Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Since a couple people recently mentioned Dwight Freeney being a probable future HOFer, I thought I'd post some thoughts I've now had for some time about him versus his ex-teammate, Robert Mathis. Mathis has recently become a little bit more of a prominent player, since he won his first First Team All-Pro honors after having what was clearly his best season in 2013, one that provides a nice capstone of sorts for his career (if I'm correct, he had already made Second Team once via Pro Football Focus).

There is something about Mathis vs. Freeney that is starting to become hard for me to resolve: how is it that Mathis is still rarely mentioned as a potential future HOFer when Freeney is often viewed as one? Now granted, for some years, it might have been easy to say that Mathis just piggybacked off of Freeney's success, especially because he didn't hit the highs that Freeney did and didn't have any "signature" seasons. The thing is, even in view of Mathis' 2013 output (which of course was sans-Freeney) and his relative effectiveness in 2012 while Freeney was largely ineffective, both of which really established him as a talent in his own right, perceptions of his legacy still don't seem to be altered much, and people seem to be operating off of an assumption that Mathis actually played on a lower tier than Freeney pre-2012. I had once thought this, but looking at the numbers, I'm no longer sure that it was really correct.

Let's compare. One thing that really jumps out at you right off the bat when looking at their stats side by side is just how similar their forced fumble numbers are, which is significant because Freeney has been well-known for that statistic. Now let's delve a little further. Eliminating the monster 16 games that Mathis had two seasons ago, and also taking away the 34 games from the last three seasons for Freeney (games which essentially represented the worst output of his career), we have basically handicapped Mathis negatively and Freeney positively and are comparing their first 10 seasons in the league. For the "best" 149 games of Freeney's career, the per game averages are .688 sacks, .282 forced fumbles, 1.664 tackles, and .087 passes deflected. For the "worst" 147 games of Mathis' career, the per game averages are .622 sacks, .272 forced fumbles, 2.197 tackles, and .116 passes deflected. Even with the handicapping, Mathis was still a better tackler and ball disrupter than Freeney (no surprise on the tackling, since Freeney was horrendous in that regard), was only a shade worse than Freeney when it came to sacks and forced fumbles, and actually had a better forced fumbles/sack ratio than Freeney (.437 compared to .410)! So, overall, not really much difference. One can kind of see, when looking at the raw statistics, why they're fairly comparable; Freeney was more up and down, boom-or-bust throughout his career, while Mathis was the guy who was generally more consistent and solid from year to year. (Of additional note is that Freeney only had 4 fumble recoveries on his career, 3 of which came in his first 10 seasons, whereas Mathis had 14, all in his first 10 seasons.)

Again, it is notable that Mathis has had, numerically, a slightly greater penchant for forcing fumbles than Freeney has had, considering that a big part of why Freeney was so feared was his ability to strip the quarterback. All the analysis should also take into account the fact that Mathis was a backup for a not-insignificant part of his career. Clearly, he sure managed to do a heck of a lot of damage when he was called upon.

Perhaps many analysts have thought for some time that the Freeney-Mathis dynamic was simply a Carl Eller-Jim Marshall/L.C. Greenwood-Dwight White/Deacon Jones-Lamar Lundy type of situation, where there's a good player that somewhat benefits from playing on the opposite side of the line from a great one, but Mathis recently proving himself on his own, as well as the inconsistency from Freeney that is more evident upon closer scrutiny, ought to make people question whether that was really the case. Maybe it was more a case of two very good players helping to make each other better over the years. (Note that Freeney and Mathis never had the benefit of playing with an all-time great defensive tackle or even a very good one, as those other d-end combos enjoyed, which means that they were really only competing with each other for blockers' attention and ended up being two of the best strip-sackers in recent memory regardless. We can only imagine what their numbers might have looked like if Indy's line had a stronger presence in the middle while they played.)

If Mathis is not an all-time great, then what does that make Freeney? Maybe he's not the automatic HOFer that some in the media have seemingly wanted to anoint him. Or maybe Mathis is just better than people gave him credit for. Or maybe a little of both, more realistically. I guess, when it comes down to it, since I'm of the mind that Freeney has accomplished enough to be enshrined in Canton someday, I have to conclude that Mathis, strange as it may sound on the surface, really might be a Hall of Fame-caliber player. In fact, since Mathis probably has a couple more seasons left in him anyway, he might even have time to cement his reputation.

Is there something I'm missing here? Or are these guys really a lot more similar than people have perceived them to be? Any thoughts?

P.S. On a related note, does anyone have a list of the all-time forced fumble leaders (which I realize might be partially culled from unofficial statistics)? It would be interesting to see where Freeney and Mathis place in this category. I would think that both of them would be fairly high in the rankings at this point, especially Mathis, who now has a whopping 50 FF in his career (I can't think of any other player off the top of my head who's hit that mark). I would also think that players like John Abraham and Charles Tillman, both of whom I think have been underrated during their careers (Tillman more so) would be pretty high on the list. I know that Bruce Smith had 43 on his career, but not sure about non-current players beyond him who have really high FF figures.

I certainly feel (and I think this is probably the consensus) that Freeney was the better pass rusher and Mathis was the better all-around player. I have trouble seeing either of them as HOF-worthy.

I have - for a long time now, and actually last weekend with another PFRA member - espoused that Freeney is one of the more over-rated players in the league. He was simply shut out too often. He had many games (even as a Colt) where he literally didn't show up at all on the stat sheet. Playing Right DE, its also easier for him to cause fumbles, coming from the blind side, than Mathis. He was a liability against the run, though that was the scheme design. Its pretty horrific looking at the yards per carry allowed by some of those mid 2000's Colt teams.

rebelx24 wrote:
P.S. On a related note, does anyone have a list of the all-time forced fumble leaders (which I realize might be partially culled from unofficial statistics)? It would be interesting to see where Freeney and Mathis place in this category. I would think that both of them would be fairly high in the rankings at this point, especially Mathis, who now has a whopping 50 FF in his career (I can't think of any other player off the top of my head who's hit that mark). I would also think that players like John Abraham and Charles Tillman, both of whom I think have been underrated during their careers (Tillman more so) would be pretty high on the list. I know that Bruce Smith had 43 on his career, but not sure about non-current players beyond him who have really high FF figures.

Tricky business on FF. It's a matter of what numbers you use. Forced fumbles will sometimes get differing totals. This happens, IMO, because some plays cannot be seen from the press box than can be seen in coaches' film. So, Nick and I have talked about the differences in tackles complied by coaches and those complied by Elias. Coaches often give credit for an assist even if the player didn't touch the ball carrer, he cut of the angle for example. The coaches stat are a result of grading the players performance. The gamebook is to record the action. So, when it comes to coaches tackles, the assists are, IMO, better off ignored.

However, forced fumbles by coaches can be more accurate because they can actually see what happens in slo-motion. One example is Jevon Kearse in 1999. The gamebooks credit him with 8. The coaches credit him with 10. The coaches are not inflating anything, they just had a better view the next day. And the totals add up. If there were 20 FF for the season and the coaches credit their players with 20, then it's accurate.

So, when it comes to Kearse in 1999, what number do you go with. There was a season in the 1990s where Greg Lloyd was credited with8 and the gamebooks said 5. But, the Steelers totals for that year added up. So, which is right? Both?

In 1981 I found 2 FF that LT should have been credited for but was not, taking his career total from 31 to 33.


When the Chiefs created a package for Derrick Thomas's induction to the HOF they said he was the all-time leader. It read, in part, "He finished his career with 126.5 sacks, 642 tackles, 45 forced fumbles (NFL record), 19 fumble recoveries"

Well, Bruce Smith is credited with 46 by the Bills and Redskins. But, I;ve seen all their gamebooks and I found 4 FF, so my total is 50.

Then there is this
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/ ... ed-fumbles
"What you might not know: Doleman also retired with the most forced fumbles of any player since the NFL began tracking the statistic. He forced 44 fumbles in 232 career games, and on the eve of his enshrinement in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, it might be Doleman's most enduring legacy. "
Now that above chart is a few years old . . .so, as you can see the numbers vary slightly . . . so, it's a matter of what is most accurate? What puts all players on even playing field, so to speak. And then you have to ask how far back do you want to try to go?

If sacks were considered a can of worms pre-1982, then FF is a can of those worms from the movie Tremor.

Certainly there are also unforced fumbles, so the number of forced fumbles shouldn't automatically equal the number of opponent fumbles.

rhickok1109 wrote:Certainly there are also unforced fumbles, so the number of forced fumbles shouldn't automatically equal the number of opponent fumbles.

Yes, that is true, I should have been clearer, what I should have said was the number of forces should not exceed the number of fumbles. Less is okay. equal is okay, but more than is not okay. So, as long as they don't exceed then it's reasonable to believe no one is inflating numbers.

JohnTurney wrote:

rhickok1109 wrote:Certainly there are also unforced fumbles, so the number of forced fumbles shouldn't automatically equal the number of opponent fumbles.

Yes, that is true, I should have been clearer, what I should have said was the number of forces should not exceed the number of fumbles. Less is okay. equal is okay, but more than is not okay. So, as long as they don't exceed then it's reasonable to believe no one is inflating numbers.

Fair enough