The Top 50 QBs of All Time: #50 - #41

Re-doing this partially because I wanted to update the modern players that have moved and shaken their way up the list, and also because I want to right a few wrongs from teh first list, and finally because I want to actually finish it this time (e.g. not stop at #8).

50.) Andrew Luck

He may never play again, but even if he doesn't (probably a very low probability outcome), you can argue he deserves this spot. Luck was that good through his first five seasons, even if injuries and team decay hurt the Colts in 2015-16. This is still a guy who took over a 2-14 team with as large a hole to fill as humanly possible, and turned them into an 11-5 team three years running. That third year, in 2014, he was brilliant, throwing for 40 TDs, and 4,700 yards behind a sieve o-line and with only one true weapon in TY Hilton. Hopefully Luck can return and make his way slowly up and up this list.


49.) Dave Krieg

My number 48 was a Seahawk. Quick spoiler, but my #46 is a Seahawk, but in between is the forgotten Seahawk. Most people will probably remember Jim Zorn over Krieg, but Dave Krieg, much like another Dave that was famous in the Emerald City, could do a few things really well. One is throw deep and the other is throw TDs. People like the use the black ink test, which is how many times a player led the league in anything, and Krieg has more black ink than you would think. He led the NFL in TD% three times, and led in completion percentage one year. For a guy who had limited team success, he also had limited team embarrassment, going 98-77 for his career as a starter, including 70-49 with Seattle. Krieg is now the third best QB in franchise history, but a franchise that did so little before Mike Holmgren came on board, that's a better position than you would think. Krieg had a really nice 4-5 year peak, and a long tail period that hurts his rate stats, but he's honestly perfectly at home in a Top-50 QB list, and through the period of this paragraph I've started to feel that I've underrated him.


48.) Jim Everett

Life isn't fair, and Everett staying on the Rams after they lost all their good players and collapsing until they would eventually move to St. Louis isn't fair, because it ruined the legacy of a guy who was good enough to lead the NFL in TDs in 1988 and 1989. Now, if Joe Montana was healthy enough to play 16 games, that doesn't happen, but at his best Everett was the standout player on offense for a playoff team. At his best Jim Everett was a really good QB, but one that will be remembered more because he threw a table at Jim Rome. To talk about that for a minute, obviously Everett came across poorly, as the prototypical 'dumb jock' with teh short fuse; but no one came across worse than Jim Rome, who kept on repeating that blindingly dumb 'Chris' line. Of course, the worst part of this whole thing was that Jim Everett should have taken it as a compliment, as Chris Evert is so much more accomplished than he is as a QB (or Rome as a broadcaster), no one should feel more insulted than her.


47.) Joe Flacco

Pro-Football-Reference has a stat called Rating+, which normalizes passer rating by Era, much like OPS+ and ERA+ in baseball. There's some flaws with it since passer rating itself is an inherently flawed metric, but I like that Joe Flacco is a perfect 100 for his career. That is not great, obviously. There are caveats. For years, because of the high price of keeping Lewis/Reed/Suggs/Ngata/et. al., around, he was never surrounded with top flight talent, and because there are two outlier seasons pulling that down (he's above 100 in four of his six full seasons). But here's where playoffs come in again. Flacco is somewhat overrated in the playoffs, as he was largely awful in his first five playoff games (he went 3-2), especially the hilarous line of 4-10, 36 yards and an INT in a win (by 19 pounts!) on the road. But since the 2010 season, he has been a great playoff QB in really every way. He's had an incredible Super Bowl run, nearly beat the Patriots two other times, nearly outplaying Tm Brady each time, and has generally done all of this on the road. Regular Season weighs more heavily as we go up the list, but back here when there are so many players with checkered regular seasons, a few dominant postseason runs are helpful.

46.) Jim Plunkett

This is controversial as Plunkett was a plainly bad QB for a 5-6 year stretch with New England, even if you use 1970's passing adjustments. He was just bad, posting a passer rating just under 60. However, with Oakland, it all turned around. Still, his overall stats aren't great in totality, but Oakland didn't play a passer-rating friendly style with deep throws in a league that was becoming more addicted to teh Walsh-ian way. However, Plunkett does have those Super Bowl runs. I'm not in the mindset that Super Bowl and/or Playoff stats should completely outweight what one does in the regular season, but it does matter that Plunkett was great in the Raiders two Super Bowl runs, including a deserved Super Bowl MVP in 1980. The Raiders post Plunkett were mired in the QB wasteland until another outcast came and rescued them 15 years later (he's still to come), but the man who saw out the great Raiders era of dominance deserves a spot on this last, if only as the 1980's slightly less good Eli Manning.


45.) Matt Hasselbeck

Matthew had a really nice 5-year run with Seattle, with some good half-season performances in the two years preceding that, and a two-week renaissance in the 2010 playoffs. He's now doing what a lot of players on this list wouldn't do: live on as a backup, one without real hope of playing unless Andrew Luck gets hurt. Still, what he did in those five seasons, leading the Seahawks to five straight playoff seasons, and putting up nice playoff stats in taking them to their first Super Bowl, gets him his spot on the list. Matthew Hasselbeck passed Mark Brunell as the best ex-Favre backup (non-Rodgers edition) and it was a reunion with Holmgren that made it happen. He was a weird player who played and carried himself like an underdog despite him being one of the league's best and most present QBs for a 5-year period. He threw in a weird way that belied an actual brilliant arm that could throw with incredible touch. He was limited in part by a system that was slowly getting figured out, in part by receivers that could never stay healthy, and mostly in part by receivers that when healthy dropped the ball, a lot. Still, his memory should live on as a true professional. QBs that put up 5-year runs like Matt did from '03-'07 are not that common.


44.) Cam Newton
\

Cam can go way up this list. Honestly, he already probably could be, it is somewhat anti-recency-bias hurting him. Cam is the most unique QB of the modern era, someone indestrible but still efficient. He has such a brilliant arm. He put up an epic season in 2015 that culminated with a 15-1 season and 500 points despite losing his best WR in the preseason. Newton somewhat came back in 2017, and should hopefully have a long fruitful end to his career. His eventual place will likely be 10-15 steps up, but the talent is always there to go even higher. Cam is a truly unique talent, the first QB who could actually last as a runner for a number of years. Newton runs one of the more unique offenses ever, because he is a truly unique player.


43.) Phil Simms

Phil Simms is a strange player who's memory is enhanced by the talent that was on his teams (mostly on defense), and that incredible 22-25 performance in the Super Bowl. He was mostly useless in all his other playoff seasons, but his 1986 set of games, including that Super Bowl, was Flacco in 2012-level. Then again, Simms was largely a better regular season QB than people remember. With limited offensive talent, he was a consistently good player for a long time. From 1984 through his retirement in 1993, his lowest passer rating was 74.6, after that was 78.1. He had a passer rating+ above 100 every year but his first two seasons. The only things to take away are that he was asked to do basically nothing, and he took a lot of sacks (something not reflected in that passer rating stat). Phil Simms is a better QB than people think, but let's not also overstate the 22-25 game. He wasn't a mediocre player with one great game, but he wasn't a truly great player either. That's an important distinction to make some times.


42.) Russell Wilson

Russell Wilson is following a very Ben Roethlisberger like career, even if those two players are as different physically as possible. Like Big Ben, Wilson was thrust into a perfect situation, with a great running game, incredible defense, and it led to a Super Bowl title in Year 2. Following that, Wilson slowly graduated from system player to incredible QB. Wilson's 2015 season was something special, ending with 34 TDs, and an NFL leading 110.1 passer rating. I don't think anyone thought Wilson had that in him. Last year was similar to Ben's mid career (2009 or 2012-2013) when he dragged weakened teams to respectable seasons based on his brilliance. If Wilson can continue that, he can also rise way up these rankings. To be honest, I'm probably underrating both Newton and Wilson at this point.


41.) Randall Cunningham 

Cunningham's career was defined by his amazing athleticism, the first truly transcendant running QB, one good enough to fundamentally change the way defenses tried to stop him. But behind that athleticism was a really good player who was surrounded for most of his career by awful O-Lines and marginal offensive talent in Philadelphia. For a 6-year run from 1987-1992, Cunningham was one of the best QBs in the NFL playing with no one but a coked-up Cris Carter. Randall's career rennaissance in Minnesota was more due to having Randy Moss and a non-coked-up Cris Carter who had reformed his life, but that showed what Cunningham was capable of with better talent. He had limitations like his propensity to take sacks and he melted down in a few playoff games, but Cunningham started an offensive revolution that now a few guys have taken over.

The Guys Who Just Deserve One

Alex Ovechkin is now one win away from lifting the Stanley Cup, hopefully putting the questions about his ability to win in the playoffs to rest. He can fill the last hole in his peerless resume. Ovechkin has a shot to end up as the NHL's all-time leading goal-scorer, given he has about 280 goals to go at 32. Someone who is one of the very best players to ever play his sport deserves a moment like this.

Call it a symptom of rooting from Peyton for all those years. No one deserved a win more than him. From watching him, I've started basically accepting that I want every all time great level player to experience Championship glory at least once. Felt the same way about Ed Reed when the Ravens won the 2012 Super Bowl, definitely the same with Dirk (and Jason Kidd, and Peja, and so many members of the 2011 Mavericks), and hell, even LeBron and Kevin Durant. Given that Ovechkin is close to accomplishing this, I wanted to go through the list of guys who ascend next up that list.


Cristiano Ronaldo & Lionel Messi

This is limited stricly to the World Cup, but it would be nice if one of the two generational players of the last 10 years gets a World Cup on their resume. Nearly all the all-time greats have one, maybe with the exception of Johan Cruyff (or a George Best - someone who played for a country who never qualified). For Messi, it would be truly meaningful to finally get it to match Maradona. There will sadly always be stupid people in Argentina who will put over Diego because Leo hasn't won a World Cup. For Ronaldo, at least he has a European Champoinship to his name, but a World Cup truly eludes him - the closest he got was a Semifinal appearance as a 20-year old in 2006. Both probably have one more shot after 2018; sadly given it is every four years, it really seems difficult to see either pull it off.


Clayton Kershaw

Kershaw's injuries this year have once again sadly shown that the best is probably behind him. As guys like Kluber and Scherzer and healthy and start gaining on Kershaw, people may soon start forgetting how unconsciably good he was from 2009 - 2016. Kershaw is the best pitcher since Pedro Martinez, and just like Pedro deserved to experience a World Series in 2004, so does Kershaw. Even though my team was the one who capitalized, it was so depressing him wilt in Game 5 last year. He was great in Game 7, but it was already over at that point. Kershaw is one of the truly great people to couple with being a historically great pitcher. More than anyone active in US sports, he deserves a Championship - even if baseball is the sport where rings mean the least for someone's place in history.


Joey Votto

Slowly, Joey Votto has become a beloved figure the last few years, putting up Frank Thomas like numbers for a terrible team in Cincinnati. He had two playoff teams, both felled in teh NLDS. In some respects, I hope he is a Cincinnati lifer. On the other, get him the hell out of there to a playoff bound team who has a shot. If this was two months ago, Votto would be replaced by Ichiro, but with the latter in momentary retirement, the focus shifts to Joey Bats. On the one hand, I wish he stole last year's NL MVP from Giancarlo Stanton, as it would have been hilarious for Joey Votto to have two MVPs. But in the end, Votto can continue his anonymous hall of fame life.


Chris Paul

He's the only NBA player on my list (Harden & Westbrook haven't accomplished enough to me to get a place here). Chris Paul at least can rest easy knowing he made it to Round 3, but then again, it is going to pain him so much to get there, only to shimmy his way to a Rockets 3-2 lead before missing games 6-7. He'll be 34 the next playoffs. He's clearly past his prime. He may only get there in the same way Jason Kidd did in 2011. But even if that is the case, I'm perfectly fine. Here's hoping he is the Sixers backup point guard in 2023.


Joe Thornton

Thornton had his chance in 2016. He was great for the Sharks in their run to the Stanley Cup Final, only for the Sharks to get outclassed by the Penguins. This of course came after so many previous attempts when they had a better team than their 2016 vintages. Thornton is the assist-instead-of-goals version of Obechkin, a generational talent always criticized more than he deserved. In his older days, he started getting the credit as people looked past the playoff failures to focus on his brilliant career, but even then, it would be nice to fill the last hole in his resume. It probably won't happen. This year was tough - his team without him gave the Knights a nice series. The Sharks are built to have a few more good years, but it will become a question if Thornton will be a part of them.


Erik Karlsson

There are a lot of hockey players who have played around 10 years, who have all made a huge impact, who haven't won the Stanley Cup. Guys like PK Subban, or the duo in Tampa (Stamkos & Hedman), but none of them can match Karlsson. This is a guy who put up Orr-like numbers as a defenseman, who carried a notably shit team to overtime in Game 7 of the Conference Finals, pushing the Penguins further than anyone else did in their back-to-back Cup runs. Hopefully, Karlsson can escape a deteriorating Ottawa sitaution and get his Cup. Give me your Doughty's adn Subban's and Hedman's (and Keith's though I'll argue he was a previous generation). Karlsson is better than all of them. The best defenseman of an era needs a Stanley Cup. Hopefully he's also the Captain when it happens, and its not a pathetic Borque situation.


Philip Rivers & Antonio Gates

These two guys went 14-2, 11-5, 8-8, 13-3 in foru straight seasons, and never got close. They've been all-pro level guys since then and haven't gotten close. They've been snake-bitten, whether it was Marlon McCree fumbling a game-sealing interception, or Nate Kaeding missing three field goals, or somehow missing teh playoffs last year with a +81 point differential. For Rivers, he needs it so people can stop pretending he is worse than Eli Manning: Rivers is demonstrably better. For Gates, it would be fitting for a guy who is arguably the best Tight End ever (at least before Gronk takes that title for good). With a rapidly improving defense and an equally rapidly declining AFC, this isn't even too farfetched. Out of anyone named, Rivers probably has the least tenuous claim to being an 'all-time great', but part of that is because he doesn't have a ring. If he had one, he's an easy hall of famer - of course, he should be anyway.


Larry Fitzgerald

If I did this a couple years ago, I would have added Andre Johnson and Calvin Johnson to this list, but with those two gone, the last great WR of the 2000s easily gets his place. Fitzgerald has arguably come closer than anyone on the list so far (maybe Messi beats him). Fitzgerald willed the Cardinals to a lead in Super Bowl XLIII (annyoingly, a full 10 years ago!) only to see Santonio Holmes, a guy who was last relevant in 2010, rip it all away. Fitzgerald has been a conssumate pro, even staying in Arizona despite QB turnover and new starts. He also seems probably further away from getting another chance, but I'm all for Fitz signing a 1-year deal with some juggernaut - just as long as it isn't New England.

Merci, Zizou

In a way, it seems so obvious. There was no where for Zidane to go but down. He had already won three Champions League titles in two and a half years as coach. No coach has won more. No coach had won three in a row. No team had won three in a row in 40 years. Zidane did.

Zidane picked a perfect time to leave, his legacy as shiny as his bald head. Zidane did what so few actually get the chance to do, especially at Real Madrid, leave on your own terms; leave when there was more to give. Just as he did as a player, leaving after dominating the 2006 World Cup, he leaves after dominating the coaching world.

Sure, there is a tinge of sadness, of not getting to see that suave gentleman roam the sidelines of the Bernabeu, an image that just seemed right, seemed perfect. But for a man who has already accomplished so much as a player, and then as a coach, it was surely not going to be a Wenger or Sir Alex like run at the club.

That said, Zidane was perfect for Madrid. His calm demeanor, his command of hte media and the politics of the most political of clubs. There's a reason why we never heard players complain during seasons, apart from the odd James or Bale quotes. That's why we rarely heard about Florentino Perez complaining as he is want to do. That's why we rarely saw drama at a club that knew nothing but. Zidane commanded respect from the players, from even players who approach his status as a player (Ronaldo), from the media, and even that ornery president. This was his Madrid, and he owned it.

Zidane left because he could. Because he had accomplished more than anyone could have expected, even during a season that had its complications. Sure, it is sad given one year ago, when Madrid already achieved history by going back to back in the Champions League and won the league. They looked to be on the cusp of a new era. Insteadx, it was one more year of glory before having to start anew.

Zidane will get other opportunities, whether it be for France, or Juventus, or even someday back at Madrid (he and Perez went to some lengths to say how this is not goodbye forever). But it will be sad to not have that stately magician on the touchlines, especially in the Bernabeu. It fit so well, a magnetic superstar coach heading a superstar team in the great cathedral of sport.

Even beyond the mysticism, of course, lies the fact that Zidane was objectively a great coach as well. He may not have had the revolutionary tactics of Guardiola, or Mourinho, or even Klopp, but he also wasn't nearly as much of a novice as some made him out to be. He created a modable team that was able to play on teh counter, or dominate possession, and played to their strenghts, allowing a scintillating team to do that just. Of course, more than anything else, he inspired - driving a team always a bit flighty to more success than anyone could have imagined. We should have seen it when an uninspired Madrid nearly caught Barcelona in 2016, and won teh Champions League for the second time in three years. The rest was just proof.

It may take a while before we truly understand what we just saw with Zidane. There is no good comparison in modern sports, maybe you have to go bavk to Cruyff in football, but it is hard to draw a parallel in US sports. We have never seem something like this. In a weird way, I feel like his supernova status as a player detracted from his achievements as a coach. This would be like if Peyton Manning took over as coach or GM of the Colts and immediately won Three superbowls. That is ludicrous. What Zidane did is also, but it also happened.

In the end, it shouldn't come as any surprise that Zidane called in a job well done after three years. The idea of someone like him becoming a coaching lifer always seemed a bit senseless. He doesn't need to stay because he literally doesn't need to stay. He is, after all, Zinedine Zidane. 

Why I Travel

I've been travelling all my life. Travelling as a kid, someone born into a family who's parents are always exploring. I made my first trip to Europe when I was 7, the start of an annual tradition each Easter to go to Europe that lasted until my 10th birthday. That was just the beginning.

I've visited Europe countless more times, but now South America twice, Africa twice, and Asia a few more. I went on a three-month Odyssey instead of playing out the string of a final semester Senior year when I could have taken 1-2 classes and bopped off.

Every time a trip ends, I start planning the next one. Whether they be short weekend jaunts, or extended week-long treks to some mystical foreign land. I am loathe to sit back and enjoy the last one, wanting to set my sights on the next time I can escape the normal world and immerse myself in something new.

I've thought about this near obsession a lot recently. First, I have to admit a few advantages I've had. First, I have a job that allows me to travel a lot, with a scheme allowing for weekend trips fairly often where the biggest expense (the flight) can be somewhat taken care of. I also am lucky enough to not have a family to take care of, or burdensome student loans, or even rent to a large extent, to worry about. My travel budget is higher than it should be given my salary and standing. But even then, I can't think of a better way to pay my 'rent' than in travel.

There is something exciting about going somewhere new, about experiencing a new world. Something I've been able to pick up even in the traveling I have to do for work, to random outposts of America (or Canada, or Mexico) is how different these areas are. They have a different energy, a different way of living. Some of my favorite trips are quick weekends or even the 2-3 days I spend in a city, getting to focus in on what that place is about.

One of the main issues of my travels is so often when I leave a place, I really want to go back, but understand in my heart how impractical that is - there are so many more places to see. This doesn't apply to every place. For sure, Cape Town has carved a lasting enough place in my heart to where I keep wanting to go back, but then there's also Madrid, the place I've ranked as my #1 favorite international city, a ranking I've only tested twice.

The first time I seriouisly traveled alone was in 2010, going to Madrid for three days before heading up to London to meet my sister who was studying there at the time. In 2010, Tripadvisor wasn't really a thing. I  had a smart-phone, but without any international data plan. I had no idea how I was able to get quite a bit out of those three days. Since then, staring with my three month odyssey, vacation planning has become such an integral part of the trip. I have a standard format that I use now, an Excel-based file that lists what I intend to do or see each AM, PM, Evening, Night and each meal. I don't always keep to it. I've often had multiple things listed. It is a living and breathing document even during the trip. But it helps keep me sane.

Sure, some may say this studious, punctilious way of planning trips takes away some of the actual fun. And to that end, I have never gone blindly into some foreign place, armed with a backpack containing two changes of clothes, and dove head-first into a new place. But to me that allows you to miss what makes each place special.

Traveling is my job, I work at my regular place of employ in the meantime. There are probably many like me - including again my Dad. It all really starts from him. From the literal sense as he was the one who paid for my first umpteen trips abroad, instilling in myself (and my sister) a love of traveling that has and will last a lifetime. But also becacuse if anyone is more addicted to thrill of new experiences, new countires, new cultures, new places, it is him.

Starting in 2005, my parents discovered they could take trips without their two kids, with my sister being old enough to "take care of us". Since then, they've gone on trip after trip in a truly dizzying pace, to the point where a 5-day trip to Porto literally gets forgotten. I hope to achieve that one day.

I won't stop travelling. It is a way to escape, in a sense, and at times I do fear that is what is driving this never-ending wanderlust tendency. But on the other hand, I've lived in the same metro area my home life, whether it be in the suburbs of Plainsboro or the urban sprawl of New York. There is so much our own country has to offer, let alone the other 196 countries (per Sporcle's count) has to offer. And I still have over 140 to go.

The risk in traveling so much is you avoid reality at times, the bills, the housework, the mundane tasks that drives actual life, but the return on turning your mind away from such banaltiy is the experience of a lifetime, every time. I don't think I've ever not enjoyed a trip somewhere. Sure, some places are better than others, but there is no place better than being away from home, experiencing something new for the first time.

I won't ever stop traveling. Maybe if I have 2-4 kids, and the expenditure becomes too much, sure, but until then it won't stop. There are so many places, from, basically, the whole Mountain Time Zone, to so many places in South America or Africa. There are so many corners of this beautiful world that I haven't yet experienced, set foot in, bathed in the culture and the wonder of new. And thankfully there are many years, and many opportunities, to do so.

What Do I Think About Vegas

We are living in a world where an expansion team is playing for a title in their first season. This is not a joke. They didn't pilfer the best players. They didn't sign some high priced free agents. They are flukes in the biggest way, a 500-1 long-shot.

Of course, that same team got 108 points, were wire-to-wire one of teh best teams in the league, had a +44 goal differential, the best home record in the NHL. They were squarely slightly above average across a host of "fancy stats." When you get a 109 point team steamrolling its way to a Conference Title against two lesser teams and another team just four points better, its surprising to see that level of dominance, but not exactly a fluke.

Squaring these two versions of the Golden Knights incredible season is one of the tougher tasks in sports. The Knights shouldn't be hear, but when we actually look at the rosters, stripped of the idea that other teams gave up on them, they aren't all too bad. They have a bunch of 2nd and 3rd liners, second and third pairing defensemen, and a goalie who can play as well as any when healthy. They may not have the roster of a Stanley Cup Champion, but if you took this exact roster, put them on Carolina before the season, no one would have been surprised if they snuck into the playoffs.

But this isn't that. They are an expansion team, and generally expansion teams have been disasters over the years, some of teh worst teams in teh history of the sport. For some reason, despite the expansion draft rules being more liberal than usual, people expected that. Here's my main test for why I actually think you could dhave predicted the Knights to be decent (key word: decent, not great) before the season: most hardcore NHL fans had probably heard of most of their players before teh season started. That just wasn;t true of previous expansion teams.

Whether you think the rise of the Knights is deserved or not, we have to admit it is a great story that is great for hockey. They have shown hockey can work in Vegas, pro sports can work. They have a real fanbase, not an arena full of traveling fans and gamblers getting comped tickets. From the start of the season, they had a special home atmosphere, great crowds, as loud as any. This has only ramped up in the playoffs, with amazingly, intricate pregame plays, little Medieval Times skits on ice, that somehow work perfectly in Vegas. The NHL got a nice first mover advantage coming into Vegas, and have hit a home run,

From teh time they dominated the LA Kings, sweeping them limiting the Kings to three goals in teh four games, we should have seen this as possible. It is surprising how easily they turned aside the Jets, but again not so expected if we take the Knights as the team they were, not the team many, if not all, thought they would be.

The Knights may win a Cup in their inaugaral season. Yes, it is true their fans don't "deserve" it in teh sense of not having suffered, not having faced the pains and misery of, say, the Capitals fans, or even the Jets fans, who have lived through seeing a team stripped away from them. But really, who cares? There is no "deserved" in sports. Sure, it is nice when long suffering fans get their due, but you can also say in a sport that has seen quite a few franchises struggle, at times putting the viability of the league at risk or at least under question, it may be good to have their newest fanbase get invested early.

There are so many incredible aspects to the rise of the Knights, from the silly trades that created this team, most notably the Panthers giving up two members of their top line. The Knights also gave us the rebirth of Marc Andre Fleury, of coach Garrard Gallant who was literally kicked off the team bus in Florida when being fired. It also is a great way to snipe back at the numerous media members that derided the fact Vegas was getting a team in the first place. So much criticism was levied on the NHL, and they've proven everyone wrong.

True great sport Cinderella stories are so rare. We had one even greater two years ago when Leicester City won the Premier League. But this might be the most incredible story in US major sports, at least in my lifetime, but again, when you strip away the noise coming into the start of the year, the Knights have proven themselves over and over again this year.

And to that end, I say we stop worrying what this says about the NHL, about if the expansion draft was rigged to create a monster (it wasn't), if anyone could have predicted this (again, predicting they would be a bubble team would not have been farfetched). Let's just bask in how great hockey has been in Vegas, that we get at least two more drawn out pre-game plays. We'll worry if this is sustanable later, or if the future Seattle team can replicate this success, but for now, just enjoy it; enjoy watching a team of cast-offs, a team of "C" to "B" players make work in the world's best playoff tournament.

My Top 12 US & Canada Cities

This is list was spurred because during this past weekend when I met 7 childhood friends for a bachelor party in Montreal, I was asked where Montreal would rank on my list of favorite cities if it was eligible. In truth, quite high! But then I got thinking, there are some great cities in the USA and Canada if we expand it. Maybe not the 40 I've listed for the non-US/Canada world, but a fair good amount. I did want to rank them, but there are two huge caveats; first is the surprisingly long list of US touchstones I either haven't visited or visited many years ago; second the cities that I've lived in, or visited too often to really be able to accurately judge.

Not eligible becuase I live too close / can't speak to as a tourist attraction: New York City (obviously would be really high), The entire rest of the Northeast Corridor (Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, Washington), Jacksonville, Houston, Grand Rapids, Horsham, (those last two are just there for fun - random client locations, obviously had no chance to be on this list unless I went 200 deep).

Other cities that I understand are quite good but have never visited to date, or visited long enough ago I don't really remember it: Seattle, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, St. Louis, New Orleans, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Memphis, Albuquerque, Boise, Honolulu, etc.


12.) Atlanta (2017)

I went to Atlanta once, on a bachelor party of a family friend. It was a great time, and sure it may be hard to separate the city from the bachelor party-ness of it all (a good one is about as good a long weekend as possible), but the city itself seemed like a better, not as hot, Dallas. Really nice restaurants featuring southern cooking. We ventured out to a couple nice suburbs for meals as well. Of course, there are a few aspects of the city that make it a particularly apt Bachelor Party spot - some that are basically cultural mileposts. Won't say more. The only thing keeping it from being higher is the lack of historical importance and natural beauty; most of the cities on the list have one or the other.


11.) Orlando (1998, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2009, 2016)

Removing Disney and Universal, Orlando wouldn't be anywhere close to this. I have visited Orlando a couple times without really touching either park system and found it decent, with good shopping and decent restuarants/bars. But we can't just ignore that those two monster park systems, in Disney's case, a literal city. Those parks to have some magic to them, changing enough each half decade to not get fully old (haven't really visited any since 2009). Disney is quite a bit magical, and despite the cost, the crowds, it is one of the world's best destinations.


10.) Austin (2002, 2016)

May seem low, but that more speaks to the strengths of the cities above it, which include truly unique factors, great restaurant & beer cultures, and/or historical relevance. Austin has some of these things, if not all, but not at the high degree of some of the others. The best aspects probably are the barbecue and live music, but there's other cities that do each, if not both in one case, at a reasonably good level as well, without the added heat and sprawl. Either way, Austin is a fantastic city, but is starting to get slightly too popular and slightly overcrowded to add to the fact that American does indeed have a lot of great cities.

9.) Calgary (2005)

The first time I did my International Cities list, I had Goa (admittedly, a state, not a city) ranked at #6 (out of 25). I realize that was dumb, but I had a great experience, a semi-idyllic trip. This very well could be the same thing, given my last trip was so long ago. There is a few standout features for Calgary. First is its proximity to Banff National Park (90 minutes away), a stunning Natural Park that puts most US-based ones to shame. Second is their meat, from Reindeer to Beef. Third comes from what I've read, which is an surprisingly excellent music & drinks scene that has grown rapidly in this outpost - obviously something I would not have experienced last time. I do want to make another trip to assess this initial view, but given Banff is included in Calgary's oeuvre for me, it will be hard to fall too much further than this.


8.) San Francisco (1999, 2008, 2014, 2017)

San Francisco actually somewhat proves my point about Calgary maybe needing another go. Had I not spent a long weekend there in November, it would likely be higher, but there is a couple glaring issues I found this time around, mainly the almost unimaginable homeless problem driven mostly by opiods and drugs. There are streets deep inside SF's main area that are basically unwalkable. It disfigures what is a great city outside of that, with incredible food, a world-class art and drinks culture, good museums, great sightlines and parks, and so much more. The only other negative to me might be the price, which is somewhat unescapable. Either way, San Francisco has a few black marks on it that hurt it from being a truly brilliant city..


7.) Portland (2017)

I went to Portland three weeks before I went to San Francisco in 2017, and found it quite a bit better. They are similar in some ways, but Portland is cheaper, with the same asian influences. Also in Portland's favor is a truly astounding craft beer culture, and great food all around, from Pok Pok's wings, to incredible biscuit sandwhiches. You also get some beautiful, remote, scenery in teh 1-2 hour perimiter of the city, from the Mt. Hood region to the East and the Tillamook Forest to the West. It's a truly beautiful city with a great sense of what it is; one of the few cities in America that define everything that a unique American city should have.


6.) Chicago (1998, 2001, 2005, 2015)



I need to go to Chicago again, because while I did go for three days in 2015, that wasn't a long enough trip to formulate a changed opinion. My memories of Chicago are more from childhood, where I remember it being somewhat a perfect American city. They have arguably the best collection of museums of any American city. They have a beach. They have incredible sports to witness, including a cathedral that is Wrigley Field. I'm sure they have food and great bars and all the rest as well. The largest four cities in the country for as long as I can remember have been NYC, LA, Chicago and Houston (just city, not metro area), and Chicago seems the least like a true sprawling Metropolis.


5.) San Diego (1999, 2017)



We all get the jokes about San Diego, the perfect weather, the laissaz faire attitude that made a whole community do a shrug emoji when they lost their football team. The perfect nature of the city. All of it. It is all true, because we are all just jealous that a city with a perfect year-round climate was made and we don't all live there. I went in March, it was 70 each day and sunny. The city has history, with old churches and military history like the aircraft carrier musuem. It has great food - including multiple great restaurants lining the Gaslamp district. There is a great beer culture highlighted by two of the most successful craft breweries in the US in Ballast Point and Stone. And of course there are some great hiking trails and parks and sports. The city is a perfect place to live, but it isn't too bad to visit either.


4.) Toronto (2008, 2016, 2017)



I almost put The Six in the groups of cities that I can't rank as I did a project in a suburb for four months, close enough to go into the city many times, but I liked it too much to keep it out. Toronto is great, easily the best (NY excluded) mega-tropolis I've been to in the US. The positives in Toronto are endless, from the CN Tower, to the Island, to the bevy of incredible food options, and neighborhoods from Downtown, to the Distellery District, to Yorkville, to so many others. The food is great. The beer is great. The bars are great. The city is large but never has the traffic or urban sprawl problems that other huge USA cities have to deal with. Toronto also has a great comedy and music since (Drake aside), and has as much culture of its US counterparts. It's a lot larger than people realize, and still has all the cultural charms of the secondary cities, A rare combination.


3.) Nashville (2016, 2017)



Live music has many homes within the US, but I would argue none touches Nashville, from mainstream spots like the Grand Ole Opry or Bluebird Cafe, to the many great spots that litter Broadway on both sides, to even the others that espouse Rock and Blues. Nashville owns all cities I've been to when looking at music. Of course, that isn't where Nashville's positives ends. There are great restaurants, from BBQ to hot chicken, to a truly special burger place in Pharmacy Burger. The cities' increasingly built up outskirts push the number of restaurants and bars even further higher, The city, nestled nicely in the Appalachian plateau's even rarely gets too hot. What a great slice of Americana.


2.) Denver (2015, 2017)



Honestly, Denver and Nashville are almost tied in my book, easily my favorite US cities that I've visited. Denver has the same cultural niceties of Nashville - incredible restaurants, great bars, a great low-key vibe. Nashville has the music, Denver has the incredible sceney with Rocky Mountain National Park, and stunning view after stunning view, an hour away. The Rocky Mountains truly are a staggering sight that Denver probably gets undue credit for, the major city with the closest ties to America's great mountains. The city has a great feeling inside, a growing city that has so much room to expand I can't foresee it ever getting too crowded. Denver is a special, somewhat untouched place that I truly need to go back to.


1.) Montreal (many, many, many times)



Yes, I've been to Montreal a lot, mostly during its annual Jazz Festival it hosts in the Place des Artes area - a tremendously run festival visited by millions. But even outside the festival, Montreal is an amazing city. It has sites, from Mont Royal to the various churches and buildings, to the Old Town,. It has incredible food, from French Canadian staples to world known Smoked Meat. It has a great bar culture, with some great breweries. It has live music even when you remove the Jazz Festival. It has great parks and open streets and little crowding, and crepes, and everything else. Having such a seemingly foreign city, where French reigns supreme, so close to home is fantastic, and i'm blessed to be able to visit it somewhat-annually.

2018 Stanley Cup Playoffs: Conference Finals Picks

Was at a bachelor party in Montreal so forgot to actually post these:

Eastern Conference: (A1) Tampa Bay  over  (M1) Washington Capitals in 6

Western Conference: (C2) Winnipeg Jets  over  (P1) Vegas Golden Knights in 7

On the Caps and never tearing it apart

I've been a hardcore sports fan for about 15 years or so. Things that happened 10 years ago seem like recent in my mind, but were a good decade ago. 10 years is forever in the sports world. A lot of teams fully change over their rosters. 10 years ago, the Washington Capitals made the playoffs for the first time in the Alex Ovechkin era.

10 years later, Ovechkin is still there (and still great, leading the NHL in goals). So is Nicklas Backstrom. So is John Carlson. A few others have been mainstays since at least 2012 - Evgeny Kuznetsov, Jay Bragle, Braden Holtby. The Capitals avoided many opportunities to tear down teh core, to give up in the face of painful playoff defeat after defeat. They didn't. 10 years later, they finally made a Conference Final, they finally beat the Penguins.

Now, before I start getting too poetic about patience for the Capitals paying off, there is a better than 50% chance they lose in the round to come, to a healthy, awesome Tampa team that just brushed aside a 112-point Boston team like a small gnat flying to close to the sun. But still, this is a historic night, more than anything because it will keep the Capitals from doing anything rash this offseason.

The Capitals list of playoff failures reads like a litany of escalating horrors. In the early, Bruce Boudrea era, they lost in seven to the Flyers in 2008. They lost to the Penguins in 7 in 2009 - getting blown out in Game 7 at home. In 2010, they were dominant, a 300-goal scoring team (the last team to do it), and lost because Jaroslav Halak stood on his head (he beat the Penguins in 7 in the next round). In 2011, they got swept by Tampa Bay, a Tampa team nowhere near as good as the one they are about to face.

That was three head coaches ago.

A seven game loss in 2012 to the Rangers followed, but if anything that was a sign of progress. They had beaten the defending Champion Bruins in 7 in the first round. In 2013, they lost to the Rangers in 7. In 2015, they lost to the Rangers in 7. That lead to the firing of Adam Oates, and the final chapter, the final push.

The last two years, the Capitals were the best team in the NHL in the regular season each year. 120 points in 2015-16, 118 points in 2016-17, with better underlying stats. Each year, they lost to Pittsburgh in the second round. Each year the Penguins, with their Brady to Ovechkin's Manning, their Messi to Ovechkin's Ronaldo, won the Cup. In '15-'16, they traded for TJ Oshie, a seemingly all-in move. In 2016-17, they traded for Kevin Shattenkirk, a truly all-in move. Everyone said it at the time, that they have pushed every chip in with a number of impending UFAs (including Shattenkirk). Of course, the year after, it all finally worked.

Teams have for so long been told to give up, to tear it down, to accept failure and change course to try to best it. A few times, teams decided not to take the advice, and after everyone assumed their day had passed, it finally happened for them. The 2011 Mavericks are probably the greatest example. A 50-win team from 2000 onwards, they never bested the Spurs or Lakers or Suns, except the one time they did all of that and got Dwayne Waded. They finally somehow put it all together in 2011 and stunned the Heatles. They are the NBA's textbook example of not tearing apart - something the Raptors may hold their hat on as they are about to be swept by teh Cavaliers during their greatest season of their franchise's history.

In hockey, we saw it two years ago, with the Sharks, a team that in their modern form first broke out with a trip to the Conference Finals in 2004, making the Stanley Cup Finals in 2016, a good six years after getting the top seed in the East, a good two years after blowing a 3-0 series lead to the LA Kings. They didn't win the title, but for their Ovie in Joe Thornton, making it was good enough.

The Capitals may be the best example yet. For yeras, people wanted someone to be traded, someone to be shipped away, something to change. The few times they tried to change, it was disastrous. They notably tried to change their style after the Halak-ing, going with a more defensive-heavy style that made Alex Ovechkin into a morose genius trapped in a system that didn't care for his abilities.

They tried bringing in hired hands. They tried getting big physical 4th liners. They tried it all, and it never worked. They at least found a goalie in 2012 with Braden Holtby, but even then Holtby had a habit of giving up exactly two goals a game, seemingly never pitching a shutout when needed most.

None of that matters now. They did it. They took down the Penguins. They did so despite blowing a 2-0 Game 1 lead in the 3rd period - including giving up the winner to Sidney Crosby. No, they pitched their own comebacks in Game 3, won by Alex Ovechkin, always a far better playoff performer than given credit for, and Game 5. They closed out the series in OT.

Ironically, if any team could give the Capitals inspiration, it is the one who they finally bested. Before two years ago, the Penguins were the Capitals, albeit with a Cup - but for Crosby just the one Cup wasn't really good enough. The Penguins also had notable embarrassing flameouts since their 2009 Cup win. The 2010 loss to Montreal & Halak, the 2012 loss to the Flyers where they all collectively lost their minds and Fleury went to hell. And the worst was to come.

In 2013, the Bruins humiliated them in a sweep in the Conference Finals. In 2014, they blew a 3-1 lead to the Rangers. In 2015, they lost in 5 to the Rangers - a clear team in decline. And then viola, they win two straight Cups and Crosby and Co. solidified their playoff bonafides for life.

We don't know where this season will end for the Capitals. Likely, it will end without a Cup, whether it is to a dominant Lightning team, or one of the three great teams still alive out West. But even then they shouldn't tear it apart. Despite many teams in hockey being able to sustain many years of competitiveness, the relative order of those teams is highly variable, the Capitals being a slightly down 103 point team this year doesn't preclude them from being a dominant 115 point team next year. There is always another shot, and if the Capitals proved anything this time around, it is that they can be different, they can play up in the playoffs, and that there is no risk, no shame in trying it one more time.

Real Madrid and Suffering

Like with so many other post-game conferences, the key word out of Zinedine Zidane's mouth after the game, repeated multiple times, was 'suffer'. Real Madrid as they have so many times to date, had to suffer again, dramatically staving away a desperate Bayern Munich team, down to the very last second, as a the final kick of the game just eluded a lunging Thomas Muller. Madrid did it, making a 3rd consecutive Champions League Final, a game away from winning three in a row. Until last year, no one had won two in a row. Still, though, people are trying to minimize just how special this is, because of how many times Madrid had to 'suffer', but that is just the reason why they are special in the first place.

The top teams don't suffer often, usually they are the ones who force others to suffer, and we laud those other teams when it happens. We laud Chelsea for bravely going into the Camp Nou in 2012 and beating Barcelona despite Barcelona having oodles of chances and Messi missing a penalty. We should laud them. Just like we should laud Real Madrid for doing the same against Bayern Munich, for taking their chances when presented, for seamlessly playing out an away win at the Allianz with a winger playing left back in Lucas Vazquez. For Karim Benzema pushing aside jeers that have faced him all season to score two huge goals.

This Madrid three year run has been strange. Two years ago, they truly suffered on their way to the title, maybe the least impressive large club to ever do it. They lost 0-2 in the first leg of the Quarterfinals against Wolfsburg, needed a Cristiano miracle hat-trick to save them. They beat a good but not great Man City team 1-0 in the semifinals over two dour legs. They needed penalties to beat Atletico Madrid in the final.

Last year was different. They won all their ties. They struggled a bit against Bayern Munich in the quarterfinals, but missed as many chances as Bayern did across 180 even minutes, and ran away 3-0 in the 30 minutes of extra time. They raced Atletico Madrid, and smashed Juventus 4-1 in the final. That was a truly great Champion.

This year is a weird dichotomy, getting the insults of 'not deserving to win' like the 2016 unit despite having one of the hardest run to the Final we've seen. They beat France Champion PSG 6-2 across two legs. Then beat the likely Italian champions and easy German champions, winning both of the away legs. It's so interesting actually. Madrid is setting history despite holding on and barely winning. They are the first team ever to win the away leg in each of their knockout ties, and they did it fairly impressively each time. They held off barely against Juventus and Bayern Munich.

On the whole, we can find fault in their quality of play. We can say Bayern outplayed them but wasted chance after chance. We can say they nearly blew it against Juventus. We can say all of that, but at the end we have to call them as resilient, a team that fights in a way other high-priced, high-fame superteams just do not. They never have a truly awful game, like Barca did this year to Roma, or last year to Juve. They never give up. They track back - Ronaldo was a monster in that effort. They've done this without really signing any big-name players the last few years. Zidane has setadfastly said he has a team that is good enough; that he doesn't need new players, and they've paid him back.

Real Madrid had a terrible year in La Liga by their standards (though by expected goals they have performed about as good as Barca, just not as clinical in scoring - the one claim everyone has tagged on Madrid's opponents in the Champions League). But they have the Champions League, their competition. They've mastered this competition by being able to play the underdog, the sufferer, and when you combine that with a team good enough to play the dominant force, you get something special.

The Nostalgia Diaries, Pt. 12: 2005 NLCS, Game 5-6

It was the worst of times. It was the best of times. I'll try not to be as cliched again going forward.

The Houston Astros, before they moved to the AL, before they tanked, before they came out of the tank with a loaded tema that would win the World Series, were a little lunch-pail and hard-hats team, destined to take on the evil Cardinals, the closest thing to the NL version of the Yankees. The Astros back then were everything, pitching, defense, craziness. It was a fascinating season, 2005 was, culminating in the second straight NLCS against the Cardinals. The Astros were the Wild Card team each time, surviving crazy odds each time to get there - a 56-60 start in 2004 followed by a 36-10 spring to the finish, and a 15-30 start in 2005 followed by a 74-43 end. But even if their credentials were iffy, they were the second best NL team. The matchup against St. Louis was destined.

In 2004, right ripped our hearts out. It was a fascinating series filled with ridiculous offense, few real pitching performances, Game 5 excepted, when Brandon Backe and Woody Williams engaged in a pitchers duel, finally ended by a Jeff Kent three run home run to take a 3-2 lead in the series. The Astros then blew Game 6, with Jim Edmonds hitting a titanic walk-off into the nth deck of that cookie cutter piece of shit Busch Stadium. In Game 7, the Astros took an early lead - Craig Biggio hit a leadoff home run, before the Cardinals made their rally on Roger Clemens, ending with a Scott Rolen home run. That Cardinals team, regardless of the Red Sox sweeping the floor with them in the World Series, were scary; 105 wins scary; the most wins of any team since the 2001 Mariners (still until today) scary.

In 2005, they were 101 wins scary, but the Astros were Clemens with a 1.83 ERA, Pettitte with a 2.39 ERA, and Oswalt with a 2.83 ERA scary. It was a great battle, and it culminated in two games that endeared me to the Astros, and to the whims of beautiful baseball for life.

Both games were watched from my basement, staying up dangerously close to what had become a loosely enforced 'bed-time'. The TV in my basement was tiny, was not HD, had no DVR. I had to sit through a million different Chevy commercials. I had to sit through inning after inning needing Joe Buck and Tim McCarver to inform me on what is going on because it was too hard to see for myself. My basement is a hollow place. unfinished with exposed cement and wood. But for so many nights it was my place, my home inside my home, where I watched so many sporting moments. Few connected or remained with me like the end of the Astros pennant winning run.

Prior to Game 5, the Astros lost Game 1 with Clemens, before Oswalt pitched a gem in Busch stadium. They won Game 3, and then won Game 4 behind an audacious double-play to end the game with runners on first and third. Literally, when the ball was hit as a slow grounder to short-stop Adam Everett, Joe Buck said 'they're not going to be able to turn two', right before they did turn two. That all led to Game 5.

The Astros Game 5 was their chance to clinch in Houston, in front of a truly raucous Minute Maid Park. It has become cliche, especially after the shenanigans pulled by the Seahawks, extolling the loudness of a stadium has become passe, but truly Minute Maid Park was ridiculous in those days. It was at its most ridiculous when Lance Berkman hit a Crawford Boxes special to take a 4-2 lead in the 7th inning. It was truly a line drive the other way, a ridiculous home run, one that would be well placed in the World Series of Home Runs twelve years later.

From that point, we counted down the outs, and more importantly, counted down the batters before Albert Pujols would have to bat again.



I don't think I've ever feared an opposing player more than Pujols. The way he stood in the box, bat metronomically going up and down in perfect motion. It seemed like there was no way to get him out, no way to actually win against him. No Astros fan wanted any part of him, and entering the 9th  inning, two men had to reach base for him to bat, the exact amount of people needed on base to have him hit a home run so loud, so well struck, so majestic, it shut up the most raucous crowd ever.

Two days later, I knew it was over, able to relax my hands and relieve my fingernails, when in the first inning, Roy Oswalt made Albert Pujols fall down swinging at a 'challenge-me' fastball up and in. The first inning was over. The Cardinals were over. Busch Stadium was no more. I've never felt more confident when my personal favorite player managed to make the robot of death in Pujols look amateurish.

The real nostalgia here is that 46 hout period in between Pujols home run to silence a city, and his strikeout to wake it back up. Nervousness in sports is natural, but it wasn't really present in my life until those two days. I had invested a lot in the Astros 2005 season. Obviously, the scars of 2004, my first year really following them day-to-day, was a fresh wound, made deeper by Carlos Beltran holding the Astros hostage before snaking his way to the Mets. Making it worse was the fact Lance Berkman tore his ACL in November, 2004, and only made it back in May. But that team battled.

It was Morgan Ensberg making a career out of nothing. It was the ridiculous season by Clemens, that 1.83 ERA still seeming unreal. It was Pettitte's equally great year. It was Willy Taveras, Beltran's 'replacement' become a speed demon. 15-30 start aside, that was a fascinating, fun team. And nothing meant more to me than seeing them make a World Series.

Game 6 was a whirlwind, I remember little apart from the Pujols strikeout, and Roy Oswalt dealing. My only other real memory was after one inning, after Oswalt shut down the Cardinals again, FOX cut to commercial playing Tom Petty's 'Won't Back Down'. It was perfect - not that I knew Tom Petty at the time; pretty sure I went straight to Kazaa or LimeWire or whatever was the Napster-du-jour in 2005 and downloaded it. That song was a perfect choice. This was the Astros time.

I was so nervous before that game, but so calm during, and so joyous after. Not only did they win, Roy Oswalt, that small, fiery, Mississippi-boy, was named NLCS MVP, an award that also gifted him a giant tractor from Astros owner Drayton McLane. Bagwell and Biggio finally made a World Series. The State of Texas finally made a World Series. It was perfect, even if at so many times it felt so far away.