Bleacher Report - Articles by Alexeiv Goodenov

The NFC Playoff Picture with Six To Go, Will There Be Another Shocker?

Alexeiv Goodenov — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:49:24 -0500

Like most seasons, the NFC tends to provide for some questionable playoff teams from the regular seasons and some unlikely playoff runs.

This year is shaping up to be much of the same.

The two bulls in the Conference are the Saints and Vikings, and nobody comes close. The Vikings for one are 9-1 and that one loss could well be argued as a stolen victory. They have in essence been flawless while the Saints have countered some scares.

The Cardinals seem locked to win another division title while the NFC East, is the NFC East.

The Falcons at 5-5 are far from out of the race while the Packers despite their offensive line and a QB that perhaps holds on to the ball a little too much, are trucking along.

And do not count out the 49ers just yet, with a relatively light remaining schedule with a game against the 6-4 Eagles.

Here is my prediction of the seedings and possible outcomes.

No. 1. Saints

The Final Record- With the Monday Night matchup of the season, the Saints could drop to 10-1, or continue their quest for perfection. It probably is the nostalgia in me hungry for an undefeated team, but I do pick the Saints to finish 16-0, there are other factors involved in this, a big one being the 9-1 Vikings. Minnesota may well finish 15-1 and so the Saints may just have to keep on winning out of necessity.

The Playoff Run- The ultimate hope of every NFL fan should be to see an 18-0 vs. 18-0 matchup in the Super Bowl, if of course your team is out of the Super Bowl picture already. That I do not see happening, I expect a Vikings vs. Saints NFC Championship game and I expect Favre to make good.

No. 2. Vikings

The Final Record- Favre's late season statistical collapses precede him and while I don't expect what happened last year to repeat, I do not see the Vikings finishing 15-1, I see a 14-2 final record good enough for 2nd in the Conference.

The Playoff Run- I may have ruined my prediction with the statement about the Saints, but such is life, I do pick the Vikings to get to the Super Bowl, but beyond that I save for another time.

No. 3. Cardinals

The Final Record- No, the Cowboys won't implode, but they won't get the third overall seed, the Cardinals should finish no worse than 11-5.

The Playoff Run- It's hard to see Warner pull another long run this year's playoffs, but it's far from impossible. Their poor record at home however makes me lean towards a Wild Card loss.

No. 4. Eagles

The Final record- Yes, I'm picking the Eagles to take the NFC East, and I foresee a 10-6 final record.

The Playoff Run- They will win at home and get to at least the Divisional round, I just don't see Super Bowl for McNabb, sadly yet again. There is big reason to pick McNabb to win at least one playoff game given he's never gone one and done.

No. 5. Cowboys

The Final Record- They'll get into the playoffs but I think they go on a 2-4 record their last six. Oh Romo, you're not a good closer.

The Playoff Run- Their won't be any, Romo will go 0-3, but hey, cheer up, Peyton Manning lost his first four playoff games.

No. 6. Falcons

The Final Record- Don't hate me Packer fans, I just think Atlanta has four games in the win column, not a given but I just see them finishing 9-7, perhaps beating out the Packers in a tiebreak.

The Playoff Run- Remember what I said about the Cardinals losing in the Wild Card round? Watch Matt Ryan get revenge and win his first playoff game, beyond that, I don't see good things.

The Implosion

I'm picking the Giants to lose to Denver, well somebody has to. Then consequent losses to the COWBOYS and Eagles will put the Giants in jeopardy at 6-7. Wins against the Skins and Panthers should happen but ultimately, the Vikings will make a blowout big enough in the first half to win the game with backups.

The Heartbreak

As I said, I pick the Packers to just lose out on a playoff spot. I think a three-game losing streak starting with the Ravens in Week 13 and continuing with the Bears and Steelers will be the monster that sets the team back.

Rams Nation: Enter Vick, Forget Bulger

Alexeiv Goodenov — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:28:27 -0400

Ever since Madden 2003, I have dreamed of Michael Vick in a Rams' uniform.

Yes, I have always supported Kurt Warner, but it was picking Vick in a fantasy draft for franchise mode that my mind exploded in what the Rams offense could be with Michael Vick.

Of course this was in the days of the Greatest Show on Turf, but regardless, Michael Vick would bolster the Rams sorry excuse for an NFL offense. The last two seasons have been morbid to say the least and whatever Bulger supporters there were at the beginning of '08 are surely wearing another face or hiding in a cave in Montana.

The bottom line is this team finished 2-14, 2 and bloody 14.

That's harsh, and short of the Lions, I really can't see the Rams doing worse this season, there is literally no risk in signing Michael Vick, only benefit.

The greatest benefit is even with a young offensive line, Michael Vick has the ability to get away from pressure and avoid sacks much better than the brittle and slow Bulger. This is an instant plus, also, Michael Vick as poor a passer as he has been labeled, although not that immensely poor, better than Derek Andersen, is better than Bulger has been the last two seasons, because even with accuracy in hand, Bulger has always had a girl's arm.

Then there's the media factor, no publicity is bad publicity and much of the league has forgotten the Rams organization, they are never talked about, while getting Vick in town would not only booster jersey sales, I know I'd buy one, but also get some much needed news coverage, and as we know, there's more pressure on the players to succeed when the media spotlight is on them, sometimes it can be for the worse, but I again can't see the Rams getting any lower.

Lastly, the new coach of the Rams is rush happy, Vick would only fit better in his system than most others, and when a rush coach has a running QB, watch out.

Why Cheating In Sport Is The Unforgivable Sin.

Alexeiv Goodenov — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:16:46 -0400

Perhaps I'm an old stiff in my beliefs, possessed by a hardliner born in the 1930s, but I can never excuse cheating.

Although I have always cheated in video games, and frankly in many cases printed out all the cheat codes for a game I just purchased, that is different. Cheating is universal, but it carries different weight in the many fields where one can cheat.

Cheating in school is wrong, but it's forgivable based on the fact if you cheat your way through education you'll end up proving your lack of worth in later life, we have all come across people in certain fields we can only wonder how they got the job they did, because they're clearly not fit for it.

Such is life, it's the people you know, and sports is no different in that aspect, it's why some subpar Quarterbacks keep their starting jobs while others can only warm the bench and only dream of starting a single game.

When it comes to cheating, in the athletes world, it is the worst kind.

When you cheat at a card game, and you get caught, you'll probably get dragged out of the casino, or owe your friends a big favor.

When you cheat in a sports game, you show yourself as an outsider to the arena of all sports, why are you there, why don't you just leave?

It's one thing to try and fail, it's another to cheat and succeed, only to be found out as a cheater.

I'll parlay this to more common social situations, you're at a house party and you try to get a date, to cheat at getting a date a guy may lie about his job, that's a pretty big fib, a lesser one is his interests, what books he reads, and what people he knows. On the other side of a coin a woman may lie about her interests, or her availability (not saying men don't lie about being single, just bare with me) and that's cheating too.

Now to stop for a second and acknowledge what you already know, it's only cheating if you get caught, and this is true by default, not by any ethical standard, just like if you try to sell an item for more than it's worth, it's not stealing the person's money if they can afford to pay you that price.

But it's the consequences that matter most, if a good guy at heart who's unemployed lies to a woman about having a job and she finds out two months later he does not, the consequences may be the guy finds out the girl cares too much about money, if she leaves him, and if she doesn't, then no actual harm was done.

Now if a husband cheats on his wife, he's pissed on the marital arrangement now hasn't he?

If I cheat in a tennis match against a friend by calling clearly in balls out 80% of the time and get caught, I can laught it off, if I however get caught taking a stamina booster in a national tournament, then I'm a disgrace to the sport.

And rightfully so.

It was just a year ago that I found myself weighing 220lb, mostly fat on a 5"11 height frame. My weight stayed over 200lb until about March when I started to exercise like I hadn't in years. I weighed in at 170lb on the dot only a few weeks ago. Upping my muscle as well to 180 recently.

Meeting some people I hadn't seen in months I was complimented on my appearance and on some personal conversations asked if I had taken any steroids.

Now I laughed this off and said no, just a lot of vegetables and fruit, and no doritos since God knows when, also leaving the alcohol to special occasions.

But this just cemented society's perspective on steroids in modern day, I get the vibe that most people agree it's bad, but not that bad.

Having several friends who had taken steroids at one point of their lives, some that still do, cheating to get physically fit is becoming more and more socially accpetable, and that's a warning sign I cannot ignore.

Having heard a lot of boxers in the low ranks, and many athletes in general take steroids to build their muscular frame and then stop the drugs when they begin entering tournaments, that do mandatory testing.

This makes my ears burn every time, it seems steroids have gone from a horrible poison some lazy athletes take to get a short term physical high, to, do it as long as you're not getting tested.

What has happened?

And then it all goes back to social construct, people nowadays are more forgiving than ever, and yet safety comes first.

Growing up as a kid I was told to tell teachers if I saw a kid do anything bad, I never did, and throwing snowballs was not allowed as some kids might get hurt, so we did it all when the teachers weren't looking.

But let's get serious, nowadays a crime like rape is watered down and so hard to prove you almost need video evidence to land a guy in prison.

And how does this relate to sports? A pro athlete who fails a drug test mises a third of his season of play?

Yes, I did just make a reference to Manny Ramirez, but it goes far beyond that.

The NBA and NFL still don't have legitimate and continuous drug testing in place, and they should, and for any MLB fan who tries to excuse Clemens, Bonds or Rodriguez by the notion that "they only cheated for a few seasons and had already accomplished so much clean," I look down on you.

First of all, nobody knows how many seasons guys like Clemens or Rodriguez took steroids, because testing only came to light rather recently, it hasn't always been there, and just because a husband cheats on his wife once in a ten year marriage doesn't make him a mostly good husband.

Cheating is taking away credibility, not only from yourself as a person, but from the activity you are cheating in, be it exam time at University, a coach at your friend's place or on the court (choose one).

If cheating is ever forgiven in sport, then why should criminal law hold precedent over society? Because sports is just for entertainment? But aren't job just for buying shiny new trinkets?

The Definition of Sport

Alexeiv Goodenov — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:05:08 -0400

As a sports fan I often come to the dilemma of what a sport actually is. Paying too much attention to a somewhat questionable sport over a universally accepted one is distracting, and you do get called on it. I thought of several ways on how to structure this article, at first it was not meant to be a slide show, but then I thought, you really have to grasp the elements. For there is no one clear definition for a sport, but there are numerous themes, I present to you my main points for a sport, and if what you call a sport has none of them, maybe you should start calling it a game instead, for a game is NOT necessarily a sport.

Begin Slideshow

Five Big Reasons Why Federer/Roddick Was Better Than Federer/Nadal

Alexeiv Goodenov — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:08:48 -0400

In sports, the nostalgia of a theme often overtakes the true meaning of an accomplishment. If this were not true, you would not hear so many sports fans calling a player overrated or underrated, and you would not be reading article after article reminding people of a remarkable event that the general public it seems has forgotten. After watching the Federer vs. Roddick Wimbledon Final, I expected, unlike some, a close match, perhaps not a five set match, but a strong effort from both Roddick and Federer. I got a match of a lifetime, and there were certain facts about the match that I feel support it over the previous year's Final as the greatest match ever played, at least at Wimbledon, at least in the Open Era. The following slides entail why I feel it was better than Federer vs. Nadal. Once again enjoy.

Begin Slideshow

The Best of the Rest: The Men Behind Roger Federer In His Era

Alexeiv Goodenov — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:25:17 -0400

Since Federer's first Grand Slam victory on Grass in 2003, the biggest call against the one many call The Greatest That Ever Breathed, is the lack of competition in his era. First off, I think there's something wrong with a sport and the way it is organized if in a time with larger communication, transport and sponsorship opportunity, there is anything but a deep pool of talent the world can watch go head to head. The biggest point of them all is boxing, Heavyweight boxing in particular, it's critics are endless and they have a claim. However just because the good fights are not being made does not mean there is a lack of great heavyweight fighters, I am certain there are, but the money doesn't make the scouts go round anymore, and that's the problem, not to mention the corruption the sport has long had. Not so the story of tennis, like golf, it's popularity never wanes, maybe in part due to the physical benefit of playing the sport and the ease of which you can get into it. That said, whenever one player of all there are to behold is so untouchable, and so legendary in his accomplishments, there is always going to be that question mark, how is this possible? I for one believe Federer just makes all the other players look worse than they actually are, and watching hours and hours of archive footage from matches in the era of Becker and Connors, if anything, a Top 20 ranked player today is better conditioned and more intelligent, and would probably beat the greats of yesteryear, but that's a bit controversial so I won't get in too deep. What I will showcase is in my opinion the ten greatest players below Federer who have played since his first Wimbledon Title in 2003. Enjoy.

Begin Slideshow

Tommy Haas Must Win on Friday

Alexeiv Goodenov — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:32:12 -0400

Tommy Haas has made it into the Wimbledon semifinals.

It's not the first time a 30 year old has done it, and it will not be the last. However, the age factor is one of many reasons why Haas must win.

Despite being a longshot to say the least, Haas can indeed beat Roger Federer, the greatest of all-time.

But, to be realistic, he is playing an aging Federer.

It was Haas who had Federer down 2 sets to 0 in the fourth round of the French Open.

Perhaps Federer toyed with him, or perhaps Haas was on the verge of destroying one of the greatest streaks in sports and blinked.

This is vengeance.

Haas had what it took to beat Federer on clay. Does he have the same answer on grass?

Federer was to face Haas in the fourth round of Wimbledon in 2007; however, Haas was forced to retire due to injury, and Federer received more rest. Now, we shall finally see a match I personally have been looking forward to since Roland Garros.

Haas is a 31 year-old professional; yet, he does not perform like an aging athlete.

Before 2004, Haas, in his "prime," made it past the fourth round of a Slam twice, both times at the Australian Open; yet, after taking the whole year off in 2003, Haas has reached three quarterfinals at the U.S. Open, a semifinal at the Australian Open, and now a semifinal at Wimbledon.

Is Tommy Haas like fine wine?

Or perhaps this is a dream—a dream for his only possible shot at a slam championship and his best opportunity of revenge against Federer.

Tommy Haas must pull off the upset of a lifetime, perhaps the upset of an era, and as a Federer fan since he beat Sampras in 2001, I could only congratulate Haas if he pulls out the seemingly impossible win.

Wimbledon 2009 Mens' Round Of 16 Predictions

Alexeiv Goodenov — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:53:40 -0400

Ah, predictions, they don't last very long do they?

Right to business I go:

Hewitt vs. Stepanek

Back to back five-set marathons against sub-par opponents (Grass being Ferrer's weakest surface), so I think Hewitt wins. No surprise but what am I going to say?

Berdych vs. Roddick

I picked the Czech at the beginning of the tournament to make the final, and no he hasn't disappointed me thus far.

Murray vs. Wawrinka

There's just no way Murray loses this early, too much momentum, and Wawrinka has already reached the level he did last year.

Simon vs. Ferrero

Simon is a rising star and 2009 keeps getting better. Ferrero was pushed by Gonzalez and is in decline, but I can't see the miracle quarterfinal berth from him here.

Andreev vs. Haas

Andreev needs to make that push to get over the hill. I see it coming here against a questionable Haas.

Sela vs. Djokovic

Surprise? I have seen nothing from Djokovic to indicate he's going to want it more.

Verdasco vs. Karlovic

I find it amazing Karlovic has made it this far, so I'm waiting for the bubble to burst.

Federer vs. Soderling

No, just no. I cannot see Federer's streak of a lifetime (semi-final appearances) be broken by Soderling, playing Giant Killer isn't a full time role.

Enjoy the round of 16 everybody.

Patellar Tendonitis vs. Rafael Nadal

Alexeiv Goodenov — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:56:35 -0400

Now I'm not a doctor, but then again, few sports writers are doctors. Those writers that have medical training probably failed medical school because honestly, if you were a doctor, would you have the time to write about sports? Maybe if they were retirement, they could dapple in sports writing

But, let's get on to my point.

I've been called out as a Nadal hater, and though there is merit in these accusations, every individual has their biases, and when talking about Federer vs. Nadal, I may get a little jumpy.

However, in this article, I'll discuss Nadal, just Nadal, and his road to recovery.

Tendinitis is what every athlete should fear; of course, some sports are less strenuous on your tendons than others, but regardless, there's always a chance you can get it.

The worst part of this heinous injury is that it is not completely preventable, not until you actually get it, do you have any opportunity to make a game plan.

Simply put, every individual has their own body, it's why some people have to run five kilometres a day to maintain a healthy body weight, and others can eat twice a day at McDonalds and not gain any significant weight.

That said, there are different types of tendinitis: the wrist, elbow, shoulder, and knee are the most common areas for tendinitis as well as your Achilles' heel.

It's hard to say which is the worst, but generally, your legs are tougher to heal, mainly because you're using them all the time.

If you've taken part in sports past high school and have friends who have, you probably have at least some experience with a range of injuries. Dislocation gets labeled as mild, and fractures heal quicker while breaking bones outright is never a good thing.

When an athlete breaks his or her hand, because it's possible to operate with one hand, they can conscientiously put less pressure on it.

Now, if you break your foot, it's tougher. You probably have to use crutches. and even then, it's difficult to relieve the strain on your foot. That's your foot; you can still use your whole leg, so imagine injuring your knees.

Due to our clumsiness, all of us have probably walked into something time and again. We get a little bruise, and we walk it off.

Considering tendinitis strikes on the inside of your body, it's hard to walk it off.

How important are your legs? Ask yourself how often you have to use them; do you commute to work by walking to the subway? Do you sit in a chair most of the time or a nice couch at home?

The day in the life of a professional athlete always contains training. Having a day off doesn't mean watching old movies and sipping some beer; it means you have time to train for the upcoming game. When your season is over, it means you have time to improve yourself for the next one; it never ends.

There are a slew of reasons why most people are not professional athletes: Physical strength, natural talent, interest, etc.

Most of us do not have the determination or will to become a professional athlete, even if we think we do.

Now, I don't care much for golf, but many people do. When you ask them how often they golf, the general answer is once a week if not less. I often wonder, if given the opportunity, how many golf fans could take golfing roughly 300 days a year for a decade.

And that's golf, a sport that, with all due respect, is not very physical. I often argue that bowling is more demanding on the body.

Tennis on the other hand is one of the most rigorous sports known to man, if I had to do a breakdown it would be as so:

1. Rugby

2. Ice Hockey

3. Tennis

Yes, call me crazy, but of all the widely played sports, I argue that tennis is the third-most strenuous on the body.

Soccer/football fans may argue against this, but consider that during the play of these sports, you often get breaks when your team is driving the ball, and in soccer, you're only using your legs and feet.

American Football is a contact sport no doubt, but you constantly get breaks, and few players get hit on every play. In fact, no player gets hit on every play, and you get pads and helmets.

Tennis is a continuous strain; you're constantly moving, using your legs, feet, wrists, and shoulders to be precise. Moreover, you're constantly looking at a ball usually going faster than a car on the highway.

If you question the intensity of tennis, you should ponder that image.

And now we get back to Nadal. To think a man of his calibre playing at the elite level on a constant basis, tendinitis does not only challenge him to change his game but his lifestyle as well. Now that "The Bull " knows his limits, what about his future?

One may suggest Nadal needs to quit hard courts, but that would be insane. We know he's not going to quit any slams.

However, choosing to opt out of half of the ATP Master tournaments played on hard courts would not be a bad idea. The best way to recover from tendinitis is to take a break; take some anti-inflammatory medicine and change your regiment for the future.

However Nadal's workout routine has made him a remarkable player, and rest (I am sure) is not on his mind; this brings into question what his approch will be.

Agassi managed to find a way succeed despite his back problems. He opted to miss many of the ATP Master tour events and continued to excel at slams, winning the Australian Open and making the U.S. Open Final in his later years.

Nadal can follow this schedule for the next year or so because a year is generally the minimum time slot to fully recover. Then, who knows, maybe Nadal can just push himself for two years and take another break.

All in all, I hope more tennis fans realize the severity of this injury. I would prefer having two of my ribs, my foot, and my hand broken than have to suffer tendinitis in my knee.

Sport is a cruel mistress.

The NFL's Top 20 Quarterbacks For 2009

Alexeiv Goodenov — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:47:49 -0400

So the 2009 NFL season is approaching. Yes I know, I can't wait either, just two months right? Here's a countdown of the Top 20 Quarterbacks in the League at the present time. Note, this is largely based off of 2008, as you may or may not know, the NFL is a " what have you done for me lately? " League. That is not to say every Quarterback who had a down year in 2008 will be thrown to the wolves, but that a Quarterback who may have impressed in 2005 but has been average last three seasons is not going to be regarded very highly. Although history does count to an extent. Enjoy.

Begin Slideshow

Why Players Like Favre Are The Cornerstone Of Sports Entertainment

Alexeiv Goodenov — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:28:22 -0400

If you didn't know by now, the world is run by money.

A wise man once said, you can never measure happiness, loyalty, or perseverance a man has, but you can measure his bank account.

Net worth is what matters in life, it's the difference between a person saying yes and no, and money, like it does the world, makes professional sports go round.

Professional athletes are not hacks, they all deserves to be there, but what us fans should not forget is all the great players that never get their shot, in many cases due to lack of money they produce.

If a player isn't popular with the fans and isn't a winner, despite the team's downfalls that he plays on, he will be forgotten and need to find another job.

However, if a player is popular with the fans, he needs not win, unless they the fans demand it of him.

So we come to the Favres of sports. They are the players who did get their shot, and made it count, they are the players who can demand a yearly salary only the elite players of the game can have, even if they themselves are far past their prime.

Now yes, experience is valuable, but let's not forget the physical aspect of sports, as in, the main basis of sports, that and again money.

Favre is long past his prime, yes players make comebacks, but they are usually due to long physical layoffs, or better teammates and staff management. Favre is not worth $12 million a year on the field, but the jersey sales his buzz creates is.

Favre also represents the athlete who chooses to stick around so the fans can see them play, remember how Rice was playing on the Seahawks at one point? Of course you do, a part of you may have wanted to yell to him to stop, but another part would probably drive you to run up and ask for an autograph, and nobody would blame you.

Favre also represents another commodity desired in the sports world, sensational headlines.

How many times have you gone to see a movie that seemed a little off, but starred your favorite actor? Now how many times did you leave thinking you could have spent your time better?

Eventually the name factor fades, just ask Pacino (my all time favorite actor, and yes I did see 88 minutes in theaters). But for now, as long as everyone is listening, Favre can continue to live in the spotlight.

Will his presence get the Vikings over the hill and to a Championship? No.

If they do win, it will be because the team was well built, management was right on the money, and no player made enough mistakes to ruin the dream.

Yet the headlines will read Favre, and in the end, that's what making money is all about, for everyone is a salesman selling something.

The Slam Champions: Predicting the Next 10 Men's Singles

Alexeiv Goodenov — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:40:03 -0400

Since it's hard to grasp the contenders in recent history at Tennis Grand Slams, any prediction seems to be a wild one. Of course, saying Federer, Nadal, Murray or Djokovic is a popular bet, there's always going to be questions. Due to the resurgence of Federer back to the world number one spot ( inevitable due to Nadal's withdrawal from Wimbledon ) I find it's now the best time to revisit the next 10 Slams, the two remaining for this season and to the end of 2011. Enjoy.

Begin Slideshow

It Can Be Said, Nadal's Run Is Over

Alexeiv Goodenov — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:21:46 -0400

I was holding my tongue as of late to make a statement on Nadal.

I had already picked Federer to win back Wimbledon last season when he defended his U.S. Open, but only after Nadal's exit at the French did I begin to ponder how Nadal may fizzle into thin air.

This only accentuates the greatness that is Roger Federer. I had always laughed when Nadal fans boasted his claim to beat Federer's all-time Slam record.

I laughed because even though Nadal had achieved more at his age than Federer had, his physical play, as I made clear, is not wise for a pro tennis player, and I say this as a former semi-pro player myself.

Now it is official: Nadal's withdrawal from Wimbledon entirely spells the end of his "era." Federer will now regain his No. 1 world ranking and keep it for some time, considering his competition.

Nadal will have no chance (and you can quote me on this) to win the U.S. Open, at least this year, and will have to regroup to have any hope of regaining his precious French Open crown.

Perhaps I am wrong here in that Nadal will not only regroup physically, but mentally and change his game in the process, but how formidable could he be if he changes his game?

I now bring out the comparison I have been keeping in my mind for the past year now: Rafael Nadal is Jim Courier.

Bear with me; I do not mean to say Nadal is at the same level as Courier was, for I think Nadal is slightly better; however, their accomplishments seem quite similair. Although Nadal did win four consecutive French Opens and two more Slams for a total of six (to Courier's four), there's a fair (but ultimately lacking) argument for both being great.

Courier made three other Slam Finals, better than Nadal; he made the Final at every Grand Slam, winning two of them, the French and Australian, back-to-back.

He attained the world No. 1 ranking for the first time in February '92 and kept it for six weeks; then he gained it back for 22 weeks later that year; he took it a third time October of that year and held it for 27 weeks; and then finally snatched it for a fourth time for three weeks in August of '93.

His total tenure as tops on the globe was 58 weeks; Nadal's current tenure is 45 weeks, to be 47 weeks after Federer regains it.

Courier's decline from the elite was quite abrupt; from his last top ranking after making the Wimbledon final in 1993, he never made another Slam Final, only making the semifinal at the Australian and French the following year and another semi at the U.S. in 1994. He was never a true contender afterwards, though he played on the tour for four more seasons.

Am I saying Nadal will not win another Slam? No, but I doubt he wins many more; in fact, if I may make a prediction, I say he will not win more than two more Slams for the rest of his entire career.

My judgement is this: He will not win the U.S. Open and will be hard-pressed to make the semifinal like he did last year. He will not defend his Aussie Open crown; how far he goes in that Slam, I cannot say, but I do not see him repeating.

Then in the French, he may win it, he may not, all of us onlookers honestly do not know the extent the injury will have on his career. I say he does not win the 2010 French Open crown. And then he'll go back to Wimbledon and be unable to win it also and again be denied at the '10 U.S.

So when does he go back to winning Slams? I would say he needs to change his gameplan, adapt it, and then master it. In all honesty, I think it won't be until 2011 we see Nadal winning Slam again, at which time I expect Federer to still be No. 1.

If you disagree with my assessment, by all means say so, but all I can see for Nadal's future is a 2009 French Open win, maybe, and then what? A top-ranked player he will never be again.

City of Losers

Alexeiv Goodenov — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:36:26 -0400

So we've all heard the mantra of City of Champions, they come and go, for a while, Boston held that name, now most recently it's arguably Pittsburgh with winning the Super Bowl and Stanley Cup the same year. But there are many cities who have at least one major league sports team, and most cities can only dream of ever being called Champions. Here is a list of the top...err, bottom 10 sports cities in North America.

Begin Slideshow

A Note from a Disgusted Red Wings Fan

Alexeiv Goodenov — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:07:30 -0400

So I'm sitting here at 11 p.m. and the rage inside me cannot be worded. I doubt a heroin overdose would calm me down right now.

That said, I congratulate the 2009 Pittsburgh Penguins for winning the Stanley Cup. I will acknowledge your victory, and believe me, you should be honored because there are numerous teams I do not acknowledge winning even though the books will tell you they did (cough—2007 Ducks—cough).

I disagree with the Conn Smythe going to Malkin however. Take Crosby away from the Penguins and you have nothing. Please, please trade Crosby to another team. Please, Penguins.

Or maybe it doesn't matter. There has yet to be a repeat Stanley Cup Champion since the Wings of '97 and '98, who won in back-to-back sweeps. The Stars tried to defend their Championship from '99 and lost to the Devils in six.

Likewise, the Devils failed to repeat in seven games to the Avalanche, and since then, no reigning champion had made it back to the Finals. I doubt these Penguins do. I doubt they win another Cup in the next 10 years.

Why?

Because I believe Malkin's agent will get greedy and the team will be split up soon enough. Remember the Lightning? Do you? I do. I remember the triple-threat of St. Louis, Lecavalier and Richards. Oh, how well I remember. And now the Lightning are perennial bottom-feeders.

The Wings will be back. Oh you can count they will be back, less we forget what happened after the '95 Cup Final. I am sure Lidstrom remembers that loss well.

The Wings would go on to win 62 games and get to the Conference Finals before setting up the super '97 and '98 teams.

Go Wings Go.

And to Crosby, a personal letter: sip the cold champagne. Sip it dry. Enjoy every drop. Treasure it, for you never will again.

Go Wings Go.

The 10 Super Bowl Fixes

Alexeiv Goodenov — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:33:02 -0400

Okay, so maybe I'm a raging lunatic when it comes to close games, but I have my reasons. Close football games are great to watch, there's a reason why sports will always trump any Hollywood movie, but in close games, when all the plays on the field have been called, one can only reminisce of what could have been. Rarely do we get games where the refs don't make at least one questionable call, it's sad, but it is what we fans have to put up with. Super Bowls are not immune to this. We have witnessed 43 Championship games, some have been blowouts, some have been contested for the first 3 periods, and some have come down to the last 3 minutes. I present to you robberies/fixes/conspiracy outcomes I can no longer keep to myself.

Begin Slideshow

Wings vs. Penguins: Game 6, By The Period

Alexeiv Goodenov — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:37:28 -0400

So the Wings won Games 1 and 2 by the score of 3-1. Then the Penguins came back to win Games 3 and 4 by the score of 4-2. And then the Wings beat the Penguins' brains out in Game 5. Waiting for Game 6 to start tomorrow is like waiting for Christmas morning to open your presents, will you get what you wanted? Will you be disappointed? Or will you be content but looking forward to next year?

Begin Slideshow

Second Place: Glass Half Full or Bone Dry?

Alexeiv Goodenov — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:10:44 -0400

Second Place.

As a competitor in a few sports, in league play, I have come to understand the winner vs. loser concept. However, I have always seen it in the first, second and third place format, instead of No. 1 and everyone else. Perhaps that's the perspective you need to be the best, but second place, to me, is a worthy consolation.

I believe it is different considering the circumstances. Is it a team game? Is it one on one? How does atmosphere and injury effect the outcome? And what is the perceived distance in quality between opponents?

If we look back to the 2007 New England Patriots, we find the greatest example of No. 1 or nothing else. Indeed many will remember the 2007 Patriots as one of the greatest teams ever, but fact of the matter is they lost when they had no other option but to win.

Then there's the underdog tale, in my view, a no lose situation. Take the 2008 Arizona Cardinals, where one playoff win was massive, two, a lifetime of waiting, but three and a trip to the Super Bowl? Yes, I was one of those people who believed the Cardinals had nothing to lose, and in the end, they didn't. Perhaps those players lost their one and only chance at Super Bowl glory, but really, they exceeded expectations and all boundaries.

So what is second place? Is it that bad?

And what if a team or player consistently take second place? Is their legacy tainted?

Take, for example, the Buffalo Bills won their Conference four consecutive years but failed to win the League Championship. Considering how the Bills lost, second place was a harsh negative to winning Super Bowl XXV and XXVIII.

Then we look at Ivan Lendl, the only male tennis player to have a losing record in Grand Slam Finals in the Open Era (with at least three victories). Lendl went 8-11 in Slam Finals, and although losing 11 Slam Finals, he also made the most Slam Final Appearances ever at 19 (now tied by Roger Federer).

To compare and consider how badly the distance was from first and second place, of
Lendl's 11 Finals losses, only two went to five sets. And this was one player against one player, not a team where you could hold someone else at fault.Still, would Lendl's career be seen as below that of Jimmy Connors?

Connors was never able to win all four Slams at least once, as Andre Agassi did, but

finished 8-7 in Slam Finals. Would the fact he did not make four Slam Finals be seen as a negative or a positive in that he didn't lose four Grand Slams when he was so close, as Lendl was?

And then, how many points is the runner-up prize actually worth?

I have often said winning is twice what losing is. With that in mind, I would put a one-time champion at the same level as a two-time runner-up, and put a three-time runner-up above a one-time champion. I've been told this is completely wrong and horrible train of thought, but is it?

In team sports as in individual play, there have been one time wonders, in some sports to a lesser degree due to the competition.

For instance in the NFL, it is largely expected for a different team to win the Super Bowl every year, so the 1985 Chicago Bears can never be judged as a one season wonder, however in the NBA a string of dynasties has been more common and extensive, such as the 1980s Lakers or 1990s Bulls.

Still, not many people are going to call the 2006 Miami Heat a one season wonder team, however I would say the Detroit Pistons have put up better consistency winning a title and making another Final. Some would disagree and say second place means nothing.

But then why do we have Hall of Fames for all these athletes? Are they only designated for those who have won? I do not look at it that way, and perhaps I'm in the minority.

In team sports, it’s usually hard to legitimately assess individual players, however in the NBA it is more justified as there are 5 players on the court, where one truly great player, can carry a team, but to only such an extent.

I then come to compare the careers of David Robinson and Karl Malone.

David Robinson was a 10 time NBA All-Star, One Time NBA Defensive player of the Year and One Time League MVP. He won two Championships with the Spurs, one in 1999 and another in 2003.

Karl Malone made 13 NBA All-Star Teams, was a two Time League MVP, made three Finals, and lost all of them as a member of the Utah Jazz and Los Angeles Lakers.

Who's career was better? Consider this, Robinson's second Championship came in his last season in the league, where he was much past his prime and his last All-Star appearance was in 2001. Also consider Malone played five more seasons than Robinson, and yet his PPG average was four points better.

In this case team strength should also be noted, Malone, with his teamate John Stockton largely carried those Jazz teams and made two Finals, ultimately losing to one of the best teams, and arguably the greatest player ever in Michael Jordan.

Then getting back to the NFL if we are to judge Quarterbacks by Super Bowl rings, as the Hall of Fame does, was Jim Kelly's career better than Troy Aikman's?

Certainly three Super Bowl wins to four Super Bowl losses makes Aikman look better, but Jim Kelly had a better regular season starter record of 101-59 to Aikman's 94-71, and a first Team All-Pro to Aikman’s zero individual accolades (except a Super Bowl MVP, a one game award ).

This is all subjective but the point remains, is second place such a sour note? And is
there no difference between second place and let's say, fifth place?

I often wonder, if I had to choose a career in a sport, for sake of argument, an individual sport such as tennis, rowing, or track, would I prefer to be on top of the world at one tournament and then suffer an injury or retire into obscurity, or enjoy a lengthy career and be a runner-up on numerous occasions?

I suppose it all depends on your drive and the difference between being content with not being the best, or coming to the realization that you can't be the best, such as athletes like Andy Roddick must have accepted.

Then again, individual sports and team sports are just too different. You can reshape a team, but you cannot reshape an individual athlete. I am sure Kobe Bryant knows this and understands he will never surpass Jordan.

So to conclude, whoever wins the 2009 Stanley Cup, I will salute the runner-up, for being second may not be as great as being first in a one time deal, but it's better than being the Chicago Cubs.

10 Quarterbacks I Would Take Before Aikman in Canton

Alexeiv Goodenov — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:23:25 -0400

Regardless of bias, which every sports fan has, one of the most controversial figures in the Pro Football Hall of Fame has bee Troy Aikman. Even more so his 1st ballot induction, instead of say, 5 years down the road. Regarded as a winner, the Tom Brady of the 1990s so to speak, there have been viable arguments, but I just don't buy them. Statistics aren't everything, ask Marino or Fouts, but wins alone cannot be the sole merit for judging a Quarterback. As my first article on BR argued, the Quarterback position is the most glorified position in the NFL, and unjustly so, it could be the most important, but only by a very small margin, the Quarterback can be better argued as a product of a system 90% of the time, same for pretty much every position in the NFL, but it's how important of a component in that system a player was that shows his true greatness. I believe Aikman was not true greatness. The following slides will showcase the ten Quarterbacks I would replace Aikman with, they are based on how many years they have been eligible, their statistics, success in wining, league accolades and how important they were for their team/teams.

Begin Slideshow

Roger Federer: The Hand of God

Alexeiv Goodenov — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:08:01 -0400

When dear Roger went down two sets to love, I feared I would have to write an article titled "An Era is over," for had Federer lost today, his greatest streak, one of the greatest records in sports history, of 19 consecutive semifinal appearances at a Slam, would be over.

Not to neglect that surely, a loss in the fourth round of a tournament with a clear path to victory, a lost opportunity by the greatest of all time would be the ultimate stamp of a transition in the history of the sport.

But no, the King would not lose, he would prevail, perhaps by the tightest of margins in the third set, but in a run with a 6-0 and 6-2 victory in later sets.

This was a mark of greatness knowledgeable tennis fans have come to expect from him, and he delivered, yet again.

Still three matches to be played, but a victory at Roland Gaross would undoubtedly pave the way for redemption at the grass courts in London, and then perhaps a six consecutive title at Flushing Meadows, and then, the boundaries are limitless.

There is only one thing one must say, or perhaps on thing a fan of the sport must say, to Federer, as a sign of respect to an untouchable icon.

Win, win.

20 Worst Beatdowns In Sport Last Decade

Alexeiv Goodenov — Sat, 16 May 2009 17:24:38 -0400

To define a beatdown is difficult in some sense, for one, if in a team setting, you cannot ignore injuries, or the sometimes vast distance between teams or players in terms of ability and greatness. For instance, in the 2007 Australian Open in Men's Singles,, where Rodger Federer didn't drop a set, Novak Djokovic breezed through his first round opponent 6-1,6-1,6-0, Djokovic was ranked 14th at the time, while Massaue, a once Top 10 ranked player, was in decline. Some could point to that as a beatdown, but consider it was in the first round, and even though Djokovic was ranked 14th instead of say, 2nd, it was still a relatively noticible gap in betting odds. In the same tournament, Rodger Federer faced Andy Roddick, the 6th seed in the semifinal, and proceeded to pound away to a 6-4,6-0,6-2 victory. Which victory was more of a beatdown should be obvious. Enjoy the list.

Begin Slideshow

Gary Bettman Commits Hate Crime, Sentenced to Five Years (Humor)

Alexeiv Goodenov — Fri, 08 May 2009 13:35:52 -0400

Hate crimes add unnecessary punishment simply because it was committed due to prejudice.

However, the law is the law, and the Supreme Court of Canada found Gary Bruce Bettman guilty of repeatedly refusing to allow Jim Balsillie to purchase a National Hockey League Team with fair and legal monetary proposals.

Exhibit A

In 2006, when Balsillie offered to buy the Pittsburgh Penguins, Bettman disallowed the offer to stand.

Exhibit B

In 2007, the Nashville Predators, one of the least profitable teams in the NHL, was up for sale and Bettman again disallowed Balsillie's offer to stand.

Exhibit C

This piece of evidence occurred just recently with the struggling Coyotes, a team that has consistently been at the bottom of NHL profits.

Bettman has been hailed by some as a genius for increasing League revenue from $400 million in 1993 to $2.2 billion in 2006.

There are other factors at work, here, such as inflation, the Internet and the fact that the addition of six new teams has generated more revenue.

Bettman's hate crime was declared against Canada, because Balsillie has repeatedly stated his intent to purchase an American hockey team and move it to Southern Ontario.

Gary Bettman refused to allow a seventh team in Canada, after having allowed the movement of the Winnipeg Jets and Quebec Nordiqeus.

Bettman has almost singlehandedly put teams back in cities such as Atlanta, which once had a team and lost it, and cities that have nothing to do with hockey, such as Columbus and Nashville.

There were charges of fraud that Bettman had documents forged to prove that his I.Q. was above 90, thereby enabling him to stand as commissioner. These charges were dropped when two witnesses attested that Bettman was not only dropped from 52 private schools, but that he also spent two years of his youth in a mental hospital.

Regardless, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered Bettman to step down as commissioner, have his estate sold off to fund orphanages in Bhutan, and spend five years in a Winnipeg general prison.

Bettman has since disappeared, believed to be hiding in a bathroom stall in a gas station in southern Alabama. This has not been confirmed as of yet.

20 Athletes Who Deserve a Movie

Alexeiv Goodenov — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:17:20 -0400

I admit I'm a sucker for heartfelt sports films, most do not gross all that much at the box office though, and it became painfully evident to me several years back why. Most sports movies are not based off of great athletes, more so, the underdog. Rocky was based off of Chuck Wepner, not a bad fighter, but a bum nonetheless, who in reality attempted a few lawsuits against Stallone to get more money from the film, never really achieved anything in life. Rudy, although a film that when I first saw it I cried on several occasions, is based off of a guy who wasn't THAT short, he was 5"7 and even though had lots of heart was just not a good football player, and to this day it baffles me why he insisted on playing a defensive position, the guy may have made a decent RB, but not a d-man. Plus it doesn't seem he worked out enough cause I know 5"7 guys who weigh more than 165lb because they work to build more muscle. Then there's all the other ones, The Rookie, about Jim Morris who played 21 games in MLB, and team movies like Hoosiers. I don't care. Getting back to Rocky, it was gold because Stallone starred in it, and Ali, about, Muhammad Ali, was gold because Will Smith was in. Just like Caddyshack rocked because of Dangerfield. You see my point? To have a high grossing sports film you need a star actor ( I know STallone wasn't a star before Rocky but stay with me on this ) and based off a true story on an athletes who was actually GREAT. For the record, The Natural is my favorite sports film aside from the Rocky series and it was largely fiction and it was great because Robert Redford starred in it. Anyway enjoy the list.

Begin Slideshow

Worst QB Starters in the Super Bowl Era

Alexeiv Goodenov — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:17:54 -0400

Now obviously to be a starter people need to have faith in you, to believe in you, and to take all your horrible play for a time, patience is a virtue. This list does include some busts for obvious reasons, but also some players you may have not known that were human garbage on the field. To be on this list a QB must have started a minimum of 10 games.

Begin Slideshow

The Greatest Free Agent Pickups in the Last 10 Years

Alexeiv Goodenov — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:16:54 -0400

Idiocy exists in every field of play in the large spectrum we call life. This list not only salutes the greatness of those overlooked, but the morons who overlooked them. Perhaps I sound vulgur, but some of the greatest NFL athletes to ever play were passed up, by everyone, and signed off the board to come in as scrubs. Personally, I would never want a Top 10 pick in an NFL draft, you are more likely to get some pissant college kid thinking he's God and having his bigshot agent asking for record guaranteed money in longterm contracts which roughly 3-4 years later turns out to be a move that gets you the idiot label, and rightfully so. Enjoy.

Begin Slideshow

St. Louis Rams 2009 Mock Draft

Alexeiv Goodenov — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:28:58 -0400

One thing that needs to be understood about the NFL Draft is this: First Round doesn't mean first class. It's actually less than 50 percent you'll get an elite player from the first round, so don't place all your bets there

Also, the intial needs may be met elsewhere, not just the draft itself.

Enjoy to all Rams fans and others who are curious:

1. (Pick Two) Aaron Curry, LB, Wake Forest

Yes, folks, Rams go defense, we got Chris Long, but it's never enough.

Plus, what is Steve Spagnuolo going to form? A rush happy offense and a strong defense I would assume.

2. (Pick 35) William Beatty, OT, Connecticut

Yeah, he's no Jason or Andre Smith, but I believe this guy has some value for the future.

3. (Pick 66) James Casey, TE, Rice

The Rams haven't had a consistent TE since Ernie Conwell, and Conwell lasted two seasons for us. We need more offensive weapons and I know conventional wisdom would point to drafting a WR, but a TE is just as important.

4. (Pick 103) Cary Harris, CB/FS, USC

Perhaps I'm jumping the gun, but I have a very good feeling about this guy, and I fear he might not be available by the time the Rams are on the clock in the fifth round, which is 57 spots later.

5. (Pick 160) Mohamed Massaquoi, WR, Georgia

I've heard the bust label printed, but again, I'm going on faith. The draft has shown us, time and time again, overlooked players don't always equate to bad play. He should be available at this spot, and I would like Rams to take a chance on him.

6. (Pick 196) Nathan Brown, Central Arkansas

Just so we can sooner forget about Marc Bulger, Kyle Boller should be a decent backup, and I have faith in Brock Berlin, but a speedy young QB would be nice to have in reserve, no? If he's still available, of course.

7. ( Pick 211)

Ah, the last pick, any Tom Bradies or Terrell Davises??

This is pretty low at No. 211, but I'd select a RB here.

Actually, a FB.

Brock Bolen, FB, Louisville

He can be made into a RB if the Rams choose, also, he'll probably still be available and I see no good RB left.

The 10 Worst Spoiler Teams of the Last 20 Years in North America

Alexeiv Goodenov — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:16:50 -0400

Counting the ten worst spoiler teams of the last 20 years from the four major North American sports leagues, that being: NFL NBA NHL MLB To define spoiler, one must acknowledge what it would have meant if the other team won, and also, what occured with the spoiler team winning. In my opinion a spoiler team isn't necessarily a massive underdog that beat a favorite, but WHAT favorite it was they beat, and at what time. Spoiler teams also tend to be forgotten in the history books and often it is the team they beat that is better remembered. Enjoy.

Begin Slideshow

The 10 Best-Looking Men in Football

Alexeiv Goodenov — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:48:58 -0400

I find it amusing how some football fans when it comes to hating on players, may resort to physical insults when they fail to find actual arguments on the field. Let's be honest, all of us at one point or another have pointed to a player's pudgy face as reason to mock him. Most recently I have heard Jay Cutler get some mud thrown at his face because he looks like an insomniac who can't grow a beard. And it's no mystery the players who get the most face time are generally camera friendly. Throw in the fact without handsome athletes period, most women would probably pay no attention to sports. I mean, is it just me who realizes most girls at Football Games do not understand the rules all that well? I present to you the ten best looking guys in the NFL, I'm sure most women would want to be with and most guys would want to be in their shoes.

Begin Slideshow

Dear Canton: Put These Guys in Already!

Alexeiv Goodenov — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:47:32 -0400

I'm not talking about Shannon Sharpe being snubbed his first year of eligibility, or Cris Carter being snubbed for two years. We all know unless the committee is completely brain dead Carter will be in next year and Shannon Sharpe's wait time will not surpass three more years.

I am talking about players who have waited for a while now, and STILL, don't have a bust, I'm going to point out some travesties, downright idiocy and point out current Hall of Famers that I would replace in favor of the men out.

Roger Craig

For the only RB in the history of the NFL to lead the league in receptions, you'd think he'd be in after a decade of eligibility.

Now add in what we all know Canton loves most, Super Bowl rings, the voters have a fetish with them, even if the notion completely disregards the TEAM aspect which is the NFL, and Craig has three, not one or two, but THREE.

His career stats say everything about THE versatile back, yes, before Faulk. If I had to choose to take one Hall of Famer out and put Craig in, it would be Tony Dorsett. Don't get me wrong, Dorsett was a great running back, but he wasn't the versatile back Craig was.

Dorsett fumbled more than twice as many times, starting only 20 more games, and getting 18 percent more touches. But I'll also add Canton's hallmark Super Bowl Rings argument, Dorsett made two Super Bowls, and got one ring to Craig's three.

Something else to consider is how both Dorsett and Craig made one first team All-Pro. Basically, there's zero reason to have Dorsett in and Craig out.

Ray Guy

Now, there's only one exclusive Special Teams player in the Hall of Fame, and I understand the argument. Special teamers might be on the field only 3-10 times a game right?

Well, yes, but wouldn't a sane fan also agree the greatest special teams player ever may deserve induction, just to have a representative of the position in Canton?

The representative right now is Jan Stenerud. To give you an assessment, Jan led the league in field goal percentage four times. In 19 seasons, he made a total of 373 field goals. He was a second ballot Hall of Famer, making ONE first team All-Pro, and winning ONE Super Bowl.

Now we look at Ray Guy, a man who invented the stat for hang time, a man who made three first team All-Pros and got three Super Bowl rings. In fourteen seasons he made 1,049 punts, and led the league in yards per punt thrice.

In his career, he had three punts blocked, while Jan Stenerud missed 21 extra points...I will allow you to decide yourself who should be in, and for the record, Guy had been eligible for over 15 bloody years.

Jim Marshall

Oh yes, I know what you're thinking, only two measly Pro Bowls. Well maybe you should consider this is the guy who held the record for most consecutive games started, and he still holds it for every player that's not on special teams. In other words, not Jeff Feagles.

And to be fair, Jim Marshall's first 18 seasons were not 16 game schedules. In fact his first season was 12 games, so factoring that in, that's 38 games he wasn't able to play due to the times. In total, he started all 282 games he was able to start in, and recovered an NFL record 30 fumbles.

No, he never won a Super Bowl ring, and I don't care. The man's iron streak is unmatched, and I believe it will never be broken by a defensive player.

Who would I replace in Canton with Marshall? Dave Wilcox, in my mind he never achieved anything that Marshall didn't. Oh sure, you could point to his tow first team All-Pros, but then I can point out he only started 153 games, won no Super Bowls, and no noticeable stat line.

Why shouldn't Marshall be in? He's been waiting for 24 YEARS!!!! The Hall of Fame comittee members have no souls, nope, ok, maybe one, but most are leaches from hell.

Ken Stabler

No, I am not a Stabler fanatic, I think he played on some pretty great teams coached by Madden and that's why he accumulated a 96-49-1 starter record. However, he retired in 1984, and I find it odd that Troy Aikman was a first ballot Hall of Famer.

Now Aikman did have a better winning percentage of 94-71...oh wait, no he didn't. Here's another note on what Troy Aikman also never did, never lead the league in any passing category except completions percentage in 1993, under one of the greatest offensive lines ever built.

Aikman threw for 20+ TDs once in a season, and eclipsed the 3,000-yard mark five times, his highest being 3,445. Stabler on the other hand led the league in completion percentage twice, and in TDs twice, passing for over 2,700 yards in a season where he played 12 games and attaining a career high of 3,615 yards in 1979.

He won league MVP in 1974 and was named first team All-Pro that same season. To note, Stabler lost out his first Team All-Pro and league MVP in 1976 to one year wonder Bert Jones.

Stabler won a Super Bowl ring in 1976 and had a playoff record of 7-6, counting the fact one of those losses was due to the luckiest play in NFL history, the immaculate reception. Otherwise, Stabler might have a playoff record of 8-5 or better.

He only had two losing seasons as a starter, one of those where he played only one game, hence 0-1.

If the Pro Football Hall of Fame loves winners, Stabler should be in, and by all account, Aikman should not be in ahead of The Snake.

The NFL's "J Effect"

Alexeiv Goodenov — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:17:37 -0400

A little odd "coincidence" I noticed some years back in the NFL.

As we all know, some names just roll off the tongue. It seems all the greatest players had great names, but what's even more striking is what I would like to call the "J Effect."

Simply put, the first name starting with the letter "J," behold:

Joe Montana

Johnny Unitas

John Elway

Jim Brown

Jerry Rice

Jim Marshall

Joe Namath

Jan Stenerud

Joe Greene

Isn't it just a BIT odd that the generally-regarded greatest quarterback of the Super Bowl era, the greatest quarterback pre-Super Bowl era, and the quarterback who is believed to have single-handedly brought the AFL to prominence and helped shape the NFL as it is today because of his famous "guarantee," all had a name starting with the letter "J?"

What about the only quarterback to make five Super Bowls and still hold the record for most fourth-quarter comebacks?

How 'bout the hands-down greatest wide receiver of the modern era?

How 'bout the guy whose highly regarded as the greatest NFL player ever?

How 'bout the ONLY pure kicker in the Hall of Fame?

The former record-holder for most consecutive games started and still the record-holder for most consecutive starts by a non-QB?

What about the face of perhaps the greatest 10-year defense?

Not weirded out yet? Think it's just a coincidence?

Well, let's look at other great players:

Dan Marino

Peyton Manning

Tom Brady

Otto Graham

Sammy Baugh

Fran Tarkenton

Brett Favre

Randall Cunningham

Kurt Warner

Dan Fouts

Sonny Jurgensen

Hmm, nope, no consistency, only two "S" and two "D" quarterbacks, nothing really special.

What about running backs?

O.J. Simpson

Barry Sanders

Walter Payton

Marshall Faulk

Marcus Allen

LaDainian Tomlinson

Earl Campbell

Nope, just two "M's."

Greatest defensive backs would be Deion Sanders, Richard Lane, Paul Krause, Emlen Tunnell, and Rod Woodson...hmm...

Reggie White and Bruce Smith are the two sack leaders.

No real standout letters, you see.

On top of the great, great players with a name starting with J, there are also some others I've failed to mention.

Hall of Famers John Riggins and Jim Taylor.

Joe Theismann, probably the greatest quarterback who will never make the Hall of Fame.

Jamal Lewis, second-most rushing yards in a season.

James Lofton, another Hall of Fame wide receiver.

Jim Kelly, Hall of Fame QB who led a team to four straight Super Bowl appearances.

John Hadl, to add another name.

Jim Plunkett and Jeff Hostetler, both playoff standouts.

All coincidence?

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

Word of advice for all NFL fans dreaming of having a kid grow up to be an NFL star: Give him a name starting with "J." Seriously.

And beware of the "D Effect." Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Dave Krieg, and Drew Bledsoe were all playoff failures.