SportsLine.com's Pete Prisco and Clark Judge provide analysis on
three weekly topics.
Have an issue you'd like to see debated in Faceoff (and please, no
wagering)? E-mail us at Faceoff
Feedback
Which Super Bowl team has the better offensive line?
Pete Prisco
Clark Judge
Most would say it's the Seahawks. I say it's the Steelers. Seattle
has the best side of any line in the league: On the left, tackle
Walter Jones and guard Steve Hutchinson are the best at their
positions, and Seattle loves running behind them. But the rest of
the line isn't close to being in their class. Center Robbie Tobeck
is good, not great. The right side has played well, but guard
Chris Gray and right tackle Sean Locklear are just OK players,
although Locklear is a first-year starter who should move up a
level in the next year. He will be a really good one. But the
Steelers are better from tackle to tackle. Left tackle Marvel
Smith was bothered by injuries, but he's played well in the
playoffs. Left guard Alan Faneca is up there with Hutchinson among
the league's best. Center Jeff Hartings is going to the Pro Bowl
again. The right side (guard Kendall Simmons and tackle Max
Starks) has elevated its play the past month. So the choice is the
Steelers, but not by much.
It's close. It's very close. But I'll take Seattle. The Seahawks
have the best left side of an offensive line anywhere in tackle
Walter Jones and guard Steve Hutchinson. Right tackle Sean
Locklear doesn't get a whole lot of attention, but he should.
Listen to what offensive coordinator Gil Haskell said about him
the other day: "He played people like Michael Strahan and Jevon
Kearse and Julius Peppers, and we never had to give him help." You
have to like that. Right guard Chris Gray is solid, and center
Robbie Tobeck had a good year. If there's a concern I make it
Tobeck -- only because he'll have a huge defensive tackle in Casey
Hampton leaning on him. That could be a key to what either team
does. But Seattle is more physical up front than people think,
and, I think, better than most people concede. Hey, there's a
reason Shaun Alexander led the league in rushing.
Should Warren Moon be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame?
Pete Prisco
Clark Judge
No question, Moon should be a first-ballot selection. He threw for
49,325 yards, fourth best in league history. He also threw 291
touchdown passes, fifth all time. Moon was a wonderful
quarterback. And those numbers don't include what he did in the
CFL, which is shame because it's the Pro Football Hall of Fame not
the NFL Hall of Fame. Those who question his candidacy say he
played in the Run-and-Shoot offense that bloated his numbers. The
reality is he played in that offense just three years. And even
so, if we penalize him for playing in a passing offense, do we
have to take out backs who played in a running offense? It's an
absurd argument. Moon never reached the Super Bowl but always did
his part in the postseason. In 10 playoff games, he only threw
more interceptions than touchdowns once. He had 17 touchdowns and
14 interceptions. Four times he threw for more than 300 yards in
the playoffs. In 1992, he threw for 371 yards and four touchdowns
against the Bills but lost 41-38. The year before against Denver
he threw for 325 yards and three touchdowns but lost. I've always
been partial to Moon because I love the passing game. But anyone
implying he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall is someone with a
misguided view of what the Hall means, which is greatness. Warren
Moon was great. End of story.
He's close, but put me down for a no. The reason is simple: I
can't remember the last big game he won. No, make that: I can't
remember any big game he won. Now let's not get started on Dan
Fouts. I know he didn't win a championship game, either, but he's
not the subject here. Moon is. I know all about the zillions of
yards and those three straight 300-yard performances in the
playoffs. Only Fouts and Kelly matched that, and both are in the
Hall. But Kelly went to four straight Super Bowls. Moon? He was
3-7 in the playoffs. End of discussion. And I don't want to hear
about how this is the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the
NFL Hall of Fame, so that his CFL records should count. If that's
the case clear the decks for Damon Allen.
Isn't all the Brett Favre retirement talk getting old?
Pete Prisco
Clark Judge
Make a decision already. Favre is one of the NFL's great players,
a guy I love to watch. He could do so many things that would make
your jaw drop. But this will-he-or-won't-he talk is getting old.
Then again, a certain network somehow finds a way to milk the most
out of it when it can. If Favre is going to play, he needs to tell
new coach Mike McCarthy. If he isn't, he needs to say that, too.
Favre should give the team time to prepare for life after Brett.
Sure, Favre deserves some time, but he also should make it easier
on the team. There is also a lot of talk that the timing is right
for him to walk away. There's a new staff. The Packers probably
won't be Super ready for a couple of years, and Favre simply isn't
the player he was in years past. Something has gone from the
fastball. So let's hope we get a decision sometime soon. Then
again, maybe we'll get four more prime-time stories out of his
decision. Who the heck wants to blow that chance?
No. If there's one thing Brett Favre deserves it's time to make
the most important decision of his career. The Packers owe him
that after everything he's done for that team. Yes, I'd like to
see him make up his mind, but what's the rush? It's not as if the
draft is tomorrow. And, besides, don't the Packers have their next
quarterback on the roster? That's why I thought they invested a
first-round pick in Aaron Rodgers. Favre needed time last year
before reaching a decision, and he's asked for it again. So give
it to him. Why do we need him to make up his mind now? Nothing's
happening with the Packers. Sure, I'd like to have a decision,
say, by early March, so Green Bay can start planning its
free-agent and draft course. But if he's not ready, leave him
alone. Favre gave so much to the Packers; the least they can do is
give him time.
Most would say it's the Seahawks. I say it's the Steelers. Seattle
has the best side of any line in the league: On the left, tackle
Walter Jones and guard Steve Hutchinson are the best at their
positions, and Seattle loves running behind them. But the rest of
the line isn't close to being in their class. Center Robbie Tobeck
is good, not great. The right side has played well, but guard
Chris Gray and right tackle Sean Locklear are just OK players,
although Locklear is a first-year starter who should move up a
level in the next year. He will be a really good one. But the
Steelers are better from tackle to tackle. Left tackle Marvel
Smith was bothered by injuries, but he's played well in the
playoffs. Left guard Alan Faneca is up there with Hutchinson among
the league's best. Center Jeff Hartings is going to the Pro Bowl
again. The right side (guard Kendall Simmons and tackle Max
Starks) has elevated its play the past month. So the choice is the
Steelers, but not by much.
It's close. It's very close. But I'll take Seattle. The Seahawks
have the best left side of an offensive line anywhere in tackle
Walter Jones and guard Steve Hutchinson. Right tackle Sean
Locklear doesn't get a whole lot of attention, but he should.
Listen to what offensive coordinator Gil Haskell said about him
the other day: "He played people like Michael Strahan and Jevon
Kearse and Julius Peppers, and we never had to give him help." You
have to like that. Right guard Chris Gray is solid, and center
Robbie Tobeck had a good year. If there's a concern I make it
Tobeck -- only because he'll have a huge defensive tackle in Casey
Hampton leaning on him. That could be a key to what either team
does. But Seattle is more physical up front than people think,
and, I think, better than most people concede. Hey, there's a
reason Shaun Alexander led the league in rushing.
