2018 World Cup Round of 16 Picks

(A1) Uruguay vs. (B2) Portugal

I fear this game will be a long 120 minute slog, a type of game that both sides seem to want to make every game. For Portugal, it is a way to play when you have to hide the fact that the only player with much offensive creativity is Ronaldo. For Uruguay, it is somewhat the same, but also where their strengths lie with Godin, Muslera and Co. I'll go for Portugal in PKs, but can easily see this go the other way. I'll be optimistic and say each side gets a goal in the 90 minutes, but I have a harrowing feeling we're in for 0-0 - something that happened just once in the group stage.

Portugal def Uruguay 1-1 (on PKs)


(C1) France vs. (D2) Argentina

If the France we all expected to show up in this World Cup does, they should win easily. If the France that has showed up in the World Cup does, they should be favorites, but it will get tricky. To me, the best move France could make is sit back and let Argentina have the ball. Given their team, France should be deadly on the counter, especially against a slow, porous Argentina defense. Argentina also can get a bit aimless if they have possession but aren't finding space. I do think that the France we all expected to show up will do so, and get the win here, potentially big as well.

France def Argentina 3-1


(E1) Brazil vs (F2) Mexico

This should be a great game, and Mexico has a habit of playing Brazil very well (case in point the 2012 Olympics, which Brazil took seriously enough to play most of their top players). My worry is Mexico has gotten progressively worse in the tournament, and while they weren't as bad as the 3-0 score against Sweden, they looked tired. This is not a deep team, playing a collection of 15 or so guys. They run a lot and counter a lot, which is likely to happen here as well. Ultimately, I think that does it for them. They deserve better than a 7th successive Round of 16 exit, but I don't see how it doesn't happen against a Brazil team that seems to be hitting their stride.

Brazil def Mexico 2-1


(G1) Belgium vs (H2) Japan

I get why the media was so into the idea that Belgium and England would rather lose their last game than win it, to enter the ostensibly easier half of the draw. The problem with that logic, is while Belgium is on the harder half, they also have the significantly easier (to me at least) Round of 16 game. Japan has played well, but probably should not be here with Senegal here instead. Belgium has been great so far, finally playing up to their potential - I don't think it ends yet. We can start worrying about the tougher half of the draw next match.

Belgium def Japan 2-0


(B1) Spain vs (A2) Russia

I get it was fun to see Russia get humbled in their last game, but overall I've found them, and their fans, great and I do hope they put up a good show. Given that Spain hasn't impressed even in their win over Morocco, I can easily see Russia hanging with them. I do think there will be some more freedom for Spain having navitaged through the group stage. My only real hope is that Russia scores a goal; I want to see that stadium explode when they score, even if it ultimately is a fruitless effort.

Spain def Russia 2-1


(D1) Croatia vs (C2) Denmark

Croatia to me was the best team of the group stage; either them or Belgium. Their midfield can just dominate teams, and I think the same will happen against Denmark, a top heavy team who probably should not be here if Peru had even average finishing. This might be, wen you consider form of the teams, the most one-sided game we'll get.

Croatia def Denmark 2-0


(F1) Sweden vs (E2) Switzerland

I have no idea about this game. Both teams would rather be without the ball, but I do think Switzerland can do better than Sweden if forced to retain possession. Sweden will depend on set pieces and countering, but I like Switzerland's ability to limit chances and the break. To be honest, I have no idea what I'm saying, but I don't want to pick all Group Winners.

Switzerland def Sweden 1-1 (on PKs)


(H1) Colombia vs (G2) England

Part II of why the England intentionally not trying to win might have been shortsighted: Colombia is really good. They may have won all three games had they not had the (well deserved) handball four minutes into their opening game. If James misses the game, I'll probably lean slightly towards England, but even then not by much. Colombia is a great side, and I think people overreacted to England's 6-1 win that had multiple penalties, atrocious set play defending, and of course Kane's third goal that was a lucky deflection. Aside from that, they nearly drew with Tunisia and we can throw out the last gmae. I think this will be the most open game - and I think Colombia knocks England out, rendering the decision to settle for the 'weaker half' moot.

Colombia def England 3-2


If these are right, it would set-up a QF slate of:

(C1) France vs (B2) Portugal
(E1) Brazil vs (G1) Belgium
(B1) Spain vs (D1) Croatia
(E2) Switzerland vs (H1) Colombia

That would be three great games, and one not so great game, but still could set-up some mouth-watering Semifinals.

What the Hell Just Happened at the World Cup

Where to begin; where to effing begin. So much has transpired in one of the more fascinating 3rd match-days that I can remember, in what is increasingly becoming one of the better World Cups that I can remember.

Should we start with how on back to back days, Argentina and Mexico advanced to the knockout rounds despite losing one of their three group games 3-0? Or that Mexico advanced despite losing their last game 3-0? Or that Germany, a nation that let alone has never not made it out of the group stage, but has made the quarterfinals every tournament since 1954, would lose to Korea, and get knocked out.

A Zlatan-less Sweden won their group. Croatia is the only 3-0-0 team so far. France easily waltzed to a group win and no one cares. Argentina won because their left back scored a 80th minute banger with his off foot. Germany DIDNT GET OUT OF THE GROUP STAGE.

What hasn't the World Cup given us.

There's been more penalties, more own goals, and more 90+ minute scoring than any World Cup through the group stage. We can rue the amount of penalties, but all have been deserved. We can rue the own goals, but let's remember the sheer number of bangers as well. The fight for goal of the tournament (so far) is an endless list of curlers, screamers, and everything in between.

Every team has scored. South Korea scored three goals, all past the 90th minute. The fact that Spain and Portugal had to fend off challenges from Iran and Morocco to clinch their spot, and that will be largely forgotten when the story of the 2018 World Cup group stage is written, speaks to how insane it has been.

Maybe it was due to the lack of truly great performances through two match days, but it seemed more was up for grabs this time - including multiple instances where we would need to potentially go to fair play points (who has less yellow cards) to decide who wins groups. It all came to a head these last two days.

First was Argentina's escape, with Messi scoring a great goal with his off foot, waking up from his two game malaise in one sudden Messi-esque flash. Of course, we had to see Bad Argentina, with Mascherano, looking way too old for this shit, giving up a terrible penalty that should have knocked Argentina out. The stadium never stopped signing, Argentina fans never stopped believing - despite this team being one that probably just extended their life a week. Marcus Rojo, a fullback, scored a Messi-esque goal, also with his off-foot. Let it be known that for once, Messi's teammates picked him up, even if they, and especially Mascherano, conspired to almost steal it away.

And of course, that drama doesn't come close to what we just witnessed today in Group F. All Mexico needed was to draw Sweden - they lost 3-0. Had Germany won, even 1-0, they would have supplanted Mexico, and we would have our first ever team to not make the knockouts with six points. There was a time where that label could have been given to Germany too - had Germany won 1-0, and Mexico lost 2-1, Mexico was going through on goals scored. Instead, Germany never got their goal.

I switched over to the Germany game after it was 3-0 Sweden, entering blindly not understanding how Germany had yet to score against a poor South Korea team. In the end, Germany embodied the worst elements of 2002 France, 2010 Italy and 2014 Spain, other defending champs that flamed out - relying too much on tired gameplans, tired locker-rooms, and old stars past their prime. There was no creativity, no direction, ultimately Germany was not impervious to the natural cycles of the sport, and South Korea pounced.

That first goal by South Korea was dramatic live, and more dramatic through VAR, a proper utilization of a technology that has done far more good than bad to date. It corrected a true mistake, something almost impossible to notice in real time, and gave South Korea their deserved goal. The second was icing on a cake that will be devoured through the streets of El Cuidad de Mexico for days to come.

We may see some awful play tomorrow - especially with England and Belgium, two teams that arguably are better off losing; the irony being if they draw it will be decided by fair play points, so we may even see a team try to get yellow cards. Anyway, what this tournament has been so far is a breath of fresh air. The crowds have been fantastic. The games have been better. There have been so few blowouts, with basically gall games being somewhat competitive. This is what the World Cup should be. Oh yeah, and GERMANY WAS FUCKING ELIMINATED IN THE GROUP STAGE?!

The Nostalgia Diaries, Pt. 13: The 2006 World Cup Semifinal - Italy vs. Germany

This 2018 vintage of the World Cup has been great through 2.5 group stage rounds. Good games, open play, great performances by not as ballyhooed nations (Croatia, Mexico, Belgium), dramatic ones by the great players of this era in Ronaldo and Messi.

The 2014 vintage was great in teh group stage, with COMNEBOL and CONCACAF nations taking center stage in Brazil, but is ultimately sullied by a drab knockout stage, with the most memorable moments being a 7-1 laugher, and many, many penalty shootouts following plidding 120 minute games.

The 2010 vintage was a mess, beyond what economic havoc it wreaked on South Africa. It was fun, in theory, for Africa to get a World Cup, and the most memorable game from that tournament involves the end of Africa's journey, with Suarez's handball, but it was also the tournament of vuvuzelas, and Spain's ruthlessly boring style winning with back-to-back-to-back-to-back 1-0 wins.

You have to go back to 2006 to get a tournament that meets what 2018 may become. It was a special World Cup, played in Germany, featuring so many teams at the apex of their powers. You had the last Jogo Bonito Brazil team (Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Kaka, Cafu, Roberto Carlos, et. al.). You had a monster France team featuring Zidane's swan-song. You had a great Portugal team, with their Golden Generation coinciding with Ronaldo's breakout. You had a great Argentina team, with Golden Generation coinciding with Messi's breakout (man, what Messi would do to have a Riquelme and Crespo on his team right about now). And of course, you had Germany and Italy to top it off.

The 2006 World Cup was an interesting tournament, an intersection point between the defensive-minded era that dominated the 90's and early 00's, from AC Milan's cattenacio to Chelsea's rise under Mourinho, and the tiki-taka era that started in earnest in the 2008 Euros. There was no main style. The games were open, even, and enthralling. Rarely did one team manage 60%+ possession - it was more equitable than that. Throughout soccer loving communitites, that tournament, and the 2008 Euros that preceded it, were the last vestiges of the classic era, before Messi vs. Ronaldo and Real vs. Barca took over teh sport. And no match encapsulated this feeling than Italy's epic 2-0 win over Germany in teh Semifinal.

Much like the Brazil vs. France quarterfinal that I wrote about earlier in my Nostalgia Diary, I was in India for the Italy vs. Germany match, a true clash of the titans. It is amazing despite how many generations of players have passed through the World Cup, some matches and matchups just seem more meaningful. These were the two most decorated European teams in World Cup history. These were two football loving nations that had their own, complicated personal history. This was a special matchup, albeit unexpected.

Italy was a great team, loaded with great players at their prime, at a time when Seria A was seen as easily the equal to the Premier League and La Liga. Prime Buffon, prime Cannovaro (the last man to win the Ballon D'Or as a defenseman), prime Pirlo, prime Totti, prime everyone. Germany was not so reputed. In fact no one really expected much of them, coming off of two disastrous Euros performances in 2000 and 2004, and a mirage run to the World Cup Final in 2002. But that was all put aside as they stormed through the tournament, with a joyous verve that would come to define them over the subsequent eight years until the 2014 triumph.

The best part of that tournament is we had not one, but two, international dynasties born. The seeds of both 2008-2012 Spain and 2006-2014 Germany, were sown in that tournament. For Germany, it was the rise of Lahm, and Schweinsteiger of the bench, as Klose stamping his mark. Jurgen Klinsmann lead a team that embodied 'happy to be there' despite the usual pressures that come with being the host country.

The match was in Dortmund, home to the famous Yellow Wall, the most imposing venue in Germany, a place the German National Team had never lost. Of cousre, they had never beaten Italy in World Cup play. It wouldn't happen in this game, but through 120 thrilling minutes, there were no losers. The game, despite being 0-0 through ninety minutes, was excellent. The 30 minutes of extra time were something else.

Italy had a dreadful record in penalty shootouts; Germany had the opposite. So Italy threw caution to the wind - and Germany and Klinsmann matched them. It was up and down, with near misses, and posts hit, and great saves by both Buffon and Lehmann. The fans were supercharged in Dortmund's compact, romperous stadium. The game was incredible.

Italy won the 2006 World Cup mainly off of a defense that gave up two goals in the tournament - an own goal, and a penalty. But in the semifinal, they showed their might offensively, whether it be Pirlo, or Totti, or even Fabio Grosso.

That last name was the man who finally broke the net, in the 118th minute, off a brilliant pass from Pirlo off of a corner. It was a perfect shot, curled right by Lehmann. It broke German hearts; Allesandro Del Piero's goal three minutes later on a perfect counter ended it. Germany crumpled on the pitch - but they should have left holding their heads high.

On paper, Germany was not as good as Italy (or France, or Portugal, or even the Argentina team they knocked out in the quarterfinals, but they played with such an unreal joy at home that tournament. Germany became a dynasty after that, if one a bit light on actual hardware, but it all comes back to 2006. The last great World Cup, one dominated by truly great teams, one that may have all won the 2010 or 2014 version had they entered (though in fairness, 2010 Spain and 2014 Germany are great teams, it was more the lack of depth those years that was startling).

Italy, for their credit, played a more open style than they too are accustomed too. I've never seen a team so openly not want to go to penalties, and in doing so abandoning any sense of structure and foundation, and throw so many bodies forward. It was a great watch, if endlessly nerve-wracking. By the end, Dortmund left in tears, though with the Germany Anthem being sung out through it. The Italians continued on to the Final - a game that probably merits its own post. And the football watching public got the benefit of a truly special night between two truly special football nations.

On Messi and the Woes of Pressure

As someone who's rooted for Peyton Manning, seen what happens when everyone puts a team result and a team championship up as a guidepost to judge an individual, you would think I would naturally feel bad for Lionel Messi, seen today hapless and helpless while Croatia danced around them, and potentially knocked them out of the World Cup.

Then again, as a Real Madrid fan, you would think I would take joy in Messi's performance, especially when contrasted with Ronaldo taking a fairly anonymous Portugal unit to the brink of advancing.

As with many things, there are more nuances, more factors to consider. And in that way, I'm both relieved at the number of people that blame everyone on Argentina except for Lionel Messi, to the coach who switches tactics just as often as he switches clothes, to the comic defending, to the goalie who pulled a Vanderjagt, to the guys slotted on the bench for no reason, and also disheartened to see so many people look past Messi's own desolate attempt.

It is absolutely true that Argentina's team has no plan, seemingly. That Sampioali has somewhat neutered them by keeping a lot of their more talented players on the bench is definitely a factor. But what is also absolutely true is Messi has been less than through two games. He had a penalty to win the first game, and missed. He plodded around the field today against Croatia, doing little with the few times he did get the ball, often spraying passes, only having 2-3 of his patented runs, which generally all ended with a short pass or losing the ball. That Lionel Messi is not good enough. And we have to ne objective.

Peyton Manning was afwul against the Jets in the 2002 playoffs. He was terrible against the Patriots the next year in the AFC Championship Game. He was dreadful against teh Colts in their 2014 Divisional Round loss. The rest of his team was similarly bad in each game, fumbling the ball, snapping the ball over punters heads, giving up return TDs. But Peyton was also bad, and he got criticized. This is no different.

The worst part for me was the lengths even Argentina was going to defend Messi's lackluster, uninspired game. The coach after the game said that the state of the Argentina was clouding Messi's brilliance, and that 'this isn't the time for Messi/Ronaldo' comparisons. That is pathetic to see from the head coach.

Argentina may well advance, though if Iceland beat Nigeria it becomes exceedingly tough. But even if they don't these two games are a mark against Messi for sure, at least as much as Ronaldo's off performances in 2014 when Portugal was bounced in the group stage. The team is not good, but let's not say it is terrible. This lackluster Argentina is still better on paper than Iceland (and Nigeria). This is not some Egypt like team where Salah literally has no help. This is not that. This is on Argentina's football association, Coach Sampiaoli, the players not named Messi, but Messi as well.

The Top 50 QBs of All Time: #18 - Jim Kelly

#18 - Jim Kelly

Jim Kelly had a weird career, he's remembered for being innovative, the QB of the NFL's second modern offense. In a way, all current offenses are combinations of the West Coast Offense, and the no-huddle. Things have been molded and adapted, but the no-huddle influence really stemmed from Kelly and the Bills. Jim Kelly, though, is also remembered for losing, but not in a bad way. No, there is no QB who's career is remembered more fondly for failing. In that way, Jim Kelly has led a blessed life. He's the one QB who was so bad at winning the Super Bowl, people realized just how good you have to be to get there.

We must remember that despite their 'high flying' reputation, the Bills were the tallest midget, or the thinnest kid at fat camp. The NFL in the early-90's was at a new offensive valley. The 80's were a rebellion to the dead-ball era of the 70's, and the 90's was defense getting its revenge. The Bills were the best offense, but that was still a team that ran the ball more than half the time. Jim Kelly never threw for 4,000 yards. He never threw the ball 500 times in a season. Part of this was due to him missing 1-3 games in many seasons, but his numbers look more like a 'game manager' in the 2000s, but that goes to the era he played in.

We don't mentally think that the early 90's need to be looked at a little more closely when judging passing statistics, but they must. Kelly's career 60.1% completion percentage, his four year stretch with an 89.6 passer rating, these are impressive numbers. Kelly played in Buffalo, let's remember as well. Compared to his peers, Kelly was a consistent 10-30% better than the average QB, which in the NFL was a lot.

Jim Kelly got the luxury of having Andre Reed, but it was definitely more the other way around in retrospect. He also took control of an offense with a mediocre offensive line, that played in Buffalo, and made it something special. The Bills was 13, 13, 11 and 12 games in his prime, and for his career, Jim Kelly was 101-59, basically averaging 10 wins a year for a franchise that has gotten to 10 wins just twice since he left. We must also remember that Jim Kelly is missing a good 3-4 years of his career due to his playing in the USFL first.

Jim Kelly was one of the people that legitimized the USFL, along with Steve Young, and while Young outclassed him, Young also had the better versions of everything Kelly did. Young had the best WR of all time, instead of a guy who probably doesn't deserve he Hall of Fame nod he got. Young had the best offensive system, instead of the second best. Steve Young was better, but circumstance and situation elevated him and supressed Kelly.

What Jim Kelly also did was throw deep, going against the natural trend of the league to embrace the West Coast Offense and go shorter and shorter. Kelly did not rely on YAC, he relied on his own brilliant right arm, and the players around him. Of course, he never did win a Super Bowl though.

Again, Kelly, and the Buffalo Bills in general, are the one team to largely escape criticism for not winning a Super Bowl. That's what happens when you do something no one else has - get to four in a row. Jim Kelly probably should have won that first one. Obviously, if Scott Norwood hits a field goal he does. Is his legacy any worse because his kicker missed a kick? No, as it should be. He's just lucky to be the one guy where that is the case.

Jim Kelly was a great QB who ran an innovative offense, but more than that, he's a symbol and a reminder to the more analytically-inclined NFL fans. He's a reminder that the early-90's shared far more similarities to the 1970's than it does the 2000s, and he's also a reminder that there is hope that a QB can be judged not by the hardware on his fingers, but the brilliance of the footballs that spun out of them.

The Top 50 QBs of All Time: #19 - Terry Bradshaw

#19 - Terry Bradshaw

Terry Bradshaw can continue to count his rings, all four of them, and tell people and have them listen, that he is one of the best QBs of all time. He would have a point. Not because he has four Super Bowl rings, tied with Joe Montana and Tom Brady for most all time. No, but because he was actually a key cog in a Steelers machine that was surprisingly good on offense for much of their run. Yes, Bradshaw was surrounded by more talent than maybe any player ever, from coaching staff, to defense, to receivers, but Bradshaw was a more important part of that machine than people who deried him for being a 'winner' remember, and less than people who praise him.

Terry Bradshaw was plainly not a good QB for a long stretch of time, starting from his rookie season when he threw 24 INTs to just 6 TDs. No matter of converting from dead-ball era stats would change that. Up through 1974, the Steelers first Super Bowl season, Bradshaw was a plainly bad QB riding the wave of the Steel Curtain. However, something changed in 1975, not only with Bradshaw but with the team. The Steelers ranked in scoring offense from 1975-1979 fifth, fifth, seventh, fifth and first. The defense remained good, but the Steelers that won the last three Super Bowls were more than just the Steel Curtain, they were an offense as well.

If we cut out the initial growing pain of that early Bradshaw, the same player who was nearly benched for Joe Gilliam, Bradshaw looks like quite a respectable statistical marvel. He averaged 21 TDs to 17 INTs between 1975-1981, with a y/a of 7.7. These weren't the best stats of those days, but the Steelers offense was a high risk proposition, throwing deep than most teams of that era. Bradshaw had the help of two future Hall of Famers, but neither player is one of the better WRs in the Hall of Fame - yes, neither Lynn Swann or John Stallworth were ever that great. Bradshaw raised his game in those years, putting up seasons that would equal that of Staubach and Stabler, playing in a tougher environment, in a division where passing was suppressed due to weather and cookie-cutter stadiums with horrific turf fields.

I've put it off for long enough, let's just get to that playoff and Super Bowl career. Much like Troy Aikman, another QB who is both overrated and underrated by his Super Bowl rings depending on how people view those things, Terry Bradshaw did seem to raise his game in the playoffs. The Steelers threw more in the playoffs, and largely to great results. In his four Super Bowl wins, Bradshaw had passer ratings above 100, with 9 TDs and 4 INTs, In his last three Super Bowls, again in that 1975-1979 timeframe, he had a Y/A over 10. Some of that is credit to the ridiculous catches that Swann and Stallworth pulled off, but Bradshaw had some truly great performances in the playoffs.

His best may have arguably been his last, a playoff game in 1982 against Dan Fouts and the Chargers. The Steelers lost, but lost 28-31 with Bradshaw nearly out-gunning Fouts. Ol' Dan had the better game, but Bradshaw put up what would be considered a modern-day passing line, going 28-39 with 325 passes and 2 TDs. Bradshaw was the rare player who improved his stats across the board in the playoffs, with his completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, passer rating and TD-to-INT ratio all improving in January.

Therein lies the issue with Bradshaw. People who put him over try to denigrate his career for his average career passing stats (he did have an adjusted passer rating 10% above average) while shoving the Super Bowl rings aside. Those people are wrong as those playoff stats, coming in a rather sizable sample, are there. They actually happened, and Bradshaw did, by all accounts, get noticeably better in the playoffs. Of course the other side shoves away his clear issues with his overall resume and are blinded by the diamond-studded rings. Neither side is right, but neither is wrong as well.

The Top-50 QBs of All Time: #20 - Bob Griese

#20 - Bob Griese

Bob Griese was handed success on a silver platter in a way. He was given the luxury of playing with two great running backs, a great defense that consistently was near the top of the NFL in basically all defensive stats, and was given a truly legendary Head Coach in Don Shula. In many ways people will discredit his career for those reasons. And it is an easy argument to make. Don't we often do the same with so many other QBs? Try to say it was all their teammates, all the luxuries that they were given? Well, there is two reasons why despite being handled success, Griese deserves to be a Top-20 QB of all time. First, back in the 70s, loaded teams and franchises were all around; teams that ran the ball, played defense, and both suppressed the stats of their great QBs, and also stole a lot of their credit. And second, Griese was still the key piece of the success of the Miami Dolphins.

When you put the 1970s glasses on and take another look at the career stat-line of Bob Griese, you see a player who was consistently throughout his entire career 20%-30% above average. Let's remember that unlike in  baseball, where players are routinely 80%-90% above average (OPS+ or ERA+ in the 180's or so), that doesn't happen in football. QBs are more bunched together - and Griese stat-line and years above the 120 Passer Rating+ (same methodology), puts him in elite company. Bob Griese, when you remember he played in the NFLs version of deadball, was statistically a great QB.

Don Shula had a connection with Bob Griese that was more understated than his relationship with his other two all-time great QBs (again, two men who are further up the list). Shula called him the 'thinking man's QB', a player who was 'ahead of the rest of his peers.' Griese was not playing the mad bomb style of so many of his contemporaries, and that suppressed his stats more so than even. Bob Griese was not just a great QB, he was the best 'game manager' of all time in the best sense of the word.

For the decade of the 70s, the same decade that spawned the legacies of so many legends (including four different contemporaries to come), Griese ranked #3 in completion percentage (58.4%), #3 in y/a (7.5), #2 in passer rating (82.5). All the player ahead of him on those lists are still to come. He was, at worst, the 3rd best QB of the 70s statistically, and this was a decade of Staubach, Bradshaw, Stabler and the last vestiges of Tarkenton and Roman Gabriel. This was a bountiful era of QBs playing for dominant teams that all had good running games and receivers and defenses, and Griese separated himself from that list.

Griese is also famous for what he wasn't. He didn't throw deep as regularly as some of his contemporaries (Bradshaw, especially). He didn't have notable playoff moments like some of those other guys. There were no miracles worked, like Staubach's Hail Mary, or Stabler's Sea of Hands, or Bradshaw's Immaculate Reception. In fact, Griese's playoff career is littered with performances that accentuated the other parts of the team. In Super Bowl VIII, the year after the undefeated season, Griese was 6-7 for 73 yards, and the Dolphins ran it 53 times and won 24-7. The year before he was 8-11 for 88 yards in a 14-7 win. However, there were a few gems, like his game in Kansas City in 1971.

I don't like mentioning the undefeated season primarily because Griese wasn't the starting QB for most of the year - Earl Morrall was. But is that really a knock against him? Griese played 6 games and won all of them, then started the playoffs and won all of those. It was not a great year for Griese, but the year after he started 13 games, went 12-1, with a 84.3 rating (again, great for 1973), and the Dolphins won another Super Bowl. Bob Griese was handed the keys to a Ferrarri, but drove it around twists and turns and continued to steer it at top speed.

Many QBs could have succeeded with a defense and running game that Bob was given - few would have succeeded to the historic levels that Griese did. We look back and try to take away from what Griese did. He had a great running game. He played for Shula. He had a top defense. All true, but all true of so many others. What Bob Griese did really was replay Tom Brady's 2001-2006 portion of his career, but do it when no one else was ale to see the value in doing that, in riding the coattails of greatness but raising it just one step further than most could.

2018 World Cup - Impressions from the first

Save for Group H, a mindlessly boring compilation of Japan, Senegal, Poland and a potentially James-less Colombia, every team has played its first group game. Given that, I wanted to go on a bit of a ramble through various thoughts:

= Scoring may be down, the number of 1-0 games may be a lot, but overall I've found the level of play quite strong. The only reason stories are coming about the play being poor is because the finishing has been terrible, and multiple top teams sleepwalked through their opener. There were multiple 1-0 games taht should have had 4-5 goals with competent finishing (Mexico vs. Germany and especially Peru vs. Denmark come to mind)

= Out of the favorites that struggled in their go around (Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Germany), the one I have the least concern for is Brazil. They absolutely dominated Switzerland in that second half, getting chance after chance, showing a good deal of flair, and reasonable defensive shape. We can't go crazy when they get unlucky. It happens. 2010 Spain lost their opener to Switzerland; they then started finding the goal, not giving up set-play goals, and all was well. I can easily see that happening for Brazil as well.

= Argentina might be in trouble. The teams biggest weakness is in midfield, and they are playing now arguably the tournaments premier midfield duo in Modric and Rakitic, for a team that can easily beat them. They need an engaged Leo Messi, not a pnealty-missing, pass spraying, generally laissez-faire Messi that we got against Iceland. Speaking of Iceland, if they manage to beat Nigeria, and Argentina loses to Croatia, they may be more or less done. We can quibble about the lack of help and the impassioned play from so many others, but at the end of the day, Messi had a win on his foot, and kicked it straight down the middle on a penalty.

= Germany has an easy enough two games to still go through, but what this really does is put them in a position to have to play Brazil in the Round of 16 (assuming Brazil win their group). They were so off against Mexico. Their tactics were consistent, but wrong, allowing Hummels and Boateng, not the fastest players even in their prime, to be left helpless against Mexico's counter. The midfield didn't dominate as usual. Muller seemed a bit hapless. The whole exercise just felt tired, which can happen at Year 12 of a modern golden era.

= Ronaldo. Ronaldo. Ronaldo. With him having a Euro to his name, and all the Champions League's in the world, and as many Ballon d'Or's as Messi, he's a man set free, and good God was that special.

= Few quick notes about the hosts and the broadcasts....

= Russia has done a great job so far. Apparently reports are all positive about the morale and energy in teh host cities - none of the 'hooliganism' that the English seemed to pain as inevitable. The pitches have been great. The weather has been great. The crowds have been very good, with more filled seats for the lesser games than we saw in Brazil. The tournament has gone off so far without a hitch.

= I wish I can say the same for FOX, though I think I'll be less critical than most. The one place I think FOX has done a really good job is their broadcasting teams. We have to get over the fact they aren't using British voices apart from Derek Rae (and Warren Barton). Who cares. I found everyone's love of ESPN's all-English voices a bit much anyway. I've like JP Dellacamara, John Strong, Stu Holden, Aly Wagner, the two Latin guys who called the Peru vs. Denmark game (more about them next), and everyone bar Tony Meola (who wasn't too bad, just more generic than the otehrs). I haven't been bothered at all that most of the teams are calling teh games from the US. In fact, I guarantee if you asked people listening if they thought the announcers were on location or not, probably no one has any clue. FOX in-game work has been absolutely fine.

= Their studio show, however, is a mess. I like Rob Stone, and Guus Hiddink is very good. Alexi Lalas can be good at times, but his analysis is so surface - a problem with FOX's general coverage. When the team is important (attractive) enough to have a special guest, like the did for Mexico and England, it improves, but otherwise the pre-game, halftime and post-game show is useless.

= The nightly recap show is interesting, and Fernando Fiore's shtick is fairly timeless for me, but this is the one place that pales compared to what ESPN did for 2014. Their nightly show with Bob Ley was great. FOX's is fairly good, but a little too loose. I really like Aly Wagner, and Grant Wahl (who I've read for years on Sports Illustrated), but ESPN's nightly show on Copacabana beach was quite impeccable.

= Overall, I think FOX is getting a bad rap. They were unlucky the US didn't qualify, which will doom its overall ratings compared to 2014. What they haven't done is dumb down their coverage to unrecognizable levels. Even the announcing can get fairly specific, especially when it is Stu Holden, Aly Wagner, Warren Burton or the Latin Guys.

= Speaking of which, the Latin Guys need to call more games. Not only did they provide an incredible amount of energy that somehow never got grating, they had a great rapport with each other. I really hope they do more games - hoping they are on the call for the Columbia game tomorrow, and maybe even get a knockout stage game if Mexico, Peru or Colombia make it.

= Back to the games, it was nice to see Belgium actually make good for once. Always beloved for their talent, they lived up to it, albeit against the 2nd worst team in the field. Hazard was great. De Bruyne was great. Lukaku was great. Courtouis was great snuffing out the few chances Panama had. I'm very skeptical of them due to my lack of trust in Roberto Martinez as a coach, but I think in international football we overrate coaches - just look at Spain.

= There is no Colombia-like revelation so far, but in reality to me it would have been Peru if they just took their chances against Denmark. They deserved that game 2-1 or 3-1, playing a fantastically open game - almost too open, though Denmark had few real chances,. I know basically none of their players, but it was fantastic to watch them fly around the pitch. Hopefully they bring that same openness to their games against France and Australia, even if they are somewhat doomed by that loss.

= Finally, Mexico. Both for their incredible win over Germany, easily the result of the first set of games, and also the Landon Donovan controversy. Personally, I don't care about the Donovan issue. Espetically right now, when we have a President trying to create divides with our close neighbors, what is wrong with giving El Tri some support. For people saying 'Would Brazil root for Argentina?', that is an incredible overstatement about where the Mexico - USA rivarly it. It is not Brazil vs. Argentina; it is not any number of European rivalries that have political undertones all throughout.

= As for the team, that was a star performance. They are young, fast, explosive, can counter, can keep possession when need be. They are set up so well to win the group assuming they get four points from their two games. They can avoid Brazil in the Round of 16, maybe make a quarterfinal for once, and get a date with Spain/Portugal in the Quarterfinal, which they can win. This can be a dream run.

The A-B-C's of the 2018 World Cup

I've been doing this blog long enough that I did this for both the 2010 and 2014 World Cups. Anyway, third times the charm.

A is for Anthems

I forget which World Cup it was, but ESPN once decided to run a series of ads that were based on playing anthems from various countries. It was perfect. The anthems beginning the games are too. Arguably at its best in 2014, when anytime a South American team played, the fans sang out the second and third verses of anthems long after teh music ended. That is what it is all about. The anthems are a truly great way to start every game. Given how ridiculous all the nonsense is in the US, it is nice to see a place where teh anthem actually makes sense.


B is for Brazil's Redemption

I still remember where I was when 7-1 happened. I was actually at work, with the game DVRed at home. I was trying my best not to figure out what happened, but our main stakeholder, who was Brazilian, was wearing the result on his face. Four years later, Brazil should be set to explode. They are actually timed up to be better this time around than when they hosted. The Brazilian team should be great. Neymar is healthy. The nidfield is brilliant. The defense is still very questionable, but overall Brazil should be the full out Jogo Bonito team we all hoped they would be in 2014. They have a chance to make amends for a scarring defeat, and here's hoping they do it.


C is for Croatia

Croatia has always had talent. They made the semifinals in 1998, but then disappointed in 2002, 2006 and 2014, not making it out of the group stage each time. They are in a tough group, with Argentina, Nigeria (always a bit difficult), and Euro 2016 darlings Iceland, who given they won their qualifying group, have graduated beyond Cindarella at this point. Croatia's midfield might be the tournaments best, and while winning through the midfield is a bit more passe now than it was in 2010 and 2014, it shoudl still be great watching Modric, Rakitic and Perisic lob the ball back and forth. For Madric, this is probably his last shot at making some noise, and for a guy slowly piling up an impeccable resume at the club level, he deserves to make a knockout round.


D is for De Bruyne

Consider him representing the entire Belgium in this selection. De Bruyne had a great year at Man City, and headlines what again on paper is a superb team, from keeper Courtois, through a stacked midfield with De Bruyne and Hazard, to Lokaku up front. None of this matters if they can't make it to the quarterfinals and put up a better effort once there. De Bruyne is the best player on the team, and really needs to take it on himself to get it done.


E is for English Fumes

Oh the English, the country that still acts like they've invented the game, long after their national team stopped competing for titles, and even after their domestic league has been passed, at least in quality, by Spain. The handover to the new generation is complete, with few if any holdovers from their 'golden generation' that did no better than back to back quarterfinal appearances. The team should be decent, but you still get the feeling they are going to disappoint. Whether it be manager Gareth Southgate, whom no one seems to think that highly of, to a team full of slight above average players. The English got an easy enough group, but you still imagine it will be tough for them to break the seal into teh Semifinals; actually wouldn't give them a good shot at even the quarterfinals.


F is for Furia Roja

Spain's attempt to make amends for their own disaster in 2014 got a late curveball when Julen Lopetegui was announced (if not outed by rumor leaking) as manager of Real Madrid, set to take over once the World Cup ends. Apparently, Spain's federation president is so upset he's considering firing Lopetegui immediately, which would be hilarious. The Spain team is a bit different than their 2010 incarnation that tiki-taka-ed its way to ruthless brilliance, with a bit more verve and directness. They should be really fun to watch; let's just hope internal drama (especially if it was a Barca player who found out and outed Lopetegui) doesn't overshadow and outweigh a great team.


G is for Golden Generations

Every tournament has its 'Golden Generation' countries who are holding onto dear life their best set of players ever. There was a good gaggle of them in 2006 (France, Italy, Portugal, Argentina - some of them retooled very quickly); less so in 2010 (people thought Holland, but they extended their run surprisingly to 2014). In 2018, there are few candidates that jump off the page; one is Belgium, though their players are young enough to give a good go in 2022. To me, the best bet is Germany. Given they are Germany, likely they'll make the semifinals in 2022 anyway, but their core group that was so brilliant from 2008-2018 will be ending here. This is likely Neuer's last World Cup, same with Thomas Muller, Toni Kroos, Jerome Boateng, and others, having already lost Philipp Lahm and Bastian Schweinsteiger to the wind. Germany will always be great, but a special group, one that won a world cup, is heading out.


H is for Host Nation

Historically, the host nation always got a bit of a bump. The best examples were all fairly recent too, with the US making it to the Round of 16 in 1994, France winning in '98, Korea shockingly making the semifinals in '02, and Germany getting reborn making the semifinals in '06. That's gone away. South Africa crashed out in the group stage (first host ever). Brazil made it to the semifinals, but 7-1 may have well been a loss in the group stage. Russia has been building to this moment, but they seemed to peak 10 years ago, when they made the semifinals in Euro 2008. They've disappointed in international competition since and don't seem to have a path to do better. The group is easy (a little too easy....). There is a chance they surprise, but it will be interesting to see how the crowds react if Russia struggles.


I is for Iniesta

Iniesta is our token 'old guy looking for one last glory' this time around. He's not retiring from football, but given he's going to Japan he basically is. There are a lot of parallels to him and Zidane in 2006. Both were legendary central midfielders who accomplished everything. Both won the World Cup, and scored the World Cup winning goal, eight years prior. Both played for teams that still had vestiges of past glory, but time seemed to have slipped them by. Both had managers that no one trusted, made even more obvious by the current Lopetegui drama. Maybe, just maybe, Iniesta can have a similar final moment - hopefully without a nasty headbut at the end.


J is for Jerseys

Yes, I realize they're called 'kits' in this world, but whatever. Let's go with it. I love the reveal of what each team will wear. I love that they have to get creative, in that the basic tenets and color scheme will always be the same, but they have to find a way to be creative all over again. The Nigeria shirts have gotten all the press - selling 3m units in minutes - but all of them are great in their own way. I love Brazil going with a brighter blue than ever before. I love Germany's little chest design. I love the argyle pattern with Belgium, or the striping on Spain's shirt. They're all great. The colors of the World Cup is one of the special features that never gets old.


K is for Keylor Navas

He may be on his way out of Madrid (for the fifth straight offseason, seemingly), but he'll be well back at home at the World Cup for the tifos. Navas made his mark with Costa Rica's brilliant run to the Quarterfinals in 2014. The team is back, with mostly the same lineup (maybe they are the 'Golden Generation' team?). Navas can re-bolster his place at Madrid with another great world cup. I can't wait to see him try. The group is do-able, aside from Brazil, but even the game against Brazil should give ample opportunity for Navas to make more highlight saves.


L is for Lopsided Groups

The groups this time around seem so scattered. No true conventional group of death, but many that seem just weak, with a quartet that seem strong. Group A with Russia is a joke - makes you believe the hanky-panky with groups that Michel Platini recently alluded to is still going on. Group B of course has Spain and Portugal. Group C is back to joke-ville, Group D has Argentina, Iceland and Croatia. Group E is mainly just Brazil, while F has four teams that all have been good at various times - to where Korea, usually a competitor to get out of the group, basically has no shot. Group G is fun, but with no truly great team, and finally Group H is the anti-group-of-death. Just a weird tournament set-up.


M is for Messi

I'm pretty sure Messi was my 'M' in 2010 and 2014 as well. So long has he been a prominent player - arguably the prominent player. Since 2014, his Argentina lost a Copa America final, he momentarily quit International football, got his old coach fired, got a new one hired. Argentina is no better than it was in 2014, Messi himself is likely no better, but he can still produce some magic. Messi will technically be young enough to be back in 2026, let alone 2022, but likely not as a talisman-worthy player. This is last shot for that.


N is for Neymar

Hey, here's another guy who has a lot to gain for his legacy! Neymar was very good in 2014, right until he hurt his knee in the quarterfinal. Neymar has always been at his best for Brazil - his scoring rate in the Brazil team is unreal. He gets a chance to spread his wings in this one, aged perfectly with a team too as well. More than the other top players, the ones who can truly make a lasting name with a World Cup, he's in the best position to do so. He had the strangest last twelve months, a strangeness that can only continue if he were to force his way out of PSG, but before we go back to transfer madness, he gets a chance to remind the world that ignored him in France just how good he can be.


O is for Ole, Ole, Ole, Ole

Ah yes, the singing and chanting, the true noise of the World Cup. Whether it is the everpresent 'Ole' chants, or the now pretty awful but still cool when done well Seven Nation Army, or the more recent one that has become pretty present in Spain. My biggest issue with the South Africa 2010 World Cup was vuvuzelas drowning out real crowd noise. Let's never allow that to happen again. Germany was great, Brazil was great. Russia should be great. Man, do I wish I planned my vacation better and went over to our great mother russia for two weeks right about now.


P is for PKs

At some point, the scourge of PKs will rear its ugly head. I've alternated between loving and hating the idea of PKs deciding big matches like this. On one hand, it truly is dramatic, giving us moments that have been removed since teh Golden Goal was taken away with after 2002. On the other, what a shit way to end a game after 120 minutes. I love the karma-driven reality where no team has won successive PKs in a tournament - we saw this in huge effect last time in 2014. In teh Round of 16, Costa Rica beat Greece, then lost to the Netherlands in the quarterfinals, who lost to Argentina in the semifinals. Hopefully with offense imbuing the game - the Champions League was as wide open as ever - we can maybe escape PKs, but more likely, some Jens Lehmann type will get famous for reading a small index card of tendencies.


Q is for Qatar

The story has already been written, that this is the last 'true' World Cup, as the hideousy that is Qatar is fast approaching, be it the fact it has to happen in Winter (interrupting the domestic club season), and being played in a country that has literally killed hundreds of migrant workers building up stadiums that will likely not be used again to any real degree. I can't believe it is still actually going to happen. But anway, enjoy it when you can. Somehow, Russia will look like the above-board, normal World Cup four years from now. Isn't that something.


R is for Ronaldo

He has his major National Team trophy - leading Portugal to teh Euros in 2016. Of course, some will try to strip away his import because he got hurt and missed most of the final. Screw that. Ronaldo was great. Portugal has had great success under - even their losses in major competitions have been close (1-0 in '06, 3-2 in '08, 1-0 in '10, PKs in 2012). He has a slight chance to truly make a mark here, and it can start right away with Spain - suddenly in slight turmoil with La Affair Lopetegui - and if he can best them and win the group, the draw can really open up. It isn't impossible. In reality, it is impossible, but few things are for Ronaldo.


S is for Switzerland and South Korea

In each of the last four world cups, either one or both of these teams have made the knockout rounds. They've even won groups, and made deep runs (South Korea, stealing and PKing its way to the Semifinals in 2002). Neither plays a particularly attractive brand of soccer. Both have just one truly recognizable star anyone has to care about: Son Hueng-Min (25, plays at Tottenham) and Xherdan Shaqiri (26, Stoke - guess he's fallen further than I realized). Both are in groups that are stealable (2nd place, at least). One of them will annoyingly make it through, and play a drab, dour Round of 16 game.


T is for (el) Tri

I feel bad for Mexico, truly snake-bitten having been knocked out in the Round of 16 each time since 1994. They are a soccer-mad country; something I experienced first-hand when I was in Queretaro in 2014 - right before the last World Cup. The losses are harrowing, a 2-0 loss to the US in 2002, losing to Maxi Rodriguez's wonder-goal in 2006, getting screwed out of a goal in 2010 before a 3-1 loss to Argentina, and then Arjen Robben's dubious 93rd minute penalty to break a 1-1 tie last time around. At some point, it should end. Of course, one of the most likely outcomes for Mexico is finishing 2nd to Germany in Group F, and playing the winner of Group E in the quarterfinals: Brazil. There's no great outcome here. Maybe they shock the world, more likely they continue this ridiculous run of being good enough to be bad enough to lose in the Round of 16 time after time.


U is for Uruguay

I intentionally omitted them when talking about teams with a closing Golden Generation, because they are that team. Uruguay fits perfectly, with generational talents and generational stability, dating back to their Semifinal run in 2010. With 2014, with a Suarez that wasn't suspended for biting people, maybe they beat Colombia in the Round of 16. The team is still largely the same as 2006, with captain Diego Godin, goalkeeper Muslera, guys like Cavani and of course Suarez. Even the coach, in Oscar Tabarez, is the same. Other than maybe Suarez, none of the names mentioned are likely to return in four years time. This is it for the rebirth of Uruguay, the country that, lest we forget, won the first World Cup. The rebirth has been great, from that particular hue of blue on the jerseys, to their anthem, to their Atletico Madrid-esque style. It has all been great.


V is for Viking Clap

Oh Iceland, the great story of all time is back. I still am dumbfounded by their 2016 run, especially those ridiculous stats like '30% of the country is in the stadium' or whatever it was. Nothing was better than the team leading the Viking Clap after each successive win - even if it led to the Minnesota Vikings sadly trying to co-opt it. Anyway, Iceland is back on merits, winning its qualifying group, actually one of the Pot 2 teams in the World Cup group (ie: expected to go through on merit). Iceland is so great. Chances are they'll go back to being a world football minnow eventually, but for right now just fucking enjoy this amazing run by the smallest country competing in this tournament.


W is for Wingbacks?

This is my stand-in for whatever tactical nuance takes over in this edition. In 2010, it was tiki-taka. In 2014, it was countering, and playing three in the back with two wing-backs - I remember Holland getting a lot of plaudits for this. That syle permeated club football as well in the subsequent years - including with Juventus. What will it be this time - maybe a continuation of playing over the top, which worked so well for Liverpool, or a more fluid style. It is an interesting time in world football tactics wise, with no prevailing method other than the pressing. Of course, given Real has no discrenable style the last three years, maybe this is the time period of anti-tactics.


X is for X-Raying Refs

OK, it should have been VAR, but whatever. We've had VAR now in major European leagues (notably not the Champions League), but this will be interesting at the World Cup. Overall, I like VAR so far, it has done a good job of not being too intrusive but still correcting issues. What I don't like is the recent rumors that linesman have been told to err on the side of letting plays go on because VAR can correct a play given on-side when off, but not the reverse. In theory, it makes sense, but I don't want VAR to change the way the refs do their job, just correct them when they do it.


Y is for Youth

In 2006, it was Messi and Ronaldo. In 2010, it was Muller and Suarez. In 2014, it was James Rodriguez. Each world cup produces superstars, people that would beecome integral figures in teh sport in the years to come. Who will it be this time? The headliners are guys like Kylian M'bappe (still just 19), or Marco Asensio (21), or maybe it is some unknown on a country we aren't really thinking about that makes a shock run to the quarterfinals. There will be a player, someone who gets bought by Real Madrid or Barcelona in August. I can't wait until that player reveals himself.


Z is for Zidane

He was my 'Z' in 2010, which made some sense he had dominated the previous World Cup. He was my 'Z' in 2014 too, but that was mostly trying to shoehorn him in for some reason. Of course, he is a lot more relevant to World Football in 2018 than he was in 2014, given all he did in the interim three years was win teh Champions League THREE TIMES. His legacy will loom large, whether it be over Didier Deschamps job - anything short of a semifinals and he's probably sacked with the idea of Zidane taking over, to even the fantasy reddit idea that he may come in to take over from a quickly-axed Lopetegui (not going to happen). In reality, I just wanted to talk about Zidane again. But let's put it this way, Zidane is responsible for two of the greatest moments in the World Cup in the last 20 years. Twenty years ago he scored twice to beat Brazil on home soil. Twelve years ago, he headbutted Mattarazi. Can someone, for reasons good or bad, match these moments?

La Undecima de Nadal

It's so easy to get lost in how insane Nadal has been at the French Open, but what I really want to hone in on is what Dominic Thiem, the latest in a line of men sent to him for slaughter, said in his postgame speech. He mentioned how he watched Nadal win his first French OPen Title in 2005, when Dominic was 11, and how crazy it is to play him. Dominic Thiem is the second best clay court player in the world these last three years. He is one of the prominent 'Next Gen' of tennis players, the ones who will one day take the sport from Rafa and Fed. Of course, in what should be Thiem's prime, he was just a lamb sent to slaughter.

Before we get to Rafael Nadal's inconceivable accomplishment, let's quickly just realize that he is still a top all-court player, and far and away the best clay court player, at 32. The one knock on Nadal was that he would break down early, that his style was not conducive to a long playing career. And while he battled his challenges with his body starting with his initial knee tendonitis in 2009, he is still winning majors and dominating top players at 32. No one, even the largest Nadal-ite like myself, would have predicted this.

What Nadal showed in this tournament is that he's as mentally strong as ever, which matters because his mental lapses and lack of confidence was what really hurt him in 2015-16 as much as his injuries. But those years playing less matches, losing earlier than normal, arguably gave him more time off, more time to heal, to rest, to turn the page over to a period of renewed dominance.

What's the best stat to encapsulate Nadal at the French Open? Obviously, the 86-2 record is laughable. But my favorite is that he has now won the tournament six times losing no more than one set. Three times he's won it without droppoing a set (2008, 2010, 2013). And now three times he's done it with dropping just one set (2007, 2012, 2018). He's 22-0 in semifinals and finals. He's dropped just six sets across his eleven finals. There are no words to describe his dominance. At 32, he brushed away a renewed Juan Martin del Potro 6-4, 6-1, 6-2, and then beat Thiem 6-4, 6-3, 6-2. Nadal is not human.

What keeps him going is an interesting question, but one quickly answered when he teared up during the trophy ceremony. I've watched probably every single one of Nadal's slam wins, and only remember him crying three other times: 2010 French Open, his first slam after his first injury, 2013 French Open, for the same reasons, and now this. I don't know why this time seemed to hit him more than last year, when he got the Decima, or so many of the others, but it did. That's why Nadal keeps playing. He loves to compete, he loves to play tennis, he loves to win.

So what exactly does eleven French Open's equate to? How about the same amount of slams as Bjorn Borg won in his career. Rafael Nadal at the French Open, is a top-5 player of all time. Eleven slams is one less than Novak Djokovic has in his career. Nadal's ability to compartmentalize him being the overwhelming favorite is so incredible. The pressure on him is immense. Him losing a set is a news story - as it was in the quarterfinals against Diego Schwartzman. Following a ran delay, Nadal won 18 of the last 20 games. Ruthless, as always.

When Nadal got number nine in 2014, firmly ensconced at #1 in the world, it seemed like he could run the total to 12 or 13, chasing down Federer in teh process (it was 17-14 at the time, with Federer not having won a slam in two years, and Nadal winning three of the previous five). Like his favorite club, Real Madrid, La Decima would take a while, needing until 2017, and then it seemed something of a capper. A year later (with a nice little US Open mixed in as well), we can start again wondering of #12 or #13 are in his sights. 

At the moment, it is best just to bathe in how ridiculous this all is. He won the tournament in 2005, two weeks after turning 19. At the time he was already #4 in the world, because he had run up a ridiculous stretch on clay. People were already calling him one of the most naturally talented clay court players ever. Not only was he that, he tirelessly worked to keep up that label from the start. Despite changing his game to make him successful across surfaces, his overwhelming mastery of the clay just continued. In sports, there are so few guarantees, so few closed arguments. If anything, let's just be happy Nadal has raised the tent of best player on any one surface we don't even have to argue about that ever.

The Top 50 QBs of All Time: #30 - #21

30.) Donovan McNabb

Donovan McNabb was a lot better than people will remember. He was a lot better especially at the things people thought he was bad at. Donovan McNabb was incredibly careful with the ball, throwing interceptions on just 2.2% of his throws (a great figure for the early to mid 00's). He was better at evading sacks than almost any 'running' QB. He was also better at making competent-at-worst offenses out of nothing receivers. For most of his career, he was throwing to Todd Pinkston, James Thrash and Fred-Ex Mitchell. The one year he was given a motivated, play-nice Terrell Owens, he had an awesome year and led his team to the Super Bowl. His 11-years in Philadelphia will never be remembered by the people that cheered him on as much as it should, but we should all remember just how good Donovan McNabb was. He and Andy Reid made a really nice duo for 10-years. It all fell apart rapidly, but he's easily the best modern-era QB the Eagles ever had. Donovan McNabb was a lightning rod way more than anyone with his success, his ability and his performance ever should have been.


29.) Eli Manning

Everyone from here on out either is, will be, or should be in the Hall of Fame - and we start off with the QB who will get in but maybe shouldn't, but let's not pretend that means he isn't good. Eli Manning has been the most polarizing QB of the modern era, mainly because his play has necessitated it. How else do you explain a QB having a passer rating at the time below 80.0 winning a Super Bowl in an historic upset. How else do you explain a guy going from having one of the better full seasons when you count postseasons in 2011, to having a passer-rating under 70.0 in 2013? Eli Manning is unexplainable. At his best, he was easily a Hall of Fame worthy QB. For Eli's benefit, two of those periods of 'best' were four-game stretches in January and February. The Eli Manning regular season experience has been more or less than of a #8-#12 level QB for most of his career, but he's had enough peaks and enough handful-of-game stretches where that touches #3-#1. Eli Manning will never be underrated. Hard to be that when your best games are in your highest profile games, and your team misses the playoffs enough times that the natural regression over a bunch of playoff games (see: Rodgers, Aaron) brings that back to earth. Eli Manning has been dependable, has been very good in late-game situations, has elevated the level of his players around him, and has been able to succeed at times with marginal running games and o-lines. Succeed is a relative term, but Eli has shown an ability to do all these things at least once - and twice in January and February.


28.) Daryle Lamonica

Placing Daryl was really tough. He was really a starter for just six seasons - but then again, his fellow Raider Rich Gannon made this list with just four real seasons. Lamonica was a very accomplished player. In his Raiders career, he was 62-16-6 as a starter. He threw a bunch of TDs, didn't throw (for the 70's) that many INTs, and threw for a bunch of yards. Lamonica also held his value better than contemporary AFL QBs that made the transition into the merged NFL. Lamonica was also a great playoff QB, improving his stats across the board - including a great INT% given the era. The Raiders of that time had some great players on defense and at o-line, but this was before Casper and the only reliable option he had was Biletnikoff. Lamonica is another player who was just overlooked due to having more 'interesting' competition - mainly that of Namath. Statistically, Lamonica is better and it isn't very close. Both made a Super Bowl, and while Lamonica lost it was to one of the best teams of all time, and overall had far better playoff success. Out of the three great Raider reclamation projects (Daryl, Gannon, Plunkett), Lamonica was the best. Al Davis, Jim Otto, Gene Upshaw, Art Shell. All of these guys overshadowed Daryl, but his importance on those early Raiders teams shouild not be forgotten.


27.) Matt Ryan

His career will always be undershadowed - assuming he never wins a Super Bowl - by both the plethora of all time greats whose peak he crossed paths with, and the fact that the man drafted the same year as him as won a Super Bowl. But let's not lose sight of just how good Matt Ryan has been in his career. His 2016 season will go down as one of the best seasons in NFL history, with a sterling 117.4 passer rating (higher than Brady's 2007 season). I don't think anyone thought he had that in him, and he was amazing, a deserving MVP.  I think his rookie season has also somehow become underrated. Michael Turner got all the headlines, but as a rookie Matt Ryan was arguably one of the 8 best QBs in the NFL. He inherited a team trying to come back from the Mike Vick mess, and with Michael Jenkins and a then unkown Roddy White, proceeded to have a really good season. Matt Ryan's criticism are obvious, in that he's not as good as Rodgers, Manning, Brady, Roethlibserger, Brees. Well, most people aren't, but most QBs are also worse than Matt Ryan. Had his team not choked away a 28-3 lead (still can't believe that actually happened), he may have gone even further up the list.

26.) Philip Rivers

In many ways, Philip Rivers is the anti-Eli Manning. Forget the fact they were basically traded for each other, but Rivers has been good in all the ways Eli has not. Rivers has been far more consistent, a more accomplished passer in statistically and performance-wise in the regular season. He has been the QB of teams that went 13-3 and 14-2. He has been on multiple occassions, one of the Top-3 QBs in the NFL (2008, 2009, 2013), including leading the league in Y/A three straight years. He's piled up 'black ink', including leading the NFL in completion percentage twice, yards once (on the way in 2015), yards per completion once, and passer rating once. He';s done it all... except have a good 3-4 game stretch in January. However, unlike Manning, or Rodgers (2011 onwards), or other guys who have not fared well in the playoffs, his stats match someone who has not been a good performer. He hasn't been unlucky, he's just been plain bad in a lot of those games. He was bad in his one-and-done's. He was gritty playing on a torn ACL in the 2007 AFC Championship, but it showed with his performance. Rivers is better than Manning because the regular season makes up 80%-90% of a player's career, but had he had Manning's playoff career, he may be well in the Top-15 of all time. People I guess feel the Manning vs. Rivers debate is over - and in a way it is. The Giants got what they wanted: 2 Super Bowls. But in terms of who was actually the better player, it was Rivers - and depending on how much you feel those 8 games matter for Eli, it ranges from a lot better to just marginally better. But either way, it was better.


25.) Warren Moon

It is hard to separate Warren Moon's playing career from his historical legacy. Warren Moon was the first African-American QB to really succeed at QB. He himself would say he was far from the first with the talent, but he was the first to truly make it. He begat Cunningham and McNabb, McNair, Culpepper, and to the point know where it isn't really a big issue. The one difference, and maybe this is why he really lasted and became such a great trailblazer, is that he wasn't played for athelticism, or as a 'dual-threat'; he was played, paid and persevered, because he was a great passer. Warren Moon came closest to making the run-and-shoot work. He had some amazing years, including the back-to-back stellar seasons in 1990-91. Despite it seeming recent, 1990-91 was a long time ago, and his 4,690 yard seasons were something out of the future at the time. Moon is a deserving Hall of Famer on his playing career alone, but his legacy gets deservedly bumped for what he represented. Let's not forget he lost years of his career playing in the CFL. His career in the NFL started at 28, he peaked at 34-35, he had a long tail to end his career of slightly mediocre play, but that peak is good enough to be one of the best 25 to date. It may have been better had he been in the NFL the whole time. In that way, his career is a lot like...


24.) Kurt Warner

No QB may have been harder to place than Warner. Let's state the facts first. Warner is a two-time league MVP. Not many QBs have done that, and the one's that have (Manning, Favre, Montana, Rodgers, Brady, Young) are, spoiler alert, in the Top-20 of this list. Warner led two moribund franchises to the Super Bowl, and put up some of the best playoff stats of all-time. Warner was the key cog in an offense that was revolutionary, that put up volume stats that hold up 15 years later in a wildly more conducive to offense era. Those are all pluses. Kurt Warner was also bad enough in 2002-03 that the Rams were almost forced to release him. It is easy to call Warner's career one of peaks and valleys, but we should qualify that. The peaks were being the best QB in the league ('99-'01), and a Top-5 QB ('07-'09), and the valleys, apart from 2002, weren't all that bad. His QB Rating+ (adjusted for league conditions), was only below 100 (average) one time in a season that he started more than 2 games. He was anywhere from 106-111 in his first three years in Arizona, where injuries held him back. Once he stayed healthy, and the team got slightly better, he was a consistent QB again.  Kurt Warner was as good as we remember him at his best, but he was also better than the player we remember him being at his worst. Guys who complete 65.5% of their career passes, with a career Y/A of 7.9, and a career passer rating of 93.7, playing mostly before passing stats exploded, is a player deserving of a Hall of Fame nod. Add in the playoff dominance, two league MVPs, and you get what should be a shoo-in.


23.) Len Dawson

I'm stretching my 'Super Bowl Era' rules with this and the next pick. Len Dawson played many years before the mgerger; his best year's came right before or during the merger; his stats were not as good after the merger. Yet, there are two reasons why I want to include him, and put him so highly. First, it wasn't like he played in the 40's-50's. The per-merger AFL was far closer to the NFL than, say, the AAFC was. Second, his stats were so amazing pre-merger, far better than Namath, or Lamonica, or the other great AFL QBs. Len Dawson also didn't drop nearly as much as some of his contemporaries. Len Dawson was the Peyton Manning of the AFL, black ink on his stat page everywhere. From 1962-1968, Dawson led the NFL in completion percentage six times, passer rating six times, TDs four times, and yards per attempt three times. The league's merged the year after, and while the black ink stopped, his passer rating adjusted for era was on average 12% better than league average. Dawson dominated the AFL because that was his peak, but he was pretty darn good in the merged league, leading a Super Bowl champion that first year. Becuase he didn't win with a guarantee, he''ll always be overlooked, by Len Dawson was, and will always be, the best QB ever to play in the AFL.


22.) Sunny Jurgenson

While Dawson was dominating the AFL in the mid-60's, Jurgenson was doing the same thing to the more-established NFL. His team wasn't as good as Dallas, or Green Bay, or even the LA Rams, but the Redskins were a consistent winner without much talent surrounding good ol' Sonny Boy. Between 1961 and 1968, Jurgenson led the NFL in completions four times, yards five times, TDs three times, and passer rating twice. Jurgenson was in many ways playing a different sport than most of the other 'winner' QBs of the time, passing shorter and more accurately. Jurgenson was the player most thought Archie Manning was - a guy playing for a franchise that really didn't given him much to work with, succeeding to all-pro levels. Jurgenson retired with the all-time lead in passer rating in the modern era, and again did this without hall of famers surrounding him like the other great QBs of his day.


21.) Ken Anderson

It has become almost passe to say that Anderson is the best QB not in the Hall of Fame. He likely will get in the Hall of Fame through the Veteran's Committee sometime soon. It's good too that he will, because it is hard to argue Anderson, a man who was the first QB to thrive and play well in Bill Walsh's offense, was not deserving. Ken Anderson has done more in his career with less around him than nearly any other QB in his era. Anderson had four different seasons that would play well in the 1990's, let alone his own era. His 1974-75 seasons, are something absurd for that era, averaging 62% completions, along with Y/A above 8.0, and passer ratings around 94.0. Those were Troy Aikman seasons from 20 years later, not seasons in the heart of deadball playing for a Northern team in an open-air stadium. Anderson then almost had a Kurt Warner-esque dip in the middle of his career, but rebounded with an even better two-season stretch in 1981-82, this time he averaged a 65% completion percentage, and a 97.0 passer rating. These are not normal seasons for QBs of that day not named Marino or Montana. Anderson was also a pretty good playoff QB, with a career 93.5 rating, albeit in only 6 playoff games. Anderson did everything well, did them in different eras with different coaches, and at his best he was putting up stats that Troy Aikman would blush at. That's good enough to be in the Hall of Fame, guys.

The Top 50 QBs of All Time: #40 - #31

40.) Bert Jones

Here's another guy who would have been a lot better with better teammates. Bert Jones had the ability to be the best QB in the NFL, but was in a situation devoid of much talent in Baltimore in the 70's. They had left the Unitas and Shula era, and would end devolving into a situation where they moved to Indianapolis. That is the life Bert Jones had to play in, and my word was he able to play in it. His season in 1976 was one of the best dead-ball era NFL QB seasons, something that guys like Staubach, Stabler and Bradshaw would have loved to put up. To have a deserved 100+ QB rating in the 70's is like having a 115+ today. Bert Jones should have been better because he should have had better teammates, but in the 70's, if you have a bad owner who doesn't spend and a team that doesn't draft well, there's only so much you can do.


39.) Boomer Esiason

In his favor, Boomer Esiason won an MVP, led a Bengals franchise away from the dark ages for another decade, extending their relevance for another few years and even another Super Bowl appearance. He was also the first QB to really implement a no-huddle offense. His offense was revolutionary at the time, coming before the Bills did the same with the K-Gun. On the other side, he had a long fall in Arizona and New York that hurt his career stats. Not having great receiving options (I mean, Cris Collinsworth was arguably his best receiver in his career - and he was not that good) hurt his stats as well. Esiason never reached the heights that he could have on a better team, but with that no-huddle offense, his memory will lie on. Also, I have a personal soft-spot for him as one of the co-hosts of the great morning show on WFAN with Craig Carton. Easily the most accessible great QB in history.


38.) Rich Gannon

Gannon's career is in a way like Kurt Warner, one with incredible highs but also significant lows. Now, it wasn't as good as Warner's when both were at their best, and unlike Warner, Gannon had a more surprising background. Warner came out of nowhere. Gannon just came out of mediocrity. For years in Minnesota and Kansas City, Rich Gannon was a mediocre, Matt Cassel-level QB. Of course, Matt Cassel wouldn't be in a Top-200 QBs list. What makes Rich Gannon special is that 4-year run in Oakland from 1999-2002, when he was a Top-25 QB of all time. Guys with multiple all-pro seasons, a deserved MVP, and a 4,600 yard passing season in 2002, are right at home in a Top-50 QBs of all time. Rich Gannon masterfully ran that offense along with Jon Gruden. He revived Tim Brown's career, extended Jerry Rice's, and turned guys like Charlie Garner and Roland Williams and Jerry Porter into legitimate threats. If you get Belichick on a good day, he will tell you how much of the Raiders short-passing game they used so well in 2002 he took and co-opted into what the Patriots have used since. Rich Gannon used so many years wandering the midwest, but in that time he cultivated enough knowledge to still run offenses to an exacting level. His downfall in '03 and '04 was shocking in how quick it was, but for a guy who's best years started when he was 34-37, it wasn't that surprising. Gannon developed slowly, but he definitely developed.


37.) John Hadl

10 years before Fouts exploded in San Diego, there was a QB coached by Coryell's mentor that basically did the same thing. John Hadl was great, throwing deep ball after deep ball into the waiting arms of Lance Alworth and co. He in many ways was the 60's version of Jim Hart, running an offense that was 10 years before its true prime, where both it was still in development and also ahead of the rest of the league. Hadl put up TD and Y/A numbers that were crazy for the 60's and 70's, and while he was never the most accurate, that was never really going to be a strong point for a system that relied a lot on 20-30 yard throws. Hadl will be remembered more fondly than Jim Hart and Bert Jones, other 60's-70's stars who never won a ring mainly because they never had a defense good enough, and Hadl was slightly better than those two.


36.) Steve McNair

Nothing was easy for Steve McNair. He came from a small town in Mississippi, had to play college at Division 1-AA Alcorn State, basically sat on the bench for two years, and had to be integrated to the starting line-up when his team was moving from Houston, to Memphis and finally Nashville. Through this time, McNair developed a undoing sense of leadership, commitment and intensity that if anything exceeded his already large bounty of talent. Starting in 1999, when the team finally settled on a stadium and a name that would last, it all came together. For a five year stretch, he was a Top-3 QB in the NFL - a stretch that was bookended by a Super Bowl season on one end, and an MVP season on the other. No season really said more about McNair than the 2002 team. By that point the run game with Eddie George had basically dried up, and it all was put on his shoulders. It took years of improving his craft but by then he had reached the stage that he could win games with his arms and brain. He led a Titans team from 1-4 to the AFC Championship Game, all while being somewhat banged up. That really was the lasting legacy of McNair, playing through pain, and letting his passion and poise take over. McNair's legacy is pretty well set in place. He fought an up-hill battle his whole career, but was in a rare situation that he got deserved credit for that as well. I don't think any QB got more credit for losing a Super Bowl than he did - but nothing better encapsulates McNair's career. They lost, but he left everything on the field.


35.) Jim Hart

Don Coryell was a great coach, a legend of the game, and while he is more famously tied to a certain QB still to come, what he did along with Jim Hart was something we shouldn't easily forget. In the middle of the 70's, competing with the likes of Dallas and St. Louis and Washington and Minnesota, the St. Louis Cardinals made the playoffs three straight years, mainly off the back of Jim Hart's brilliance. This bombs away offense makes his stats look pretty average in retrospect, but the personnel he had to work with was not close to that of Dan Fouts. Air Coryell was still in the development phase during this time, and it still had to work out a lot of kinks, but Hart made it go. What Hart also did amazingly well was limit sacks; a fearless thrower that flung the ball in the face of heavy rush game after game. Jim Hart, like so many mid-70's QBs, will be lost in the annals of history, back when defense and running were still more important, but he was a guy whose career was limited by circumstance, but what he and Coryell did together cultivated what Fouts would perfect.


34.) Joe Theismann

We remember Joe Theismann for two reasons: his leg getting broken in 1985, and his (mis)adventurous broadcasting career. We should also remember him for being an excellent QB, the bridge between the 'Over-the-hill Gang' Redskins under George Allen to the Joe Gibbs era. Theismann had some of the best early-80's season aside form all-timers like Marino and Montana. His 1983 season, with 29 TDs and an 8.1 y/a is good for a 97.0 passer rating, a pristine number for that era against that competition. Sure, we are partial to other parts of the Redskins legacy for that era, like Art Monk and Gary Clark and the various Hogs, but Theismann made it work early on. While Joe Gibbs is famous for winning three Super Bowls with three QBs, he may not have needed the 2nd QB if not for Theismann's injury. His career adjusted passer rating is 14% above average, which is a really good number (all-timers are look 25% above average). Joe Theismann's personal legacy is enhanced by the bad-luck injury, but his playing career shouldn't get short-changed for that.


33.) Roman Gabriel

He's the first of a handful of QBs who have a large chunk of their career that played out before the Super Bowl era. I am counting those stats and team results as legitimate if it came in the NFL (and not AFL), so that helps Gabriel a lot here. His stats weren't as good as his contemporaries, and his early career instructions were basically to not screw up and allow the Fearsome Foursome to do their thing. There were so many more storied teams in the NFL/NFC at the time in Green Bay, Dallas, Minnesota, and the Colts for the beginning bit, that Gabriel's mad-bomber exploits are somewhat forgotten. But all that should change by his two great seasons. In 1969, he had a INT% of 1.8%, which is a number that would be great in 2015, let alone 1969. Then, in 1973, for a bad Eagles team, he led the league in everything, putting up one of the best dead-ball (1969-1979) era QB seasons. Gabriel is easily the best Rams QB before Warner, and still has enough of that mythic status to make up for a bad tail end.

32.) Tony Romo

Quick, who led the NFL in passer rating in 2014? Hint: it wasn't league MVP Aaron Rodgers, he of the 38-to-5 QB to INT. No, it was Tony Romo, the guy who complted 69.9% of his passes, threw for 34 TDs on just 435 throws, and had he not gotten injured for two games, the Cowboys likely get the #1 seed, and maybe make the Super Bowl. Tony Romo's 2014 season wasn't the start of a new Romo, it was the cap to an already great career. We haven't yet reached 'Hall of Fame' territory, and Romo's outside perception of a choker probably would restrict him anyway, but with all the focus we spend on his mistakes, dating back to bobbling a field goal hold, we overlook the brilliance. Tony Romo's career stats are basically a 2000's version of Steve Young. Of course, Young doing what he did in the 90's is more impressive than Romo in the 00's-10's, but its not THAT different. Each of the 9 full years that Romo has been a starter, he has been between 6% better than league average and 30%, and more often closer to the higher number. And he's done this all on a team that mismanaged itself away from a dominant set of talent in 2008-09 to a team mostly bereft of it in 2012-13. Romo is missing a season where he may have been one of the best QBs again in the NFL, and as he closes in on 36 his years are numbered, but he's the clear 3rd best QB in Dallas Cowboys history, and there is nothing to be ashamed of for that.


31.) Joe Namath

There is no better way to trump up yourself more than be in New York and guarantee a win. That's really about it. Apart from that, it helps if you had a semi-memorable college career. I'm not saying that Joe Namath was a bad player. He wasn't; he was a very good player. But what he really is was an overrated player - if not a wildly overrated one. Joe Namath had two very good seasons, the last two seasons of the AFL before the merger. These are real seasons, worth considering. One's that ended in
Super Bowls - but they still represent two seasons. He passed for 4,000 yards in one of them, becoming the first player ever to do that. Still, it is hard to look at his stats page and realize that even when you convert for 1970's offensive levels, and the fact that his teammates were not good in the 70's, and not think that this is a guy that peaked at 26. For his career, he was 2% above average in adjusted passer rating, but that number is closer to 10% if you take away the last three years of his career when he was a mess. At his best, Joe Namath was a very good player, a legendary QB. Problem was 'his best' was far shorter than people remember.