Faceoff: Must-win coach? Top D: Steelers or Titans? Favre or Rodgers?
CBSSports.com pro football writers Pete Prisco and Clark Judge face off weekly throughout the season.
Pete Prisco
Clark Judge
You have one guy not named Belichick to coach your team in a must-win game. Who is it?
I'll go with Giants coach Tom Coughlin. I think he's an outstanding tactician and now has a firm grasp of the right way to motivate players. His game-time, knee-jerk reactions aren't what they used to be when he was in Jacksonville. He's much more composed now on the sidelines. I always thought Coughlin was a great coach in terms of strategy. The problem he had in Jacksonville was that he was too involved in the personnel side of things. That took away from his coaching time. Now that he's focused just on coaching, we're seeing the best from him. He's always been considered a top offensive mind -- the late Sid Gillman always raved about him -- and his offense shows that. With underrated offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride running the offense, the two have the Giants leading the league in rushing. Coughlin's ability to change some of his formerly inflexible ways has helped him with the players. They respond better. So I'll take Coughlin. He might have the best team now and he won a Super Bowl last season.
It would be hard to pass someone like Tony Dungy or Tom Coughlin, but I will. I'll take Jeff Fisher of Tennessee. The guy seems to do more with less than almost anyone out there, with this year's Titans the latest example. They're not only undefeated; they're the best coached team in the business. Fisher loses his starting quarterback in the season opener, and it's no problem. He simply switches to Kerry Collins and wins his next seven -- not because of Collins but because Fisher's teams are tough, physical and always prepared. The Titans aren't as talented as others, but they're almost never out of a game -- and that's a tribute to their head coach. I watched them go into San Diego for last season's playoffs and take on a Chargers team that was deeper, on a roll and had beaten Tennessee the month before -- and I watched them hang with them for three-and-a-half quarters. The Titans were handicapped, with Vince Young unable to generate much of anything on offense, yet they stayed close -- and they did it because Fisher had answers for almost everything the Bolts threw at him. I'd trust him against anyone.
You have the choice: Steelers defense or Titans defense?
Wow. That's tough. That's like asking Sicilian slice or New York thin? But I'll take the Titans. The Steelers lead the league in total defense, giving up 234.1 yards per game, compared to 289.8 for the Titans. But the Titans are tops in scoring defense, giving up 12.9 points a game to 14.5 for the Steelers. Scoring is more important, so that's why I'm going with the Titans. That total includes a late, meaningless score by the Colts two Mondays ago. The other reason I'll take the Titans is there are more stars. Titans defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth is the best defensive player in football this season. The Steelers don't have a player of that caliber. Titans corner Cortland Finnegan is a rising star and is clearly better than anything the Steelers have. Steelers safety Troy Polamalu is better than any safety the Titans have but Chris Hope and Michael Griffin form the best pair. The linebackers are close. The outside rushers for the Steelers create havoc for quarterbacks, but Keith Bulluck is a star for the Titans. Again, it comes down to points. That's why my edge is to the Titans. Oh, and Haynesworth.
The Steelers, but let's be honest here: This is a little like choosing between pepperoni and bacon for your next pizza. You can't go wrong with either. Both are aggressive. Both are physical. And both are run by outstanding coordinators. The Titans are more opportunistic, leading the AFC with 18 takeaways, but the Steelers are more balanced. They're first against the pass, third against the run and first overall. Yet Tennessee leads in the all-important points allowed, with Pittsburgh second. See what I mean about this choice? Tennessee doesn't have a weakness on defense, but the Steelers always strike me as a tsunami waiting to happen -- with active linebackers who don't attack the pocket as much as they overrun it. I love what Jim Schwartz does with his defense in Tennessee, but how do you take anyone over Dick LeBeau? You don't. The man has been in the game half a century, is an innovator and should be in the Hall of Fame. He's the X factor that tilts the board toward Pittsburgh.
Better player right now: Aaron Rodgers or Brett Favre?
I'll go with Rodgers. Why? He's playing better. It's that simple. I saw him live last week against the Titans and he is sure of himself in the pocket. He has a good feel for the rush and has the ability to slide away from it. His arm is strong. The ball gets to the spot quickly. You can tell he's maturing each and every game. He did make one really bad throw into the end zone that was picked off, passing on the better option in the middle of the field, but he's really coming on. Favre has been just OK. That throw Jabari Greer picked off and returned for a touchdown last week was inexcusable. That looked like the throw of a first-time starter, not a veteran. Rodgers has 13 touchdown passes and five interceptions. Favre has 15 and 12. Advantage Rodgers. Rodgers is averaging 7.6 per attempt, while Favre is at 6.9. That's another win for Rodgers. Favre does have a higher completion percentage, but Rodgers has more yards (1,982 to 1,812). The numbers don't lie. Rodgers is better. Your eyes don't lie either.
I'll take Favre, but only if he's allowed to return to the Packers. If not, then it's Rodgers. Favre is so comfortable in that Packers' offense he could pull off plays others -- including Rodgers -- could not. I didn't mind the interceptions because I knew at some time he'd produce a big play to rally the Packers. I don't have that feeling now that he's with the Jets, and part of it is because he doesn't seem all that comfortable in a new offense. The panache is missing, and that was a huge part of his game. Rodgers is younger, more mobile, more accurate and more consistent. Plus, you don't get the peaks and valleys you have with Favre. But he's a first-year starter trying to replace a legend, and good luck. That doesn't happen overnight, which is why I'd still take Favre -- with his years of experience -- in Green Bay. I'm not saying the Packers made the wrong choice. They opted for the future with Aaron Rodgers. But if you're asking if I'd take Favre for one season in Green Bay today, yes, I would. In 31 other places, I'll go for Rodgers.
I'll go with Giants coach Tom Coughlin. I think he's an outstanding tactician and now has a firm grasp of the right way to motivate players. His game-time, knee-jerk reactions aren't what they used to be when he was in Jacksonville. He's much more composed now on the sidelines. I always thought Coughlin was a great coach in terms of strategy. The problem he had in Jacksonville was that he was too involved in the personnel side of things. That took away from his coaching time. Now that he's focused just on coaching, we're seeing the best from him. He's always been considered a top offensive mind -- the late Sid Gillman always raved about him -- and his offense shows that. With underrated offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride running the offense, the two have the Giants leading the league in rushing. Coughlin's ability to change some of his formerly inflexible ways has helped him with the players. They respond better. So I'll take Coughlin. He might have the best team now and he won a Super Bowl last season. 
The Steelers, but let's be honest here: This is a little like choosing between pepperoni and bacon for your next pizza. You can't go wrong with either. Both are aggressive. Both are physical. And both are run by outstanding coordinators. The Titans are more opportunistic, leading the AFC with 18 takeaways, but the Steelers are more balanced. They're first against the pass, third against the run and first overall. Yet Tennessee leads in the all-important points allowed, with Pittsburgh second. See what I mean about this choice? Tennessee doesn't have a weakness on defense, but the Steelers always strike me as a tsunami waiting to happen -- with active linebackers who don't attack the pocket as much as they overrun it. I love what Jim Schwartz does with his defense in Tennessee, but how do you take anyone over Dick LeBeau? You don't. The man has been in the game half a century, is an innovator and should be in the Hall of Fame. He's the X factor that tilts the board toward Pittsburgh. 
I'll go with Rodgers. Why? He's playing better. It's that simple. I saw him live last week against the Titans and he is sure of himself in the pocket. He has a good feel for the rush and has the ability to slide away from it. His arm is strong. The ball gets to the spot quickly. You can tell he's maturing each and every game. He did make one really bad throw into the end zone that was picked off, passing on the better option in the middle of the field, but he's really coming on. Favre has been just OK. That throw Jabari Greer picked off and returned for a touchdown last week was inexcusable. That looked like the throw of a first-time starter, not a veteran. Rodgers has 13 touchdown passes and five interceptions. Favre has 15 and 12. Advantage Rodgers. Rodgers is averaging 7.6 per attempt, while Favre is at 6.9. That's another win for Rodgers. Favre does have a higher completion percentage, but Rodgers has more yards (1,982 to 1,812). The numbers don't lie. Rodgers is better. Your eyes don't lie either. 
I'll take Favre, but only if he's allowed to return to the Packers. If not, then it's Rodgers. Favre is so comfortable in that Packers' offense he could pull off plays others -- including Rodgers -- could not. I didn't mind the interceptions because I knew at some time he'd produce a big play to rally the Packers. I don't have that feeling now that he's with the Jets, and part of it is because he doesn't seem all that comfortable in a new offense. The panache is missing, and that was a huge part of his game. Rodgers is younger, more mobile, more accurate and more consistent. Plus, you don't get the peaks and valleys you have with Favre. But he's a first-year starter trying to replace a legend, and good luck. That doesn't happen overnight, which is why I'd still take Favre -- with his years of experience -- in Green Bay. I'm not saying the Packers made the wrong choice. They opted for the future with Aaron Rodgers. But if you're asking if I'd take Favre for one season in Green Bay today, yes, I would. In 31 other places, I'll go for Rodgers. 
