: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.

 

That really comes off as a lack of overall knowledge about sports. If no coaching is involved who is going to win, Kobe-Shaq or CWebb and Co? Lakers 8 times out of 10. Yeah it's really funny. Jackson has only coached really talented teams only. Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, Kobe can make up for a lot of things. Are you saying that Jackson made Jordan, Pippen, Shaq and Kobe? Cause I'm saying those 4 POSSIBLY made Jackson. We will never know really because Jackson would rather be in the wilderness in Montana before he'd coach a team that wasn't the favorite to win the title.

 

Funny that medical reasons always come up when the talent looks like it may get low, didn't that have a lot to do with his departure after Kobe-Shaq?

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.

 

For the record, Pops has had elite talent too. Basically that's how you win championships. You have the best players in the prime of their career.

 

Jackson has been fortunate too have some of the best players, but he has done a good job of managing their personalities and meshing them.... for the most part. There have been plenty other coaches who have had elite talent and never won anything.

I don't know if Phil's the best coach X's and O's wise or even with in-game adjustments; I do think he is the best manager of egos in the history of professional sports. I like managers/coaches that are able to coach and adjust, I'm not saying Phil isn't a bad coach, but I will take Rick Adelman as the best coach in the NBA, for taking those Kings teams who weren't as good as the Lakers and gave them all they wanted, and not mention having your 2 best players out and taking the eventual NBA Champions to Game 7.

For the record, Pops has had elite talent too. Basically that's how you win championships. You have the best players in the prime of their career.

 

Jackson has been fortunate too have some of the best players, but he has done a good job of managing their personalities and meshing them.... for the most part. There have been plenty other coaches who have had elite talent and never won anything.

 

His second and third titles he had a great PF in the prime of his career in Duncan, and role players. Parker really didn't become a big name in the NBA till after the 3rd championship, and it was title number 4 when Ginobili became the player he is today. So he had talent, but it really pales in comparison to what Phil has had.

I don't know if Phil's the best coach X's and O's wise or even with in-game adjustments; I do think he is the best manager of egos in the history of professional sports. I like managers/coaches that are able to coach and adjust, I'm not saying Phil isn't a bad coach, but I will take Rick Adelman as the best coach in the NBA, for taking those Kings teams who weren't as good as the Lakers and gave them all they wanted, and not mention having your 2 best players out and taking the eventual NBA Champions to Game 7.

 

I can agree there. He is a great babysitter. He isn't a huge difference maker though in my eyes. Many other coaches would have done the same job with the kind of talent he's had.

His second and third titles he had a great PF in the prime of his career in Duncan, and role players. Parker really didn't become a big name in the NBA till after the 3rd championship, and it was title number 4 when Ginobili became the player he is today. So he had talent, but it really pales in comparison to what Phil has had.

 

He also had a top 50 all time, and HOF'er known as the Admiral. Duncan and Admiral, that's pretty stout.

 

Parker, Sean Elliot, Manu are all above average players to go with those two big men.

This is pretty absurd. Give me Phil and you take whoever, I like my chances...

He also had a top 50 all time, and HOF'er known as the Admiral. Duncan and Admiral, that's pretty stout.

 

Parker, Sean Elliot, Manu are all above average players to go with those two big men.

 

Spurs title teams.

 

2000 team: Had the twin towers, along with Sean Elliott (very good but was returning from sickness), Avery Johnson, Mario Ellie, Malik Rose, Steve Kerr, and Sumaki Walker. Sure looks decent on paper, but you have to remember that Robinson was 35 and was in major decline. It was also only Duncan's third year in the league. Elie, Johnson and Elliott were all a bit out of their primes.

 

 

In 2003, the Spurs had Duncan and Robinson, but Robinson was a shadow of his former self, even compared to 2003 as he averaged career lows in PPG a 8.5, and other lows at all other statistics. Parker was there, but at only 20 and a rookie at that was not the player he was for the other two championships. Ginobili was on the roster, but played sparingly, averaging only 7 PPG and Elliott was long, long gone.. Actually, the 2nd best player on the team was probably Steven Jackson or Malik Rose if that tells you anything. That team dethroned the Lakers and I don't know how. Oh, wait, yes I do.

 

The 2005 Spurs had what is now the Spurs big three. Duncan had established his legacy, and Parker was really beginning to come into his own. Ginobili was coming around and actually was their leading scorer for the playoffs. Bowen was the lock down guy, but the rest of the roster were just role players as Malik Rose was probably the 5th best guy they started once again.

 

THe 2007 edition of the Spurs was the best to date, IMO. Duncan was in his 10th year, and though he showed a little age he was still great with 20,11 and 3. Parker was a legit star type player then at 25, and Ginobili was the player that we think of today. The rest of the roster fit perfectly.

 

IN short, on paper it seems like Pops had alot more to work with than he really did. The 2000 and 2003 teams can be chalked up to great coaching, IMO, as one legit star led some savvy veterans and good young players to the title. The 2005 and 2007 rosters had three legit stars, so sure he had talent. But, I think Pops has produced a championship every way imaginable with all kinds of rosters.

 

Had he coached even a 30 year old Robinson and a 23 year old Duncan with a cast like Elliott and Avery J, or Parker and Ginobili I would see your point but he didn't. I still would take Jordan/Pippen or Kobe/Shaq over Duncan/Robinson or Duncan/Parker/Ginobili and I think most of us would too, if we weren't aguing Jackson vs. Popovich.

This is pretty absurd. Give me Phil and you take whoever, I like my chances...

 

I didn't start this. All I said was that it was an easy decision to come back considering the amount of talent the Lakers have. Artest, Kobe, Gasol will make a sore hip feel alot better.

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.

 

MJ, Pippen, and Grant were losing in the playoffs to Detroit and Boston before Phil Jackson got there. Pippen and Grant didn't just automatically show up with Phil Jackson.

That really comes off as a lack of overall knowledge about sports. If no coaching is involved who is going to win, Kobe-Shaq or CWebb and Co? Lakers 8 times out of 10. Yeah it's really funny. Jackson has only coached really talented teams only. Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, Kobe can make up for a lot of things. Are you saying that Jackson made Jordan, Pippen, Shaq and Kobe? Cause I'm saying those 4 POSSIBLY made Jackson. We will never know really because Jackson would rather be in the wilderness in Montana before he'd coach a team that wasn't the favorite to win the title.

 

Funny that medical reasons always come up when the talent looks like it may get low, didn't that have a lot to do with his departure after Kobe-Shaq?

 

 

No, he didn't leave because of medical reasons after Kobe-Shaq. He left because of Kobe and Shaq. He also had that book come out where he was talking junk on Kobe and after Shaq left, it was pretty a pretty tense situation. He walked away then because he 9 titles and he didn't have to tolerate Kobe if he didn't want to. He came back a couple years later after a more mature Kobe realized he needed Phil Jackson as a coach and convinced Phil he was ready to listen now.

 

The medical issues were never serious enough to keep him out of coaching, obviously.

Rick Adelman shouldn't be discussed in this thread at all. He has great numbers as far as coaching wins, but he has lost to Phil while in Portland, Sacramento, and now Houston. He can't beat Phil whatsoever and he has had more opportunities than most.

Popovich is behind Phil Jackson in my book. To be able to wins as consistently as Pops has is a testament to his coaching abilities. That being said, I'd still go with Phil, but Pops is indeed one of the top 5, possibly top 3 coaches of all time, IMO.

Who's going to walk away from one of the most talented teams in recent history? Most of us on here could win a title with Kobe, Gasol, Artest, Odom and Co.

 

This is what you said, and no, most of us couldn't win with Kobe, Artest, Odom, and Gasol. I wouldn't know what to do. Well, yes I do.......

 

"Kobe---you shoot the ball, everybody get out the way and crash the boards......and get back on defense..."

 

"Andrew---quit fouling every time your man touches the ball so I can keep you in the game son....."

Spurs title teams.

 

2000 team: Had the twin towers, along with Sean Elliott (very good but was returning from sickness), Avery Johnson, Mario Ellie, Malik Rose, Steve Kerr, and Sumaki Walker. Sure looks decent on paper, but you have to remember that Robinson was 35 and was in major decline. It was also only Duncan's third year in the league. Elie, Johnson and Elliott were all a bit out of their primes.

 

 

In 2003, the Spurs had Duncan and Robinson, but Robinson was a shadow of his former self, even compared to 2003 as he averaged career lows in PPG a 8.5, and other lows at all other statistics. Parker was there, but at only 20 and a rookie at that was not the player he was for the other two championships. Ginobili was on the roster, but played sparingly, averaging only 7 PPG and Elliott was long, long gone.. Actually, the 2nd best player on the team was probably Steven Jackson or Malik Rose if that tells you anything. That team dethroned the Lakers and I don't know how. Oh, wait, yes I do.

 

The 2005 Spurs had what is now the Spurs big three. Duncan had established his legacy, and Parker was really beginning to come into his own. Ginobili was coming around and actually was their leading scorer for the playoffs. Bowen was the lock down guy, but the rest of the roster were just role players as Malik Rose was probably the 5th best guy they started once again.

 

THe 2007 edition of the Spurs was the best to date, IMO. Duncan was in his 10th year, and though he showed a little age he was still great with 20,11 and 3. Parker was a legit star type player then at 25, and Ginobili was the player that we think of today. The rest of the roster fit perfectly.

 

IN short, on paper it seems like Pops had alot more to work with than he really did. The 2000 and 2003 teams can be chalked up to great coaching, IMO, as one legit star led some savvy veterans and good young players to the title. The 2005 and 2007 rosters had three legit stars, so sure he had talent. But, I think Pops has produced a championship every way imaginable with all kinds of rosters.

 

Had he coached even a 30 year old Robinson and a 23 year old Duncan with a cast like Elliott and Avery J, or Parker and Ginobili I would see your point but he didn't. I still would take Jordan/Pippen or Kobe/Shaq over Duncan/Robinson or Duncan/Parker/Ginobili and I think most of us would too, if we weren't aguing Jackson vs. Popovich.

 

 

Thanks for proving my point, he has had a ton of talent and that's why he has won rings. Same reason as Phil.:isurrender: