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.

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.