PDA

View Full Version : Phil Jackson would take Bill Russell, not MJ, as first player to start team



Gators123
05-23-2013, 02:30 PM
http://nba.si.com/2013/05/23/phil-jackson-would-take-bill-russell-not-michael-jordan-as-first-player-to-start-team/

If given the choice of any player in NBA history to start a franchise, legendary coach Phil Jackson says that Celtics center Bill Russell would win out over his former player, Michael Jordan.

“In my estimation, the guy that has to be there in Bill Russell, who has won 11 championships as a player,” Jackson says, in an interview with Time. “That’s really the idea of what excellence is, when you win championships.”

Jackson dodged when asked to select between Jordan, who he coached to six titles, and Lakers guard Kobe Bryant, who he coached to five titles.

“I would flip a coin,” he said. “Whichever one came up heads or tails, I’d take that person. They were that good.”

hugepatsfan
05-23-2013, 02:32 PM
PJ's a smart man. He needs to try and convince people to accept the rings argument for players so that they use the same logic when ranking coaches so he can be #1.

Gators123
05-23-2013, 02:33 PM
PJ's a smart man. He needs to try and convince people to accept the rings argument for players so that they use the same logic when ranking coaches so he can be #1.

Ha, good point.

dalton749
05-23-2013, 02:35 PM
as much as i hate kobe i think he was on par with jordan.
jordan got way too much help from the league and its refs to manufacture his image

mngopher35
05-23-2013, 02:42 PM
PJ's a smart man. He needs to try and convince people to accept the rings argument for players so that they use the same logic when ranking coaches so he can be #1.

haha this

i.got.the.nutz
05-23-2013, 02:46 PM
LOL @ flipping a coin for Jordan or Kobe. There is absolutely no way PJ would take Kobe over Jordan.

LAKERMANIA
05-23-2013, 03:01 PM
PJ's a smart man. He needs to try and convince people to accept the rings argument for players so that they use the same logic when ranking coaches so he can be #1.

He is #1

b@llhog24
05-23-2013, 03:15 PM
PJ's a smart man. He needs to try and convince people to accept the rings argument for players so that they use the same logic when ranking coaches so he can be #1.

Good eye.

blacksniper
05-23-2013, 03:46 PM
Don't understand why Jackson is being politically correct in the Kobe vs MJ debate. It's obvious MJ is the better player.

Yet he comes out and goes against the grain and does not start his hypothetical team with Jordan. Who he coached none the less.

bagwell368
05-23-2013, 04:04 PM
He is #1

Not so hard to win when you choose settings where #1 is not only possible, but likely.

LAKERMANIA
05-23-2013, 04:08 PM
Don't understand why Jackson is being politically correct in the Kobe vs MJ debate. It's obvious MJ is the better player.

Yet he comes out and goes against the grain and does not start his hypothetical team with Jordan. Who he coached none the less.

It's because he respects Kobe, he can't say publically MJ is better when he has a special relationship with him...

LAKERMANIA
05-23-2013, 04:08 PM
Not so hard to win when you choose settings where #1 is not only possible, but likely.

And that diminishes him as a coach? I don't understand this argument

Hawkeye15
05-23-2013, 04:11 PM
PJ's a smart man. He needs to try and convince people to accept the rings argument for players so that they use the same logic when ranking coaches so he can be #1.

haha, great point

bagwell368
05-23-2013, 04:13 PM
This is a case where a decent thread of logic "more titles > less titles" leads to a moronic conclusion.

Of the 20 greatest players of all time, which Russell fits into the back end of, he was along with Barkley the most "one way" player (meaning simply he could beat in you in a lot less ways than most of the greats). Also he played for the best Coach and GM of his time, had the best supporting players (sometimes better than him in some years - 3, 4, 5, and 6 HOF'ers at a time). Titles were MUCH cheaper in his day: (mostly played when it was two rounds to the title, later 3), Played against just 7 or 8 teams most of his career. Didn't even play 82 games in a number of years - so less wear/tear per season. His first 3 years in the league there were only 3 players that were 6' 8" or taller - and even so he was meh offensively.

In the Hawks title year they had the #1 SRS, Celts lose
In Wilts first SRS #1 year, Wilt destroys Celts in ECF.

Anybody that says Russell to this question, is actually taking along the Coach/GM/team in large part, because on his own on a weak franchise like the Pistons of his time, he has zero titles. So, Russell must have his 9 SRS #1 teams to win, and anybody that thinks he was the sole or even main definer of that didn't see the Celts in his day like i did.

pacofunk64
05-23-2013, 04:15 PM
The Zen Master digging in his bag of tricks again. We all know he would take MJ.

bagwell368
05-23-2013, 04:17 PM
BTW, MJ traveling or no, Jordan sharts all over Kobe from a great height and it isn't even close.

And Red was arguably a better Coach than PJ, since he was also advance scout, GM, assistant trainer, and traveling secretary. Further, he was GM for 7 more titles, and two other dynasties (if you can call the Cowens 2 title team a dynasty). Throw in the Coach and GM label, PJ is out of the conversation as is everyone else.

Hawkeye15
05-23-2013, 04:19 PM
BTW, MJ travelling or no, Jordan sharts all over Kobe from a great height and it isn't even close.

no, it isn't.

amos1er
05-23-2013, 04:24 PM
Wow...very surprising. Have to respect Phil's opinion though, but I'm scratching my head right now. To me Russell is the most overrated of the top ten players of all time. A guy who I attribute much of his success to the teams he was on rather than his own individual talent and prowess on the basketball court. Go figure.

amos1er
05-23-2013, 04:25 PM
BTW, MJ traveling or no, Jordan sharts all over Kobe from a great height and it isn't even close.

And Red was arguably a better Coach than PJ, since he was also advance scout, GM, assistant trainer, and traveling secretary. Further, he was GM for 7 more titles, and two other dynasties (if you can call the Cowens 2 title team a dynasty). Throw in the Coach and GM label, PJ is out of the conversation as is everyone else.

You just lost me.

amos1er
05-23-2013, 04:27 PM
PJ's a smart man. He needs to try and convince people to accept the rings argument for players so that they use the same logic when ranking coaches so he can be #1.

Interesting theory, but I doubt Phil needs to justify himself at all when it comes to people questioning who the greatest coach of all time is.

amos1er
05-23-2013, 04:29 PM
no, it isn't.

Really people...bringing up Kobe in a Russell/MJ/PJ thread. And people say it's the "Kobephiles" who are the obsessed ones. :rolleyes:.

Hawkeye15
05-23-2013, 04:30 PM
Really people...bringing up Kobe in a Russell/MJ/PJ thread. And people say it's the "Kobephiles" who are the obsessed ones. :rolleyes:.

Phil brought it up bud. Whine to him

amos1er
05-23-2013, 04:33 PM
An interesting quote from the article:


“I think what [James] should do, instead of worrying about where Mike was at, he should be trying to get to the accolades, get to the Finals, as many times as Kobe had. … I think the comparison [for James] should be more toward a current player he’s playing against now because of what Michael already did, and LeBron, in the early part of his career, faltered two times in the Finals. I think that [the Jordan/James] comparison can’t be made, just from that alone.”

kobe4thewinbang
05-23-2013, 04:34 PM
Has anyone stopped to consider how stupid this question is? Like Jackson is playing fantasy mode on 2K.

amos1er
05-23-2013, 04:36 PM
Phil brought it up bud. Whine to him

The thread topic had nothing to do with Kobe...thats all I'm saying. He was mentioned in the article however, and anyone could have brought his name into this at any time. Though it was the Kobehaters, rather than the Kobephiles who were the first. Just bringing attention to that fact.

JIBM
05-23-2013, 04:37 PM
�������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������

amos1er
05-23-2013, 04:37 PM
Has anyone stopped to consider how stupid this question is? Like Jackson is playing fantasy mode on 2K.

lol nice sig. I couldn't believe that stupid play at the end of the game either.

amos1er
05-23-2013, 04:38 PM
as much as i hate kobe i think he was on par with jordan.
jordan got way too much help from the league and its refs to manufacture his image

lulz. and Lebron didn't.

kobe4thewinbang
05-23-2013, 04:40 PM
lol nice sig. I couldn't believe that stupid play at the end of the game either.Ha, thanks. Yeah, it's crazy for him to proclaim Hibbert as the best rim protector in the league and then to sit him when the game is on the line against LeBron who loves to charge his way into the paint. Vogel seemed like a smart coach in that post game interview after they beat NY, but after THIS, I'm not so sure. Hibbert just blocked Carmelo on a crucial play in that series and then you sit him against LeBron?

:speechless:

amos1er
05-23-2013, 04:46 PM
Ha, thanks. Yeah, it's crazy for him to proclaim Hibbert as the best rim protector in the league and then to sit him when the game is on the line against LeBron who loves to charge his way into the paint. Vogel seemed like a smart coach in that post game interview after they beat NY, but after THIS, I'm not so sure. Hibbert just blocked Carmelo on a crucial play in that series and then you sit him against LeBron?

:speechless:

Ya, had to have been the biggest boneheaded costly coaching decision in the playoffs thus far. A decision that will likely haunt him for a long time to come. Now Lebron is going to look like a genius when it was mainly due to Vogel's screw up rather than Lebron's clutch factor. Of course the media is once again singing his praises rather than attributing it to Vogel's screwup.

kobe4thewinbang
05-23-2013, 05:25 PM
Ya, had to have been the biggest boneheaded costly coaching decision in the playoffs thus far. A decision that will likely haunt him for a long time to come. Now Lebron is going to look like a genius when it was mainly due to Vogel's screw up rather than Lebron's clutch factor. Of course the media is once again singing his praises rather than attributing it to Vogel's screwup.At least Vogel admitted that it was a mistake. I understand that he wanted to guard every player on the floor, but you don't want LeBron to have the ball, and to some extent, you can bet that the ball is going to him. Classic misdirection attempt to make you think otherwise.

If a Ray Allen 3 or LBJ fadeaway beats you, fine, not much you can do to stop it anyway, but to not even have your best interior defender on the floor and to give up an uncontested layup?

:facepalm:

Considering the time left on the clock, I would want Hibbert out there because anything could happen and it's unlikely that Miami was going for an immediate jump shot. Paul George's clumsy defense just made it worse. I've heard supportive arguments say that Hibbert would've cluttered the floor and made it easier for Miami to get an open shot, but in hindsight some cluttering would've been nice.

ILLUSIONIST^248
05-23-2013, 05:32 PM
Ya, had to have been the biggest boneheaded costly coaching decision in the playoffs thus far. A decision that will likely haunt him for a long time to come. Now Lebron is going to look like a genius when it was mainly due to Vogel's screw up rather than Lebron's clutch factor. Of course the media is once again singing his praises rather than attributing it to Vogel's screwup.

Spot on.

dalton749
05-23-2013, 06:06 PM
lol always taking credit away from lebron.
he made a great play and out-smarted an enitre team/coach by doing the opposite of what most guys would have done

RaiderLakersA's
05-23-2013, 06:11 PM
Nothing Phil says on these subjects surprises me.

After all, this is not the first time that he's made these statements.

And this is probably not the last time that a PSDer will believe their own flawed opines over Phil's own words. For the uninitiated, PSD really stands for "Please, (you're) Stupid (and in) Denial!"

sp1derm00
05-23-2013, 06:31 PM
I think PJ's response regarding Kobe and Jordan was to promote himself as a coach. He would take either one because they were both good enough for him to win with. MJ might be better, but Kobe is good enough so that PJ could be able to coach him to championships.

SteveNash
05-23-2013, 07:16 PM
Phil is obviously just trying to sell his book at this point, but it's hard to argue against choosing such a winner as Bill Russell, especially over Jordan who couldn't win anything without a top 10 SF next to him to do all the dirty and a hall of fame coach.

Supreme LA
05-23-2013, 07:27 PM
Nothing Phil says on these subjects surprises me.

After all, this is not the first time that he's made these statements.

And this is probably not the last time that a PSDer will believe their own flawed opines over Phil's own words. For the uninitiated, PSD really stands for "Please, (you're) Stupid (and in) Denial!"

So much truth to this.

PraiseJesus
05-23-2013, 08:20 PM
PJ used Jordan as a stick to motivate Kobe his whole career.

Kobe, if you want to be beeter than MJ you have to do this, or that etc.

He did the same thing with Shaq and Wilt Chamberlin

I think the coin flip is a great answer

Redskins10
05-23-2013, 08:23 PM
This guy loves attention.

JordansBulls
05-23-2013, 10:10 PM
Phil is obviously just trying to sell his book at this point, but it's hard to argue against choosing such a winner as Bill Russell, especially over Jordan who couldn't win anything without a top 10 SF next to him to do all the dirty and a hall of fame coach.

Or Russell who couldn't win without playing with two guys who won either league or finals mvp in there career.

JordansBulls
05-23-2013, 10:12 PM
I guess he would take Jean Beliveau (17 stanley cup titles, with 10 as a player) over Wayne Gretzky in Hockey (4 titles). And Yogi Berra (10 world series titles) over Babe Ruth (7 world series titles) as well.

Hawkeye15
05-23-2013, 10:14 PM
The thread topic had nothing to do with Kobe...thats all I'm saying. He was mentioned in the article however, and anyone could have brought his name into this at any time. Though it was the Kobehaters, rather than the Kobephiles who were the first. Just bringing attention to that fact.

Phil answered the question, we are making our opinions. Kobe is a far lesser player.

If me, or anyone else responding to Phil's direct quote bothers you, that is on you man.

ink
05-23-2013, 10:47 PM
PJ's a smart man. He needs to try and convince people to accept the rings argument for players so that they use the same logic when ranking coaches so he can be #1.

Bingo.

ink
05-23-2013, 10:47 PM
This guy loves attention.

Checkmate.

TheScab
05-23-2013, 11:03 PM
http://nba.si.com/2013/05/23/phil-jackson-would-take-bill-russell-not-michael-jordan-as-first-player-to-start-team/

Sure phil. Im sure you would take robert horry over lebron since he has more rings. Thats what defines excellence.

Michael Jeffrey Jordan is and will be the greatest to ever play the game of basketball. The NBA isnt what it is today because of Russell, Kobe, Magic, Chamberlin or Jabbar. It is because of Jordan. No other athlete in the world is as recognized as Michael Jordan and is as close to being a billionaire because of his legacy and marketability. Jordan was more than a great player. His name alone is a business empire. His achievements as the greatest goes way farther than on the court. This debate can and will continue for years but the answer will always remain the same. All legendary coaches know it as well as all players. Michael Jordan is the G.O.A.T.

THE MTL
05-23-2013, 11:49 PM
I highly doubt Bill Russel would have had the type of career he has if he played in today's game. A 6'10" skinny center in today's game.

Raps18-19 Champ
05-24-2013, 02:46 AM
PJ's a smart man. He needs to try and convince people to accept the rings argument for players so that they use the same logic when ranking coaches so he can be #1.

This.

Ipushkidsdown
05-24-2013, 04:00 AM
phil's been talking a lot lately hasn't he ?

amos1er
05-24-2013, 04:02 AM
phil's been talking a lot lately hasn't he ?

Duh...he is trying to promote his new book.

Ipushkidsdown
05-24-2013, 04:05 AM
Duh...he is trying to promote his new book.

if its filled with stuff like this I will pass on it

amos1er
05-24-2013, 04:13 AM
if its filled with stuff like this I will pass on it

Really!?! Dude is a genius and one of the most accomplished minds in basketball. Might be worth the read. lol I for one will be getting a copy.

amos1er
05-24-2013, 04:14 AM
Phil answered the question, we are making our opinions. Kobe is a far lesser player.

If me, or anyone else responding to Phil's direct quote bothers you, that is on you man.

Phil never said that.

Sounds like your opinion to me.

Vancity
05-24-2013, 04:25 AM
I highly doubt Bill Russel would have had the type of career he has if he played in today's game. A 6'10" skinny center in today's game.

Sooooo tired of this argument. In today's game/world Bill Russel wouldnt be skinny or maybe even 6'10. The fact is he dominated his competition. Thats the only way your can compare players.

amos1er
05-24-2013, 04:32 AM
Sooooo tired of this argument. In today's game/world Bill Russel wouldnt be skinny or maybe even 6'10. The fact is he dominated his competition. Thats the only way your can compare players.

Is that really the "only" way? lol

HouRealCoach
05-24-2013, 04:46 AM
Bill Russell is so underrated to you guys... He & Wilt DEMOLISHED competition back then and you guys act like they were playing girls or something

Chronz
05-24-2013, 04:47 AM
Sooooo tired of this argument. In today's game/world Bill Russel wouldnt be skinny or maybe even 6'10. The fact is he dominated his competition. Thats the only way your can compare players.

Nothing baffles me more than the idea that players of the past wouldn't be exposed to todays advancements. Even so, 6"10 250 at some point isn't exactly small.

bagwell368
05-24-2013, 06:11 AM
Sooooo tired of this argument. In today's game/world Bill Russel wouldnt be skinny or maybe even 6'10. The fact is he dominated his competition. Thats the only way your can compare players.

False.

Wilt, Oscar, Pettit all contributed more to their teams overall success than Russel in the same era, and West was right there.

Wilt, Oscar, and Pettit totaled 5 teams that were #1 in SRS, four teams won Championships (Oscars 2nd was his last year when he wasn't much of a factor). Russell had 9 #1 SRS years. Look to the team (Russell played with more HOF'ers than any other player by far - as many as six at the same time, never less than 3), best Coach and GM of his time, and brought onto an offensive volume shooting team lacking D by Red. Perfect fit and time - in fact no other player ever had a better setting for his talents than Russell. Thank Red for that. Have the Pistons draft him, and count the rings... zero.

bagwell368
05-24-2013, 06:15 AM
Just to clear this up. Russell was a bit under 6'10. He was 215 lbs as a rookie, and never played over 235, mostly 220-225.

While he might have been taller and stronger if he came along later, how does he have the same upbringing that led him to be what he was? How do we know he's not some volume scorer who plays meh D?

bagwell368
05-24-2013, 06:24 AM
Bill Russell is so underrated to you guys... He & Wilt DEMOLISHED competition back then and you guys act like they were playing girls or something

Russell's first 3 years only 3 other players were 6' 8" or over. He had a 12' lane to deal with. Did he dominate on O? No. He shot FT poorly, his FG% was over average, and he took most of his shots 4' from the basket or closer. After 1965 his shooting went to hell. That's feeble given the conditions. Oh yeah, forgot he played with between 3 and 6 HOF players per year, usually 4-5. This is in a league of mostly 7 and 8 other teams, none of them able to mount a consistent challenge until the Lakers the last couple of years. He has a lot of rebounds, but the shooting percentage of that time was poor, and Wilt dominate him head to head, grabbing 28.7 PPG and 28.7 RPG vs Russell in about ~145 career meetings.

Russell was the right guy for the right place - more than any player in NBA history. Stick him on the Pistons and he has zero titles, and is discussed about as much as Neil Johnston is today.
'

Chronz
05-24-2013, 02:27 PM
Just to clear this up. Russell was a bit under 6'10. He was 215 lbs as a rookie, and never played over 235, mostly 220-225.

While he might have been taller and stronger if he came along later, how does he have the same upbringing that led him to be what he was? How do we know he's not some volume scorer who plays meh D?

Being abit under 6"10 would get him labeled as a 6"11 player today unless he gets his way and prefers to be listed shorter than he is. He was listed at 6"10 during his Olympic/Collegiate career but decided it would paint him as too much of a goon, so he demanded to be listed at 6"9. Kind of how KG/Duncan refuse to go by their 7ft distinction.

And he played at 240 his final seasons IIRC, during his prime he was at 230.

ILLUSIONIST^248
05-24-2013, 03:05 PM
Both Wilt and Bill are overrated.

Chronz
05-24-2013, 03:25 PM
Both Wilt and Bill are overrated.

Being overrated or underrated is dependent on what the individual has heard, thus is 100% subjective and not a valid critique.

However, giving insight into what makes them overrated and who should be ahead of them is a legit stance to take.


Im curious to what you know about NBA history, something tells me its more of the same slack jawed responses todays youth has on the subject.

SteveNash
05-24-2013, 03:48 PM
False.

Wilt, Oscar, Pettit all contributed more to their teams overall success than Russel in the same era, and West was right there.

Wilt, Oscar, and Pettit totaled 5 teams that were #1 in SRS, four teams won Championships (Oscars 2nd was his last year when he wasn't much of a factor). Russell had 9 #1 SRS years. Look to the team (Russell played with more HOF'ers than any other player by far - as many as six at the same time, never less than 3), best Coach and GM of his time, and brought onto an offensive volume shooting team lacking D by Red. Perfect fit and time - in fact no other player ever had a better setting for his talents than Russell. Thank Red for that. Have the Pistons draft him, and count the rings... zero.

What does SRS have to do with how much you contribute to your team?

LongWayFromHome
05-24-2013, 04:06 PM
Phil is just trying to bait Jordan into a return.

bagwell368
05-24-2013, 04:07 PM
What does SRS have to do with how much you contribute to your team?

Let's take Win Shares of these great players vs the rest of the team. Wilt is way beyond everybody from that era, but he only played for two #1 SRS teams - hence Wilt was both more valuable then Russell, and when he had a great team he won too.

Pettit, same deal, one year #1 SRS, title, and Pettit had more WS vs his team than Russell did vs his in their respective peak 10 seasons. If Pettit had 9 #1 SRS teams and Russell had but one, who has more titles? Not Russell.

Oscar same deal won a ring with a #1 SRS team, even though he was on the downhill, but if you want talk about WS vs his teams in his best 10 years, he's well ahead of Russell.

Bos_Sports4Life
05-24-2013, 06:33 PM
Just to clear this up. Russell was a bit under 6'10. He was 215 lbs as a rookie, and never played over 235, mostly 220-225.

While he might have been taller and stronger if he came along later, how does he have the same upbringing that led him to be what he was? How do we know he's not some volume scorer who plays meh D?

Well going with that...How do we know MJ could handle being a black superstar in boston in the 50's/60's? Lots of assuming..

Fact is, What we do know is this...Russell would have the benefits of todays advancements if he played in todays game..We know this. What you are doing? Assumptions that could work both ways..for everyone.

Bos_Sports4Life
05-24-2013, 06:37 PM
Russell was the right guy for the right place - more than any player in NBA history. Stick him on the Pistons and he has zero titles, and is discussed about as much as Neil Johnston is today.
'

That's a bunch of crap..

Johnston never played in the 60's and only played in 516 games..

Russell played throughout the WHOLE decade of the 60's and played in 963 games.

Yea...its safe to say Russell would be more remembered...

3RDASYSTEM
05-24-2013, 06:52 PM
PJ's a smart man. He needs to try and convince people to accept the rings argument for players so that they use the same logic when ranking coaches so he can be #1.

Exactly, its a lot of players with less rings who are individually better than RUSS, but RUSS is a top tier player of any generation in any sport for that matter

and its alot of coaches who are better and downright just as good and can bring guys together but PHIL is top tier coach

they just never coached the talent as a whole like PHIL did, and some even took lesser talent to same rd as PHIL(see BROWN-POP-RILEY and couple others)

PHIL can show me something like MONTANA(CHIEFS) did and coach a HORNETS or NETS type and lead them to ECF/Finals trip, now that would show me something and since it wont probably happen since the SEA location went bad then i'll always have this same assumption on PHIL

super lucky but a good leader and mind controller, 11 rings

bagwell368
05-24-2013, 06:58 PM
Well going with that...How do we know MJ could handle being a black superstar in boston in the 50's/60's? Lots of assuming..

Fact is, What we do know is this...Russell would have the benefits of todays advancements if he played in todays game..We know this. What you are doing? Assumptions that could work both ways..for everyone.

So sorry, PJ is talking about taking Russell now since that's the time we are in. No mention was made of taking MJ back in time. No mention was made that Russell would be improved in some way. We also know that Russell was more dependent on his team to support the holes in his game than any of the greatest 15 players, meaning PJ would have a lot of work to do to fill out his roster.

bagwell368
05-24-2013, 07:04 PM
That's a bunch of crap..

Johnston never played in the 60's and only played in 516 games..

Russell played throughout the WHOLE decade of the 60's and played in 963 games.

Yea...its safe to say Russell would be more remembered...

How much does one hear about Dick VanArdsdale? It' a generalization, not an an absolute statement. BTW, Johnston is in the HOF, so I wasn't insulting Russell, just placing a non title winning defensive center that retired over 40 years ago.

It's quite easy to conclude however that Russell was winning less titles elsewhere, and none in a backwater like Detroit.

So nice that people who never saw Russell play rise to his defense. Wake me up when you have something firsthand or original to bring to the debate.

Jarvo
05-24-2013, 07:08 PM
Can we stop with the Jordan talk ****!

smith&wesson
05-24-2013, 07:10 PM
http://nba.si.com/2013/05/23/phil-jackson-would-take-bill-russell-not-michael-jordan-as-first-player-to-start-team/

this is what makes me question Phill wanting a management job (gm,vp,president etc)

all the teams he had such great success with had unbeleivable once in a life time talent. jordan/pippen/kukoc/rodman or shaq/kobe/gasol/odom etc.

now if he were to build a team and goes in with the mind set of picking russel over jordan... its an indication that he should simply remain a coach.