Faceoff: Eli, Ben or Philip? Ravens or Titans D? Rules riffing?
CBSSports.com pro football writers Pete Prisco and Clark Judge face off weekly throughout the season.
Pete Prisco
Clark Judge
Philip Rivers, Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger all came in the same draft. Who is better now?
Despite the fact that Manning and Roethlisberger have Super Bowl victories on their résumés already, I'll go with Rivers. It's close, but he's my pick. I think he has developed into one of the better quarterbacks in football for one reason: He sees the field well. That's the edge he has over the other two. He makes his decisions quicker. Rivers doesn't have the natural tools that Manning and Roethlisberger have, but he compensates by playing a decision game. He knows where to go with the football and he scans the field and gets to his third and fourth reads. Manning is good at that as well. Roethlisberger plays a more athletic game and makes most of his big plays when he's outside the pocket. He holds the ball too long. Rivers had to carry his team this season without LaDainian Tomlinson and responded with the best season of his career. You couldn't go wrong with any of them, but right now my pick would be Rivers.
I'll stay with Eli because he's talented, he wins and he has a Super Bowl ring. I love Roethlisberger's toughness. The guy takes a lot of sacks and a zillion hits, yet he keeps on going. Plus, he makes the plays when it matters, driving the Steelers 92 yards on their last possession to catch Baltimore, for instance. Oh, yeah, he also won a Super Bowl. But if we're talking about pure passers, I'll take Eli over Big Ben. Rivers is also remarkably resilient. In fact, he played on one leg in last year's AFC Championship Game. He's accurate, he's passionate and he put up better numbers this season than either Roethlisberger or Manning, but he's missing an important line to the résumé: Super Bowl. What I especially like about Manning is that the Giants reached the playoffs every year since he became the full-time starter and was the MVP in the biggest game of his career. Those are achievements you can't overlook.
Your choice: Ravens or Titans defense?
I'll go with the Titans. Why? The Titans are better on the corners, which gives them a big edge. The Ravens don't have a player who is as good as Cortland Finnegan is at corner for the Titans. He's a Pro Bowl corner who can play a lot of quality man coverage. Without Chris McAlister, the Ravens don't have that. The front sevens are about even -- when the Titans are healthy. The best defensive tackle is Albert Haynesworth of the Titans, but the Ravens have a good one on Haloti Ngata on the nose. The best outside rusher is Terrell Suggs of the Ravens, although Kyle Vanden Bosch is up there when he's healthy. Baltimore's Ray Lewis is the best linebacker of the group, but Tennessee's Keith Bulluck is close behind. Ed Reed will be by far the best safety on the field, but the Titans have a better duo with Chris Hope and Michael Griffin. So that leaves the corners. Baltimore's corners have played well, but neither Samari Rolle nor Fabian Washington is in the class with Finnegan. So my slight edge goes to the Titans.
I'll take either, but given the choice I'll tilt ever so slightly to Baltimore, and here's why: I've seldom seen a defense that forces you into as many mistakes. The Ravens led the league in turnovers, and they led the league in interceptions. They had six returns for touchdowns, too. So I watch them go up against a Miami team that is renowned for not committing turnovers and not taking sacks, and what happens? The Dolphins commit turnovers and give up the sacks. They couldn't help themselves because Baltimore makes you fall into traps. I know the numbers favor Tennessee -- fewer points and more sacks, for instance -- and I respect what Jim Schwartz has done with that defense. But I fear the Ravens, and there's a difference. I just have the feeling that somewhere, at some time, Ed Reed or Ray Lewis or Terrell Suggs is going to make a huge play that turns the game. The Ravens don't win with offense; they win with defense, and that reminds me of a team that went to the Super Bowl in 2000. Give me Baltimore.
With the flap that the overtime rule needs changing, are there any rules that you think need to be addressed?
I have a couple. One is the way passing yards are given to a quarterback. If a running back takes a screen pass and goes 70 yards for a score, there's no way the quarterback should get credit for those passing yards. I could make that throw. Change the rule. Passing yards for a quarterback should only count if the ball is thrown past 5 yards. Don't reward the quarterback for the run-after-the-catch on short passes. Another rule change I would make is to ease the restrictions on celebrations. Why not allow the players to have some fun? As long as it isn't taunting, like spiking a ball in an opponent's face, players should be allowed to enjoy themselves briefly after scoring plays. I'm not saying they should be allowed to dance after a 10-yard catch, but touchdown celebrations were fun back in the day. Not so much now. I think the NFL sometimes forgets it is entertainment. In the YouTube era, these celebrations would be hot. Let them have some fun, guys.
The pass-interference rule. I'd like to see the pros adopt the collegiate rule and make it a 15-yard penalty instead of spotting the ball at the point of the foul for this reason: I don't like the idea of 50-yard penalties. And that's what you can have with today's pass-interference rule. Not to mention that there is no uniformity in how it is called. There aren't two officiating crews that call it the same way. I remember Minnesota's last pass in a regular-season loss to Atlanta where the receiver was mugged, and no flag was thrown. Then I'll see another game where there is incidental contact, and a penalty is called. So two guys look at one play differently. That will never change. But the yardage can. So bring some uniformity to the call by making it a 15-yard penalty, period. One other thing: If you hit some guy late or take a swing at him you get a 15-yard penalty, right? But if you arm-guard a receiver you might be assessed 50 yards? Tell me the fairness there. There isn't any.
Despite the fact that Manning and Roethlisberger have Super Bowl victories on their résumés already, I'll go with Rivers. It's close, but he's my pick. I think he has developed into one of the better quarterbacks in football for one reason: He sees the field well. That's the edge he has over the other two. He makes his decisions quicker. Rivers doesn't have the natural tools that Manning and Roethlisberger have, but he compensates by playing a decision game. He knows where to go with the football and he scans the field and gets to his third and fourth reads. Manning is good at that as well. Roethlisberger plays a more athletic game and makes most of his big plays when he's outside the pocket. He holds the ball too long. Rivers had to carry his team this season without LaDainian Tomlinson and responded with the best season of his career. You couldn't go wrong with any of them, but right now my pick would be Rivers. 
I'll stay with Eli because he's talented, he wins and he has a Super Bowl ring. I love Roethlisberger's toughness. The guy takes a lot of sacks and a zillion hits, yet he keeps on going. Plus, he makes the plays when it matters, driving the Steelers 92 yards on their last possession to catch Baltimore, for instance. Oh, yeah, he also won a Super Bowl. But if we're talking about pure passers, I'll take Eli over Big Ben. Rivers is also remarkably resilient. In fact, he played on one leg in last year's AFC Championship Game. He's accurate, he's passionate and he put up better numbers this season than either Roethlisberger or Manning, but he's missing an important line to the résumé: Super Bowl. What I especially like about Manning is that the Giants reached the playoffs every year since he became the full-time starter and was the MVP in the biggest game of his career. Those are achievements you can't overlook. 
I'll go with the Titans. Why? The Titans are better on the corners, which gives them a big edge. The Ravens don't have a player who is as good as Cortland Finnegan is at corner for the Titans. He's a Pro Bowl corner who can play a lot of quality man coverage. Without Chris McAlister, the Ravens don't have that. The front sevens are about even -- when the Titans are healthy. The best defensive tackle is Albert Haynesworth of the Titans, but the Ravens have a good one on Haloti Ngata on the nose. The best outside rusher is Terrell Suggs of the Ravens, although Kyle Vanden Bosch is up there when he's healthy. Baltimore's Ray Lewis is the best linebacker of the group, but Tennessee's Keith Bulluck is close behind. Ed Reed will be by far the best safety on the field, but the Titans have a better duo with Chris Hope and Michael Griffin. So that leaves the corners. Baltimore's corners have played well, but neither Samari Rolle nor Fabian Washington is in the class with Finnegan. So my slight edge goes to the Titans. 
I'll take either, but given the choice I'll tilt ever so slightly to Baltimore, and here's why: I've seldom seen a defense that forces you into as many mistakes. The Ravens led the league in turnovers, and they led the league in interceptions. They had six returns for touchdowns, too. So I watch them go up against a Miami team that is renowned for not committing turnovers and not taking sacks, and what happens? The Dolphins commit turnovers and give up the sacks. They couldn't help themselves because Baltimore makes you fall into traps. I know the numbers favor Tennessee -- fewer points and more sacks, for instance -- and I respect what Jim Schwartz has done with that defense. But I fear the Ravens, and there's a difference. I just have the feeling that somewhere, at some time, Ed Reed or Ray Lewis or Terrell Suggs is going to make a huge play that turns the game. The Ravens don't win with offense; they win with defense, and that reminds me of a team that went to the Super Bowl in 2000. Give me Baltimore. 
I have a couple. One is the way passing yards are given to a quarterback. If a running back takes a screen pass and goes 70 yards for a score, there's no way the quarterback should get credit for those passing yards. I could make that throw. Change the rule. Passing yards for a quarterback should only count if the ball is thrown past 5 yards. Don't reward the quarterback for the run-after-the-catch on short passes. Another rule change I would make is to ease the restrictions on celebrations. Why not allow the players to have some fun? As long as it isn't taunting, like spiking a ball in an opponent's face, players should be allowed to enjoy themselves briefly after scoring plays. I'm not saying they should be allowed to dance after a 10-yard catch, but touchdown celebrations were fun back in the day. Not so much now. I think the NFL sometimes forgets it is entertainment. In the YouTube era, these celebrations would be hot. Let them have some fun, guys. 
The pass-interference rule. I'd like to see the pros adopt the collegiate rule and make it a 15-yard penalty instead of spotting the ball at the point of the foul for this reason: I don't like the idea of 50-yard penalties. And that's what you can have with today's pass-interference rule. Not to mention that there is no uniformity in how it is called. There aren't two officiating crews that call it the same way. I remember Minnesota's last pass in a regular-season loss to Atlanta where the receiver was mugged, and no flag was thrown. Then I'll see another game where there is incidental contact, and a penalty is called. So two guys look at one play differently. That will never change. But the yardage can. So bring some uniformity to the call by making it a 15-yard penalty, period. One other thing: If you hit some guy late or take a swing at him you get a 15-yard penalty, right? But if you arm-guard a receiver you might be assessed 50 yards? Tell me the fairness there. There isn't any. 
