ROT or interior linemen hit free agency at a high premium and other teams with either a young under contract OLT or an OLT that is average, snap up these players to compensate and make their line as good as possible.

 

this is why the draft is paramount to find offensive linemen especially if you want a primo OLT. it also SHOULD be reasonably easy to find good+ guards in the draft to fill these spots and that is one of angies greatest failures.

 

here are in my opinion the top position, franchise players: first and foremost quarterback. next can be a tossup between OLT's and defensive ends and next your cornerback and finally your runningback/wide receiver position.

 

moving on...

 

i know some have said that zone defenses such as ours means you don't need the good cover corners and i think you said with the rules in play today the cover corner is not as important as before. i disagree with these thoughts. in my opinion it is even more important to get the cover corner.

 

you need someone who is fast and can cover like a demon to make up for these crappy rules the nfl has implimented. also i'd like to mention about our cover 2... it is not true that a good cover corner wouldn't excel in this system as we only use it occasionally (like the old 46) and are asking our corners to cover man in many instances. that is the reason i wanted woodson in chicago when he was a free agent. we would have been SO much better in coverage and it would have given our linemen even more time to get to the qb.

[Lucky Luciano]

Great analysis!

 

I'm a bit of the mindset that LB's are as important as D ends. But maybe I'm just biassed as a Bears fan!

 

i agree that LB's could and should be thrown into the equation along with DT's. but IMOP, they would still fall behind the qb, olt/de and cornerback as for value.

[nfoligno]

For me, I put QB at the top, and frankly, look at the value of a QB for the team as nearly on a different level. Beyond the QB, it is a touch hard, as it depends on scheme. For example, in a cover two, the CB does not have to play man-to-man, and thus you do not need a champ baily. In a 3-4, you do not need elite pass rushers on the DL, but the level of LBs you need goes up. If you get away from scheme a bit though...

 

I would put the DE and then DT as the 1-2 important positions on the defense. MLB would probably be next. I do not rate the secondary the way I used to. There is no longer any such thing as a shut down corner. The rules of the league have simply weakened that position. Now, the best way to stop elite WRs is not w/ an elite CB, but w/ the pass rush.

[Lucky Luciano]

For me, I put QB at the top, and frankly, look at the value of a QB for the team as nearly on a different level. Beyond the QB, it is a touch hard, as it depends on scheme. For example, in a cover two, the CB does not have to play man-to-man, and thus you do not need a champ baily. In a 3-4, you do not need elite pass rushers on the DL, but the level of LBs you need goes up. If you get away from scheme a bit though...

 

I would put the DE and then DT as the 1-2 important positions on the defense. MLB would probably be next. I do not rate the secondary the way I used to. There is no longer any such thing as a shut down corner. The rules of the league have simply weakened that position. Now, the best way to stop elite WRs is not w/ an elite CB, but w/ the pass rush.

 

again i disagree on your CB job description. in cover 2 the corners DO play man a lot more than not. this is why peanut gets hammered when playing against the quick/fast receivers, same with vasher. this also is a problem that we have seen extensively in chicago when vasher went down. there was no way for the poor corners that replaced them could compensate and especially without help from the safeties who played badly themselves.

 

if we had woodson/bailey at corner our entire defense would be better. the fast-break receivers would not cause us to play our corners 5-10 yrds off the LOS because we lacked the speed and quickness to keep up with them. this would be HUGE in our pass rush if we could tie up wideouts for a longer period of time and stop the qb dump offs for the 5-8 yrd gains and ALSO stop the deep routes from developing.

 

i still say the league rules DICTATE you have better cover corners because they can't muscle the wideouts to slow them down or hand fight them down the field. you need corners to not only keep up with these players but be in a good one-on-one cover position for passes defended and int's. this also is true as to why the cover 2 does not work well with teams that have multiple reciever threats and/OR good running games where your safety has to help stop the run. you can't bottle them all up moving them into the middle because your field has been extended by dropping your safeties and MLB into deep coverage. you HAVE to have corners to cover man.

 

in regards to your 3-4 scheme... you could be right but couldn't it also be possible that this type of scheme was also implimented because of the lack of really good defensive ends? this way you can take the tweener small DE's and make linebackers out of them in this type of system. it also is a reality that there are more good linebackers than defensive ends thus easier to fill your defense with better quality players to compensate.

 

again, IMO, if you see a white/hampton/dent defensive end they are worth their weight in gold, especially on the draft board, compared to any other defensive player. these type of players are far scarcer than tackles or backers.

[nfoligno]

In terms of CBs, we simply disagree. I will agree it is more important today to have a cover corner v a physical corner. At the same time, even cover corners touched the WRs and fought for position. W/ the rules as they are today, there is an absolute advantage to the WR, which already had the advantage going in as they knew the play/route.

 

There was a time you had true shut down corners. I simply do not believe you have that anymore. Even Champ Bailey, considered the elite among corners, gets beat far more often than most realize, as the disadvantage put on corners makes it near impossible to shut down a WR like in days of old.

 

As to ours, again, we simply disagree. I would argue we play far more of a zone, or over the top scheme than man to man. Does that mean we never play man? No. For example, I would point to last year. In our playoff game against NO, it was widely reported how Rivera changed to a man coverage scheme, which totally threw NO off whack. Why did that throw them off? Because while we might have used man at times, it was not our base coverage. Zone is our base coverage.

 

again, IMO, if you see a white/hampton/dent defensive end they are worth their weight in gold, especially on the draft board, compared to any other defensive player. these type of players are far scarcer than tackles or backers.

 

You mention Hampton and Dent. If I could pull one player from that team, no question in my mind it would have been Singletary. Even Ryan used to talk about how the reason his 46 was so successful was Singletary. He was the one calling the offensive plays before the snap, and telling our guys where to line up. We had an all-pro DL, but IMHO, that defense was what it was because of our Mike, more than due to the DL.

 

In general though, we are not in disagreement. I have placed DE as the #1 position on the D, followed by DT. But I would also say there are special players at other positions who can easily compare in worth to even the best DEs. Ed Reed is one of those special players. Reed is elite among defensive players, not just safeties, and his defensive MVP award is evidence.

 

If Urlacher and Freeney were drafted in the same year, which would be considered the better pick? I would say Urlacher.

 

Freeney is an awesome player, and one I wanted to draft. I was high on Freeney when many didnt' know who the hell he was, or thought he would be a reach for us. He is one of, if not the, best pass rusher in the NFL, and would make Dent proud the way he slaps the ball out of the QBs hands. At the same time, he is not strong v the run. Not like he is a situational pass rusher, but I think a DE like Strahan is superior (maybe not today).

 

The original point was simply that, as great as Freeney is, I am not sure he is the unquestioned best defensive player from that draft, as I think Reed and Pepper could both provide an argument.

 

Looking at the first 5 years for Peppers and Freeney....

 

Peppers 255 tackles and 53.5 sacks.

Freeney 178 tackles and 56.5 sacks.

 

So Freeney had 3 more sacks but 77 fewer tackles.

 

Yea, I would say you can make a case for Peppers.