July 4, 200917 yr 3x you said Phil isn't a great coach, but Jerry Sloan is. Hilarious. Phil has abused him throughout their careers. Hmmm, well Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman or Stockton & Malone? Remember that in '98 the Jazz were 40 seconds and some Michael Jordan heroics away from forcing a game 7 in Utah. You can't blame Sloan for Jordan hitting a 3, stealing the ball from Malone, and then hitting a great shot. Not his fault, he put his team in a position to win. Even after Malone the Jazz were getting to the playoffs. And look at the teams now, the Jazz have a lot of talent, but really cannot compete with Kobe and the Lakers. Deron Williams and Boozer are nice, but the Jazz have no legit wings, and yes that includes AK47. Sloan wins just as many titles had he been in Chicago with MJ and Co., and in LA with Kobe, Shaq and Co. It's all about titles though, Jordan would have 6 titles if you or I would have been the coach as the front office put good pieces around him. Shaq and Kobe, and even this years Lakers required little actual coaching, they were just the most talented and best teams in the league. Sort of off topic, but Sloan has done alot with a little. -For instance in 03-04: He took a team that started Carlos Arroyo, DeShawn Stevenson, AK47, Greg Ostertag, and Matt Harpring to 42-40, one win out of the playoffs. Not bad. Titles are great, but they don't tell the whole story IMO. I'm not impressed by Jackson, other than the fact that he has coached in the league so long. He has been lucky enough to coach 3 top 15 players all-time, and another top 50 in Pippen.
July 4, 200917 yr ^^^ But, common knowledge is always right though. Everyone says Phil is great so he has to be. Well at one time everyone said the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, etc. I'm not buying it. Everyone else can and that's fine by me I have no problem with it. I look at things alot differently, a bunch of the ways I think about sports are really outside of the box. It really doesn't matter to me, you don't have to agree, you most likely won't, and you probably shouldn't. It's probably a lot easier to enjoy sports when you don't overanalyze them the way that I do.
July 4, 200917 yr Phil obviously only wins with Amazing talent. He can't coach very well. Who would really know? Let's see him coach a team like the Heat. They have a star in Wade. Can he get them to the second round or conference finals?
July 4, 200917 yr Who would really know? Let's see him coach a team like the Heat. They have a star in Wade. Can he get them to the second round or conference finals? For me, it's not about coaching to a certain point in the playoffs, it's about coaching your team to victory when you make the Finals......something Phil has done 10 times.
July 4, 200917 yr For me, it's not about coaching to a certain point in the playoffs, it's about coaching your team to victory when you make the Finals......something Phil has done 10 times. Then he could win one with the Heat? What about if he and SVG had traded places in the Finals, would the Magic suddenly be better and win the title? For me it's about what getting the most out of your team. The Lakers-Celtics series was pathetic, the Lakers-Rockets series was pathetic. He just sits back and what ever happens is fine with him. That's not good coaching IMO, I don't care if he won 100 titles. Plenty of bad coaches have won titles, heck Doc Rivers two years ago, Brian Billick with the Ravens, Larry Coker at the U in 2001, and others. A great coach takes a 20 win team and with the same roster somehow squeezes 35 wins out of them the next year, and continues to build on that. A great coach can even the playing field a little bit when you are out talented. A great coach can at a minimum call a timeout before his team gets run off the floor in the 1st quarter (twice).
July 4, 200917 yr Then he could win one with the Heat? What about if he and SVG had traded places in the Finals, would the Magic suddenly be better and win the title? For me it's about what getting the most out of your team. The Lakers-Celtics series was pathetic, the Lakers-Rockets series was pathetic. He just sits back and what ever happens is fine with him. That's not good coaching IMO, I don't care if he won 100 titles. Plenty of bad coaches have won titles, heck Doc Rivers two years ago, Brian Billick with the Ravens, Larry Coker at the U in 2001, and others. A great coach takes a 20 win team and with the same roster somehow squeezes 35 wins out of them the next year, and continues to build on that. A great coach can even the playing field a little bit when you are out talented. A great coach can at a minimum call a timeout before his team gets run off the floor in the 1st quarter (twice). A great coach will also win 10 titles and counting..... It's hard for me to call someone a "great coach" when they have no hardware. If they were that great, they would have won at least once right? Calipari will prove your theory wrong that anyone can win with talent. Just wait and see. I'll be happy to take this discussion to the college basketball forum if need be. You say anyone can with with talent, but Calipari sure can't. :lol::walk::lol::clap::popcorn:
July 4, 200917 yr This is the most absurd argument I've ever heard in my life I think. The guy has 10 titles.... 10!!!!!!!
July 4, 200917 yr A great coach will also win 10 titles and counting..... It's hard for me to call someone a "great coach" when they have no hardware. If they were that great, they would have won at least once right? Calipari will prove your theory wrong that anyone can win with talent. Just wait and see. I'll be happy to take this discussion to the college basketball forum if need be. You say anyone can with with talent, but Calipari sure can't. :lol::walk::lol::clap::popcorn: College is very different from the NBA. There are very few difference makers in the NBA, you will never convince me that many other coaches wouldn't have the same amount of titles had they followed the same coaching career of Jackson. I don't think you have to win a title to be a great coach, just like I don't think you have to win a title to be a great player.
July 4, 200917 yr I don't think you have to win a title to be a great coach, just like I don't think you have to win a title to be a great player. Yet 10 titles doesn't make you a great coach? You have some interesting theories.
July 4, 200917 yr Yet 10 titles doesn't make you a great coach? You have some interesting theories. Maybe I should change my wording. Titles decide greatness for most people, so by those standards Phil would be great, and possibly the greatest. BUT, I do NOT think that he is an extremely good coach. I think there are better coaches in the league, guys who do a lot more with less. Sound better?
July 4, 200917 yr Author So who is better? Red? Who won multiple titles when the league only had 12 or 14 teams.
July 4, 200917 yr So who is better? Red? Who won multiple titles when the league only had 12 or 14 teams. A better coach than Phil Jackson? Well, Greg Popavich for one. I also think that there are many other coaches who do just as much given the hand they are dealt. I think Rick Adelman does a great job, no matter his talent level. I think Phil gets too much credit for having great talent around him. The Lakers and Bulls really have had no rival when they went on their 3 peats. Think of the teams they beat: The Bulls beat an old, old Lakers team, the Trailblazers, the Suns, the Sonics, and the Jazz. No consistent rival, no one to really go against MJ and Pippen. It was basically a different team every year with the exception of 07-08. The Lakers faced the Pacers, 76er's and Nets. Their biggets competition came from the Blazers , Kings and Spurs who really were in transition until the year they beat the Lakers. The Blazers and Kings were very good, but really had no answer for Shaq. Ateast the Celtics had the Lakers during the Auerbach years. Phil has had the advantage of coaching the best teams in the league while really no teams could realistically challenge them.
July 4, 200917 yr A better coach than Phil Jackson? Well, Greg Popavich for one. I also think that there are many other coaches who do just as much given the hand they are dealt. I think Rick Adelman does a great job, no matter his talent level. I think Phil gets too much credit for having great talent around him. The Lakers and Bulls really have had no rival when they went on their 3 peats. Think of the teams they beat: The Bulls beat an old, old Lakers team, the Trailblazers, the Suns, the Sonics, and the Jazz. No consistent rival, no one to really go against MJ and Pippen. It was basically a different team every year with the exception of 07-08. The Lakers faced the Pacers, 76er's and Nets. Their biggets competition came from the Blazers , Kings and Spurs who really were in transition until the year they beat the Lakers. The Blazers and Kings were very good, but really had no answer for Shaq. Ateast the Celtics had the Lakers during the Auerbach years. Phil has had the advantage of coaching the best teams in the league while really no teams could realistically challenge them. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Another guy that Jackson has abused throughout his career. Keep them coming, this is starting to get reeeaaaaalllly funny.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.