Faceoff: Next coach on chopping block? Favre's sin? London stakes?
CBSSports.com pro football writers Pete Prisco and Clark Judge face off weekly throughout the season.
| Pete Prisco | Clark Judge |
| Now that Mike Nolan is gone, who is next to go? Who should be? | |
| My money on who will go next would be Wade Phillips. I'm not saying he should be the next guy, but he might be. Even though Jerry Jones insists he won't fire Phillips, I have my doubts. If the Cowboys were to lose to Tampa Bay this week, it would set off a firestorm in Dallas. They would be .500 at the halfway point. But it isn't like Jason Garrett's offense is lighting it up, and he's the potential successor. The interesting thing is the two men who are winless, Marvin Lewis in Cincinnati and Detroit's Rod Marinelli, aren't rumored to be on the way out. Why? Because the Bengals are on the hook for a lot of money to Lewis and the Lions don't have any football power people making decisions, like firing the coach. I think Marinelli will probably get it after the season, but I think Lewis might be back because the Bengals like to keep coaches they're on the hook for, in terms of salary. As for who should be next? I'd pick Lewis only because he's taken a team that was a division winner a few years back and driven it into the ground. Carson Palmer's injury might be his reprieve. |  The prevailing opinion is that the Cowboys' Wade Phillips is on the short list, and with the upcoming schedule he should be. Dallas plays Tampa Bay this weekend, then travels to New Jersey for a Nov. 2 date with the New York Giants. Let's say they lose both games. That would make the Cowboys 4-5 at the bye and probably force owner Jerry Jones to make a move -- replacing Phillips with offensive coordinator Jason Garrett. Rash? You bet. The Cowboys were 13-3 a year ago. But Jones won't tolerate a skid like this. Plus, he's not paying Garrett all that money just to call plays. As far as who should be next ... I'd cast a vote for Marvin Lewis of Cincinnati. He's had one winning season there and dropped 19 of his last 26 games. That is not what I'd call headed in the right direction. |
| Let's say Brett Favre called the Lions to brief them on the Packers' offensive schemes. Do you have a problem with that? | |
 I don't. That kind of stuff happens all the time. If he placed the call, without being asked, then I think he's a vindictive player who is clearly bitter at the way things worked out in Green Bay. But the exchange of information in the NFL is endless. If he was just talking to a Detroit coach and was asked to give out the information, that's no big deal. Every team does it. You don't think they pick up players sometimes to pick their brain about their former team? There are those who say Favre's legacy in Green Bay will be tainted if it's indeed true. Really? Is Michael Irvin's legacy in Dallas tainted by his off-the-field troubles? Does anybody talk about Spygate and Bill Belichick anymore? We're a society that likes to forgive. I can't imagine Packers fans having a "Burn the No. 4 Jersey Night" because of this. If it happened, Favre's a bitter man, but so what? Deal with it, Packers fans. It's called an eye for an eye. |  Yes I do, especially if he initiated the call. In fact, I'd characterize it the same way Packers coach Mike McCarthy did: "Disappointing." There is no rule against it. Coaches call other coaches all the time for scouting reports on clubs. But I don't know of coaches who volunteer information -- especially when it involves an hour phone call -- to assist in beating former employers. If it's true, it is immature, petty and vindictive, and it should be beneath someone of Favre's stature. I guess I'm less critical if he were contacted because, as I said, coaches do it all the time, but you'd think he'd decline out of consideration for his former teammates. I mean, he must have good friends on that club, so why hurt them? One other thing: If he is guilty, why Detroit and why not Minnesota? The Vikings played Green Bay in the season opener. |
| Who needs the London game more, the Saints or Chargers? | |
| I'll go with the Saints. The reason I say that is because they play in a much tougher division than the Chargers. The NFC South is brutal. And with Carolina and Tampa Bay at 5-2 and Atlanta at 4-2, the Saints can't afford to go to 3-5. The Chargers play in one of the weakest divisions in football, so even with a loss they would still have a chance to win it. Denver, the leader right now, is struggling and the other two teams aren't a factor. The Saints need to show that last week's game in Carolina was a major aberration. It doesn't help that Reggie Bush won't play for the next month or so, but Drew Brees is more than capable of carrying the team -- though it might be time to get Deuce McAllister and the running game cranked up. We know the Saints throw it as well as any team in football, but they need more from the running game. In their division, this is a must if they are to have a chance to win that division. |  New Orleans by a mile, and I'll tell you why: Division survival. The Saints can't afford more losses in the NFC South where Tampa Bay, New Orleans and Atlanta -- Atlanta? -- duke it out for first place. The Bucs and Panthers are legit, and New Orleans is already two games behind them. It can't afford to drop farther, especially with a midseason schedule that prevents it from playing its next home game until Nov. 24. San Diego, on the other hand, is in a division where 8-8 or 9-7 might win, and don't laugh. You saw Denver on Monday night. That's the team the Bolts trail -- by one game, no less -- and the two meet in San Diego the last game of the season. Now tell me whom you would rather catch: Tampa Bay and Carolina or Denver? Case closed. |
