PDA

View Full Version : The Genius of Phil Jackson



MPScribbles
06-17-2009, 12:38 PM
I've said this before but decided that it deserved its own thread.
Phil Jackson is undisputedly the best NBA coach ever, in anyone's mind that isn't an obvious Celtics homer. He has won half of the titles of the past twenty years. He has definitely had amazing talent on those teams but in each case before he was the coach those talented teams were underachieving. Bulls would have won 8 straight if Jordan hadn't retired, and possibly more if Jerry Krause wasn't such a moron and dismantled the greatest NBA team ever. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
The first Lakers team was in place and getting beaten in the early rounds of the playoffs before Phil. Enter Phil Jackson and now they win 3 straight. Now another breaking up of a title winner.
Now Phil comes back to the Lakers, they get a miracle:rolleyes: trade to get him the talent he needs to win and he does the very next season. I hope that is his last, unless he returns to the Bulls, but this man is an amazing coach.
My real question in all this is this, why haven't other teams tried to emulate his style or hire his assistants to install his system? Think of the NFL, if Jackson is like the Belicheck(without the cheating and terrible personality) of the NBA why he doesn't have a revolving door of assistants being hired away from him by teams that would benefit from better coaching.
With so much of the NBA being premier wing players and not-so-premier post players you would think that this system would be perfect fit for more teams than just Phil's.

Any thoughts?

BTownTeamsRKing
06-17-2009, 01:02 PM
Ill say this.

No Red = No Celtics.

Red Auerbach built the Boston Celtics from nothing. He went and scouted Bill Russel when no one knew who he was. He was made the deal to bring in McHale and Parrish to Boston.

Red won 9 championships and was the architect behind 6 others.

So as a coach, I never saw Red and Ive seen Phil. Phil was outcoached last year by Doc Rivers, but he schooled SVG.

If u want to go simply by whos the better coach, well Phil has 10 rings and Red has 9. so Phil wins that one. If its a contest of who has a better basketball mind, Red wins by a long shot.

Red built the Celtics. Phil managed the Bulls and Lakers.

bomber0104
06-17-2009, 01:08 PM
Red is the greatest GM ever
Phil is the greatest coach

JordansBulls
06-17-2009, 01:08 PM
I've said this before but decided that it deserved its own thread.
Phil Jackson is undisputedly the best coach ever, in anyone's mind that isn't an obvious Celtics homer. He has won half of the titles of the past twenty years. He has definitely had amazing talent on those teams but in each case before he was the coach those talented teams were underachieving. Bulls would have won 8 straight if Jordan hadn't retired, and possibly more if Jerry Krause wasn't such a moron and dismantled the greatest NBA team ever. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
The first Lakers team was in place and getting beaten in the early rounds of the playoffs before Phil. Enter Phil Jackson and now they win 3 straight. Now another breaking up of a title winner.
Now Phil comes back to the Lakers, they get a miracle:rolleyes: trade to get him the talent he needs to win and he does the very next season. I hope that is his last, unless he returns to the Bulls, but this man is an amazing coach.
My real question in all this is this, why haven't other teams tried to emulate his style or hire his assistants to install his system? Think of the NFL, if Jackson is like the Belicheck(without the cheating and terrible personality) of the NBA why he doesn't have a revolving door of assistants being hired away from him by teams that would benefit from better coaching.
With so much of the NBA being premier wing players and not-so-premier post players you would think that this system would be perfect fit for more teams than just Phil's.

Any thoughts?

A coaches impact is easier in a sport with 5 guys on the court at one time than in sports where you have 9 players on the field at one time (baseball) or 11 guys on the field at one time (football)

MPScribbles
06-17-2009, 01:12 PM
I meant NBA coach. I'll edit the op if it is really that vague.

fishedz
06-17-2009, 01:19 PM
Ill say this.

No Red = No Celtics.

Red Auerbach built the Boston Celtics from nothing. He went and scouted Bill Russel when no one knew who he was. He was made the deal to bring in McHale and Parrish to Boston.

Red won 9 championships and was the architect behind 6 others.

So as a coach, I never saw Red and Ive seen Phil. Phil was outcoached last year by Doc Rivers, but he schooled SVG.

If u want to go simply by whos the better coach, well Phil has 10 rings and Red has 9. so Phil wins that one. If its a contest of who has a better basketball mind, Red wins by a long shot.

Red built the Celtics. Phil managed the Bulls and Lakers.

You don't think Phil had a hand in rebuilding this team? Or the Bulls team that won the second 3? I'd disagree strongly. As for basketball mind they're equally geniuses in their own right.

No Phil=no Bulls and no Lakers...touche

Raps18-19 Champ
06-17-2009, 01:22 PM
Ya having the greatest player in NBA history and most dominant center ever will make you look good.

Hell you dont even have to coach and they would have still won.

fishedz
06-17-2009, 01:26 PM
No doubt both are tow of the greatest along with Wooden. Phil's career is still not over either, and his playoff wins are insane in comparison. He built this team with Kupchack, kept Kobe at bay and found a way to manage ego's in a modern game that Red probably couldn't handle. Phil is the evolution of the modern coach. The game is an individualistic game these days and he's found a way to get his teams to play together all the while perfecting the triangle offense. The reason why Phil is a great coach? Like Red, he gets his players bought into the system and the work ethic it takes to win. And like Red...he got rid of the douchebags that were holding his team back due to lack of work ethic and brought in the rght players. It ain't over in LA, it's just getting started.

They're both great in their own right, Phil just passed him. Get over it, I'm sure Red would have graciously handed over the torch.

Raps18-19 Champ
06-17-2009, 01:26 PM
I've said this before but decided that it deserved its own thread.
Phil Jackson is undisputedly the best NBA coach ever, in anyone's mind that isn't an obvious Celtics homer. He has won half of the titles of the past twenty years. He has definitely had amazing talent on those teams but in each case before he was the coach those talented teams were underachieving. Bulls would have won 8 straight if Jordan hadn't retired, and possibly more if Jerry Krause wasn't such a moron and dismantled the greatest NBA team ever. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
The first Lakers team was in place and getting beaten in the early rounds of the playoffs before Phil. Enter Phil Jackson and now they win 3 straight. Now another breaking up of a title winner.
Now Phil comes back to the Lakers, they get a miracle:rolleyes: trade to get him the talent he needs to win and he does the very next season. I hope that is his last, unless he returns to the Bulls, but this man is an amazing coach.
My real question in all this is this, why haven't other teams tried to emulate his style or hire his assistants to install his system? Think of the NFL, if Jackson is like the Belicheck(without the cheating and terrible personality) of the NBA why he doesn't have a revolving door of assistants being hired away from him by teams that would benefit from better coaching.
With so much of the NBA being premier wing players and not-so-premier post players you would think that this system would be perfect fit for more teams than just Phil's.

Any thoughts?

Your being the biggest *** homer in the world right now.

If you had the right mind, you'd actually think about what you are saying.

Whats easier?Winning the GREATEAST BASKETBALL PLAYER EVER and the most dominant C ever or winning with the same damn team 9 times in 11 years?

I think winning with the same team 9 times is harder to do.

Maybe that is why you think he is the best coach ever. He is 2nd in NBA history.

And how you gonna tell me he the best in ALL OF SPORTS? Lets see you coach a 11 or 9 man team on the field and 100 player roster.

juggla53
06-17-2009, 01:26 PM
Apparently somebody doesnt look at it from the other end^. How many titles did Michael and Scottie win without Phil? Oh i know ZERO. How many has Kobe won without him ZERO. Shaq is the only player to have won a title without him and that was with pat riley...

IndyRealist
06-17-2009, 01:28 PM
Phil Jackson has shown a remarkable ability to manage huge egos and get teams to play to their potential. He has, however, never made a team overachieve, play above their talent level, or win it all when they really shouldn't. As Red (I think) put it, Phil "picks his spots," he only goes to situations with superstars and the potential for a championship. He's never really had to turn a team around.

Several teams run elements of the triangle, but it doesn't work for every set of personnel. Allen Iverson would be horrible in the triangle, for instance, because his game revolves around dribble penetration. I'd imagine you'd get the same result with Chris Paul. Amare also would have problems since his game mostly involves cutting to the basket and pick and roll.

And since the Lakers lost last year to the Celtics who run no triangle offense at all, obviously other systems work just as well. Ultimately it's not the system, it's how well you implement it.

juggla53
06-17-2009, 01:31 PM
Your being the biggest *** homer in the world right now.

If you had the right mind, you'd actually think about what you are saying.

Whats easier?Winning the GREATEAST BASKETBALL PLAYER EVER and the most dominant C ever or winning with the same damn team 9 times in 11 years?

I think winning with the same team 9 times is harder to do.

Red and the celtics also did all their winning when there were like 10 teams in the NBA and before free agency and the threat of loseing players ever year began, phil took 3 completley different teams to titles and managed some of the biggest ego's in sports history. I have no problem with people saying red is the best but its clear when people say "phily only won because of the talent" just dont know basketball. EVERY coach has talent i mean christ pat riley had magic, kareem, worthy, d-wade and shaq and he only has half the titles phil does

Hawkeye15
06-17-2009, 01:37 PM
tough to argue against Phil as the best COACH of all time. But Red was the greatest franchise builder/coach ever, hands down. Phil basically inherited 2 teams that had great talent, or the means to acquire great talent at the very least, and was able to get them on the same page, which is not an easy task

fishedz
06-17-2009, 01:47 PM
Ya having the greatest player in NBA history and most dominant center ever will make you look good.

Hell you dont even have to coach and they would have still won.

Right...like Russell never would have won a ring without Red...makes total sense.

Jordan won how many before Phil?? Kobe?? Shaq??? Post Shaq in LA??? back to the drawing board bud

fishedz
06-17-2009, 01:49 PM
Apparently somebody doesnt look at it from the other end^. How many titles did Michael and Scottie win without Phil? Oh i know ZERO. How many has Kobe won without him ZERO. Shaq is the only player to have won a title without him and that was with pat riley...

Let's not forget how unbelievable DWade played in that series too.

GREATNESS ONE
06-17-2009, 01:53 PM
They where both great Coaches.

Honestly it is hard to commpare different eras

The fact of the matter is Phil is a genius and there is no denying that.

Raps18-19 Champ
06-17-2009, 02:59 PM
Right...like Russell never would have won a ring without Red...makes total sense.

Jordan won how many before Phil?? Kobe?? Shaq??? Post Shaq in LA??? back to the drawing board bud

You dont think Jordan, Kobe, Shaq would have won any titles without Phil.

Phil was just at the right place at the right time when Jordan was developing, Lakers signed Shaq and when West was rebuilding the Lakers with Gasol.

Nah just playing when I said he wasthere at the right time. Im just saying I think Red is better than Phil. Phil is 2nd to me

slipcid
06-17-2009, 03:40 PM
red = ________?
phil = GOAT coach. 10 rings B****! 1 ring per finger! hell slap your face with each hand hater.

azkarraga
06-17-2009, 04:32 PM
I'm sure Red would have graciously handed over the torch.

me too

DCB/LAL
06-17-2009, 05:19 PM
Your being the biggest *** homer in the world right now.

If you had the right mind, you'd actually think about what you are saying.

Whats easier?Winning the GREATEAST BASKETBALL PLAYER EVER and the most dominant C ever or winning with the same damn team 9 times in 11 years?

I think winning with the same team 9 times is harder to do.

Maybe that is why you think he is the best coach ever. He is 2nd in NBA history.

And how you gonna tell me he the best in ALL OF SPORTS? Lets see you coach a 11 or 9 man team on the field and 100 player roster.

Dude he won a title with i guess you can say 3 different styles of teams while yes you can say he had great players but guess what man almost every championship team has great players on the team just as the celtics had russell lakers had magic and so on and so on...

ko8e24
06-17-2009, 05:33 PM
red = ________?
phil = GOAT coach. 10 rings B****! 1 ring per finger! hell slap your face with each hand hater.

:clap:

Auerbach>phil
06-17-2009, 07:55 PM
ok, on to whos a better coach? well, i guess it can be argued both ways BUT, red did revolutionise the game of basketball with the fast break, no one used it up until him and he used it to perfection AND, while phil has done a great job handling egos, hes also been the the coach of the team thats been favorited to win it once in the finals, red coached teams that were predicted to lost against la and red i believe quit coaching in his 40's and after winning 8 straight (if he coached until he was in his late 60's or whatever, he would have more, believe me),

but what seperates these 2 guys is Red was also the greatest GM in sports history, it all started off with russel (russel wasn't ranked high by several gm's at the time bc of lack of scoring talent) but he was smart enough to look past that and he started the most dominate run ever in any sports winning 11/13 (during this time he drafted SEVERAL hof's including drafting 3 hof'ers in a single draft) and after that came to an end, he drafted 2 other hof'ers in the 70's, hall of famer cowens to replace russel and he drafted another hof'er jojo white and o yea, its not a surprise he had a ton of draft picks, he ALWAYS planned yrs ahead and always looked to the future, it wasn't luck, and after that group of c's won 2 more titles, Red went back to work by drafting larry bird a yr early (not to many gm's would of done that, as 5 other teams had a chance at him, but all passed) and shortly after red pulled off the greatest trade in nba history by dealing the 1st and 13th pick in the 1981 draft for parrish, and the 3rd pick who ended up being mchale (both were key guys in the 1980's title runs and both currently hof'ers) AND, red was the one who hired ainge who ended up winning the 17th last yr, so dont even argue the better bball mind, its not close....

AND........1 side note, red was the first to have an african american coach, start 5 blacks at 1 time and a few others i cant think of

CowboysKB24
06-17-2009, 08:27 PM
I think Phil is better.

Do you think Jordan and Kobe are the two best shooting guards of all time and Phil has no impact on that?
Phil has an impact on everyone. Look at Trevor Ariza, on the Magic nothing, now one of the best role players in the league. Shaq was not as dominate on any other team except for the Lakers.
Jordan took off a year... the Bulls still won 55 games.

He won 6 rings with Jordan, Pippen, and the Bulls.
He won 3 rings with Kobe and Shaq and LA.
He won 1 ring with Kobe and LA.
Red won 9 straight with Bill Russel. Straight domination. No adversary. No competition.
Red got Bill Russel and just dominated the league for nine years. He didn't win with any other team or roster. I think Phil is better because he did it with two different teams and rosters. Red did it in the 60s, I mean really. Only Celtics fans think Red is better.

As a GM, it is Red. There is no dicussion there. Phil was never a GM. I'm sure he would be a decent one though.

Auerbach>phil
06-17-2009, 08:44 PM
I think Phil is better.

Do you think Jordan and Kobe are the two best shooting guards of all time and Phil has no impact on that?
Phil has an impact on everyone. Look at Trevor Ariza, on the Magic nothing, now one of the best role players in the league. Shaq was not as dominate on any other team except for the Lakers.
Jordan took off a year... the Bulls still won 55 games.

He won 6 rings with Jordan, Pippen, and the Bulls.
He won 3 rings with Kobe and Shaq and LA.
He won 1 ring with Kobe and LA.
Red won 9 straight with Bill Russel. Straight domination. No adversary. No competition.
Red got Bill Russel and just dominated the league for nine years. He didn't win with any other team or roster. I think Phil is better because he did it with two different teams and rosters. Red did it in the 60s, I mean really. Only Celtics fans think Red is better.

As a GM, it is Red. There is no dicussion there. Phil was never a GM. I'm sure he would be a decent one though.

read my post before your, i mean honestly, do u think red gets NEARLY enough credit with his gm ability?sharmen, ramsey, kc jones, sam jones, cousy, russel, heinson,jojo white, havlicek, cowens, bird
...thats 11 hof'ers right there, whats do they all have in common, they all were drafted by Red Auerbach, and he also made the greatest trade in nba history

amos1er
06-17-2009, 08:51 PM
Phil is now the GOAT coach. Sorry haters 10 rings speaks for itself.

DCB/LAL
06-17-2009, 09:05 PM
Phil is now the GOAT coach. Sorry haters 10 rings speaks for itself.

Nice Sig

MPScribbles
06-18-2009, 01:18 AM
Your being the biggest *** homer in the world right now.

If you had the right mind, you'd actually think about what you are saying.

Whats easier?Winning the GREATEAST BASKETBALL PLAYER EVER and the most dominant C ever or winning with the same damn team 9 times in 11 years?

I think winning with the same team 9 times is harder to do.

Maybe that is why you think he is the best coach ever. He is 2nd in NBA history.

And how you gonna tell me he the best in ALL OF SPORTS? Lets see you coach a 11 or 9 man team on the field and 100 player roster.

Firstly, I'm not at all being a homer. I am putting forth facts to back up my opinion. I actually really dislike the Lakers. I wish that Phil wasn't number one because that would mean that LA wouldn't have won these championships, which would be great for me. The fact is that he has, which among other factors, makes him the GOAT coach.

I hate when guys don't agree with you so they feel like they have to attack you. Very immature. I absolutely have the right mind( as best I can assume having never heard anyone use that phrase before) and not only did I think about what I was saying but I've said it more times than just on this thread.

Yes, Phil had amazing talent on his teams. I said that in the OP so I don't really see what kind of point you are making against my argument when you just reiterate what I said. Also, just because Shaq calls himself the most dominant center ever doesn't make it true. That was Wilt. Shaq barely ever broke 50, Wilt averaged that one season.

To answer your question, winning 10 championships in 20 years with multiple rosters in the most competitive eras of basketball ever is harder.

Lastly, the worst point of your post. I never said anything about any other sport or even any other level of basketball. I said NBA. Also, I'm not a coach so you saying lets see me coach is the dumbest thing I've read on here all day, and that has some pretty steep competition. I doubt it is what you meant literally but that is why they have that option "Preview Post". You check your post over to make sure you're not leaving yourself open to someone blasting you over saying something stupid. Maybe you didn't have the right mind, or else you may have actually thought about what you were saying.

BTownTeamsRKing
06-18-2009, 01:18 AM
ok, on to whos a better coach? well, i guess it can be argued both ways BUT, red did revolutionise the game of basketball with the fast break, no one used it up until him and he used it to perfection AND, while phil has done a great job handling egos, hes also been the the coach of the team thats been favorited to win it once in the finals, red coached teams that were predicted to lost against la and red i believe quit coaching in his 40's and after winning 8 straight (if he coached until he was in his late 60's or whatever, he would have more, believe me),

but what seperates these 2 guys is Red was also the greatest GM in sports history, it all started off with russel (russel wasn't ranked high by several gm's at the time bc of lack of scoring talent) but he was smart enough to look past that and he started the most dominate run ever in any sports winning 11/13 (during this time he drafted SEVERAL hof's including drafting 3 hof'ers in a single draft) and after that came to an end, he drafted 2 other hof'ers in the 70's, hall of famer cowens to replace russel and he drafted another hof'er jojo white and o yea, its not a surprise he had a ton of draft picks, he ALWAYS planned yrs ahead and always looked to the future, it wasn't luck, and after that group of c's won 2 more titles, Red went back to work by drafting larry bird a yr early (not to many gm's would of done that, as 5 other teams had a chance at him, but all passed) and shortly after red pulled off the greatest trade in nba history by dealing the 1st and 13th pick in the 1981 draft for parrish, and the 3rd pick who ended up being mchale (both were key guys in the 1980's title runs and both currently hof'ers) AND, red was the one who hired ainge who ended up winning the 17th last yr, so dont even argue the better bball mind, its not close....

AND........1 side note, red was the first to have an african american coach, start 5 blacks at 1 time and a few others i cant think of

Awesome points.

Basically it comes down to this, Red was a creater. Phil is a manager.

MPScribbles
06-18-2009, 01:24 AM
A coaches impact is easier in a sport with 5 guys on the court at one time than in sports where you have 9 players on the field at one time (baseball) or 11 guys on the field at one time (football)

Actually basketball coaches do have more impact on games than baseball but not football.

MPScribbles
06-18-2009, 01:38 AM
What is funny is that I created this to talk about how good Phil is and show disbelief that he doesn't constantly lose assistants to head coaching jobs throughout the league and then suddenly it became a Phil VS Red thread. That was only part of one line of the OP which was thrown in as a parenthetical phrase. How about this:

Is there any other team that you could see running his system and having success? I think that it would work pretty well in Portland. A dynamic, do-it-all SG with some solid bodies up front. No point guards to speak of and plenty of athletic, long wing players.

ggg
06-18-2009, 04:04 AM
what about popovich? he basically had underdogs turn into champions. maybe except david robinson, but tony duncan manu are all underdogs or projected scrubs early in their career.

GspLAL
06-18-2009, 08:19 AM
Ill say this.

No Red = No Celtics.

Red Auerbach built the Boston Celtics from nothing. He went and scouted Bill Russel when no one knew who he was. He was made the deal to bring in McHale and Parrish to Boston.

Red won 9 championships and was the architect behind 6 others.

So as a coach, I never saw Red and Ive seen Phil. Phil was outcoached last year by Doc Rivers, but he schooled SVG.

If u want to go simply by whos the better coach, well Phil has 10 rings and Red has 9. so Phil wins that one. If its a contest of who has a better basketball mind, Red wins by a long shot.

Red built the Celtics. Phil managed the Bulls and Lakers.

I won't deny that Red built Celtics cuz obviously he did but we're not talking about best GM here, building the team doesn't make him a better coach, and back then there were only 8 teams I think? Competition wasn't like it is now. And as for last year, the whole Laker team was outmatched not just PJ, we didn't play physical at all, we had 1 of our players missing and 1 who just came back, etc etc, we're a better team now than last year, I don't see what adjustments Phil could have made when our whole team was outmatched.

MPScribbles
06-18-2009, 11:38 AM
what about popovich? he basically had underdogs turn into champions. maybe except david robinson, but tony duncan manu are all underdogs or projected scrubs early in their career.

I have to thoroughly disagree with you there. Parker and Manu, maybe nobody saw them coming, but Duncan was a monster in college and the #1 overall pick. He came into the league almost as good as he would ever be. He was never a projected scrub. Also I have always thought that the way that Popovich got the head coaching job there was a little shady. They were a fine team until Robinson missed almost the entire year. That year they sucked so the GM-Popovich- fires the coach and names himself coach just in time to draft Tim Duncan. That is shady as hell to me. Bob Hill was the coach before Pop. He has a better win percentage with SA(shorter tenure of course) than Pop does and he did that without ever getting the chance to have Duncan on the team. Hill lead them to the best record in the league his first year there and if Robinson had never gotten hurt or if he was allowed some leniency for the bad season due to the injury I'm willing to bet that they still would have gotten a couple rings. For these reasons I think that Popovich is discredited as a coach.

PS- Please don't draw comparisons to Pop stepping in at the right time and Jackson becoming the coach of his championship teams after they were loaded with talent. It is not the same thing and you will make yourself look foolish.

jiggajay23
06-18-2009, 11:52 AM
I've said this before but decided that it deserved its own thread.
Phil Jackson is undisputedly the best NBA coach ever, in anyone's mind that isn't an obvious Celtics homer. He has won half of the titles of the past twenty years. He has definitely had amazing talent on those teams but in each case before he was the coach those talented teams were underachieving. Bulls would have won 8 straight if Jordan hadn't retired, and possibly more if Jerry Krause wasn't such a moron and dismantled the greatest NBA team ever. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
The first Lakers team was in place and getting beaten in the early rounds of the playoffs before Phil. Enter Phil Jackson and now they win 3 straight. Now another breaking up of a title winner.
Now Phil comes back to the Lakers, they get a miracle:rolleyes: trade to get him the talent he needs to win and he does the very next season. I hope that is his last, unless he returns to the Bulls, but this man is an amazing coach.
My real question in all this is this, why haven't other teams tried to emulate his style or hire his assistants to install his system? Think of the NFL, if Jackson is like the Belicheck(without the cheating and terrible personality) of the NBA why he doesn't have a revolving door of assistants being hired away from him by teams that would benefit from better coaching.
With so much of the NBA being premier wing players and not-so-premier post players you would think that this system would be perfect fit for more teams than just Phil's.

Any thoughts?

I agree with you 100%...phil brings a different approach to playing the game...a MENTAL APPROACH...he already has players who work on their physical approach everyday, but with the combination of the two, a player can only get better

fishedz
06-18-2009, 01:19 PM
You dont think Jordan, Kobe, Shaq would have won any titles without Phil.

Phil was just at the right place at the right time when Jordan was developing, Lakers signed Shaq and when West was rebuilding the Lakers with Gasol.

Nah just playing when I said he wasthere at the right time. Im just saying I think Red is better than Phil. Phil is 2nd to me

They might not have. Think about all teh great players in the NBA who didn't win titles. All three could have easily fell into that catagory had Phil not been there. No telling what might have happened, teams broke up, players change, etc... The genius of Phil is not that he coached great players, it's that he got role players to play great around them. Knowing when to leave Fisher in during a shooting slump and he hit's 3's to go to OT and win the game. Turning guys like Ariza into game changing players. Taking a headcase like Rodman and defining his role as the greatest rebounder of all time and the guy who made life a living hell for Seattle and Utah. That's a great coach.

PS. West didn't rebuild the Lakers with Gasol...and Phil was there a few years before that through the entire rebuilding period. The difference is he BUILT this team from scratch around Kobe and didn't get anything handed to him.

Sly Guy
06-18-2009, 01:20 PM
to me if you really want to see a coach's prowess, don't look at the championships. Look at what he can do given limited weapons, bad mismatches, when he's expected to lose.

Phil had a lot of talent and won. That's expected.
Red had a lot of talent, and won. That's expected.

Doc Rivers had nothing when he was coaching the magic, he may not have won the title, but he got his team overachieving. He may not be the best coach out there of all time, nor even in the discussion, but coaching performances like that say a lot more than having the favored team at the beginning of the season, then winning it all.

geoffizfoshiz
06-18-2009, 01:45 PM
Just a note:
If you are going to make the argument that Phil only won because he had great players...PLEASE do not come here and support Doc Rivers. He never won anything until he got not one, not two, but three allstars on the team.

BTW: no offense, but 95% of the people posting in here about coashing don't know what they are talking about and don't know strategic basketball. You guys can compare championships all day and get nowhere. If you know what you are talking about: the brilliant use of Lamar Odom, his foul management, use of Kobe Bryant, counters to SVG's lineups, and brilliant time-outs management = brilliant coaching.

OBredskin
06-18-2009, 01:48 PM
My real question in all this is this, why haven't other teams tried to emulate his style or hire his assistants to install his system?

Because a system can't emulate Kobe or MJ. I remember having this conversation w/ my friends back when MJ was winning rings and that was our estimation, and Kobe confirms it. Phil Jackson's offense (triangle) doesn't work unless you have a star player and a mobile big man (Gasol) with out that he looks like a horrible coach. Phil won't coach w/ out an MJ or Kobe on his team, funny how Phil coached them both in their prime....what a lucky bitsh!

Penetra8r
06-18-2009, 01:53 PM
Phil was outcoached last year by Doc Rivers

Bynum and a healthy Ariza in 2008 would of taken the Lakers over the top.