Pete Prisco and Clark Judge of CBSSports.com analyze hot topics weekly.
| 1. Who would you take right now: Ben Roethlisberger or Tony Romo? | |
| Pete Prisco | Clark Judge |
That's a tough one. Romo is having the better year, so it would be easy to say him. But I would go with Roethlisberger. I think he's more of a prototype passer. He can move around and does throw well on the run, but he's more of a prototype than Romo. I do like the way Romo scrambles around to make throws, not to run. That's a sign of a smart passer. But give me the big, strong-armed passer over the smaller move-around guy any day. Plus, I think Roethlisberger gets it now. He has a nice feel for the Steelers passing game. He looks like a tackle back there playing quarterback. | I'll take either, but if I can only have one I'll tilt toward Roethlisberger because he has a ring and because he has the stronger arm. Look, you can't go wrong with either, but I like proven guys, and Roethlisberger won a championship game and a Super Bowl. Maybe Romo gets there with time. Heck, he's only in his second year of starting, but I know what I have in Big Ben. And what I have is someone who's accurate, who can win, who has a cannon for a right arm and who, lately, has shown an uncanny knack for escaping the pressure. OK, so he's not as mobile as Romo, but he has made plays on the run -- with last weekend's win over Cleveland the evidence. |
| 2. What does the loss of Dwight Freeney mean to the Colts? | |
| Pete Prisco | Clark Judge |
It means they're in trouble on defense. This is a team that is built on getting leads and having the defense play from ahead. That means turning loose speedy DEs Robert Mathis and Freeney. Of the two, Freeney is by far the best. He is a game-changer, the kind of player offenses have to account for on every snap. They roll protection to his side, double him and chip him. Without that threat off the edge, it doesn't have to be that way. The two most important players on defense are Freeney and Bob Sanders, and Freeney is more valuable because rush ends are more valuable than safeties, especially for the Colts. It's a damning blow. | It means the Colts could be in trouble. Freeney is the best player on that defense, and the Colts recognized it when they made him the highest paid defensive player in football. He's a premier pass rusher who demands double teams, and his loss has the Colts in such a panic they signed Simeon Rice -- who wasn't good enough for Denver. But with Freeney lost for the season, I don't see how they go far. You can only sustain so many setbacks to elite players, and Indianapolis has been through a tidal wave. Eventually, those losses catch up to you. Once the Colts seemed a lock for one of the two byes for the playoffs; now, hard as it is to imagine, injuries may keep them from winning the division. |
| 3. If you were Mike Holmgren would you keep Shaun Alexander on the bench? | |
| Pete Prisco | Clark Judge |
Yes. He isn't the same back he was a few years ago. Readers of my stuff know I've always thought he was Soft Shaun. Yes, he had an amazing year in 2005, but what has he done since? He did the opposite of most: He took the money and didn't run. Alexander has been bothered by injuries the past two years and has issues with a knee and a cast on his hand this year. But he doesn't pop through the hole as he once did. Morris hits the hole harder. The Seahawks are averaging 3.4 per rush, which isn't close to being good enough. Morris didn't have a huge game filling in for Alexander on Monday night, but he did have 87 yards rushing. Seahawks players and former teammates have always thought Alexander was a me-first player. To sum it up: play the tougher guy. That's Morris. | Only if he's hurt. Look, I know the Seahawks looked a lot better with Maurice Morris in there on Monday, but let's look at the facts: They beat the woebegone San Francisco 49ers, and Morris averaged 3.1 yards a carry. Alexander can be a factor, as he demonstrated earlier this year when he ran for 100 yards against Cincinnati. I know he's been in the jar and looks like he's running half-speed, but this is a guy who only two years ago was the league MVP. Are you going to tell me that suddenly he's a dog? Please. He may not be what he was, but neither is that offensive line. Morris is better in the passing game because of the cast on Alexander's injured left hand, but I still want Alexander in there carrying the football -- though not until he's sure he's recovered from a sprained knee. |
| 4. Can the Packers get to a Super Bowl leading the league in passing yards and being last in rushing yards? | |
| Pete Prisco | Clark Judge |
Yes. There's an old adage that you have to run in December and January to win. That's not true. You have to be able to throw to score and run to win. By that, I mean throw it early and get a lead and then run it with the lead. The Packers can throw to get scores and they have the short-passing game to control the clock with the lead. Plus, Ryan Grant has livened up the running game the past few weeks. Coach Mike McCarthy likes the way he puts his foot in the ground and makes sharp cuts, rather than dancing into the hole. The Packers run it well enough to win a Super Bowl. | Can they? I guess. Hey, Ricky Williams is back in the NFL so anything's possible. Will they? No. It just doesn't happen. For Brett Favre to be effective, there must at least be the threat of a running game. For the moment, there is -- thanks to Ryan Grant. But if Green Bay continues to produce 3.4 yards a carry there isn't one playoff opponent that will stack the line. They'll simply drop seven or eight guys into coverage and dare the Packers to run. Green Bay used just that strategy in the 1995 playoffs to knock off San Francisco, with Steve Young later lamenting the absence of a rushing attack. The Colts last season ranked 18th in rushing, which was low, but at least they averaged 4.0 yards a carry. So there was the threat of Joseph Addai or Dominic Rhodes beating you, and the Super Bowl proved it. Without a running game, Favre's doomed for the long haul. |


That's a tough one. Romo is having the better year, so it would be easy to say him. But I would go with Roethlisberger. I think he's more of a prototype passer. He can move around and does throw well on the run, but he's more of a prototype than Romo. I do like the way Romo scrambles around to make throws, not to run. That's a sign of a smart passer. But give me the big, strong-armed passer over the smaller move-around guy any day. Plus, I think Roethlisberger gets it now. He has a nice feel for the Steelers passing game. He looks like a tackle back there playing quarterback.
I'll take either, but if I can only have one I'll tilt toward Roethlisberger because he has a ring and because he has the stronger arm. Look, you can't go wrong with either, but I like proven guys, and Roethlisberger won a championship game and a Super Bowl. Maybe Romo gets there with time. Heck, he's only in his second year of starting, but I know what I have in Big Ben. And what I have is someone who's accurate, who can win, who has a cannon for a right arm and who, lately, has shown an uncanny knack for escaping the pressure. OK, so he's not as mobile as Romo, but he has made plays on the run -- with last weekend's win over Cleveland the evidence. 