Lol, I read the same article you did.
Stats don't tell the whole story, but they make up about 75% of the story, and everyone gets judged on them .
You can say you don't care about numbers, but if he had 16 sacks, you'd be making a huge deal out of it.
Freeney has 6 tackles and 1 sack in 9 games played.
It would be great if he's pulling double coverage all the time and allowing other to get a ton of sacks, but that's not really the case. Plus, he's still being paid more than double what he should be getting. For example:
Mathis gets paid less, has played less games and almost 4 times the production. I love Freeney, but let's be real here. Heck, Jerry Hughes has 4 sacks and everyone makes fun of him constantly because of his stats!
I'm just glad you aren't the GM of this team! lol
Oh dear... you hear of a guy by the name of Casey Hampton?
The averages less than 1 sack per season. He averages less than 35 tackles per season. Yet he is one of the Steeler's most productive players.
Your 75% mark? You really think they'd write that article and assume that? If that were true, he'd be getting a massively failing grade. (2/16.5)* .75 = 9% + 25% = 34%
He'd be in the 34th percentile if he got the full remaining 25% of your scale, where the remaining 75% is based on sacks compared to the league leader. I'm sorry, but Dwight certainly is not in the bottom half of talent.
As for his pay. That was something that was established years ago, based on his level of performance at that time. He is certainly on the tail end, and his numbers and contributions will certainly decrease over the years. But he certainly isn't going to head to the front office and demand that they pay him half of the salary that he agreed upon 6 years ago.
Further, why is it so many players are considered greedy by holding out for big deals. And now, Freeney is considered overpaid for finishing out his deal? You can't have it both ways. He's fulfilling his contractual obligation. He's been a model player, a leader, etc. A big part of what Mathis has done her can be contributed to the matchup benefits he received being opposite of Freeney. And vice versa, but the bigger part generally goes Mathis way as teams were forced to double Freeney for so long.
I need to stop, because this simply makes my head hurt. I wasn't in disagreement with those that thought it best that we released Freeney prior to the start of the season based on money alone. But the FO decided to keep him. I am glad they did, but would not have faulted them had they hadn't. Ultimately, they make the money decisions. They felt it best to keep him at a 14 million salary. Why should we blame him for making the money he's rightfully earned over the years?