PDA

View Full Version : Coach of the decade?



JasonJohnHorn
05-08-2013, 06:18 PM
Well, George Karl finally got his COY award. Did he deserve it? There is a case to be made for Karl's regular season performance, granted, but watching him get his @$ handed to him by Jackson kind negates whatever Karl did all season. Thibs, Pop, Vogel, Woodson and Jackson were all deserving guys. Some have suggested that Karl got is more as a lifetime achievement award. Over the past ten years, there are few coaches who have gotten more regular season wins (without looking I'm guessing Pop and Phil Jackson).

So if they have a coach of the decade award, who would you give it too? You can go back from 99-present if you like, that way Phil and Pop get to include all their championships. Who would you vote for coach of the decade? I'll include a few name, but I think most will agree it's between Phil and Pop.

Becks2307
05-08-2013, 06:24 PM
Pop /thread.

GiantsSwaGG
05-08-2013, 06:26 PM
Coach Pop a Molly I'm sweating

Cal827
05-08-2013, 06:32 PM
Pop. This is a no-contest.

4 Titles
Too many 50 win seasons in a row to count.
Constant success, despite injuries, age, and lock-outs

ILLUSIONIST^248
05-08-2013, 06:33 PM
Pop /thread.

Phil. Open thread.

Ill21
05-08-2013, 06:39 PM
Phil. Open thread.

Pop. Homer. Close thread

Swashcuff
05-08-2013, 06:39 PM
Pop, Drop and Lock it

GiantsSwaGG
05-08-2013, 06:42 PM
Pop, Drop and Lock it

Isn't it Pop lock and drop it?

Swashcuff
05-08-2013, 06:49 PM
Isn't it Pop lock and drop it?

Yup but tried to be funny for the sake of the thread (locking/closing it) guess I failed :sad2:

Tony_Starks
05-08-2013, 06:52 PM
Phil is in another category.... Besides him it's a toss up between Doc and Pop....

YouCan'tBeatLA
05-08-2013, 06:53 PM
It's Phil...

GiantsSwaGG
05-08-2013, 06:54 PM
Yup but tried to be funny for the sake of the thread (locking/closing it) guess I failed :sad2:

It's all good, I think my Pop a Molly I'm sweating is pretty corny too :laugh2:

pedrofan45
05-08-2013, 06:56 PM
Phil is in another category.... Besides him it's a toss up between Doc and Pop....

Phil isn't in another category, dude only coaches teams that are primed for a finals run. Pop has stuck with many different teams and each one is always a contender. If anything it's a toss up.

Atticus Finch
05-08-2013, 07:00 PM
Pop. Homer. Close thread

Not really sure how you can call that a homer vote. Over the last 15 years (which apparently equals a decade)

Phil in 11 seasons
610-292 in regular season (68%)
133-63 in playoffs (68%)
5 titles in 7 finals appearances

Pop in 15 seasons
832-350 in regular season (70%)
136-72 in playoffs (65%)
4 titles in 4 finals appearances

Also would like to add that 3 of Phil's titles came when you had to win 15 games instead of 16 in the playoffs to win the title, while only 1 of Pop's came during that time. If the playoff structure was the same for all years Phil would have 3 more playoffs wins and Pop would have 1 more. Basically Pop has 1 more playoff victory than Phil in 4 more seasons, and has 1 less title.

NoahH
05-08-2013, 07:01 PM
Eric Spo




















jk
Pop

ball4reel
05-08-2013, 07:07 PM
Pop my collar, gets my vote

JasonJohnHorn
05-08-2013, 07:17 PM
I voted for Pop, but I am surprised that Phil has only gotten 20% of the vote. I'd think 7 finals appearances and 5 rings would weight heavy on most people's votes.

Pop is great, but he, like Phil in Chicago, was handed a dynasty with the Spurs. He was given the keys to a porsche, and three straight seasons with D-Rob and Duncan Phil and the Lakers ousted the Spurs. Phil took a year off, but when he came back he turned a lottery team into a playoff team, and though Pop has had to deal with injuries, he's always had a host of great role players and guys like Parker and Manu to help out.


Jackson did help the Lakers re-build after Shaq left. I give him credit for picking up that project and doing well with it.

Pop still gets my vote, but this is a 1A 1B situation in my book, not a 1, 2.

ILLUSIONIST^248
05-08-2013, 07:22 PM
Pop. Homer. Close thread

yeah because winning 5 rings in the 8 years he coached this decade mean nothing. Troll.

ILLUSIONIST^248
05-08-2013, 07:23 PM
I voted for Pop, but I am surprised that Phil has only gotten 20% of the vote. I'd think 7 finals appearances and 5 rings would weight heavy on most people's votes.

Pop is great, but he, like Phil in Chicago, was handed a dynasty with the Spurs. He was given the keys to a porsche, and three straight seasons with D-Rob and Duncan Phil and the Lakers ousted the Spurs. Phil took a year off, but when he came back he turned a lottery team into a playoff team, and though Pop has had to deal with injuries, he's always had a host of great role players and guys like Parker and Manu to help out.


Jackson did help the Lakers re-build after Shaq left. I give him credit for picking up that project and doing well with it.

Pop still gets my vote, but this is a 1A 1B situation in my book, not a 1, 2.PSD hates Kobe and anything to do with the Lakers. Pop will win this poll by a landslide for these reasons.

Ill21
05-08-2013, 07:26 PM
yeah because winning 5 rings in the 8 years he coached this decade mean nothing. Troll.

The question was the decade, not all time.

Hawkeye15
05-08-2013, 07:26 PM
Pops here

Ill21
05-08-2013, 07:27 PM
PSD hates Kobe and anything to do with the Lakers. Pop will win this poll by a landslide for these reasons.

I don't hate Kobe either

Hawkeye15
05-08-2013, 07:27 PM
PSD hates Kobe and anything to do with the Lakers. Pop will win this poll by a landslide for these reasons.

or the fact that his ring count is close, and his teams were ALWAYS contenders, unlike Phil's.

Guppyfighter
05-08-2013, 07:28 PM
Phil is a good number two here. Pop does more with less every single year.

THE MTL
05-08-2013, 07:33 PM
Pop and its not even close. Phil Jackson is a great coach and can put it all together for a team with min 2 superstars.

Vinylman
05-08-2013, 07:37 PM
The question was the decade, not all time.

so why do people keep saying pop won 4 ... he has won 3 in the last 10 years and it will only be 2 in another 6 weeks

In addition, no one has even talked about phil winning in Chicago...

the cut off is obviously arbitrary to make the argument for POP

Vinylman
05-08-2013, 07:39 PM
or the fact that his ring count is close, and his teams were ALWAYS contenders, unlike Phil's.

how are phils and pop's ring counts close? is this just another arbitrary cut off I missed?

Hawkeye15
05-08-2013, 07:41 PM
how are phils and pop's ring counts close? is this just another arbitrary cut off I missed?

close enough dude, and Pops teams had no down time. Pops routinely got the most out of lower payrolls and being in a small market.

Vinylman
05-08-2013, 07:43 PM
Phil is a good number two here. Pop does more with less every single year.

lmfao...

if you think that Robinson/Duncan/Manu/Parker aren't superstars and better than any trio the lakers have had in phil's 5 rings with the lakers you are delusional

the ignorance in here is laughable... just like Georg Karl winning COY...

ILLUSIONIST^248
05-08-2013, 07:44 PM
or the fact that his ring count is close, and his teams were ALWAYS contenders, unlike Phil's.

Phil has 7 finals appearances, and 5 rings in 10 years. Pop hasn't been to the finals in 5-6 years.

Vinylman
05-08-2013, 07:44 PM
close enough dude, and Pops teams had no down time. Pops routinely got the most out of lower payrolls and being in a small market.

11 to 4 is close? In what universe?

btw... Always contenders under Pop? ... I gues that means WCF right?

NYKalltheway
05-08-2013, 07:44 PM
Popovich fo sho

Sandman
05-08-2013, 07:48 PM
Could argue Pat Riley. 06 Championship & then assembling the Heat in 2010

Guppyfighter
05-08-2013, 07:51 PM
lmfao...

if you think that Robinson/Duncan/Manu/Parker aren't superstars and better than any trio the lakers have had in phil's 5 rings with the lakers you are delusional

the ignorance in here is laughable... just like Georg Karl winning COY...

What about the constant lower level players that are **** outside of his system? You named five players out of an entire decade.

ILLUSIONIST^248
05-08-2013, 07:53 PM
What about the constant lower level players that are **** outside of his system? You named five players out of an entire decade.

The Spurs have always had stacked team this past decade.

LAKERMANIA
05-08-2013, 07:54 PM
Phil Jackson

Guppyfighter
05-08-2013, 07:55 PM
The Spurs have always had stacked team this past decade.

They appear more stacked thanks to Pop. Any film study of a game shows Popovich routinely outcoaching every single coach in the NBA.

You won't find any mistakes in his coaching, obviously an exhaggeration, but it's lower than everyone else.

Atticus Finch
05-08-2013, 07:55 PM
The question was the decade, not all time.

His answer was for the decade, not all time. Phil won in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009 and 2010. If you want to go all time you have to add the 6 titles he won with the bulls bringing his total to 11

Guppyfighter
05-08-2013, 07:56 PM
His answer was for the decade, not all time. Phil won in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009 and 2010. If you want to go all time you have to add the 6 titles he won with the bulls bringing his total to 11

Same applies for coaches. Post season success doesn't tell you who is better.

b@llhog24
05-08-2013, 08:00 PM
Pop.

Hawkeye15
05-08-2013, 08:03 PM
11 to 4 is close? In what universe?

btw... Always contenders under Pop? ... I gues that means WCF right?

11-4? Did you read the OP's question?

Vinylman
05-08-2013, 08:09 PM
What about the constant lower level players that are **** outside of his system? You named five players out of an entire decade.

no need to respond further... posts like this show a lack of understanding the Spurs history

Vinylman
05-08-2013, 08:13 PM
11-4? Did you read the OP's question?

Yeah I did and if that is the criteria then pop actually has more than phil in the arbitrary time period... of course phil didn't coach all those years but that can just be swept under the rug...

people's posts are proving the thread was ill conceived... of course, that is like most threads in the NBA forum that have a predetermined agenda

Hawkeye15
05-08-2013, 08:13 PM
Yeah I did and if that is the criteria then pop actually has more than phil in the arbitrary time period... of course phil didn't coach all those years but that can just be swept under the rug...

people's posts are proving the thread was ill conceived... of course, that is like most threads in the NBA forum that have a predetermined agenda

so you are ignoring the question asked

xxplayerxx23
05-08-2013, 08:20 PM
Lakers- Phil
Every other fan: pop/thread

Atticus Finch
05-08-2013, 08:24 PM
Same applies for coaches. Post season success doesn't tell you who is better.

I don't understand why you quoted me, but I'll respond to it anyways. I agree with you, most rings doesn't automatically equal best coach. But when you're comparing two very talented rosters of two premier franchises over the course of 15 seasons I think postseason success is very important. I also agree with you that Pop gets more out of his players than arguably anyone else, Phil rarely developed rookies and usually stuck with a very tight rotation of players with few exceptions. Pop has the advantage with his rosters, he never coached a team like the 2005-2007 Lakers who had Kobe, inconsistent Odom and basically nobody else. Pop also has the advantage of coaching all 15 seasons over this "decade" while Phil only coached 11. Something else to consider is that Pop's first title came in the lockout shortened season. Basically Phil accomplished more in less time than Pop has, while Pop has been the model of consistency throughout so it really depends on what you value more.

Heads up in the playoffs Phil has the edge over Pop 4-1. Win Loss record in those series has Phil winning 18 games to Pop winning 8 games. I don't think anyone who selects Pop is wrong by any means but it's clearly very close between the two coaches.

b@llhog24
05-08-2013, 08:29 PM
Lakers- Phil
Every other fan: pop/thread

:nod:

Bruno
05-08-2013, 08:34 PM
Not really sure how you can call that a homer vote. Over the last 15 years (which apparently equals a decade)

Phil in 11 seasons
610-292 in regular season (68%)
133-63 in playoffs (68%)
5 titles in 7 finals appearances

Pop in 15 seasons
832-350 in regular season (70%)
136-72 in playoffs (65%)
4 titles in 4 finals appearances

Also would like to add that 3 of Phil's titles came when you had to win 15 games instead of 16 in the playoffs to win the title, while only 1 of Pop's came during that time. If the playoff structure was the same for all years Phil would have 3 more playoffs wins and Pop would have 1 more. Basically Pop has 1 more playoff victory than Phil in 4 more seasons, and has 1 less title.
yup. this landslide is preposterous.

SoFreshNsoClean
05-08-2013, 08:42 PM
I like Adelman. Pop is a consistent coach but hes had Duncan, Parker, and Ginobli his entire stint with San Antonio. The Spurs have also been a top notch organization from the management down. Good GM's make it easy for coaches like Pop to coach. San Antonio also gets ref treatment like a large market team which makes it hard to say all the success falls squarely on Pops shoulders over the years.

Adelman has dealt with supreme adversity in the postseason from refs to injuries. Had Adelman had some decent luck I say he has 2 to 3 NBA titles right now. Easily the most underrated coach of the last decade and gets no love. Jeff Van Gundy said it best: "I do believe Rick Adelman is a championship coach. Just because he doesn't have a title doesn't mean he isn't one. If you beat a Rick Adelman coached team in the playoffs you beat a tough, smart, well coached team that gives 100% every possession"

Guppyfighter
05-08-2013, 09:16 PM
spurs do not get preferential treatment. That's preposterous.

Tony_Starks
05-08-2013, 09:20 PM
It's funny Phil gets criticized for coaching great players but the same people are quick to ignore the fact that Pop has quite possibly the best PF all time plus Parker/ Ginobli. That's a helluva big 3...

Guppyfighter
05-08-2013, 09:23 PM
No one is critisizing Phil for having great players. We are saying ignore titles because that's also a product of more talent and there is no coach that has had as much talent as Phil.

He's a wonderful coach. The triangle. Gets everyone involved on offense, which also helps fuel a good team defense.

Popovich just does all of that stuff better.

Sandman
05-08-2013, 09:29 PM
What about the constant lower level players that are **** outside of his system? You named five players out of an entire decade.
+ Robinson retired a very long time ago.


Wasn't it Barkley that said any wing player could thrive in the Pop-Duncan system?

Tony_Starks
05-09-2013, 02:53 AM
No one is critisizing Phil for having great players. We are saying ignore titles
because that's also a product of more talent and there is no coach that has had as much talent as Phil.

He's a wonderful coach. The triangle. Gets everyone involved on offense, which also helps fuel a good team defense.

Popovich just does all of that stuff better.

Pop had some pretty awesome talent himself. I can't just give him a pass on rings because he had everything Phil had, star players, solid role players and a system. Difference is that Pop had three stars capable of taking turns dominating compared to Phil's two...

Guppyfighter
05-09-2013, 02:54 AM
Pop had some pretty awesome talent himself. I can't just give him a pass on rings because he had everything Phil had, star players, solid role players and a system. Difference is that Pop had three stars capable of taking turns dominating compared to Phil's two...

Shaq's the only player other than Lebron right now with a peak comparable to Jordan.

More-Than-Most
05-09-2013, 03:06 AM
Any answer beside Pop is wrong... Phil would be a close 2nd though.

LAKERS 24/7
05-09-2013, 04:46 AM
Greg Poppavich may be the coach of the decade, but Phil Jackson is the greatest coach of ALL time

DumDum
05-09-2013, 08:31 AM
POP did more with less , the title says this decade

Vinylman
05-09-2013, 08:50 AM
so you are ignoring the question asked

no... just mocking the idiotic responses... people don't even realize that pop (in the last decade) has won more titles than phil... you included

PSD threads are like political talking points... very little substance and only intended to support ideological positions...

Aren't you the same guy who said all the arbitrary statistical cutoffs for players in single games are meaningless like the kobe game against Portland at the end of the year (a position I agree with btw).

Well, if you believe that then it would make sense to mock a poll that does the exact same thing by arbitrarily cutting off Phil's best 3 years in LA.

Again, the premise of the thread is flawed and it should be mocked.... If we were giving grades it would be worth about a D-

curtcocaine
05-09-2013, 09:08 AM
What about mike antoni

kdspurman
05-09-2013, 09:28 AM
Pop had some pretty awesome talent himself. I can't just give him a pass on rings because he had everything Phil had, star players, solid role players and a system. Difference is that Pop had three stars capable of taking turns dominating compared to Phil's two...

I think the difference is Pop's talent outside of Duncan, is the fact that he got guys in who were young and new to the league and help with the development of their game.

Jarvo
05-09-2013, 11:19 AM
Pooooooooooooopppppppp!!!!!!

LAKERMANIA
05-09-2013, 12:35 PM
Just an FYI- Having great players on your team doesn't automatically make your coaching job easier... If anything, the better players you have on your team the harder it is to have them all fall on the same page

todu82
05-09-2013, 12:46 PM
Greg Popovich.

Sandman
05-09-2013, 03:11 PM
Just an FYI- Having great players on your team doesn't automatically make your coaching job easier... If anything, the better players you have on your team the harder it is to have them all fall on the same page

Ok, so chemistry could be difficult with high profile players. Well, the ones that are prima donnas like Kobe anyway.

Now what about the part where you need to be better than the other team? Does it help or hurt to have better players than everyone?

LAKERMANIA
05-09-2013, 06:12 PM
Ok, so chemistry could be difficult with high profile players. Well, the ones that are prima donnas like Kobe anyway.
Unnecessary


Now what about the part where you need to be better than the other team? Does it help or hurt to have better players than everyone?
If your players have huge egos, and are big stars, they all believe they deserve the ball at certain moments..

If your team doesn't have on-court chemistry, your team won't win, no matter how many good players you have on your team.

What makes a good coach is how he is able to have them all fall onto the same page, and believe that they are part of a system instead of "every man for himself", Pop does this very well, but Phil does this well with superstars and huge egos everyone thought were "uncoachable"

b@llhog24
05-09-2013, 06:20 PM
no... just mocking the idiotic responses... people don't even realize that pop (in the last decade) has won more titles than phil... you included

PSD threads are like political talking points... very little substance and only intended to support ideological positions...

Aren't you the same guy who said all the arbitrary statistical cutoffs for players in single games are meaningless like the kobe game against Portland at the end of the year (a position I agree with btw).

Well, if you believe that then it would make sense to mock a poll that does the exact same thing by arbitrarily cutting off Phil's best 3 years in LA.

Again, the premise of the thread is flawed and it should be mocked.... If we were giving grades it would be worth about a D-

Someone didn't read the op.

b@llhog24
05-09-2013, 06:26 PM
Ok, so chemistry could be difficult with high profile players. Well, the ones that are prima donnas like Kobe anyway.

Now what about the part where you need to be better than the other team? Does it help or hurt to have better players than everyone?

Lol This. While managing egos are part of coaching. It's not their primary function. Sort of like Scott Brooks, he effectively managed the egos of KD, Westy and Harden. He's still not a good coach.

Vinylman
05-09-2013, 06:42 PM
Someone didn't read the op.

Thanks for your well thought out post that has nothing to do with the comments you quoted...

you are a true asset to the PSD illuminati

LongWayFromHome
05-09-2013, 07:11 PM
Maybe this has been stated but Coach of the decade would be from 03-04 to this season.

the only reason to go back to 99 would be to give Phil 3 more ships and pop 2 more. If you are going to arbitrarily stop there why not go 3 more years back and get Phil 3 more rings?

If its just the last ten years then a Championship this year for the Spurs means it Pop. Otherwise its a toss up between him Phil and MAYBE some other considerations.

LakersIn5
05-09-2013, 07:31 PM
Phil isn't in another category, dude only coaches teams that are primed for a finals run. Pop has stuck with many different teams and each one is always a contender. If anything it's a toss up.

phil returned to the lakers with a lineup kobe, odom, kwame, luke, smush, mihm. how is that "dude only coaches teams primed for a title run"

Baller1
05-09-2013, 07:33 PM
Pop.

No other coach should receive a vote.

rocket
05-09-2013, 07:46 PM
Pop /thread.

^

rocket
05-09-2013, 07:47 PM
phil returned to the lakers with a lineup kobe, odom, kwame, luke, smush, mihm. how is that "dude only coaches teams primed for a title run"

And what did he do with that group? Nothing.

ILLUSIONIST^248
05-10-2013, 01:27 PM
:laugh: Only on Psd will you see such disrespect of Legends.

Sandman
05-10-2013, 04:59 PM
If your players have huge egos, and are big stars, they all believe they deserve the ball at certain moments..

If your team doesn't have on-court chemistry, your team won't win, no matter how many good players you have on your team.
Yes, this is true. But you're completely minimizing the fact that you need talent to win, and you're trying to make it sound like having the best players in the league isn't a clear advantage. Just because a player is good or has a huge ego doesn't mean he has a bad ego either.

What makes a good coach is how he is able to have them all fall onto the same page, and believe that they are part of a system instead of "every man for himself", Pop does this very well, but Phil does this well with superstars and huge egos everyone thought were "uncoachable"
Who was uncoachable and who was the everybody that thought so? This makes your argument sound good but I don't think its real.

Sandman
05-10-2013, 05:00 PM
And what did he do with that group? Nothing.

hahaha nothing indeed

Kobe wanted out

They were a pretty useless team until Gasol showed up.

Vinylman
05-10-2013, 05:55 PM
hahaha nothing indeed

Kobe wanted out

They were a pretty useless team until Gasol showed up.

good call... Lakers were 30-16 and in first in the West when Gasol joined them...

PSD... where the ignorant congregate to self fellate

Sandman
05-10-2013, 06:42 PM
good call... Lakers were 30-16 and in first in the West when Gasol joined them...

PSD... where the ignorant congregate to self fellate
The Lakers were in a tie for 5th place but hey who is counting? (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/index.cgi?month=2&day=1&year=2008)

May 2007:

Bryant said on 1050 ESPN Radio in New York: "I would like to be traded, yeah. Tough as it is to come to that conclusion there's no other alternative, you know?"

Asked if he had any preference for a trade destination, he said "At this point I'll go play on Pluto."

Vinylman: proving once and for all that it IS possible to regurgitate your own **** while sucking your own ****.

Vinylman
05-10-2013, 07:06 PM
The Lakers were in a tie for 5th place but hey who is counting? (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/index.cgi?month=2&day=1&year=2008)

May 2007:

Bryant said on 1050 ESPN Radio in New York: "I would like to be traded, yeah. Tough as it is to come to that conclusion there's no other alternative, you know?"

Asked if he had any preference for a trade destination, he said "At this point I'll go play on Pluto."

Vinylman: proving once and for all that it IS possible to regurgitate your own **** while sucking your own ****.

Pau played his first game for the Lakers on February 5 not February 1

Nice kobe quote though ... 9 months before the Pau trade... good call

Sandman
05-10-2013, 07:19 PM
Pau played his first game for the Lakers on February 5 not February 1
and the standings are different? you're wrong.

Nice kobe quote though ... 9 months before the Pau trade... good call
Yes, yes it was. The Lakers were a fringe playoff team leading up to that season w/ 2 first round exits. The one bad season with Rudy netted them Bynum (I want to say he was the last HS player ever taken) and he was having a breakout year before he got hurt leading up to the Pau trade. I'm not taking anything away from Phil, but placing team chemistry higher than team talent? **** that, you need to have the talent to win a championship before chemistry can hold you back or propel you there.

lvlheaded
05-10-2013, 08:10 PM
Phil coached the LA Lakers that constantly had whoever they wanted. I mean for god sake he had a team of Payton-Kobe-Malone-Shaq at one point. I know GP and the Mailman were at the end of their careers but come on.

Pop meanwhile coaches in a city where you either draft well or fade into oblivion and he always has his team in a position to compete for a title. Even as his team has gotten old, they are constantly right there.

Its close, but still an easy choice IMO. Give me Pop

Atticus Finch
05-10-2013, 08:11 PM
The Lakers were in a tie for 5th place but hey who is counting? (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/index.cgi?month=2&day=1&year=2008)

May 2007:

Bryant said on 1050 ESPN Radio in New York: "I would like to be traded, yeah. Tough as it is to come to that conclusion there's no other alternative, you know?"

Asked if he had any preference for a trade destination, he said "At this point I'll go play on Pluto."

Vinylman: proving once and for all that it IS possible to regurgitate your own **** while sucking your own ****.

Tied for 5th place with none other than the San Antonio Spurs. When Pau got to LA the Lakers were a half game ahead of San Antonio, so I'm not sure that necessarily strengthens your argument.

Anyways when Phil took over the Lakers won 11 more games than the previous year and almost upset the Suns who were pretty awesome that year. The Lakers weren't great by any means but to say he did nothing with that squad is an understatement. As soon as they Lakers got Pau they went to three straight finals appearances, which is something Pop has never done. The first year the Lakers won with Pau the Spurs were knocked out in the first round by Dallas despite having home court advantage. The next year they were swept by the Phoenix Suns in the second round (also with home court advantage), and the year after that they lost to the 8th seeded Grizzlies in the first round, again with HCA. The year the Lakers got Pau, who only played 27 games with them before playoffs, the Spurs made it to the WCF where they met the Lakers and lost 4-1.

Atticus Finch
05-10-2013, 08:15 PM
Phil coached the LA Lakers that constantly had whoever they wanted. I mean for god sake he had a team of Payton-Kobe-Malone-Shaq at one point. I know GP and the Mailman were at the end of their careers but come on.

Pop meanwhile coaches in a city where you either draft well or fade into oblivion and he always has his team in a position to compete for a title. Even as his team has gotten old, they are constantly right there.

Its close, but still an easy choice IMO. Give me Pop

Luckily for Pop the Spurs are arguably the best drafting team in the NBA.

Supreme LA
05-10-2013, 11:39 PM
It's obviously Phil but seeing as how many people on PSD discredit him and despise the Lakers on PSD I see a landslide voting poll in Pop's favor.

Supreme LA
05-10-2013, 11:41 PM
Phil coached the LA Lakers that constantly had whoever they wanted. I mean for god sake he had a team of Payton-Kobe-Malone-Shaq at one point. I know GP and the Mailman were at the end of their careers but come on.

Pop meanwhile coaches in a city where you either draft well or fade into oblivion and he always has his team in a position to compete for a title. Even as his team has gotten old, they are constantly right there.

Its close, but still an easy choice IMO. Give me Pop

Phil has also coached a list full of players who were successful under his system and are no longer even in the NBA after his departure.

Sandman
05-10-2013, 11:55 PM
Tied for 5th place with none other than the San Antonio Spurs. When Pau got to LA the Lakers were a half game ahead of San Antonio, so I'm not sure that necessarily strengthens your argument.

Anyways when Phil took over the Lakers won 11 more games than the previous year and almost upset the Suns who were pretty awesome that year. The Lakers weren't great by any means but to say he did nothing with that squad is an understatement. As soon as they Lakers got Pau they went to three straight finals appearances, which is something Pop has never done. The first year the Lakers won with Pau the Spurs were knocked out in the first round by Dallas despite having home court advantage. The next year they were swept by the Phoenix Suns in the second round (also with home court advantage), and the year after that they lost to the 8th seeded Grizzlies in the first round, again with HCA. The year the Lakers got Pau, who only played 27 games with them before playoffs, the Spurs made it to the WCF where they met the Lakers and lost 4-1.

I'm not taking anything away from Phil at all, that wasn't mean to give more credit to the Spurs -- I didn't vote in the poll. I just dont think the whole angle about him being able to control big egos somehow minimizes that he had the best talent in the NBA. Any good coach needs good players and that goes for Pop and Doc too. Would Doc be on this poll without KG? All he had were 1st round exits in Orlando. Where would Pop be without Duncan?

OceanSpray
05-11-2013, 12:06 AM
This should be 99% for Pop. The fact that he's won so many with the same core players is just amazing. I don't think there's a coach who is better prepared for any game than he is regardless of who's playing.

Hawkeye15
05-11-2013, 12:20 AM
no... just mocking the idiotic responses... people don't even realize that pop (in the last decade) has won more titles than phil... you included

PSD threads are like political talking points... very little substance and only intended to support ideological positions...

Aren't you the same guy who said all the arbitrary statistical cutoffs for players in single games are meaningless like the kobe game against Portland at the end of the year (a position I agree with btw).

Well, if you believe that then it would make sense to mock a poll that does the exact same thing by arbitrarily cutting off Phil's best 3 years in LA.

Again, the premise of the thread is flawed and it should be mocked.... If we were giving grades it would be worth about a D-

Imagine Pops teams with the resources that Phil has had...

ghettosean
05-11-2013, 12:46 AM
I voted Pop for obvious reasons but I bet if Phil coached the Lakers this year (and probably would have been successful) Phil and Pop would be more even in the polls.

Phenomenonsense
05-11-2013, 02:57 AM
Pop advocates ignore Jackson's abilities and vice versa. They're both great and you can't go wrong picking either one.

the avenger
05-11-2013, 04:24 AM
Pop hands down.

LakersIn5
05-11-2013, 10:21 AM
And what did he do with that group? Nothing.

thats not the point. the point is phil also coaches team with a not so good roster. and dont act like pop hasnt lost in the 1st roundg

rocket
05-11-2013, 12:44 PM
thats not the point. the point is phil also coaches team with a not so good roster. and dont act like pop hasnt lost in the 1st roundg

So what if he coaches people without a good roster... what does that make him a better coach? :laugh2:

If he couldn't do anything with them then he's not better than Pop.