PDA

View Full Version : Gregg Popovich, Phil Jackson, or Pat Riley



FOBolous
03-24-2014, 02:22 PM
if you could choose any one of these 3 coaches to coach your favorite team, who would you choose?

Slug3
03-24-2014, 02:26 PM
I don't think it matters as you would most likely still get a championship within a few years with any of these coaches.

KnicksorBust
03-24-2014, 02:32 PM
I went Pop but in my opinion it's a dead heat with him and Phil with Riley a notch below.

Tony_Starks
03-24-2014, 02:33 PM
Pop is the best basketball teacher, the Spurs play textbook basketball. That said I still go Riles.

lakerfan85
03-24-2014, 02:37 PM
Phil... Pop is right there as he gets so much out of his non star players..

Hawkeye15
03-24-2014, 02:45 PM
Phil had MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Shaq, Kobe, Gasol. I mean, he is a great chemistry coach, and gets the star players on the same page, which is so hard to do. But as far as pure basketball coach, Pops is the best in the business. He turns other teams rejects into contributing role players on championship teams. Obviously having Duncan, Manu, and TP doesn't hurt, but imo, he made Manu and Parker better than they might have ever been with another team.

t_money25
03-24-2014, 03:03 PM
This is easy to answer because you can't go wrong with either of them. With that said I'll go Riley.

waveycrockett
03-24-2014, 03:05 PM
Gotta go with Phil here. 11 rings speak for themselves. I think he's very underrated he coached a Jordanless bulls team to 55 wins in a tough EC back in 94. Obviously Pop is a close 2nd here since he's done alot with less but he's had his share of HOF's to play under him as well.

Ebbs
03-24-2014, 03:05 PM
Pop I stand by Jackson benefiting tremendously from surrounding talent.

sunsfan88
03-24-2014, 03:08 PM
Popovich easily. He can win without having superstars on the team. He makes scrubs look like stars.

Hawkeye15
03-24-2014, 03:10 PM
Popovich easily. He can win without having superstars on the team. He makes scrubs look like stars.

he hasn't ever won without a superstar on his team, but yeah, he hasn't had the HOF'er list that Riley or Phil did at all.

I do agree with your premise however. In SA, he isn't in Los Angeles, attracting all the stars and ring chasers. His basketball coaching and developing ability is second to none imo. Which is why I would take him as the coach of my team over the other 2.

Not saying its easy to win with Magic/KAJ/Worthy/Cooper/MJ/Shaq/Kobe/Gasol/Pippen/Rodman, because lord knows many coaches have never won despite having awesome players, but its a lot harder to win 50 games 17 straight seasons, and win 4 titles, with one superstar, 2 other 2nd tier stars, and an ever changing wheel of role players.

DreamShaker
03-24-2014, 03:12 PM
Pop. But all those guys are awesome, obviously.

torocan
03-24-2014, 03:13 PM
If you have a ready made team with clashing ego's, I go with Phil Jackson. He's the man when it comes to getting superstars on the same page.

ANY other type of team, I go with Pops. Pops has coached grind it out teams to success and fast paced teams to success. He's coached top 5 offenses and top 5 defenses. He's coached his stars way beyond their expiry date, and league leftovers into near all-stars and solid rotation players. Not to mention he can pretty much take a bench that looks on paper to be fairly average, and turn them into a legitimate team that can knock out anyone any given night.

And Pops is just consistent as heck. To have SO many winning seasons indicates a strength of system more than a strength of roster. Sure, he had Tim Duncan but how many teams have YOU seen with "stars" that don't get it done? Or do well a handful of years and flame out? Or can *COMPLETELY* change their style of play and STILL be successful? Let alone maintain that success through endless roster shuffles?

I think Phil Jackson is one of the greatest coaches of all time, but I think he needs teams and roster tailor made for him to succeed at the highest level. I'd trust Pops with a championship roster OR a D-league roster, and he'd get the best out of both of them.

NYKnickFanatic
03-24-2014, 03:14 PM
Pop with ease. That man should win COTY, every year.

TDE
03-24-2014, 03:14 PM
Whats phil's record vs pop?

Jarvo
03-24-2014, 03:17 PM
Pop with no question or second guessing, No knock on Pat or Phil but Pop gets the most out his players and did more with less as some will say.

NYKNYGNYY
03-24-2014, 03:17 PM
Pop with ease. That man should win COTY, every year.

I agree but not but much... U can choose any of them and not be wrong... I'd go pop Phil pat

Sadds The Gr8
03-24-2014, 03:18 PM
Pop does the most with less, so Pop.

Jarvo
03-24-2014, 03:18 PM
I don't like all this Spurs love all of sudden on here either lol keep us under the radar man.

FOBolous
03-24-2014, 03:23 PM
i personally leans toward Pop too, but I'm suprised at how much of a landslide he's winning by.

NYKnickFanatic
03-24-2014, 03:46 PM
i personally leans toward Pop too, but I'm suprised at how much of a landslide he's winning by.

Pop is the man.

Goose17
03-24-2014, 03:56 PM
Popovich.

Bruno
03-24-2014, 04:05 PM
i always laugh when i look at these polls and see a blow out, we had one of these a few months back too. its pretty much PSD small market posters siding with the only small market option, and the big markets either not voting or voting for themselves.

33% with the line over it would be the right vote. maybe riley just a notch below.

jackson losing votes because of the talent around him... ...managing the biggest egos in the world, growing them, teaching them and getting them to buy in is just as difficult, if not more difficult than making average players above average players in your given system. all these guys are great but the poll results aren't.

how many rings to MJ, Pippen, Kobe, Shaq, and Pau have without Phil? one, and that was only because Shaq was with Riley.

Master Mind
03-24-2014, 04:07 PM
Pop the foreign player whisperer, Phil the star tamer, Pat the Don...There's no wrong answer

BenFrank
03-24-2014, 04:09 PM
Phil resume speaks for itself.. He don't have enough fingers to wear all his rings at 1 time... The triangle offense is hall of fame worthy

Bruno
03-24-2014, 04:10 PM
Phil Jackson is 4-2 against Pop in the post-season, if i remember correctly.

mjm07
03-24-2014, 04:12 PM
Riley all day.

torocan
03-24-2014, 04:14 PM
i always laugh when i look at these polls and see a blow out, we had one of these a few months back too. its pretty much PSD small market posters siding with the only small market option, and the big markets either not voting or voting for themselves.

33% with the line over it would be the right vote. maybe riley just a notch below.

jackson losing votes because of the talent around him... ...managing the biggest egos in the world, growing them, teaching them and getting them to buy in is just as difficult, if not more difficult than making average players above average players in your given system. all these guys are great but the poll results aren't.

how many rings to MJ, Pippen, Kobe, Shaq, and Pau have without Phil? one, and that was only because Shaq was with Riley.

PJax loses votes from me because we've never seen him coach lesser teams for extended periods of time, OR coach through massive roster changes on the same team, OR multiple systems, OR different paces for extended periods of time.

We've seen him coach the Triangle with star stacked teams.

Pops has proven versatility, which makes him an all around Coach in my view. In other words, the coaching equivalent of a 2-way player.

NYKNYGNYY
03-24-2014, 04:21 PM
I don't like all this Spurs love all of sudden on here either lol keep us under the radar man.

I wish ppl thought of the Knicks like that... Try being a Knicks fan lol

numba1CHANGsta
03-24-2014, 04:21 PM
What a dumb thread, of course people are going to pick Pop, he's the only one coaching right now and is still having success.

Hawkeye15
03-24-2014, 04:32 PM
PJax loses votes from me because we've never seen him coach lesser teams for extended periods of time, OR coach through massive roster changes on the same team, OR multiple systems, OR different paces for extended periods of time.

We've seen him coach the Triangle with star stacked teams.

Pops has proven versatility, which makes him an all around Coach in my view. In other words, the coaching equivalent of a 2-way player.

perfectly put.

Ill21
03-24-2014, 04:40 PM
I would be happy with Pop or Phil

Jarvo
03-24-2014, 04:45 PM
I wish ppl thought of the Knicks like that... Try being a Knicks fan lol

My brother is but Phil is gonna turn it around lol

R. Johnson#3
03-24-2014, 04:57 PM
Popovich and it's not even close

Aside from 96, the Spurs have finished 1st or 2nd in their division under Pop and have been a perennial contender for the championship. He takes other teams garbage and turns them into quality players.

jerellh528
03-24-2014, 04:59 PM
Depends on the team but with no context I'll take pop, then Phil, then Riley

majmarcus
03-24-2014, 04:59 PM
Phil with the most talent. Pop with lesser talent.

My question is why does people feel the need to criticize or mention the players Phil's coached? He did exactly what he was supposed to do, right? Had he lost with such players, you'd be riding down him sayin he couldn't even win with the same talent Doug Collins and Del Harris lost with. The difference...Phil Jackson!

Pierzynski4Prez
03-24-2014, 05:05 PM
I'll take a Riley-Thibs combo running my show please.

KnicksorBust
03-24-2014, 05:37 PM
PJax loses votes from me because we've never seen him coach lesser teams for extended periods of time, OR coach through massive roster changes on the same team, OR multiple systems, OR different paces for extended periods of time.

We've seen him coach the Triangle with star stacked teams.

Pops has proven versatility, which makes him an all around Coach in my view. In other words, the coaching equivalent of a 2-way player.

This is a joke. He implemented a system that forced the two biggest ego maniacs in basketball history to play team ball. He made it work with a wing as his best player in the 90s and with a center as his best player in the 2000s. Neither of which won jack until they played with him. His teams won more than any other coach in NBA History. You are one of many that blindly ignore how difficult it is to have such repeated success and create unrealistic obstacles for him to hurdle. Jackson can't be #1 because he didn't coach bad teams? What are you talking about? Do you not remember the Smush Parker-Luke Walton-Kwame Brown Lakers? A team that STILL made the playoffs every year. Let's not act like those last Kobe titles were stacked teams either. He had to beat Pierce-KG-Allen in a slugfest of a finals just to get that last ring.

From 1999-2000 to 2010-2011 the Lakers made the playoffs 11 out of 12 seasons. The only season they missed the playoffs was 2005. Phil Jackson coached the Lakers every season from 2000 to 2011... except 2005. Coincidence? He conquered every obstacle put in front of him and the fact that people act like this is an easy decision or that Riley is even an option are ignoring the greatest coaching resume in NBA History.

Supreme LA
03-24-2014, 06:36 PM
There's no wrong answer here. I would take any of the 3.

Supreme LA
03-24-2014, 06:40 PM
PJax loses votes from me because we've never seen him coach lesser teams for extended periods of time, OR coach through massive roster changes on the same team, OR multiple systems, OR different paces for extended periods of time.

We've seen him coach the Triangle with star stacked teams.

Pops has proven versatility, which makes him an all around Coach in my view. In other words, the coaching equivalent of a 2-way player.

Only you're wrong because PJ coached a Laker team full of scrubs with only Kobe to a 7th seed and forced the 2 seed Suns to a game 7 in 06-07. If you recall, which I doubt you do, the year before the Lakers were miserable missing the playoffs under Rudy T. So your reasoning is false.

I don't mean to attack you but let's be real here. You're trying to discredit Phil for having good players during his title runs yet it is people like you who are completely ignorant of the fact that Pop has had his same championship core of Manu, Parker, and Timmy for almost his entire coaching career. That goes along way in developing a system and continuity to which he has only had to implement minor pieces to his puzzle. Atleast PJ has shown that he can do it with any group or stars and even coach a team with only Kobe.

Either way, you can't go wrong with either coach. But let's not try to discredit one coach when every coach including Pop has been blessed with talent to develop his system.

Supreme LA
03-24-2014, 06:44 PM
perfectly put.

Except he's wrong.

torocan
03-24-2014, 06:46 PM
This is a joke. He implemented a system that forced the two biggest ego maniacs in basketball history to play team ball. He made it work with a wing as his best player in the 90s and with a center as his best player in the 2000s. Neither of which won jack until they played with him. His teams won more than any other coach in NBA History. You are one of many that blindly ignore how difficult it is to have such repeated success and create unrealistic obstacles for him to hurdle. Jackson can't be #1 because he didn't coach bad teams? What are you talking about? Do you not remember the Smush Parker-Luke Walton-Kwame Brown Lakers? A team that STILL made the playoffs every year. Let's not act like those last Kobe titles were stacked teams either. He had to beat Pierce-KG-Allen in a slugfest of a finals just to get that last ring.

From 1999-2000 to 2010-2011 the Lakers made the playoffs 11 out of 12 seasons. The only season they missed the playoffs was 2005. Phil Jackson coached the Lakers every season from 2000 to 2011... except 2005. Coincidence? He conquered every obstacle put in front of him and the fact that people act like this is an easy decision or that Riley is even an option are ignoring the greatest coaching resume in NBA History.

The Rings are great, but we ALL know there's a LOT of stuff that has to go right to get a ring, a fair amount of which is out of control of the Coach.

Let's put it another way...

If we can criticize coaches for NOT being able to coach other systems and paces (like D'Antoni for example), then why is Phil exempt from a similar criticism?

If we can criticize Spoelstra for having Lebron + Wade + Bosh as a coach, then why is Phil exempt from the same criticism?

No, it's not Phil's fault that he wasn't coaching lesser teams, except he TURNED DOWN tons of team offers to coach when the roster wasn't a perfect fit.

Nobody is saying that Jackson is not a great coach, however, if you are starting a NEW team and have NO idea what the roster is going to be, who would YOU take as your coach? IE, you don't know for sure WHO your stars are going to be, whether it's going to be built around the front court or the back court, around young players or veterans, or around highly athletic players, finesse players or physical players?

You can *say* that Phil could have done it, but he never did, and he never gave himself the opportunity to do it. Or is it a coincidence that Phil has a reputation for waiting for "perfect" team fit and just never happened to JOIN a team that was under talented as a coach?

Remember, this is the guy that retired as soon as Jordan retired, then came back when offered Shaq and Kobe. If THAT isn't cherry picking, I'm not sure what is...

That said, it's not a bad thing. He does what he's great at doing, which is taking Stars/Superstars and getting them to maximize their potential. He sticks to his wheelhouse. It's just not versatile.

PJax *may* be able to coach a variety of teams to championship contention over the long haul. The problem is we've never seen it. And we never had a chance to because every time his stars go, he heads for the Ranch.

Supreme LA
03-24-2014, 06:51 PM
The Rings are great, but we ALL know there's a LOT of stuff that has to go right to get a ring, a fair amount of which is out of control of the Coach.

Let's put it another way...

If we can criticize coaches for NOT being able to coach other systems and paces (like D'Antoni for example), then why is Phil exempt from a similar criticism?

If we can criticize Spoelstra for having Lebron + Wade + Bosh as a coach, then why is Phil exempt from the same criticism?

No, it's not Phil's fault that he wasn't coaching lesser teams, except he TURNED DOWN tons of team offers to coach when the roster wasn't a perfect fit.

Nobody is saying that Jackson is not a great coach, however, if you are starting a NEW team and have NO idea what the roster is going to be, who would YOU take as your coach? IE, you don't know for sure WHO your stars are going to be, whether it's going to be built around the front court or the back court, around young players or veterans, or around highly athletic players, finesse players or physical players?

You can *say* that Phil could have done it, but he never did, and he never gave himself the opportunity to do it. Or is it a coincidence that Phil has a reputation for waiting for "perfect" team fit and just never happened to JOIN a team that was under talented as a coach?

Remember, this is the guy that retired as soon as Jordan retired, then came back when offered Shaq and Kobe. If THAT isn't cherry picking, I'm not sure what is...

That said, it's not a bad thing. He does what he's great at doing, which is taking Stars/Superstars and getting them to maximize their potential. He sticks to his wheelhouse. It's just not versatile.

PJax *may* be able to coach a variety of teams to championship contention over the long haul. The problem is we've never seen it. And we never had a chance to because every time his stars go, he heads for the Ranch.

You're completely wrong again. Please check Phil's history of teams and please tell me how you think Pop would do without his championship core of Tim, Tony, and Manu for over a decade. Oh wait, you can't because you don't know. C'mon man, you gotta take into account everything before you try to discredit anyone over someone else.

torocan
03-24-2014, 07:03 PM
You're completely wrong again. Please check Phil's history of teams and please tell me how you think Pop would do without his championship core of Tim, Tony, and Manu for over a decade. Oh wait, you can't because you don't know. C'mon man, you gotta take into account everything before you try to discredit anyone over someone else.

Seriously, you're going to compare Tim Duncan over 17 years, on limited minutes and nearing the age of 40 to Kobe/Shaq in their prime and Jordan/Pippen in their prime? You do realize that TD is playing < 30 minutes per game? And that he's played 30 minutes or LESS for the last 5 years? Or that Manu has averaged 30 minutes or less for the last SIX years? Even Tony Parker has averaged 32 minutes or less for the last FIVE years.

And they're STILL the #1 seed in the West.

Think about that for a bit.

If PJax had *STUCK AROUND* after Jordan retired in Chicago or after the 2010-11 season in LA then we *might* have a basis of comparison. Pjax gets a pass retiring in LA due to health, but post-Jordan? If he'd stayed in Chicago and taken the team further or gone to a middling play off or rebuilding team then we'd have a MUCH better idea of what PJax can do.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion it's pretty straightforward. On the RIGHT team, PJax is probably the best. However, Pops can be the best on a whole LOT of other types of teams.

Supreme LA
03-24-2014, 07:08 PM
Seriously, you're going to compare Tim Duncan over 17 years, on limited minutes and nearing the age of 40 to Kobe/Shaq in their prime and Jordan/Pippen in their prime? You do realize that TD is playing < 30 minutes per game? And that he's played 30 minutes or LESS for the last 5 years? Or that Manu has averaged 30 minutes or less for the last SIX years? Even Tony Parker has averaged 32 minutes or less for the last FIVE years.

And they're STILL the #1 seed in the West.

Think about that for a bit.

If PJax had *STUCK AROUND* after Jordan retired in Chicago or after the 2010-11 season in LA then we *might* have a basis of comparison. Pjax gets a pass retiring in LA due to health, but post-Jordan? If he'd stayed in Chicago and taken the team further or gone to a middling play off or rebuilding team then we'd have a MUCH better idea of what PJax can do.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion it's pretty straightforward. On the RIGHT team, PJax is probably the best. However, Pops can be the best on a whole LOT of other types of teams.

A whole lot player types surrounded upon what and whom? Just because Timmy is limited in minutes during the regular season it doesn't discount the fact that he has had him, Tony, and Manu to develop his system. I know your answer is straight forward but I'm saying it isn't so clear cut. Anyway you look at it, you take away Tony, Manu, and Timmy from Pop for the last decade there's no way you or anyone else could predict how well Pop would have been.

Your point still remains false because judging off your reasoning, I could remove Tony or Timmy and it's pretty safe to say Pop wins no titles. And yes, I believe Tony and Timmy are that important and judging off their playoff performances for the last decade I'm not wrong.

Hawkeye15
03-24-2014, 07:36 PM
Except he's wrong.

he isn't wrong. While I think Phil is a helluva coach, we have really never seen him do much outside his star studded teams.

Trust me, he and Pops are probably the greatest NBA coaches ever, but to me, Pops is just capable of development, moving pieces, understanding how to take care of his players, and getting the most out of every individual player that plays for him.

By no means does that say I wouldn't LOVE Phil to coach my Wolves for example. But if I get to pick between these 3, give me Pops all day long. He is that good imo.

Lakers + Giants
03-24-2014, 07:49 PM
It really does depend on the team. If I just had to choose not knowing anything tho? Pop.

naps
03-24-2014, 08:06 PM
It's amazing how underrated Riley has been over years in this generation. I guess it's because He had his golden times when most of these posters here weren't even born.

I would take any of these three gladly. Each of them has unique ability to win and win gracefully.

Tony_Starks
03-24-2014, 08:25 PM
It's amazing how underrated Riley has been over years in this generation. I guess it's because He had his golden times when most of these posters here weren't even born.

I would take any of these three gladly. Each of them has unique ability to win and win gracefully.

I was going to say the same thing. He coached three entirely different teams into contenders. Phil and Pops had their same system for their whole careers. Riles did showtime, the grindhouse Knicks, and the Wade and Shaq Heat....

Hawkeye15
03-24-2014, 08:27 PM
It really does depend on the team. If I just had to choose not knowing anything tho? Pop.

yeah, that is the right answer.

Hawkeye15
03-24-2014, 08:28 PM
It's amazing how underrated Riley has been over years in this generation. I guess it's because He had his golden times when most of these posters here weren't even born.

I would take any of these three gladly. Each of them has unique ability to win and win gracefully.

again, Riley had such a stacked team with the Lakers, its tough to gauge. His 90s work was more impressive to me, he TOTALLY changed styles and was still effective, even if he didn't win a ring.

Great coach, but just a tier under Pops/Phil

beasted86
03-24-2014, 08:56 PM
Pop has been overrated forever. It really shouldn't even be a debate between him and Phil or Riley for that matter. And the lopsided ring count isn't even my argument.

Pop dumped Rodman because he couldn't coach him, and Phil took that same player and had him in line to help in a 3 peat. That alone speaks volumes to me.

While Pop seems to be good at coaching fundamental players who are willing to be coached to me it's clear as day he cannot handle the ego of some types. I don't think he is good with loose cannon types at all, and is unproven with the flashy overdribbling high usage superstar. Riley and Phil can handle all types of players including the reclamation project types or the megastars.

Raidaz4Life
03-24-2014, 08:58 PM
Gotta take Pat

b@llhog24
03-24-2014, 08:59 PM
Pop.

Bruno
03-24-2014, 09:08 PM
PJax loses votes from me because we've never seen him coach lesser teams for extended periods of time, OR coach through massive roster changes on the same team, OR multiple systems, OR different paces for extended periods of time.

We've seen him coach the Triangle with star stacked teams.

Pops has proven versatility, which makes him an all around Coach in my view. In other words, the coaching equivalent of a 2-way player.

thats the narrative, but it's wrong. he has done both those things.

the 1993 championship bulls won 57 games, then Jordan retired. the next season his bulls won 55 games, only two less regular season wins without the best player in the world (best player ever) at his apex. he gets no credit for this...because? why? they didn't win the championship? Pop has won 4 championships in 18 seasons as the coach. he's had PLENTY of second round exits. his 14 post-season defeats aren't held against him.

Phil took over the 2005 Lakers who were in complete disarray. they finished the 2005 campaign 34-48. by the time he was done with them a year later they finished with 45 wins. thats a twelve win increase. he grew and developed this 34 win team that he inherited into the team that was 30-16 (65.2% winning percentage) on February 3rd 2008 BEFORE the Pau Gasol trade.

The Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom, HEALTHY ANDREW BYNUM lead 2007-2008 Lakers were well on their way to becoming a western conference power before the Gasol addition. This was when Bynum was explosive and a defensive stud, he was well on his way to becoming an elite player. Obviously the Gasol addition pushed the Lakers over the top, and made up for the collapse of Bynum, but it does not change the fact that he took a 34 win team and turned them into a team with a .65% winning percentage within two and a half years, PRE GASOL.

For comparisons sake, this years Portland Trail Blazers have a worse winning percentage than the 2007-2008 Lakers did in 46 games, PRE GASOL.

anyways, thats why i think thats wrong to say.

Bruno
03-24-2014, 09:15 PM
Popovich and it's not even close

Aside from 96, the Spurs have finished 1st or 2nd in their division under Pop and have been a perennial contender for the championship. He takes other teams garbage and turns them into quality players.

of course its close man.

Bruno
03-24-2014, 09:16 PM
perfectly put.

1994 Bulls winning two less games without the best player ever at his apex means nothing? taking over the 2005 Lakers and turning them into a team that was on pace to lock up HCA 2+years later in the first round pre gasol means nothing?

Bruno
03-24-2014, 09:20 PM
PJax loses votes from me because we've never seen him coach lesser teams for extended periods of time, OR coach through massive roster changes on the same team, OR multiple systems, OR different paces for extended periods of time.

We've seen him coach the Triangle with star stacked teams.

Pops has proven versatility, which makes him an all around Coach in my view. In other words, the coaching equivalent of a 2-way player.

and real quick guys, when has pop ever lead a struggling team for an extended period of time?!? His best player has been there the entire time.

he oversaw an EXCELLENT Spurs team that lost David Robinson for the year. they didn't have a bad record because they were a bad team, they were bad because their best player was out. that doesn't count as turmoil, that's delayed gratification.

having the best PF in NBA history fall to you when you're already a great team, that's luck. pop is amazing (except for when he benches his most important player during the most important play of the season), but you guys need have to recognize that he inherited a great situation as a coach. kudos to him for being a brilliant enough GM to set himself up like that.

KnicksorBust
03-24-2014, 09:21 PM
PJax loses votes from me because we've never seen him coach lesser teams for extended periods of time, OR coach through massive roster changes on the same team, OR multiple systems, OR different paces for extended periods of time.

We've seen him coach the Triangle with star stacked teams.

Pops has proven versatility, which makes him an all around Coach in my view. In other words, the coaching equivalent of a 2-way player.

thats the narrative, but it's wrong. he has done both those things.

the 1993 championship bulls won 57 games, then Jordan retired. the next season his bulls won 55 games, only two less regular season wins without the best player in the world (best player ever) at his apex. he gets no credit for this...because? why? they didn't win the championship? Pop has won 4 championships in 18 seasons as the coach. he's had PLENTY of second round exits. his 14 post-season defeats aren't held against him.

Phil took over the 2005 Lakers who were in complete disarray. they finished the 2005 campaign 34-48. by the time he was done with them a year later they finished with 45 wins. thats a twelve win increase. he grew and developed this 34 win team that he inherited into the team that was 30-16 (65.2% winning percentage) on February 3rd 2008 BEFORE the Pau Gasol trade.

The Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom, HEALTHY ANDREW BYNUM lead 2007-2008 Lakers were well on their way to becoming a western conference power before the Gasol addition. This was when Bynum was explosive and a defensive stud, he was well on his way to becoming an elite player. Obviously the Gasol addition pushed the Lakers over the top, and made up for the collapse of Bynum, but it does not change the fact that he took a 34 win team and turned them into a team with a .65% winning percentage within two and a half years, PRE GASOL.

For comparisons sake, this years Portland Trail Blazers have a worse winning percentage than the 2007-2008 Lakers did in 46 games, PRE GASOL.

anyways, thats why i think thats wrong to say.

Exactly. He was over .500 every season of his career including post Jordan and Shaq. 6 titles with one team in the 90s and then 5 in the 2000s with a different team. It is almost like there is nothing that he could have done to overshadow his players.

torocan
03-24-2014, 09:28 PM
I was going to say the same thing. He coached three entirely different teams into contenders. Phil and Pops had their same system for their whole careers. Riles did showtime, the grindhouse Knicks, and the Wade and Shaq Heat....

Say what? Did you even watch the early Spurs? They were a grind it out defensive team for YEARS. Only in the last 5 years they basically switched to the fast paced offensive juggernaut that they are now.

And 1 year of 50+ wins post-Jordan is nice, but it's hardly a huge track record.

And let's not forget the innumerable role players that Pops has brought into SAS, integrated and developed into legitimate starters and role players, players that other teams thought were useless.

Yes, PJax is superior when it comes to integrating Superstar ego's (I said that in one of my earliest posts), but Pops does more with the *entire* roster in my view, whether the player is a middling veteran or a rookie/sophomore.

LA_Raiders
03-24-2014, 09:41 PM
It's all about the rings. Phil, Pat, Pop.

kdspurman
03-24-2014, 10:15 PM
Pop has been overrated forever. It really shouldn't even be a debate between him and Phil or Riley for that matter. And the lopsided ring count isn't even my argument.

Pop dumped Rodman because he couldn't coach him, and Phil took that same player and had him in line to help in a 3 peat. That alone speaks volumes to me.

While Pop seems to be good at coaching fundamental players who are willing to be coached to me it's clear as day he cannot handle the ego of some types. I don't think he is good with loose cannon types at all, and is unproven with the flashy overdribbling high usage superstar. Riley and Phil can handle all types of players including the reclamation project types or the megastars.

Incorrect, Bob Hill was coaching when Dennis Rodman was on the team. Rodman stated he was not fond of Pop in his book apparently, as Pop was the GM.

And since when is it a bad thing to create a culture and locker room where you don't have drama and distractions? That's a big reason why players go to SA and play so well, the chemistry is great. You have to fit personality wise in addition to having the necessary skill set.

Perfect example was Stephen Jackson. He was a knucklehead, but Pop managed him just fine in 03. He came back a little later, attitude wasn't right, and he was cut. Jack even admitted if he was Pop he would have cut him due to his attitude. I think it's far more respectable to have a guy who's willing to cut ties with someone like that for the better of the team/lockeroom. This is a first that I'm hearing that's a "negative"

EDIT: ***And FWIW, Pop served 5 years in the Air Force. The guy is the ultimate disciplinarian (you can see how he got on Tim/Manu/Tony etc... He doesn't shy away just cause of players name) I have little doubt he'd be able to coach some of these egos. The issue is having them fit with the team. Look at how Tim Duncan (face of the franchise) conducts himself. The way he and Robinson carried themselves helped create that culture, and Pop has done a fantastic job of maintaining it and keeping guys who mesh well.

goingfor28
03-24-2014, 11:01 PM
Pop all day

TmacBryant
03-24-2014, 11:40 PM
Honestly depends on the team. Is there a dedicated post player and a shooting guard willing to play in the triangle, then I would go with Phil. If you have drama queens/punks like Rodman/Artest, then you have to go with Phil.

I think Pop can make any player almost instantly good under his offense, while in the triangle offense it might take longer for a player to fully incorporate himself within the system.

SwatTeam
03-24-2014, 11:41 PM
I would take any of these coaches honestly but I don't think its as big of a runaway as most here show. If forced to pick I would probably go with Pop or Riley for my coach because I know they are good talent evaluators as well. Riley has won as a player, coach, and GM. He is the don. Pop was a GM and still plays a role in that regards but in terms of x's and o's with getting his players to execute he is legit.

The one knock on pop however is that he was never able to win back to back titles, which is something both Riley and Phil have pulled off. Riley even states that the hardest thing to do is repeat. The disease of more. Its easy to get guys motivated when they're hungry to win but can you get them to remain hungry after they've already eaten a slice of the pie. Pop's legacy is kinda tainted to me in that regards. Still time to pull it off but I doubt it happens with the age of the Spurs core guys. He would be my unanimous choice if he had a repeat title on his resume. I also think that if Shaq and Kobe didn't implode that the spurs would probably only have 2 titles and not 4. Just my honest opinion, but then again history plays out the way it intends to.

WadeKobe
03-25-2014, 12:00 AM
The correct answer is that you could never get to choose from the three of them, because they're too highly valued, so if you get the chance to get any of the three of them, you take it.

I also don't think people here realize the magnitude of the greatness these three men possess between the three of them.

In the 44 years since the original Celtics Dynaasty fell, at least one of the three of them have appeared in the Finals as either a player, coach, or executive 34 of those years.

22 of the last 23 years.

All 18 of the last 18 years.

Wrap your minds around that. An 18 year old kid has never, in their life, witnessed a year where one of the three I them was t running the show for a Finals team.

They have owned the NBA since Red.

As much as I hate to say it, they day is coming for New York. They will be good. That is all but a certainty at this point.

beasted86
03-25-2014, 12:07 AM
Incorrect, Bob Hill was coaching when Dennis Rodman was on the team. Rodman stated he was not fond of Pop in his book apparently, as Pop was the GM.

And since when is it a bad thing to create a culture and locker room where you don't have drama and distractions? That's a big reason why players go to SA and play so well, the chemistry is great. You have to fit personality wise in addition to having the necessary skill set.

Perfect example was Stephen Jackson. He was a knucklehead, but Pop managed him just fine in 03. He came back a little later, attitude wasn't right, and he was cut. Jack even admitted if he was Pop he would have cut him due to his attitude. I think it's far more respectable to have a guy who's willing to cut ties with someone like that for the better of the team/lockeroom. This is a first that I'm hearing that's a "negative"

EDIT: ***And FWIW, Pop served 5 years in the Air Force. The guy is the ultimate disciplinarian (you can see how he got on Tim/Manu/Tony etc... He doesn't shy away just cause of players name) I have little doubt he'd be able to coach some of these egos. The issue is having them fit with the team. Look at how Tim Duncan (face of the franchise) conducts himself. The way he and Robinson carried themselves helped create that culture, and Pop has done a fantastic job of maintaining it and keeping guys who mesh well.
It for sure is a negative when you simply have good/great players available that a coach simply cannot coach. It's really that simple.

Please don't try and dress this up as anything other than Pop being a hard *** unwilling to put up with certain egos and personality types. It's a bad thing if you have the best rebounder in the league you dump him for Will Purdue and he goes on to be a main piece on the very same team you dumped him on, perfectly under control by a better coach, and helps that same team win 3 straight. This is completely backwards if anyone tries to put some other type of spin on that.

Yes you are right that Pop wasn't coaching yet, but Rodman has said it was him and Pop who were at the farthest odds. Rodman helps Detroit win back to back titles... and the Bulls back to back to back titles, and you're telling me the Spurs and Pop should get extra praise for not being able to handle him and simply dumping him for table scraps? That's what guys are given credit for nowadays?!

beasted86
03-25-2014, 12:38 AM
Honestly depends on the team. Is there a dedicated post player and a shooting guard willing to play in the triangle, then I would go with Phil. If you have drama queens/punks like Rodman/Artest, then you have to go with Phil.

I think Pop can make any player almost instantly good under his offense, while in the triangle offense it might take longer for a player to fully incorporate himself within the system.
It's funny I keep hearing that, but what player did Pop take and make good?

What I mean is, which player was undisciplined, Pop got him on the Spurs and made him disciplined?

You'd think with a guy with the physical talents of a JR Smith that if he just had a brain he could be James Harden if he just developed a much higher IQ and discipline. Why not just sign him or draft a Jordan Crawford or bring in Nick Young this summer as the new Manu replacement for the MLE. The truth is Pop would never sign that guy or any player like him. What he is great at is taking guys with a limited set of skills and making them fit seamlessly into his system and play their role. But that's not the same as maximizing a players talents and making them better. He can take a Malik Rose and basically hide some of his deficiencies so that you have that mediocre of a player able to start on a championship team. But that's not making him good. He was never good. Rasho Nesterovic, Gary Neal, Matt Bonner, Bruce Bowen... none of these guys were good. But Pop is great at making guys fit the main core. While it's a skill that should also be praised, to me it's not as valuable as maximizing all-stars. Pop has a track record of throwing away guys with great talent because he couldn't exactly coral them: Rodman, Jackson, Turkoglu, etc.

I don't remember that type of thing happening with Riley or Phil ever. They took head cases like Artest or an Anthony Mason and didn't even have one ounce of a locker room problem out of them.

Supreme LA
03-25-2014, 01:05 AM
It's funny I keep hearing that, but what player did Pop take and make good?

What I mean is, which player was undisciplined, Pop got him on the Spurs and made him disciplined?

You'd think with a guy with the physical talents of a JR Smith that if he just had a brain he could be James Harden if he just developed a much higher IQ and discipline. Why not just sign him or draft a Jordan Crawford or bring in Nick Young this summer as the new Manu replacement for the MLE. The truth is Pop would never sign that guy or any player like him. What he is great at is taking guys with a limited set of skills and making them fit seamlessly into his system and play their role. But that's not the same as maximizing a players talents and making them better. He can take a Malik Rose and basically hide some of his deficiencies so that you have that mediocre of a player able to start on a championship team. But that's not making him good. He was never good. Rasho Nesterovic, Gary Neal, Matt Bonner, Bruce Bowen... none of these guys were good. But Pop is great at making guys fit the main core. While it's a skill that should also be praised, to me it's not as valuable as maximizing all-stars. Pop has a track record of throwing away guys with great talent because he couldn't exactly coral them: Rodman, Jackson, Turkoglu, etc.

I don't remember that type of thing happening with Riley or Phil ever. They took head cases like Artest or an Anthony Mason and didn't even have one ounce of a locker room problem out of them.

Great point.

P&GRealist
03-25-2014, 01:32 AM
Phil Jackson is 4-2 against Pop in the post-season, if i remember correctly.
4-1.

Won in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008.

Lost in 2003.

Tony_Starks
03-25-2014, 01:46 AM
Say what? Did you even watch the early Spurs? They were a grind it out defensive team for YEARS. Only in the last 5 years they basically switched to the fast paced offensive juggernaut that they are now.

And 1 year of 50+ wins post-Jordan is nice, but it's hardly a huge track record.

And let's not forget the innumerable role players that Pops has brought into SAS, integrated and developed into legitimate starters and role players, players that other teams thought were useless.

Yes, PJax is superior when it comes to integrating Superstar ego's (I said that in one of my earliest posts), but Pops does more with the *entire* roster in my view, whether the player is a middling veteran or a rookie/sophomore.

Pops did his thing but he's always had the same core. He reinvented their style and quickened the pace as Timmy and Co got older. Shifted Parker to the main guy but his premise is basically the same. Drive and kick, swing the ball to the open shot. If all else fails Parker or Ginobli iso.

Riley had 3 entirely different squads. He also took guys like Mase and Starks out of the CBA and made them key players which was pretty rare at the time. Also look at how many of his guys turned into pretty good coaches. JVG, SVG, Mark Jackson.... Spo started off as the video coordinator for the Heat.

It's close but I put him 1st, Pop 2nd, PJax 3rd...

Kashmir13579
03-25-2014, 01:55 AM
Pop.. But people talking about Phil like he had all this great talent and Pop/Pat didn't.. ***** Plz...

TylerSL
03-25-2014, 01:55 AM
Being a Heat fan its tough to put Riley last on any list but I would have to go, in order

Pop
Phil
Riley

But having any of those guys would be great for your organization and they are all so good at what they do it wouldn't make that much difference just as long as you had 1 of them. Which is great for Miami, San Antonio, and now New York.

Kashmir13579
03-25-2014, 01:57 AM
In the 44 years since the original Celtics Dynaasty fell, at least one of the three of them have appeared in the Finals as either a player, coach, or executive 34 of those years.

22 of the last 23 years.

All 18 of the last 18 years.

Wrap your minds around that. An 18 year old kid has never, in their life, witnessed a year where one of the three I them was t running the show for a Finals team.

Thats ****ing ridiculous...

TylerSL
03-25-2014, 02:02 AM
Pop.. But people talking about Phil like he had all this great talent and Pop/Pat didn't.. ***** Plz...

I agree they have all had great talent but Phil's talent does stand out a bit. I mean prime Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, Pippen, Gasol, and Rodman as well as having role players such as Kerr, Fisher, Grant, and Rice. Obviously aside from the top, this list is comparable to what Riley and Pop have had, but if the list is who has had the most talent, Phil tops that list easily.

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2014, 06:26 AM
Riley is not even in consideration for me. He had great success with the Lakers, but he was gifted a championship team as a rookie coach, and one that was then given a James Worthy. The Lakers success could have continued, but Riley's ego got in the way, and an ego is something have to be able to keep in check in a team sport. In his autobiography, Jerry West noted that the feeling among the organization was that Riley though HE was the star of the team and that HE was the reason they won. That said, one must given credit to his ability and diversity as a coach. With the Lakers he had a very gifted offensive team and he played to their strengths, where as with the Knicks, he had a team that could run the floor like that and he redefined the franchise as a defensive team and made them contenders in the process. It was two COMPLETELY different styles and both were extremely successful, so I think he deserves a lot of credit there.

As for Jackson, I don't think there is a guy that can handle egos as well, and develop talent better (though Pop is on a par with him). People underestimate the impact Jackson had on Pippen in turning him from a great rotation player, into a HOF player. With another coach, Pippen may have never even been an All-Star, but Jackson helped develop his passing game and defense, which is what defined him against other SF of his generation. And he also got Jordan to trust his teammates. If Jordan continued to play the "Me" ball that he did before Jackson took over, he would have been looked at more as George Gervin+ than the GOAT.


But that said, Pop is easily my pick. He is humble, he can make almost any player work in his system, he has a universal system that allows everybody to succeed. He understands the long-game better than any coach, he knows how important it is to develop the bench and get them minutes in games, and he gives the credit to his success to his players. Jackson does to, but Riley certainly likes to take the lion's share of the credit, and Riley has given up when teams got bad and was only able to win with AMAZING rosters. Pop has put together 17 straight season of 50+ wins (or equivalent winning percentages) with aging stars and limited role players.


1. Pop
2. Jackson










3. Riley.

PhillyFaninLA
03-25-2014, 07:55 AM
Riley, because all 3 are great coaches but Riley not only is a great coach but he built a multiple time championship team from the front office as well

Hawkeye15
03-25-2014, 08:02 AM
1994 Bulls winning two less games without the best player ever at his apex means nothing? taking over the 2005 Lakers and turning them into a team that was on pace to lock up HCA 2+years later in the first round pre gasol means nothing?

sure it does. But Pops has shown that he can coach any single style and be effective. Slow down defensive teams, high paced offensive teams, inside outside, outside inside. Depending on his roster, he understand how to fully utilize it and have an elite team. No matter what.

The OP's question is, who would you pick to coach your team. Well, my team is the Wolves. Give me Pops. If my team were the Heat, give me Phil. I respect Phils ability to get huge egos and multiple superstars on the same page, but as far as x's and o's, and getting the absolute most out of a roster, I will take Pops anyday of the week.

Hawkeye15
03-25-2014, 08:06 AM
In the 44 years since the original Celtics Dynaasty fell, at least one of the three of them have appeared in the Finals as either a player, coach, or executive 34 of those years.

22 of the last 23 years.

All 18 of the last 18 years.

Wrap your minds around that. An 18 year old kid has never, in their life, witnessed a year where one of the three I them was t running the show for a Finals team.


that is insane actually.

Hawkeye15
03-25-2014, 08:08 AM
Pop.. But people talking about Phil like he had all this great talent and Pop/Pat didn't.. ***** Plz...

Pops has had a top 10 player ever, Jax had 3, including the GOAT. Pat had 1 as well. But Phil Jackson has easily had the most help of any modern day GM (actually anyone outside maybe Red), that can't be debated. Still, 11 rings is ridic. Talk about taking advantage of your situation...

kdspurman
03-25-2014, 09:45 AM
It for sure is a negative when you simply have good/great players available that a coach simply cannot coach. It's really that simple.

Please don't try and dress this up as anything other than Pop being a hard *** unwilling to put up with certain egos and personality types. It's a bad thing if you have the best rebounder in the league you dump him for Will Purdue and he goes on to be a main piece on the very same team you dumped him on, perfectly under control by a better coach, and helps that same team win 3 straight. This is completely backwards if anyone tries to put some other type of spin on that.

Yes you are right that Pop wasn't coaching yet, but Rodman has said it was him and Pop who were at the farthest odds. Rodman helps Detroit win back to back titles... and the Bulls back to back to back titles, and you're telling me the Spurs and Pop should get extra praise for not being able to handle him and simply dumping him for table scraps? That's what guys are given credit for nowadays?!


It's funny I keep hearing that, but what player did Pop take and make good?

What I mean is, which player was undisciplined, Pop got him on the Spurs and made him disciplined?

You'd think with a guy with the physical talents of a JR Smith that if he just had a brain he could be James Harden if he just developed a much higher IQ and discipline. Why not just sign him or draft a Jordan Crawford or bring in Nick Young this summer as the new Manu replacement for the MLE. The truth is Pop would never sign that guy or any player like him. What he is great at is taking guys with a limited set of skills and making them fit seamlessly into his system and play their role. But that's not the same as maximizing a players talents and making them better. He can take a Malik Rose and basically hide some of his deficiencies so that you have that mediocre of a player able to start on a championship team. But that's not making him good. He was never good. Rasho Nesterovic, Gary Neal, Matt Bonner, Bruce Bowen... none of these guys were good. But Pop is great at making guys fit the main core. While it's a skill that should also be praised, to me it's not as valuable as maximizing all-stars. Pop has a track record of throwing away guys with great talent because he couldn't exactly coral them: Rodman, Jackson, Turkoglu, etc.

I don't remember that type of thing happening with Riley or Phil ever. They took head cases like Artest or an Anthony Mason and didn't even have one ounce of a locker room problem out of them.

Wait, so you think Pop would've been more successful if he employed guys who were lockerroom/chemistry cancers?

Again, with Rodman, you're not factoring in Robinson. He was that franchise, and he was one of the more humble superstars ever. Rodman did not mesh with Robinson. He wasn't a fan of his style. And if you think cause Rodman didnt mesh with Pop, that it's somehow the fault of Pop? That's just insane.

And just an FYI, the Spurs have had an interest in JR Smith and Metta Word Peace. Problem is, it's hard to get guys to want to play in San Antonio.

Where are you getting your facts from about Pop not being able to coral those guys? Rodman was a headcase obviously. Do you think if they kept him that they have more success? It's possible they don't even land Duncan if he sticks around, so who knows. Seems like it's worked out well. Jackson? After his 2003 stint, he wanted to get paid. Spurs didn't want to pay up. Same with Turk. They got Jackson again, and he was creating friction in the lockerroom with some of the younger players, so he cut him loose. I guess in your mind the better thing to do would be to keep Jackson around despite what went down? It's possible Green as a young player on the big stage doesn't have the success he did in the finals who knows.

BTW, I don't know why you're talking about a Jordan Crawford or Nick Young as a "Manu replacement" Manu isn't leaving this summer. And you'd think it's more impressive bringing guys in with lesser athleticism/skill and making them valuable and flourish in this system. Seems you're only seeing it from one point of view.

This team operates a certain way. Pop has said many times, they don't bring in people who think they're bigger than the team. Why would they do that? They have a top 10 player of all time who conducts himself with the ultimate team first mentality and humility. The players follow his lead. Jack was brought back cause 1. it allowed them to dump Jefferson, and 2. he and Duncan are really close. They don't take many gambles. But I guess 15 straight 50 win seasons (17 if you count the lockout) 4 titles, countless division titles, never missing the playoffs, etc... isn't quite good enough? Despite an aging roster, a change of pace in how the game is played (compare the Spurs from 05 to last years finals team and how they play) and still able to play at a high level? I'm sorry but it's just ridiculous to think if Pop kept more headcases on hand that it'd make them better.

Vinylman
03-25-2014, 11:58 AM
i personally leans toward Pop too, but I'm suprised at how much of a landslide he's winning by.

why? If you read the question he really is the only choice...

most teams are ******... if your team is ****** you want the most fundamentally sound coach who gets the most out of the least talent...

if the question was who would you want to lead A team (not yours) then I would go with Phil.

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2014, 12:03 PM
i always laugh when i look at these polls and see a blow out, we had one of these a few months back too. its pretty much PSD small market posters siding with the only small market option, and the big markets either not voting or voting for themselves.


Do they vote for Pop because he's a 'small market' coach, or because Pop can win with Roger Mason, Matt Bonner or Patty Mills and a 34-37 year-old franchise and still post the best record in the league, while Phil Jackson and Pat Riley have only ever won when they've had multiple HOFers in their prime with a bloat load of ring chasers filling out their roster?

Come on... just because they are voting for your guy doesn't mean they have a bias.

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2014, 12:04 PM
Pop dumped Rodman because he couldn't coach him, and Phil took that same player and had him in line to help in a 3 peat. That alone speaks volumes to me.

Pop never coached Rodman.

And most believe it was Jordan that kept Rodman 'in line', though I would hardly call headbutting an official and kicking a camera man keeping somebody inline.

Pop has gotten the most out of troubled players in the past, like Stephen Jackson, so this doesn't even hold water.

Next.

Jarvo
03-25-2014, 12:08 PM
Lol some of you are taking this way too serious as you are writing essays.

MonroeFAN
03-25-2014, 12:10 PM
Pop and it's not even close for me.

Vinylman
03-25-2014, 12:27 PM
Do they vote for Pop because he's a 'small market' coach, or because Pop can win with Roger Mason, Matt Bonner or Patty Mills and a 34-37 year-old franchise and still post the best record in the league, while Phil Jackson and Pat Riley have only ever won when they've had multiple HOFers in their prime with a bloat load of ring chasers filling out their roster?


Come on... just because they are voting for your guy doesn't mean they have a bias.

who are these boat load of ring chasers that were on the Lakers?

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2014, 12:40 PM
who are these boat load of ring chasers that were on the Lakers?

Oh... I dunno.... Gary Payton, Karl Malone, Ron Artest, Antwan Jamison, Steven Nash. Horace Grant. Brian Shaw. AC Green. Ron Harper. John Sally. Isaiah Ryder. Mitch Richmond.

Do you need more?

Admittedly, Riley didn't have 'ring' chasers, he just walked onto a championship team and starting coaching. I mean, how many NBA coaches wouldn't win with Magic, Karmee, Nixon, Cooper and then Worthy and with a GM like West drafting guys like Perkins Scott adn Green?

Let's not pretend that that team needed Riley in the least.

PhillyFaninLA
03-25-2014, 12:58 PM
Lol some of you are taking this way too serious as you are writing essays.

I'm on a message board so I don't want to read others opinions.

Vinylman
03-25-2014, 02:16 PM
Oh... I dunno.... Gary Payton, Karl Malone, Ron Artest, Antwan Jamison, Steven Nash. Horace Grant. Brian Shaw. AC Green. Ron Harper. John Sally. Isaiah Ryder. Mitch Richmond.

Do you need more?


Admittedly, Riley didn't have 'ring' chasers, he just walked onto a championship team and starting coaching. I mean, how many NBA coaches wouldn't win with Magic, Karmee, Nixon, Cooper and then Worthy and with a GM like West drafting guys like Perkins Scott adn Green?

Let's not pretend that that team needed Riley in the least.

You must not understand what a ring chaser is... a ring chaser is an elite player who takes less money than his market value usually at the end of his career to try and win a chip. Below is a recap of each players time on the Lakers... the only true ring chasers under PJ were Payton/Malone... and they never won... Once the Lakers had established the triangle most of the NON HOF contributors were acquired via trades...

Gary Payton (1) - Absolutely a ring chaser... who never won anything with the Lakers

Karl Malone (1) - Absolutely a ring chaser... who never won anything with the Lakers

Ron Artest - Can't be considered a ring chaser... dude was in his prime and signed a full MLE deal for 5 years - got max money for his skills

Antwan Jamison - Never Played for Phil Jackson nor won a chip

Steve Nash - Never Played for Phil Jackson nor won a chip

Horace Grant (1) Played 1 year for the Lakers to help lead them to their first championship. He was critical just like Harper was to teach the triangle. He had also already won 3 chips so I don't see how he is a ring chaser

Brian Shaw (4) - Played 4 years for the Lakers first 3 PJ chips... I guess he could be called a ring chaser except that a ring chaser is usually and elite player who takes less money to win a chip (shaw fits neither criteria)
.
AC Green (1) - Started all games for the Lakers in his one season. How he is a ring chaser as a starter is beyond me especially since he already had 2 Rings. But again, he played 1 season

Ron Harper (2) - Integral part of Lakers first PJ championship. Hardly a ring chaser... had won 3 chips already with Chicago and was primarily brought in to teach the core players the offense. His second season in LA he only played in garbage time of 6 playoff blowouts...

John Sally (1) - Played a whopping 78 minutes in 18 playoff games... almost all of which occurred during either garbage time or hack a shaq... obviously critical to their success

Isaiah Rider (1) - Never played a single minute in the post season for the Lakers.... obviously critical to their success

Mitch Richmond (1) - Played a whopping 4 minutes In the post season for the Lakers... obviously critical to their success

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2014, 03:43 PM
You must not understand what a ring chaser is

Or we have a different definitions of ring chaser. You wanted a list of ring chasers from LA, I gave a list. Just because you already have a ring doesn't mean you don't chase after another one. You can have 6 rings and still chase a 7th, ask Robert Horry why he signed with the Spurs and why he tried signing with Boston after the Garnett/Allen deals went through.

And it is LONG. You don't have to be an All-Star. When Ron Artest was a free agent, he could have signed for more than the MLE.

A ring chaser is a person who signs a contract with a team based on the fact that that team is a contender. Period.

I gave you your list. Don't act like Phil didn't have a boat load of talent to work with in LA and that the talent had nothing to do with the winning.
Jackson is an AMAZING coach, but he had a LOT of help.

Period.

todu82
03-25-2014, 03:53 PM
Popovich. Jackson's the best coach of all time but Popovich always seemed to get the most out of nothing.

MonroeFAN
03-25-2014, 03:53 PM
We actually have no idea if Jackson is an AMAZING coach or not.

Is Erik Spoelstra an amazing coach?

ManRam
03-25-2014, 04:34 PM
1. Pops
2. Jackson
3. Riley

Feel very solid about that list :shrug:

I get arguing against Pops by saying "he's always had Duncan"...but the dude has turned so much other **** into gold. What's he's done with these teams recently is amazing to me, even as good as TP and Duncan are.

nyKnicks126
03-25-2014, 04:41 PM
Pop.. He has been running the same strategy and it is paying off.. It doesn't hurt to have one of the best power forwards to ever play the game on your team either..

but his team is always consistent and they never change their core.. That is what makes them successful along with the coaching of Pop..

D-Leethal
03-25-2014, 05:48 PM
Pop.. He has been running the same strategy and it is paying off.. It doesn't hurt to have one of the best power forwards to ever play the game on your team either..

but his team is always consistent and they never change their core.. That is what makes them successful along with the coaching of Pop..

I think what makes Pop so great is the opposite - we've seen him completely flip his system on its head to feature Parker more over the past 5-6 years and hasn't skipped a freakin' beat.

WadeKobe
03-25-2014, 06:03 PM
Riley is not even in consideration for me. He had great success with the Lakers, but he was gifted a championship team as a rookie coach, and one that was then given a James Worthy. The Lakers success could have continued, but Riley's ego got in the way, and an ego is something have to be able to keep in check in a team sport. In his autobiography, Jerry West noted that the feeling among the organization was that Riley though HE was the star of the team and that HE was the reason they won. That said, one must given credit to his ability and diversity as a coach. With the Lakers he had a very gifted offensive team and he played to their strengths, where as with the Knicks, he had a team that could run the floor like that and he redefined the franchise as a defensive team and made them contenders in the process. It was two COMPLETELY different styles and both were extremely successful, so I think he deserves a lot of credit there.

As for Jackson, I don't think there is a guy that can handle egos as well, and develop talent better (though Pop is on a par with him). People underestimate the impact Jackson had on Pippen in turning him from a great rotation player, into a HOF player. With another coach, Pippen may have never even been an All-Star, but Jackson helped develop his passing game and defense, which is what defined him against other SF of his generation. And he also got Jordan to trust his teammates. If Jordan continued to play the "Me" ball that he did before Jackson took over, he would have been looked at more as George Gervin+ than the GOAT.


But that said, Pop is easily my pick. He is humble, he can make almost any player work in his system, he has a universal system that allows everybody to succeed. He understands the long-game better than any coach, he knows how important it is to develop the bench and get them minutes in games, and he gives the credit to his success to his players. Jackson does to, but Riley certainly likes to take the lion's share of the credit, and Riley has given up when teams got bad and was only able to win with AMAZING rosters. Pop has put together 17 straight season of 50+ wins (or equivalent winning percentages) with aging stars and limited role players.


1. Pop
2. Jackson










3. Riley.

This is, of course, pure nonsense. Everywhere Riley went, they made it to the finals.

Lakers - player
Suns - player
Lakers - coach
Knicks - coach
Heat - coach
Heat - executive


But yea, he was just gifte a team.....

Lol

nyKnicks126
03-25-2014, 06:43 PM
I think what makes Pop so great is the opposite - we've seen him completely flip his system on its head to feature Parker more over the past 5-6 years and hasn't skipped a freakin' beat.
I don't know what you are talking about. His BASKETBALL philosophy never changes.. He implements the best strategy possible. If it's utilizing Parker, ok. Timmy, ok. Manu, Leonard.. Bench players whatever.. It's that West Point mentality.

nyKnicks126
03-25-2014, 06:51 PM
They play well as a unit though. Not just individually

Supreme LA
03-25-2014, 06:56 PM
I think what makes Pop so great is the opposite - we've seen him completely flip his system on its head to feature Parker more over the past 5-6 years and hasn't skipped a freakin' beat.

Umm...that doesn't make any sense. It's the same championship core, same system, and nothing you say makes any sense. It was a nice spin you put on it though.

Supreme LA
03-25-2014, 06:58 PM
We actually have no idea if Jackson is an AMAZING coach or not.

Is Erik Spoelstra an amazing coach?

Yes we have. Just look at how PJ turned the Lakers around from a miserable season under Rudy-T filled with scrubs and PJ took that very same team in 06-07 to a 7th seed and forced the 2 seed Suns to a game 7. Had they gotten past the Suns there is no telling how far they would have gone with that roster because they were to face the Clippers the very next round.

hugepatsfan
03-25-2014, 07:05 PM
Just because Pop is winning in a landslide in the poll doesn't mean people don't think it's even close. If you think Pop is just a hair ahead of Riley/PJ it still counts as 1 vote for him and none for the other 2.

kdspurman
03-25-2014, 07:11 PM
Umm...that doesn't make any sense. It's the same championship core, same system, and nothing you say makes any sense. It was a nice spin you put on it though.

The Spurs system has significantly changed since the mid 2000's.

beasted86
03-25-2014, 07:19 PM
Pop never coached Rodman.

And most believe it was Jordan that kept Rodman 'in line', though I would hardly call headbutting an official and kicking a camera man keeping somebody inline.

Pop has gotten the most out of troubled players in the past, like Stephen Jackson, so this doesn't even hold water.

Next.

Pop got the most out of Jackson? What year is this? Who am I again? This must be the twilight zone.

Vinylman
03-25-2014, 07:35 PM
Or we have a different definitions of ring chaser. You wanted a list of ring chasers from LA, I gave a list. Just because you already have a ring doesn't mean you don't chase after another one. You can have 6 rings and still chase a 7th, ask Robert Horry why he signed with the Spurs and why he tried signing with Boston after the Garnett/Allen deals went through.

And it is LONG. You don't have to be an All-Star. When Ron Artest was a free agent, he could have signed for more than the MLE.

A ring chaser is a person who signs a contract with a team based on the fact that that team is a contender. Period.

I gave you your list. Don't act like Phil didn't have a boat load of talent to work with in LA and that the talent had nothing to do with the winning.
Jackson is an AMAZING coach, but he had a LOT of help.

Period.

your list is garbage .

your unwillingness to address my refutation of your preposterous point tells me you aren't worth engaging

enjoy your normal self fellating in the forum

beasted86
03-25-2014, 07:36 PM
The Spurs system has significantly changed since the mid 2000's.

The system is exactly the same. The only thing that has changed is the usage rate of Duncan. Of course if your offense features more post ups your pace will be slower.

The system itself is exactly the same motion system. It just features less post ups over the past 5 or so years. The defensive system is also exactly the same. They play traditional basically all the time with a PF and C, man to man, show and recover on the pick and roll (go under), they play behind on post ups (no fronting), and don't double/trap out on the perimeter.

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2014, 07:40 PM
This is, of course, pure nonsense. Everywhere Riley went, they made it to the finals.

Lakers - player
Suns - player
Lakers - coach
Knicks - coach
Heat - coach
Heat - executive


But yea, he was just gifte a team.....

Lol

Firstly, let's not pretend that Pat Riley as a player was anything more than a fringe rotation player. Don't kid yourself.

AS to his success, if you want to pretend that he didn't hit the lottery getting the Lakers as his first job, go ahead. That team didn't need him to win. He had Magic and Kareem and then added Worthy to that. That was West who built that team through the draft and through trades.

If he got the Bucks as his first assignment, do you think the Knicks would have given him a job? Seriously? Twice he watch Miami turn into lottery teams under his coaching. Pop picked up a lottery team and after his first season never had less than 50 win (or the equivalent winning percentage). Can Riley say that? No. He had to wait until Jordan took a year of before he got NY to the finals, in a weak east, and then he couldn't beat the Rockets. BFD.


The with the Heat, he lets his assistant pile up losing seasons and then takes over when the team is ready to win a championship? Come on. And had the Lakers not been looking to get rid of Shaq, he would have never won a championship in Miami.


But yeah... Pat Riley as a play lifted the suns and the Lakers to the finals with his .414 shooting percentage and his 7.4 points per game and his 1.6 rebounds. They would have never been able to do that without him. And Kareem and Magic only won because Pat was there.

Please.

Bruno
03-25-2014, 07:48 PM
1. Pops
2. Jackson
3. Riley

Feel very solid about that list :shrug:

I get arguing against Pops by saying "he's always had Duncan"...but the dude has turned so much other **** into gold. What's he's done with these teams recently is amazing to me, even as good as TP and Duncan are.
who falls into that category in your opinion?

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2014, 07:50 PM
I just want to say, that when Riley coached the Lakers, he had Magic and Kareem AND Worthy. Now most people would rank Kareem over Duncan, or Magic over Duncan, no? Let's take Magic as the franchise player. Duncan is winning them with an aged Manu and a 30+ Parker. Riley had prime Worthy and aged Kareem. Would either Kareem or Worthy rank lower than Manu and Parker? Not to mention the excellent drafting West did (Scott, Green, Perkins).

Jackson had perhaps the greatest player ever (Jordan) to go along with the greatest rebounder ever and one of the best two-way players and best small forwards in Pippen. Would either Pippen or Rodman rank below Parker or Manu? And then with the Lakers he had Kobe and Shaq for three. Shaq and Kobe would both rank above Duncan on most people's list. Would Kobe rank below either Manu or Parker for Shaq's run? And for Kobe's run as the franchise guy, would Bynum's level of play and Gasol's level of play rank them below Parke or Manu?




Not only would most people rank Duncan below Magic, Jordan, Shaq and Kobe, but the supporting cast that these guys had would also rank above Pop's supporting cast with the lone exception of the 99 squad when Robinson was in his prime. That said, has Pop ever had the same level of talent on his roster that Riley or Jackson had? No. Yet he has managed to win 4 championships and post SEVENTEEN STRAIGHT SEASONS of 50+ wins (or equivalent winning percentages) despite having guys that aren't even perennial All-Stars on his roster. Neither Riley, nor Jackson ever pulled off that kind of consistency, and both Jackson and Riley inherited dynasties for their first job and then got to pick winning situations afterwards.


All three are amazing coaches, but let's be honest when looking at the level of success and talent each guy has had.

Pop is clearly the pick here. And frankly, I'd take Sloan over Riley in a heartbeat if they were both 40, and maybe even over Jackson as well.

Bruno
03-25-2014, 08:00 PM
The system is exactly the same. The only thing that has changed is the usage rate of Duncan. Of course if your offense features more post ups your pace will be slower.

The system itself is exactly the same motion system. It just features less post ups over the past 5 or so years. The defensive system is also exactly the same. They play traditional basically all the time with a PF and C, man to man, show and recover on the pick and roll (go under), they play behind on post ups (no fronting), and don't double/trap out on the perimeter.
I get that the Spurs pace has increased. from the start of their run up until 2008-2009 they played at a notoriously slow space. starting in 2009-2010 they sped up the pace gradually and as of today they are at a pace of 95 possessions per game which is 12th in the league. I'd argue that Duncans significant minute decreased from 2008-2009 to today and Parker taking the regular season reigns has more to do with the sped up pace than a significant change in the way they play or run their system. and if that's what it is then pop should get some credit for successfully shifting the regular season reigns from Duncan to Parker, but I think that accomplishment is slightly overblown by the pop voters here. Riley had the exact same power shift between KAJ and Magic in the mid 80's. the boat kept rolling. Same thing would have happened in the mid 2000's between Shaq and Kobe if they weren't such ego manics.

is he consistent or has he radically changed the way the play basketball since 2009? which is it? can't be both.

I don't think the Spurs have radically changed since 2008-2009. I think Duncans adjusted minutes (and the emergence of Leonard) and Parker taking over the regular season reigns combined with the fact that the entire league has sped up the pace has more to do with the Spurs increased pace than a significant change in the anchors of the roster or the way they approach the game. the average league pace in 2008-2009 was 91.7 possessions per game. today it is 94.1. relative to the increase in pace on the league average, the Spurs aren't that above the curve to suggest that they've made a radical change.

i only read what you wrote when i get another minute ill check out KD's posts.

Bruno
03-25-2014, 08:09 PM
I just want to say, that when Riley coached the Lakers, he had Magic and Kareem AND Worthy. Now most people would rank Kareem over Duncan, or Magic over Duncan, no? Let's take Magic as the franchise player. Duncan is winning them with an aged Manu and a 30+ Parker. Riley had prime Worthy and aged Kareem. Would either Kareem or Worthy rank lower than Manu and Parker? Not to mention the excellent drafting West did (Scott, Green, Perkins).

Jackson had perhaps the greatest player ever (Jordan) to go along with the greatest rebounder ever and one of the best two-way players and best small forwards in Pippen. Would either Pippen or Rodman rank below Parker or Manu? And then with the Lakers he had Kobe and Shaq for three. Shaq and Kobe would both rank above Duncan on most people's list. Would Kobe rank below either Manu or Parker for Shaq's run? And for Kobe's run as the franchise guy, would Bynum's level of play and Gasol's level of play rank them below Parke or Manu?




Not only would most people rank Duncan below Magic, Jordan, Shaq and Kobe, but the supporting cast that these guys had would also rank above Pop's supporting cast with the lone exception of the 99 squad when Robinson was in his prime. That said, has Pop ever had the same level of talent on his roster that Riley or Jackson had? No. Yet he has managed to win 4 championships and post SEVENTEEN STRAIGHT SEASONS of 50+ wins (or equivalent winning percentages) despite having guys that aren't even perennial All-Stars on his roster. Neither Riley, nor Jackson ever pulled off that kind of consistency, and both Jackson and Riley inherited dynasties for their first job and then got to pick winning situations afterwards.


All three are amazing coaches, but let's be honest when looking at the level of success and talent each guy has had.

Pop is clearly the pick here. And frankly, I'd take Sloan over Riley in a heartbeat if they were both 40, and maybe even over Jackson as well.
jackson never inherited a dynasty. nobody won before he showed up, on the bulls or Lakers. he inherited talent, which he honed and transformed into championship material. he also turned role players and average players into important cogs in his machine, just like Pop gets credit for (Kerr, Fisher, ext). getting so many players to fit and emerge through the triangle offense is every bit as impressive as the notion that's being thrown around here- that Pop is now operating under a different approach to the game, as to adjust to the talent he has on his team. Jackson has gotten a lot of average NBA players to fit in and understand one of the most complicated offenses around. he gets zero credit for this from all you Pop voters.

Bruno
03-25-2014, 08:13 PM
it's nice arguing in the corner of the guy who's got it all for once. now i know how all you bulls fans feel. way easier.

kdspurman
03-25-2014, 08:25 PM
The system is exactly the same. The only thing that has changed is the usage rate of Duncan. Of course if your offense features more post ups your pace will be slower.

The system itself is exactly the same motion system. It just features less post ups over the past 5 or so years. The defensive system is also exactly the same. They play traditional basically all the time with a PF and C, man to man, show and recover on the pick and roll (go under), they play behind on post ups (no fronting), and don't double/trap out on the perimeter.

That's just not true at all man. Pop has openly said they had to change their system based on the personnel that they have and adapting to the way the game is played today. Playing small ball, having a PG be the engine of the offense, being more perimeter based attacking team the majority of the time.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/22261/the-spurs-new-offense


Several years ago Parker went to Pop and announced that he didn't want to be the next Avery Johnson, the Pop-molded point guard with whom the Spurs won their first title, in 1999. "I told Pop I didn't want to be a point guard who just runs the team," says Parker. "After that Pop adapted his coaching more to my play and Manu's play. You can talk to Pop. A lot of coaches, you can't."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1207572/5/index.htm


Since their last championship in 2007, the NBA has changed to a quicker perimeter oriented league. The Spurs can no longer count on an aging Duncan or their once heralded defense. To adjust to the new rules, Gregg Popovich has turned the keys of his offense over to his perimeter players.

http://spursmotionoffense.blogspot.com/p/basics-of-offense.html

It seemed obvious to me and most that their system has changed.

mrblisterdundee
03-26-2014, 01:44 AM
The Spurs are the greatest small-market franchise in NBA history largely because of Popovich. Could you imagine him running the show in a place like Los Angeles?

mrblisterdundee
03-26-2014, 01:46 AM
Popovich easily. He can win without having superstars on the team. He makes scrubs look like stars.

Remember when he sat out Duncan, Ginobili and Parker and came within about six points of beating a full Heat squad last year in Miami?

mrblisterdundee
03-26-2014, 01:58 AM
who falls into that category in your opinion?

I think he meant Popovich's all-inclusive schemes that have made seeming afterthoughts into integral role players. In that group I'd include:
Patty Mills
Boris Diaw
Marco Belinelli
Danny Green
Roger Mason
Matt Bonner
Gary Neal
DeJuan Blair
George Hill

There are more, but I don't want to dig in that much.

naps
03-26-2014, 05:45 AM
Riley is not even in consideration for me. He had great success with the Lakers, but he was gifted a championship team as a rookie coach, and one that was then given a James Worthy. The Lakers success could have continued, but Riley's ego got in the way, and an ego is something have to be able to keep in check in a team sport. In his autobiography, Jerry West noted that the feeling among the organization was that Riley though HE was the star of the team and that HE was the reason they won. That said, one must given credit to his ability and diversity as a coach. With the Lakers he had a very gifted offensive team and he played to their strengths, where as with the Knicks, he had a team that could run the floor like that and he redefined the franchise as a defensive team and made them contenders in the process. It was two COMPLETELY different styles and both were extremely successful, so I think he deserves a lot of credit there.

As for Jackson, I don't think there is a guy that can handle egos as well, and develop talent better (though Pop is on a par with him). People underestimate the impact Jackson had on Pippen in turning him from a great rotation player, into a HOF player. With another coach, Pippen may have never even been an All-Star, but Jackson helped develop his passing game and defense, which is what defined him against other SF of his generation. And he also got Jordan to trust his teammates. If Jordan continued to play the "Me" ball that he did before Jackson took over, he would have been looked at more as George Gervin+ than the GOAT.


But that said, Pop is easily my pick. He is humble, he can make almost any player work in his system, he has a universal system that allows everybody to succeed. He understands the long-game better than any coach, he knows how important it is to develop the bench and get them minutes in games, and he gives the credit to his success to his players. Jackson does to, but Riley certainly likes to take the lion's share of the credit, and Riley has given up when teams got bad and was only able to win with AMAZING rosters. Pop has put together 17 straight season of 50+ wins (or equivalent winning percentages) with aging stars and limited role players.


1. Pop
2. Jackson










3. Riley.

wow what a ridiculous post. Go take a deep look at Riley's resume. Damn man!

naps
03-26-2014, 05:56 AM
again, Riley had such a stacked team with the Lakers, its tough to gauge. His 90s work was more impressive to me, he TOTALLY changed styles and was still effective, even if he didn't win a ring.

Great coach, but just a tier under Pops/Phil

All three of them had stacked teams.

sammyvine
03-26-2014, 06:39 AM
riley is a notch below jackson and pop

JasonJohnHorn
03-26-2014, 08:16 AM
jackson never inherited a dynasty. nobody won before he showed up, on the bulls or Lakers. he inherited talent, which he honed and transformed into championship material. he also turned role players and average players into important cogs in his machine, just like Pop gets credit for (Kerr, Fisher, ext). getting so many players to fit and emerge through the triangle offense is every bit as impressive as the notion that's being thrown around here- that Pop is now operating under a different approach to the game, as to adjust to the talent he has on his team. Jackson has gotten a lot of average NBA players to fit in and understand one of the most complicated offenses around. he gets zero credit for this from all you Pop voters.


I agree with much of what you said. Phil Jackson is an AMAZING coach. He is HISTORICALLY great.

I just think Pop is better.


Try this. Rank the following players: Shaq, Kobe, Jordan and Duncan. Pippen, Rodman, Glen Rice, Gasol, Artest, Manu and Parker and past-his-prime Robinson from 00-03.

Once you rank those guys you will see why Pop is amazing.

Also, Pop has been coaching for 18 years, and other than his first season in which he stepped into a team that without it's franchise player for the entire season, he has had 50+ wins or an equivalent winning percentage. Jackson has never had that kind of success so consistently.

And if you don't think being handed a team that was ALREADY at the conference finals and had Jordan and Pippen is being handed a dynasty, orthat picking up a team that had Kobe and Shaq, who many consider to be the two best players in the league at the time, isn't a being handed dynasty I don't know what is.

3RDASYSTEM
03-26-2014, 09:41 AM
Phil had MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Shaq, Kobe, Gasol. I mean, he is a great chemistry coach, and gets the star players on the same page, which is so hard to do. But as far as pure basketball coach, Pops is the best in the business. He turns other teams rejects into contributing role players on championship teams. Obviously having Duncan, Manu, and TP doesn't hurt, but imo, he made Manu and Parker better than they might have ever been with another team.

POP had a aging but still effective DROB who was hof'er material day 1 until he got old, then he teamed him up with a young stud future hof'er in DUNCAN, then for this era he had 2 of the top 5 international players as 1 turned out to be 6th man of yr/everyday starter if needed and the other went from finals mvp to some claiming he was top 3 player/mvp candidate last 2yrs or so and he also had a perimeter DPOY candidate in BOWEN and now has a younger better all around athletic version in K LEONARD, POP runs a nice structure and movement system but his bread and butter is the pick and roll with PARKER/MANU

he has had plenty of supreme talent, especially considering how weak this era has been even compared to the early 00's when it started to dip

all 3 of these coaches are legit with POP over those 2 but

L BROWN is the best coach by far, not even close if you go look at the bottom feeders he took to the playoffs/finals, and then he goes to coach a ready ship squad and goes to back to back finals and almost comes out 2 for 2 if not for big shot BOB

BROWN is the best by a landslide, not even close

b@llhog24
03-26-2014, 10:36 AM
Gosh darn it you're weird.

Sent via Tapatalk

JasonJohnHorn
03-26-2014, 10:45 AM
L BROWN is the best coach by far, not even close if you go look at the bottom feeders he took to the playoffs/finals, and then he goes to coach a ready ship squad and goes to back to back finals and almost comes out 2 for 2 if not for big shot BOB

BROWN is the best by a landslide, not even close

Brown is a HOF coach and an amazing talent, and I wouldn't agree that he's the best, but I would put him in the conversation. He has draw backs, such as his issue with rookies, but he is grossly underrated. If anybody goes back and looks at the Philly roster... and look at the rest of Iverson's career arc in terms of playoff success, you will see he worked wonders there. He won a ring in Detroit without a franchise player (when was the last time that happened) and he's always helped improve teams.

If Pop, Jackson, Riley and Brown were all 40 years old and I had a choice to sign them, I'd go Pop, Jack, Brown and then Riley. Riley is a great motivator (and a great coach), but when it comes to coaching, Brown is simply better.


I am not saying Riley isn't a great coach. He is. One of the best all time. But I also believe that if his first job was the with a lottery team instead of a championship team, his career arc would look more like Don Nelson than Larry Brown (though Riley is easily a better coach than Nelson).

slashsnake
03-26-2014, 02:01 PM
L BROWN is the best coach by far, not even close if you go look at the bottom feeders he took to the playoffs/finals, and then he goes to coach a ready ship squad and goes to back to back finals and almost comes out 2 for 2 if not for big shot BOB

BROWN is the best by a landslide, not even close

I guess my problem with Brown is his inability to stick anywhere. I wonder if hes been fired or quit more times than the other three combined, and when he isnt getting fired and actually doing well, he tends to try and wander towards something bigger and better.

Even when he won his championship, his talking to other teams caused the Pistons to agree to buy out his contract and send him packing. To me, I would rather pick a coach who accomplished something (in this case winning 4+ championships) than find the excuses why someone else didnt when talking about the best of the best.

Throw in the Olympic debacle, and Id stick with Jackson, Pop, and Riley even if he is the better teacher. I just think that what set those others apart was they didnt just win a ring, but they stuck there and won multiples on their stays.

FYL_McVeezy
03-26-2014, 03:48 PM
I'll take Phil, but I respect the choice of Popovich. He's a great teacher of the game and he gets everyone to buy into his system and teaching methods. I don't knock Phil for having HOF talent. He maximized the potential of Kobe, Shaq, MJ and Pippen....also you don't win in this league w/o star power anyways. Pop doesn't lead a team to 4 chips w/o arguably the GOAT PF in Duncan.....

Riley is a damn good coach as well....I'll take any of the 3 TBH...who wouldn't?