This makes even less sense(if that's even possible).
I think, if the comment is response to what I am thinking, there was an argument that solely on the back of Aish playing 32 games he is worth more than Freeman, so based on the arguement Langdon who has played more than Aish would be worth more than both.
Of course this would not be the case, there are a number of factors that will play a part in the value of them. Based on development and games played Aish would be ahead of Freeman but behind Langdon, based on draft position (which after two years is still relevant) and potential Freeman and Aish would be close to level and Langdon well behind and based on injury issues Freeman would be behind the other two, though Langdon would be slightly ahead of Aish.
So of course Aish would be worth more than both (IMO the potential difference between Aish and Langdon is bigger than the development and injury differences), though in terms of Freeman which is where this argument orginated probably not by as much as the Saints guy is claiming.