PDA

View Full Version : Does Pat Riley often get underrated in comparisons with Pop and Phil? If so why?



Purch
05-29-2017, 06:01 PM
It seems on the surface that you can make the argument than Riley was the most adaptable coach in history. I can think of very few coaches that have been successful coaching teams as radically different as the Showtime Lakers and the 90's knicks.

He has all the championship hardwear, was very highly regarded and in many years his teamed performed much higher than expectations.

Also, Pop and Riley were the only coaches to ever win 3 coach of the year awards


So speaking strictly in terms of coaches, why is he sometimes thought of as less than these 2?

GREATNESS ONE
05-29-2017, 06:06 PM
I think so, probably because he was an 80's coach and most people on PSD weren't even born yet.

More-Than-Most
05-29-2017, 06:31 PM
He should get thought of less than those 2 because those 2 are the GOATs of their sports :shrug:

Its like asking if Kobe/Lebron etc are underrated because they are thought of as less than jordan.... But in fact its just because Jordan is GOAT and they are tier or tiers below.

GREATNESS ONE
05-29-2017, 06:47 PM
What?

Phil has 11 and 1 as a player
Pop has 5 as a coach
Pat has 4 as a coach, 1 as an asst coach, 1 as a player and 2 more as the mastermind behind the first super team
team-up.

...... I don't see tiers, just an age difference in actually watching the game.


All of these guys were big time players in this NBA and we haven't even included Jerry West yet.

Purch
05-29-2017, 06:50 PM
He should get thought of less than those 2 because those 2 are the GOATs of their sports :shrug:

Its like asking if Kobe/Lebron etc are underrated because they are thought of as less than jordan.... But in fact its just because Jordan is GOAT and they are tier or tiers below.

My question is what do you feel he didn't do that those guys did?

Something with x' and o's? Player development?

He has the same rings as Pop but with 3 more finals appearances. So I'm just trying to understand

GREATNESS ONE
05-29-2017, 06:51 PM
And I totally blanked about the one he won with Shaq/Wade. That's a total of 9 rings, with Riley having a huge influence in each Championship.

Purch
05-29-2017, 06:53 PM
Delete

Raps18-19 Champ
05-29-2017, 08:53 PM
Well the other 2 are just better.

GREATNESS ONE
05-29-2017, 08:59 PM
Delete

Lol it just slipped my mind for a second, you could've left your post, I totally agreed with it!

Quinnsanity
05-30-2017, 02:17 AM
It seems on the surface that you can make the argument than Riley was the most adaptable coach in history. I can think of very few coaches that have been successful coaching teams as radically different as the Showtime Lakers and the 90's knicks.

He has all the championship hardwear, was very highly regarded and in many years his teamed performed much higher than expectations.

Also, Pop and Riley were the only coaches to ever win 3 coach of the year awards


So speaking strictly in terms of coaches, why is he sometimes thought of as less than these 2?

This is the reason I have Riley No. 2 on my all time coaching rankings. Pop is first. Riley second. Auerbach third. Phil 4th. Riley's adaptability is incredibly valuable.

Purch
05-30-2017, 03:51 AM
Well the other 2 are just better.

But why do you say that? Was it something that they accomplished that he didn't?

Was it x's and o'so? Game to game adjustments?

He's extremely well regarded amongst players, and his 3 coach of the years would suggest that he was highly regarded by the league as well.

So what is it that makes them so clearly better?

FOXHOUND
05-30-2017, 04:51 AM
Riley does seem to get lost a bit in the shuffle. You don't coach in an NBA Finals in 3 different decades, winning in two, with the bookends coming 22-years apart by accident. Maybe it's him being punished more for having great talent than others, with people ignoring talent relative to league instead of directly comparing? Maybe it's that he lost 4 Finals? I'll take a 5-4 Finals record over a 5-0 any day, but some people are definitely more obsessed about that record than others.

Scoots
05-30-2017, 08:55 AM
My personal favorite is Pop because of style, but Riley has done more to change the game than Pop or Phil. Without Riley we don't have the dominance of the 3.

Big Zo
05-30-2017, 10:25 AM
Riley was able to win back to back titles. Something Pop has yet to do. I also think Phil was a huge beneficiary of having MJ/Pippen and Shaq/Kobe.

hugepatsfan
05-30-2017, 10:34 AM
Riley was able to win back to back titles. Something Pop has yet to do. I also think Phil was a huge beneficiary of having MJ/Pippen and Shaq/Kobe.

Magic/Kareem are better duos than either of those. Most people would say that's #2/3 all time. MJ is #1 but Pippen isn't even top 15 on most lists I see. Shaq is probably in the 5 range and Kobe is back of the top 10/just outside. Magic/Kareem as a duo is better than any of those groups you're saying Phil benefited from.

Big Zo
05-30-2017, 11:13 AM
Magic/Kareem are better duos than either of those. Most people would say that's #2/3 all time. MJ is #1 but Pippen isn't even top 15 on most lists I see. Shaq is probably in the 5 range and Kobe is back of the top 10/just outside. Magic/Kareem as a duo is better than any of those groups you're saying Phil benefited from.
Kareem was already 35 when Pat took over the as HC in '82. Phil had his guys all in their prime. And even still you can make a case that Shaq/Kobe were better than Magic/Kareem.

Gibby23
05-30-2017, 11:41 AM
Kareem was already 35 when Pat took over the as HC in '82. Phil had his guys all in their prime. And even still you can make a case that Shaq/Kobe were better than Magic/Kareem.

Kareem was still dominant in 82 and 85 and really good in 88. Pat also had Worthy, B Scott, AC Green, Thompson, Cooper, Wilkes, Rambis, Bob McAdoo, and Rambis sprinkled in on those title teams in different years as Kareem declined.

Big Zo
05-30-2017, 12:05 PM
Kareem was still dominant in 82 and 85 and really good in 88. Pat also had Worthy, B Scott, AC Green, Thompson, Cooper, Wilkes, Rambis, Bob McAdoo, and Rambis sprinkled in on those title teams in different years as Kareem declined.

Phil still had the better players, and for a longer period of time. Pat had Magic and Kareem for 7 years. Phil had Mj/Pippen Shaq/Kobe and Kobe/Gasol to work with from 1989-2011.

Gibby23
05-30-2017, 12:09 PM
Phil still had the better players, and for a longer period of time. Pat had Magic and Kareem for 7 years. Phil had Mj/Pippen Shaq/Kobe and Kobe/Gasol to work with from 1989-2011.

Pat had better teams and depth by a huge margin. I think he is a top 3 coach, I like him better than Phil. I think Pat has the best finals win with the least amount of talent with that Wade/Shaq heat team, Shoq was on the decline.

Big Zo
05-30-2017, 12:22 PM
Pat had better teams and depth by a huge margin. I think he is a top 3 coach, I like him better than Phil. I think Pat has the best finals win with the least amount of talent with that Wade/Shaq heat team, Shoq was on the decline.

I don't see it. And again, we're talking about a 7 year span in which Pat was able to win 4 titles, vs what Phil had for the better part of 20 years.

FOXHOUND
05-30-2017, 01:11 PM
It's also important to note how talented the teams the 80's Lakers were playing deep in the playoffs. Bird's Celtics were also insanely stacked and Bird was the best player in the league for a time. Moses and Dr. J's 76ers were super talented as well, they didn't go 12-1 in the postseason for no reason. The Pistons with Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Dantley, Laimbeer, Mahorn, Vinnie Johnson, Salley. I mean **** lol.

The overall talent on teams was spread out much more in the 90's with the addition of unrestricted free agency. I would argue that the 90's Bulls with Jordan had a bigger talent advantage than their opponents in almost every series they played from 91 on. The one exception would be the 95 series they lost to the Magic with Kukoc at PF. The Magic having Grant, clearly looking to prove something to his old team on top of it, was the difference in that series. The Bulls then went out and got All-NBA 3rd team player Dennis Rodman, moved Kukoc to 6th Man and the rest is history.

hugepatsfan
05-30-2017, 01:19 PM
Kareem was already 35 when Pat took over the as HC in '82. Phil had his guys all in their prime. And even still you can make a case that Shaq/Kobe were better than Magic/Kareem.

That's very fair. He didn't have prime Kareem. He was definitely still a great player though. Riley had loaded teams as all of these great coaches did. I just think it's a bit disingenuous to try and use the talent argument against or for any of them.

Hawkeye15
05-30-2017, 03:17 PM
It's also important to note how talented the teams the 80's Lakers were playing deep in the playoffs. Bird's Celtics were also insanely stacked and Bird was the best player in the league for a time. Moses and Dr. J's 76ers were super talented as well, they didn't go 12-1 in the postseason for no reason. The Pistons with Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Dantley, Laimbeer, Mahorn, Vinnie Johnson, Salley. I mean **** lol.

The overall talent on teams was spread out much more in the 90's with the addition of unrestricted free agency. I would argue that the 90's Bulls with Jordan had a bigger talent advantage than their opponents in almost every series they played from 91 on. The one exception would be the 95 series they lost to the Magic with Kukoc at PF. The Magic having Grant, clearly looking to prove something to his old team on top of it, was the difference in that series. The Bulls then went out and got All-NBA 3rd team player Dennis Rodman, moved Kukoc to 6th Man and the rest is history.

what do you mean here?

Purch
05-30-2017, 07:11 PM
Riley was able to win back to back titles. Something Pop has yet to do. I also think Phil was a huge beneficiary of having MJ/Pippen and Shaq/Kobe.


I don't really put that much on the whole back to back aspect. To be a better point is that Riley won the same amount of rings as pop but also went to 3 more finals

Purch
06-13-2017, 12:36 PM
So I figure it might make sense to look at the completion that Pop and RIley faced during their 5 finals runs


Pat Riley

82 Suns (46-36)
82 Spurs (48-34)
82 76ers (58-24)

85 Suns (36-46)
85 Blazers (42-40)
85 Nuggets (52-30)
85 Celtics (63-19)

87 Nuggets (37-25)
87 Warriors (42-40)
87 Sonics (39-43)
87 Celtics (59-23)

88 Spurs (31-51)
88 Jazz (47-35)
88 Mavs (53-29)
88 Pistons (54-28)

06 Bulls (41-41)
06 Nets (49-33)
06 Pistons (64-18)
06 Mavs (60-22)




Gregg Popovich

99 Timberwolves (25-25)
99 Lakers (31-19)
99 Blazers (35-15)
99 Knicks (27-23)

03 Suns (44-38)
03 Lakers (50-32)
03 Mavs (60-22)
03 Nets (49-33)

05 Nuggets (49-33)
05 Sonics (52-30)
05 Suns (62-20)
05 Pistons (54-28)

07 Nuggets (45-37)
07 Suns (61-21)
07 Jazz (51-31)
07 Cavs (50-32)

14 Mavs (49-33)
14 Blazers (54-28)
14 Thunder (59-23)
14 Heat (54-28)

So when I looked across these teams, I came to a simple conclusion. It seems like throughout their title runs Popovich faced the tougher competition leading up to the finals (the semi's and conference finals). Whiles Riley on the other hand seemed to have face tougher competition in terms of actual finals opponents. So it's hard for me to really give one the edge in competion during their 5 title runs

Quinnsanity
06-13-2017, 03:45 PM
I strongly believe Riles is a better coach than Phil. He adapted to his talent. Look at how different the Showtime Lakers were from his Knicks and early Heat teams. Phil never did that. He consistently forced his players into the triangle, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. His players were so overwhelmingly talented that it worked, but you could argue that he had the best player in the NBA for all 11 of his titles. That's not to say Riley didn't have great talent, because he certainly did, but Phil had Jordan at his peak, then he had Shaq at his peak, then he had Kobe at his peak. That's three all timers with three different peaks, always with other Hall of Famers in tow. I think Riley definitely could have won all 11 of Phil's rings. I don't think Phil would win all of Riley's.

Hawkeye15
06-13-2017, 03:53 PM
It's also important to note how talented the teams the 80's Lakers were playing deep in the playoffs. Bird's Celtics were also insanely stacked and Bird was the best player in the league for a time. Moses and Dr. J's 76ers were super talented as well, they didn't go 12-1 in the postseason for no reason. The Pistons with Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Dantley, Laimbeer, Mahorn, Vinnie Johnson, Salley. I mean **** lol.

The overall talent on teams was spread out much more in the 90's with the addition of unrestricted free agency. I would argue that the 90's Bulls with Jordan had a bigger talent advantage than their opponents in almost every series they played from 91 on. The one exception would be the 95 series they lost to the Magic with Kukoc at PF. The Magic having Grant, clearly looking to prove something to his old team on top of it, was the difference in that series. The Bulls then went out and got All-NBA 3rd team player Dennis Rodman, moved Kukoc to 6th Man and the rest is history.

huh? Seriously, have you looked at the teams the Lakers faced in the 80's out west?

hugepatsfan
06-13-2017, 03:53 PM
I strongly believe Riles is a better coach than Phil. He adapted to his talent. Look at how different the Showtime Lakers were from his Knicks and early Heat teams. Phil never did that. He consistently forced his players into the triangle, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. His players were so overwhelmingly talented that it worked, but you could argue that he had the best player in the NBA for all 11 of his titles. That's not to say Riley didn't have great talent, because he certainly did, but Phil had Jordan at his peak, then he had Shaq at his peak, then he had Kobe at his peak. That's three all timers with three different peaks, always with other Hall of Famers in tow. I think Riley definitely could have won all 11 of Phil's rings. I don't think Phil would win all of Riley's.

I don't really disagree with your overall point but I do disagree with the last statement. Riley won 4 rings with the showtime Lakers - I think Phil could have managed there. The 5th run was with the Wade/Shaq Heat team and I think that team fit Phil's style well. I think he definitely could have won all 5 of Riley's rings.

Purch
06-13-2017, 05:58 PM
huh? Seriously, have you looked at the teams the Lakers faced in the 80's out west?

In the above post, where I listed the teams Riley face during his finals runs.. some of those West teams weren't all that impressive.

Just pretty average

JasonJohnHorn
06-14-2017, 12:23 PM
I think of the three, Pop is clearly the best. He's had dramatically different teams and styles, shifting from the double-post play/twin towers to the in-out/attacking the basket style, to the perimeter play. He's always managed to win effectively.

I feel like PJax gets overrated. 11 rings is amazing. He inherited a great team in Chicago, and though his defensive approach was critical to the Bulls success, it was Tex Winters' triangle that made that team an offensive juggernaut. PJax was amazing. Yes. But he was really an assistant to Jordan those first three titles. Any number of coaches could have won those titles with Jordan. Though many would have not won as many. PJax's D was amazing.

In LAL, he just picked up a dynasty ready to go. He had the two best offensive players in the league. He won three titles, and like the Bulls, his teams in LAL got a lot of help from the officials as well. When you have Shaq and Kobe, it's hard not to win. I think even more so than in Chicago, most any coach would have some away with those titles.

His last two titles in LAL were the most impressive to me in terms of his coaching. I thought those were the times he really showed how valuable he was as a coach. And he took a lottery team and got it to where it needed to be to win, whereas he had inherited contenders with the first 9 titles.

I feel like Riley was great, but he was also an @$$hole. I don't think he had nearly as much to do with the LAL titles as he would like to believe. I feel like Magic was like LBJ and just wanted a coach that would defer to him. He got one coach fired, and essentially hand picked Riley. In reading West's autobiography, it seems like Riley began taking more credit for the wins than players thought he deserved, and Riley's ego was creating friction with the team. Hence, nobody was sad to see him go. He didn't give players time to relax and celebrate. After their back-to-back title, he immediately started talking about a three-pete, and the players felt like he was taking away from the celebration and was more concerned with his own legacy and reputation and making the players get back to work, rather than letting them celebrate their accomplishments.


What was impressive about Riley to me was the 180 he did in NY. He went from the showtime Lakers to the Detroit Bad boys 2.0 NY. He learned from watching the Pistons beat up on the Lakers, and applied that in NY. And also in Miami. He won games at an elite level with two totally different styles that fit the players. That really impressed me. It's not like 'Antoni, who is an absolutely horrid coach when the players he has don't fit the system he likes. The same can be said of PJax, given his insistence on the triangle in NY despite the fact the personnel can't run it.

I think his ego and his idea of his own legacy gets in the way of his relationships, whch hurts teams, but by and large, he does far more good than harm.

Red A. is about the best coach the league has ever seen in my mind. Then Pop. Riley, PJax, and Sloan are right up there. And I think there are a couple of other guys who were right there but simply weren't as lucky. Guys like Lenny Wilkens, and Chuck Daly, who each got a couple of chance to win and got it, but who didn't get the numerous chances that Pop, Red, PJAx, and Riely got.

IKnowHoops
06-14-2017, 01:06 PM
Magic/Kareem are better duos than either of those. Most people would say that's #2/3 all time. MJ is #1 but Pippen isn't even top 15 on most lists I see. Shaq is probably in the 5 range and Kobe is back of the top 10/just outside. Magic/Kareem as a duo is better than any of those groups you're saying Phil benefited from.

Kareem was not in his prime, and nobody has Magic ahead of Shaq. Shaq and Kobe were in there prime together for many years. Jordan and Pippen were in there Prime together for there whole careers. Huge difference, but Riley also had Worthy.

At the end of the day both had amazing players.

Pop on the other hand has been the most consistent coach in NBA history. He's won 50 games or more since the late 90's. He makes all players good players when they come to him. He is easily the best coach.

Purch
06-14-2017, 03:14 PM
I think of the three, Pop is clearly the best. He's had dramatically different teams and styles, shifting from the double-post play/twin towers to the in-out/attacking the basket style, to the perimeter play. He's always managed to win effectively.



To me this would apply to Riley even more so than Pop. If you consider the vast differences between the Showtime Lakers?, 90's Knicks and the 2000's heat, it's hard to claim anyone in NBA history is more versatile than Riley. Riley had to adapt his teams to completely different playstyles in different eras, just like Pop. However the difference is that Riley did it with completely different cores. Pop still had his main staple guys (Duncan, Manu, Parker) even when they were transitioning to different styles of play. Riley on the other hand had three vastly different cores and created vastly different playstyles for each one of them, whiles also finding success. So whiles Pop is definitely versatile, the differences between Riley coaches teams we're so drastic that it's hard for me to let anyone edge him in that department.

FlashBolt
06-14-2017, 03:32 PM
Pop to me is probably the best NBA coach. Every time I watch the Raptors play, I think about how Cory Joseph has developed into such a good player with just insane fundamentals. That doesn't happen without Pop. He's a damn amazing coach in the NBA but I think the NBA as a whole would be better if Pop was a mentor for some of these college kids going to the NBA. What he can do for them and the league can potentially change how it's played.

JasonJohnHorn
06-14-2017, 04:27 PM
To me this would apply to Riley even more so than Pop. If you consider the vast differences between the Showtime Lakers?, 90's Knicks and the 2000's heat, it's hard to claim anyone in NBA history is more versatile than Riley. Riley had to adapt his teams to completely different playstyles in different eras, just like Pop. However the difference is that Riley did it with completely different cores. Pop still had his main staple guys (Duncan, Manu, Parker) even when they were transitioning to different styles of play. Riley on the other hand had three vastly different cores and created vastly different playstyles for each one of them, whiles also finding success. So whiles Pop is definitely versatile, the differences between Riley coaches teams we're so drastic that it's hard for me to let anyone edge him in that department.

I did mention that in my comments. Totally agree that Riley won with very different styles. He's a great coach.

valade16
06-14-2017, 04:34 PM
I probably have a different opinion than every other person on PSD, but this cite overrates Pop like crazy.

He is definitely amongst the greatest coaches of all-time, but people seem to bash anyone who has won more titles than him by saying they had stacked teams as if Popovich hasn't had a stacked team throughout his entire career.

His first year as full time coach he had Tim Duncan and David Robinson. Sorry, he walked into a situation every bit as stacked as Riley or Phil.

HandsOnTheWheel
06-14-2017, 04:34 PM
Yes.

FlashBolt
06-14-2017, 05:07 PM
I probably have a different opinion than every other person on PSD, but this cite overrates Pop like crazy.

He is definitely amongst the greatest coaches of all-time, but people seem to bash anyone who has won more titles than him by saying they had stacked teams as if Popovich hasn't had a stacked team throughout his entire career.

His first year as full time coach he had Tim Duncan and David Robinson. Sorry, he walked into a situation every bit as stacked as Riley or Phil.

That stretch of dominance is what changes everything. Phil couldn't do it and you saw as soon as Shaq left, the team was a mess. Phil could do it for a few seasons but for over two decades, Pop has been one of the best coaches with a team sustaining a 50+ record. And Pop develops the players. There's more to being a coach than championships. Look at how Pop yells at his players and they don't say a thing back. It's a sign of respect. Any other coach would never dare do that to their players.

valade16
06-14-2017, 05:29 PM
That stretch of dominance is what changes everything. Phil couldn't do it and you saw as soon as Shaq left, the team was a mess. Phil could do it for a few seasons but for over two decades, Pop has been one of the best coaches with a team sustaining a 50+ record. And Pop develops the players. There's more to being a coach than championships. Look at how Pop yells at his players and they don't say a thing back. It's a sign of respect. Any other coach would never dare do that to their players.

I don't care if you yell at your players or if you hit them with the zen, if you get them to play better, your strategy worked.

Yes, Pop was able to have sustained excellence for a long time, but Duncan was there for that whole time and he had a rotating cast of Hall of Famers. Yes, Pop develops players, but are we then not going to give credit to Phil for developing Scottie Pippen/Kobe Bryant/Andrew Bynum/etc.? None of those guys were at the caliber they were until Phil arrived.

I mean, Phil has an ungodly amount of titles. And he has won titles with 3 different players as the best player in the title run, Pop can't actually say that (and there's not many things Pop can't say coaching-wise).

FlashBolt
06-14-2017, 05:39 PM
I don't care if you yell at your players or if you hit them with the zen, if you get them to play better, your strategy worked.

Yes, Pop was able to have sustained excellence for a long time, but Duncan was there for that whole time and he had a rotating cast of Hall of Famers. Yes, Pop develops players, but are we then not going to give credit to Phil for developing Scottie Pippen/Kobe Bryant/Andrew Bynum/etc.? None of those guys were at the caliber they were until Phil arrived.

I mean, Phil has an ungodly amount of titles. And he has won titles with 3 different players as the best player in the title run, Pop can't actually say that (and there's not many things Pop can't say coaching-wise).

1) Pop didn't develop Bynum. Look at how Bynum turned out. Into a clown.
2) You just named players that had all-time great talent in Kobe/Scottie. Can you name anymore guys? Derek Fisher? I mean, let's be honest here. Pop took random players through scouting and made them fit/work on the team. He's also allowed those same players to leverage what they have learned from him to become better players on other teams. Look at Cory Joseph. He's a damn good PG off the bench. George Hill starts for the Jazz and is a very solid player. Dude credits his game to Pop. Actually, why do you think Pop is the new head coach for the Olympics? Because he just understands the game and players.
3) Phil had the best player in NBA history, the greatest and most dominating center, and the 2nd greatest SG right after MJ. Unless you're saying those guys wouldn't win titles without Phil, I'm not sure what has to be said. Those three players would have been great with or without Phil. But we're talking about the other guys. Guys on the bench who you wouldn't expect to make an impact. Only Pop can sit his starters and still make a competitive game using his bench.
4) My point regarding Pop yelling at his players is quite simple. No player would take that from any other coach. They respect Pop. Not many players truly respect Phil. When Shaq retired his jersey, he didn't even acknowledge Phil but he did to everyone else.

I'm not giving Phil credit for having some of the greatest players in the game. He won with a system that made sense but we're seeing just how effective his methods are for the Knicks and we're also seeing just how pathetic of a "leader" he can be. The entire NYK situation has been terrible. The way he talks about his players in his books is childish. And no one even talks about how Phil didn't control Shaq+Kobe.. He's the coach. The guy seriously couldn't get those two to at least co-exist?

BTW, these "great players" that he has had is because they learned how to draft quality players that are undervalued. Pop has a lot to do with that. Remind me which position Tony and Manu were in.. And Kawhi. Who knew? Pop did.

valade16
06-14-2017, 06:14 PM
1) Pop didn't develop Bynum. Look at how Bynum turned out. Into a clown.

2) You just named players that had all-time great talent in Kobe/Scottie. Can you name anymore guys? Derek Fisher? I mean, let's be honest here. Pop took random players through scouting and made them fit/work on the team. He's also allowed those same players to leverage what they have learned from him to become better players on other teams. Look at Cory Joseph. He's a damn good PG off the bench. George Hill starts for the Jazz and is a very solid player. Dude credits his game to Pop. Actually, why do you think Pop is the new head coach for the Olympics? Because he just understands the game and players.

3) Phil had the best player in NBA history, the greatest and most dominating center, and the 2nd greatest SG right after MJ. Unless you're saying those guys wouldn't win titles without Phil, I'm not sure what has to be said. Those three players would have been great with or without Phil. But we're talking about the other guys. Guys on the bench who you wouldn't expect to make an impact. Only Pop can sit his starters and still make a competitive game using his bench.

4) My point regarding Pop yelling at his players is quite simple. No player would take that from any other coach. They respect Pop. Not many players truly respect Phil. When Shaq retired his jersey, he didn't even acknowledge Phil but he did to everyone else.

I'm not giving Phil credit for having some of the greatest players in the game. He won with a system that made sense but we're seeing just how effective his methods are for the Knicks and we're also seeing just how pathetic of a "leader" he can be. The entire NYK situation has been terrible. The way he talks about his players in his books is childish. And no one even talks about how Phil didn't control Shaq+Kobe.. He's the coach. The guy seriously couldn't get those two to at least co-exist?

BTW, these "great players" that he has had is because they learned how to draft quality players that are undervalued. Pop has a lot to do with that. Remind me which position Tony and Manu were in.. And Kawhi. Who knew? Pop did.

1). Phil took an 18 year old Bynum and made him a force at C. In fact, Bynum didn't have his full meltdown until after Phil left, if anything, Phil was what was holding him together...

2). So Phil doesn't get credit for identifying players that work in his system and enhancing their value? He got Odom and Artest to buy-in and be productive players despite being headcases. Again, both went off the rails after Phil. Kobe and Scottie definitely weren't destined to be all-time great players prior to Phil arriving. Scottie was averaging 14 PPG with 0 All-D teams prior to Phil's arrival. He had as much of a hand as MJ in making him the player he is today.

3). I never said they wouldn't win titles without Phil. But would Duncan have won a title without Pop? Absolutely, so the argument is completely meaningless. Look at it the other way, how many titles DID they win without Phil? A big ole fat 0. They were so good a toddler could have coached them to a title... except for all the other coaches who literally didn't.

Furthermore, what years did he have them where he DIDN'T win the title?

Phil won a Championship 6/8 seasons he had MJ/Scottie and the only 2 he didn't were his very first year as a HC (when Pop had Duncan/D-Rob and also failed to win a title) and the year MJ played 17 games in his return. Phil had Shaq/Kobe for 5 seasons and won a title in 3 of them and went to another Finals. Phil had Kobe/Pau for 4 seasons and won 2 Championships and went to another Finals.

So in 16 seasons of having a stacked roster the whole year he won 11 Titles. It seems your argument is he didn't win every single season, which if that's the level he's at, he's the GOAT.

2016 Pop loses to the Thunder despite his team winning 67 games (2nd most in league and 12 more than OKC).
2015 Pop loses to the Clippers in the 1st Round.
2012 Pop loses to the Thunder despite having the best record in the league and being up 2-0.
2011 Pop loses to the Grizzlies despite having the best record in the league (and 15 more wins than the Griz).
09-10 Consecutive 1st Round playoff losses, once as the higher seed.

Phil has also beaten Pop more times in playoff series. Pop's resume is not without flaws. Several of those are instances where his team absolutely should have won and did not.

I think Phil/Pop/Riley/Auberach are all on the Mt. Rushmore of coaches and you can make a case for any, but this idea that Pop is head and shoulder's above any other coach in NBA history is absurd.

FlashBolt
06-14-2017, 06:15 PM
1). Phil took an 18 year old Bynum and made him a force at C. In fact, Bynum didn't have his full meltdown until after Phil left, if anything, Phil was what was holding him together...

2). So Phil doesn't get credit for identifying players that work in his system and enhancing their value? He got Odom and Artest to buy-in and be productive players despite being headcases. Again, both went off the rails after Phil. Kobe and Scottie definitely weren't destined to be all-time great players prior to Phil arriving. Scottie was averaging 14 PPG with 0 All-D teams prior to Phil's arrival. He had as much of a hand as MJ in making him the player he is today.

3). I never said they wouldn't win titles without Phil. But would Duncan have won a title without Pop? Absolutely, so the argument is completely meaningless. Look at it the other way, how many titles DID they win without Phil? A big ole fat 0. They were so good a toddler could have coached them to a title... except for all the other coaches who literally didn't.

Furthermore, what years did he have them where he DIDN'T win the title?

Phil won a Championship 6/8 seasons he had MJ/Scottie and the only 2 he didn't were his very first year as a HC (when Pop had Duncan/D-Rob and also failed to win a title) and the year MJ played 17 games in his return. Phil had Shaq/Kobe for 5 seasons and won a title in 3 of them and went to another Finals. Phil had Kobe/Pau for 4 seasons and won 2 Championships and went to another Finals.

So in 16 seasons of having a stacked roster the whole year he won 11 Titles. It seems your argument is he didn't win every single season, which if that's the level he's at, he's the GOAT.

2016 Pop loses to the Thunder despite his team winning 67 games (2nd most in league and 12 more than OKC).
2015 Pop loses to the Clippers in the 1st Round.
2012 Pop loses to the Thunder despite having the best record in the league and being up 2-0.
2011 Pop loses to the Grizzlies despite having the best record in the league (and 15 more wins than the Griz).
09-10 Consecutive 1st Round playoff losses, once as the higher seed.

Phil has also beaten Pop more times in playoff series. Pop's resume is not without flaws. Several of those are instances where his team absolutely should have won and did not.

I think Phil/Pop/Riley/Auberach are all on the Mt. Rushmore of coaches and you can make a case for any, but this idea that Pop is head and shoulder's above any other coach in NBA history is absurd.

Literally no one ever said this and that's why I think you're coming up with these arguments I don't disagree with.

valade16
06-14-2017, 08:14 PM
Literally no one ever said this and that's why I think you're coming up with these arguments I don't disagree with.

In those exact words perhaps but everyone will say Pop is the best ever and act like he's infallible. Every single thread on the greatest coach will devolve into a pop lovefest. In this thread alone how many besides myself have said a single unkind word about Pop or said he isn't the best?

GREATNESS ONE
06-14-2017, 08:26 PM
I probably have a different opinion than every other person on PSD, but this cite overrates Pop like crazy.

He is definitely amongst the greatest coaches of all-time, but people seem to bash anyone who has won more titles than him by saying they had stacked teams as if Popovich hasn't had a stacked team throughout his entire career.

His first year as full time coach he had Tim Duncan and David Robinson. Sorry, he walked into a situation every bit as stacked as Riley or Phil.

Great post V.

JJ_JKidd
06-14-2017, 09:24 PM
because there were no media and internet to hype people up during that time

Purch
06-15-2017, 02:19 PM
In those exact words perhaps but everyone will say Pop is the best ever and act like he's infallible. Every single thread on the greatest coach will devolve into a pop lovefest. In this thread alone how many besides myself have said a single unkind word about Pop or said he isn't the best?

Well the reasons for that are pretty clear,

1. Pop is still coaching, and as it stands now, no one coaching seems to be close to reaching his legacy.

2. The amount of coaching changes since Pop started his tenure with the Spurs is staggering.

3. And probably the most important one, which is also why you lost me with your stacked argument..... Is that the years that have really defined Pop's legacy in the eyes of the average fan were the years far after Duncan prime. It wasn't until 2011 when Pop reinvented the Spurs, after it had looked like they were reaching their end, that people really started to notice just how amazing he was. He transitioned the Spurs to a motion offense and produced multiple 60 teams as well as a title in the next 6 years. This is after they got swept, and people put that nail in the coffin. The way I look at Pop from 2011-2017 is the same way I look at Riley during the 90's Knicks run. Two coaches who people saw as maybe relying on their superstars for their championships, transitioning into situations where their level of coaching was highlighted and took center stage. In Pop case these years of coaching glory are so recent, that he's obviously gonna get a major boost, due to it happening in the present.

KnicksorBust
06-15-2017, 02:33 PM
1). Phil took an 18 year old Bynum and made him a force at C. In fact, Bynum didn't have his full meltdown until after Phil left, if anything, Phil was what was holding him together...

2). So Phil doesn't get credit for identifying players that work in his system and enhancing their value? He got Odom and Artest to buy-in and be productive players despite being headcases. Again, both went off the rails after Phil. Kobe and Scottie definitely weren't destined to be all-time great players prior to Phil arriving. Scottie was averaging 14 PPG with 0 All-D teams prior to Phil's arrival. He had as much of a hand as MJ in making him the player he is today.

3). I never said they wouldn't win titles without Phil. But would Duncan have won a title without Pop? Absolutely, so the argument is completely meaningless. Look at it the other way, how many titles DID they win without Phil? A big ole fat 0. They were so good a toddler could have coached them to a title... except for all the other coaches who literally didn't.

Furthermore, what years did he have them where he DIDN'T win the title?

Phil won a Championship 6/8 seasons he had MJ/Scottie and the only 2 he didn't were his very first year as a HC (when Pop had Duncan/D-Rob and also failed to win a title) and the year MJ played 17 games in his return. Phil had Shaq/Kobe for 5 seasons and won a title in 3 of them and went to another Finals. Phil had Kobe/Pau for 4 seasons and won 2 Championships and went to another Finals.

So in 16 seasons of having a stacked roster the whole year he won 11 Titles. It seems your argument is he didn't win every single season, which if that's the level he's at, he's the GOAT.

2016 Pop loses to the Thunder despite his team winning 67 games (2nd most in league and 12 more than OKC).
2015 Pop loses to the Clippers in the 1st Round.
2012 Pop loses to the Thunder despite having the best record in the league and being up 2-0.
2011 Pop loses to the Grizzlies despite having the best record in the league (and 15 more wins than the Griz).
09-10 Consecutive 1st Round playoff losses, once as the higher seed.

Phil has also beaten Pop more times in playoff series. Pop's resume is not without flaws. Several of those are instances where his team absolutely should have won and did not.

I think Phil/Pop/Riley/Auberach are all on the Mt. Rushmore of coaches and you can make a case for any, but this idea that Pop is head and shoulder's above any other coach in NBA history is absurd.

I completely agree with all of this. Just an awesome post. The point that all of those great teams (90s Bulls/early 2000s Lakers and late 2000s Lakers) never won without him speaks volumes. How many titles does the guy have to win to get credit from some people? It's not easy to win a title and he got 11 in 16 seasons. Did he really need to go 16 for 16 to prove he was the greatest ego manager in history?

Purch
06-16-2017, 02:25 PM
I completely agree with all of this. Just an awesome post. The point that all of those great teams (90s Bulls/early 2000s Lakers and late 2000s Lakers) never won without him speaks volumes. How many titles does the guy have to win to get credit from some people? It's not easy to win a title and he got 11 in 16 seasons. Did he really need to go 16 for 16 to prove he was the greatest ego manager in history?

People tend to do a huge disservice, when they say any coach could win 11 championships with Phil's players.

By all accounts players have done significantly more in years where they were coaches by Phil, than years they weren't.

Big Zo
06-16-2017, 02:53 PM
People tend to do a huge disservice, when they say any coach could win 11 championships with Phil's players.

By all accounts players have done significantly more in years where they were coaches by Phil, than years they weren't.
Then again, all the core players from his championship teams spent the bulk of their careers being coached by him.

FlashBolt
06-16-2017, 03:57 PM
In those exact words perhaps but everyone will say Pop is the best ever and act like he's infallible. Every single thread on the greatest coach will devolve into a pop lovefest. In this thread alone how many besides myself have said a single unkind word about Pop or said he isn't the best?

The Pop lovefest has to do with the fact that if you were playing in the NBA, Pop is that guy you think would make the best of your abilities. We didn't see any player develop under Phil. Why do you think Jordan credits his college coach and not Phil? Phil never developed anyone because Kobe already had massive potential, Shaq was already dominating the league, Jordan was already the best player before Phil took over, and Scottie was a college stud and top draft pick. Pop could make the end of the guy on your roster useful in any scenario. And that's the part not many coaches can attest to.

The reason most people can't give credit to Phil was because he's had the best players in NBA history on his team. Shaq+Kobe+MJ already made up three of the top ten players in NBA history. Just like how we have to give less credit to KD for winning a ring, it also falls back to the coaches. Not to mention Phil's inability to truly mentor his players has been undeserving. The guy's representation of the Knicks has also changed everyone's opinion of the "Zen" guy he was known for in the Lakers.

Put it simply, everything Pop has done has been successful over two decades. The systems change, the roster changes, but the winning continues. That stretch of dominance, regardless of the six rings less, while having only Tim Duncan be his legitimate star is enough for me to put him above Phil. I know, Tony Parker, Manu, and Kawhi were great players too. You're right; but those guys weren't being scouted at all. The way Pop has been able to turn them into top elite players is extraordinary. And it's not like everyone was out there trying to draft Parker and Manu. Hell, Manu was on the latter picks of the 2nd round. Even Kawhi, everyone thought he was just a defender. He's now a top five player (#2 in my book) who won DPOY twice.

The underlying result of Pop's success while having far less talent than Phil, being able to win two decades in the regular season, five rings, and the development of his players has been his winning points. What's Phil's winning points? He has 11 rings? It's the same with Bill Russell. Okay, more rings. That's it? I wouldn't trust Phil to develop anyone. Bynum turned into an absolute clown because Phil was never able to truly get the guy to care more about basketball. Same reason Shaq got fat - Phil never cared. Never cared about Kobe+Shaq's relationship, talked trash about them in his books, and he's now getting exposed while managing the Knicks.

valade16
06-16-2017, 04:49 PM
The Pop lovefest has to do with the fact that if you were playing in the NBA, Pop is that guy you think would make the best of your abilities. We didn't see any player develop under Phil. Why do you think Jordan credits his college coach and not Phil? Phil never developed anyone because Kobe already had massive potential, Shaq was already dominating the league, Jordan was already the best player before Phil took over, and Scottie was a college stud and top draft pick. Pop could make the end of the guy on your roster useful in any scenario. And that's the part not many coaches can attest to.

The reason most people can't give credit to Phil was because he's had the best players in NBA history on his team. Shaq+Kobe+MJ already made up three of the top ten players in NBA history. Just like how we have to give less credit to KD for winning a ring, it also falls back to the coaches. Not to mention Phil's inability to truly mentor his players has been undeserving. The guy's representation of the Knicks has also changed everyone's opinion of the "Zen" guy he was known for in the Lakers.

Put it simply, everything Pop has done has been successful over two decades. The systems change, the roster changes, but the winning continues. That stretch of dominance, regardless of the six rings less, while having only Tim Duncan be his legitimate star is enough for me to put him above Phil. I know, Tony Parker, Manu, and Kawhi were great players too. You're right; but those guys weren't being scouted at all. The way Pop has been able to turn them into top elite players is extraordinary. And it's not like everyone was out there trying to draft Parker and Manu. Hell, Manu was on the latter picks of the 2nd round. Even Kawhi, everyone thought he was just a defender. He's now a top five player (#2 in my book) who won DPOY twice.

The underlying result of Pop's success while having far less talent than Phil, being able to win two decades in the regular season, five rings, and the development of his players has been his winning points. What's Phil's winning points? He has 11 rings? It's the same with Bill Russell. Okay, more rings. That's it? I wouldn't trust Phil to develop anyone. Bynum turned into an absolute clown because Phil was never able to truly get the guy to care more about basketball. Same reason Shaq got fat - Phil never cared. Never cared about Kobe+Shaq's relationship, talked trash about them in his books, and he's now getting exposed while managing the Knicks.

1st Bolded: And yet not a single one of those guys had won a ring before Phil. Perhaps he was able to turn them into actual winners? To get them to play the kind of basketball necessary to actually win?

2nd Bolded: Pop could make the end of the bench guy useful? And Phil couldn't make players useful? He managed to take a team starting Smush Parker, Kwame Brown, Brian Cook and Chris Mihm to the playoffs. That is making anyone useful. They all had their best years with the Lakers (Kwame's only positive BPM was with LA).

Even during the Lakers title runs he managed to get contributions from a cast of characters like Devean George, Tyrone Lue, Medvendenko, Rick Fox, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Brian Shaw, Luke Walton, Sasha Vujavic, Jordan Farmar and Samaki Walker.

Half of those guys had no business in the league (certainly not rotational players for championship teams) and Phil found a way to get positive contributions from all of them.

2nd Bolded: As a coach Phil hasn't been successful for 2 decades? Phil's first and last seasons coaching were 21 years apart. His first and last titles were 19 years apart. Pop's first and last seasons coaching were 20 yeas apart. His first and last titles were 15 years apart. Phil has as much longevity as Pop. They have coached a near identical amount of games (1,640 to 1,656).

So Pop gets credit for his longevity and Phil doesn't?

As for talent, Pop has had plenty. His first years in the league he had Duncan and D-Rob. His middle years he had Duncan/Manu/Parker and his later years he had Duncan/Kawhi and now LMA. He's had plenty of talent. Heck, Kawhi is already playing better than Scottie Pippen ever did, statistically better than Kobe ever did.

I agree Pop is better at developing players. In terms of getting lesser guys to contribute, hard to say Phil wasn't great at that as well. In terms of managing egos? Phil is the best in the business hands down.

Bynum, Artest, Rodman, Odom. All of them are headcases and he got all of them to play basketball and not implode. He managed to keep Shaq/Kobe on the same page long enough to win 3 titles. I really don't think Pop could have kept that duo together, no way his style would have worked on them.

Yes in totality Pop has had less talent than Phil. But you have to argue he's had less than half the talent Phil has had, because he has less than half the rings. I just don't buy that.

FlashBolt
06-16-2017, 07:31 PM
1st Bolded: And yet not a single one of those guys had won a ring before Phil. Perhaps he was able to turn them into actual winners? To get them to play the kind of basketball necessary to actually win?

2nd Bolded: Pop could make the end of the bench guy useful? And Phil couldn't make players useful? He managed to take a team starting Smush Parker, Kwame Brown, Brian Cook and Chris Mihm to the playoffs. That is making anyone useful. They all had their best years with the Lakers (Kwame's only positive BPM was with LA).

Even during the Lakers title runs he managed to get contributions from a cast of characters like Devean George, Tyrone Lue, Medvendenko, Rick Fox, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Brian Shaw, Luke Walton, Sasha Vujavic, Jordan Farmar and Samaki Walker.

Half of those guys had no business in the league (certainly not rotational players for championship teams) and Phil found a way to get positive contributions from all of them.

2nd Bolded: As a coach Phil hasn't been successful for 2 decades? Phil's first and last seasons coaching were 21 years apart. His first and last titles were 19 years apart. Pop's first and last seasons coaching were 20 yeas apart. His first and last titles were 15 years apart. Phil has as much longevity as Pop. They have coached a near identical amount of games (1,640 to 1,656).

So Pop gets credit for his longevity and Phil doesn't?

As for talent, Pop has had plenty. His first years in the league he had Duncan and D-Rob. His middle years he had Duncan/Manu/Parker and his later years he had Duncan/Kawhi and now LMA. He's had plenty of talent. Heck, Kawhi is already playing better than Scottie Pippen ever did, statistically better than Kobe ever did.

I agree Pop is better at developing players. In terms of getting lesser guys to contribute, hard to say Phil wasn't great at that as well. In terms of managing egos? Phil is the best in the business hands down.

Bynum, Artest, Rodman, Odom. All of them are headcases and he got all of them to play basketball and not implode. He managed to keep Shaq/Kobe on the same page long enough to win 3 titles. I really don't think Pop could have kept that duo together, no way his style would have worked on them.

Yes in totality Pop has had less talent than Phil. But you have to argue he's had less than half the talent Phil has had, because he has less than half the rings. I just don't buy that.

1) They didn't win a ring but that doesn't mean Phil was responsible for it. Are you telling me that Phil as the coach would have allowed Jordan to beat the Celtics, Pistons, and Lakers in the 1980's? We can't act like Phil is more important than the three top ten players in NBA history. Those rings would have been won just by how great they are. Just look at the Warriors. Is Kerr responsible for that? Luke Walton could coach that team to rings along with Mike Brown.

2) They had their best years with the Lakers because the team was so bad that they all got minutes to produce. But my point isn't that Phil couldn't make them useful but he didn't elevate their game at all. And you're taking my comment way too literally. Are you meaning to tell me NBA players can contribute to an NBA game? I mean, stop it already. Pop was able to win games by using completely bench players because he got his players to buy into the system and play effective in it. He developed players like George Hill and Cory Joseph. Both guys credit Pop for that and both have been very good players on some of the better teams.

3) Lmao, stop. Phil was terrible in managing egos. Bynum, Artest, Rodman, and Odom all "changed" because they were playing under some of the best players. Like J.R. Smith, are you going to tell me it was Blatt and Lue who got J.R. to become mature? No, it was LeBron. When you have players like Jordan/Shaq/Kobe, you're going to change your behavior because those guys demanded it. When you're on losing and bad teams, you honestly don't care as much. AKA, why Cousins is just misunderstood considering he's been on terrible management and teams for his career.

All I'm saying is, Phil has had the luck of cards coaching for the Lakers and the Bulls. The greatest player said he credits Dean Smith - not Phil Jackson. I'm not going to go into the talent disparity because again, outside of Duncan, who did the Spurs have that was touted as the next great player? None. All those guys developed under Pop. I've yet to see one player develop under Phil.. you can't just say "Derek Fisher." The guy made timely shots. He's in the NBA for a reason. Name me some actual players who went on to become really good when they were unknown players.. Phil didn't develop Pau.. Pau was already damn good. Kobe was touted with so much potential heading to the league. Shaq was already a monster. MJ as well. Pippen was a damn good college player.

valade16
06-16-2017, 07:45 PM
1) They didn't win a ring but that doesn't mean Phil was responsible for it. Are you telling me that Phil as the coach would have allowed Jordan to beat the Celtics, Pistons, and Lakers in the 1980's? We can't act like Phil is more important than the three top ten players in NBA history. Those rings would have been won just by how great they are. Just look at the Warriors. Is Kerr responsible for that? Luke Walton could coach that team to rings along with Mike Brown.

2) They had their best years with the Lakers because the team was so bad that they all got minutes to produce. But my point isn't that Phil couldn't make them useful but he didn't elevate their game at all. And you're taking my comment way too literally. Are you meaning to tell me NBA players can contribute to an NBA game? I mean, stop it already. Pop was able to win games by using completely bench players because he got his players to buy into the system and play effective in it. He developed players like George Hill and Cory Joseph. Both guys credit Pop for that and both have been very good players on some of the better teams.

3) Lmao, stop. Phil was terrible in managing egos. Bynum, Artest, Rodman, and Odom all "changed" because they were playing under some of the best players. Like J.R. Smith, are you going to tell me it was Blatt and Lue who got J.R. to become mature? No, it was LeBron. When you have players like Jordan/Shaq/Kobe, you're going to change your behavior because those guys demanded it. When you're on losing and bad teams, you honestly don't care as much. AKA, why Cousins is just misunderstood considering he's been on terrible management and teams for his career.

All I'm saying is, Phil has had the luck of cards coaching for the Lakers and the Bulls. The greatest player said he credits Dean Smith - not Phil Jackson. I'm not going to go into the talent disparity because again, outside of Duncan, who did the Spurs have that was touted as the next great player? None. All those guys developed under Pop. I've yet to see one player develop under Phil.. you can't just say "Derek Fisher." The guy made timely shots. He's in the NBA for a reason. Name me some actual players who went on to become really good when they were unknown players.. Phil didn't develop Pau.. Pau was already damn good. Kobe was touted with so much potential heading to the league. Shaq was already a monster. MJ as well. Pippen was a damn good college player.

First Bolded: Good for Pop. The exact same applies to Phil. He got dozens of role players to buy into their roles and contribute. A completely meaningless point as it also applies to Phil.

Second Bolded: Those guys weren't on losing teams. Artest got suspended for punching a fan despite the team having played in the ECF the year before (and having plenty of veteran role models). Rodman acted out on the 2x Champion Pistons and the San Antonio Spurs who were a perennial playoff team under D-Rob. That point is baseless.

Third Bolded: And Pop had the luck of the cards walking into Duncan and D-Rob. Walton or Brown or any coach could have won with them. You want to give credit for Pop for his success after his initial run? Fine. He does deserve success for winning another title. But we must also look critically at his full body of work during this time.

1st Round losses to the Grizzlies and the Clippers despite being the better team. A 2-0 choke to the Thunder. His resume is not without blemish.

Phil had MJ/Pippen for 8 years and won 6 titles. Shaq/Kobe for 5 and won 3. Kobe for 11 and won 5. Pop and Duncan for 20 and won 5.

Pop develops players. Great for him. There's no coach better at that then him, but you're acting like that's the only thing to coaching. It's not.

FlashBolt
06-16-2017, 07:54 PM
First Bolded: Good for Pop. The exact same applies to Phil. He got dozens of role players to buy into their roles and contribute. A completely meaningless point as it also applies to Phil.

Second Bolded: Those guys weren't on losing teams. Artest got suspended for punching a fan despite the team having played in the ECF the year before (and having plenty of veteran role models). Rodman acted out on the 2x Champion Pistons and the San Antonio Spurs who were a perennial playoff team under D-Rob. That point is baseless.

Third Bolded: And Pop had the luck of the cards walking into Duncan and D-Rob. Walton or Brown or any coach could have won with them. You want to give credit for Pop for his success after his initial run? Fine. He does deserve success for winning another title. But we must also look critically at his full body of work during this time.

1st Round losses to the Grizzlies and the Clippers despite being the better team. A 2-0 choke to the Thunder. His resume is not without blemish.

Phil had MJ/Pippen for 8 years and won 6 titles. Shaq/Kobe for 5 and won 3. Kobe for 11 and won 5. Pop and Duncan for 20 and won 5.

Pop develops players. Great for him. There's no coach better at that then him, but you're acting like that's the only thing to coaching. It's not.

Except, Phil had those guys for 5-8 years. Pop had Duncan for 20 years. That's literally one player who had to go through years where he was clearly aging. If he had Shaq for 20 years, how far do you think Shaq develops and when do you think he starts slowing down? It's not like he had Shaq when he was 36. He had him right at his prime. Same with Kobe. By the time Pop got to D.Rob, D.Rob was already on weak knees. Like, how many rings do you think a prime Timmy D and D.Rob win together? It's not that clear-cut. Phil had the much better individual players and I don't think that's even a debate. And when did I say developing players was the only thing to coaching? It has a lot to do with it, though. I really hate your strawman arguments. It's making it impossible to debate with you.

flea
06-16-2017, 08:27 PM
I don't think Riley gives any ground to Jackson or Pop. I don't think Adelman, Daly, Sloan, or Brown give any way either. Hell, even guys people like to dog like Karl, Collins, JVG, etc. probably have a different story to their careers if they've got the players some of those others did. But the first handful of coaches I mentioned showed it, which certainly counts for something.

Purch
06-18-2017, 03:27 PM
I don't think Riley gives any ground to Jackson or Pop. I don't think Adelman, Daly, Sloan, or Brown give any way either. Hell, even guys people like to dog like Karl, Collins, JVG, etc. probably have a different story to their careers if they've got the players some of those others did. But the first handful of coaches I mentioned showed it, which certainly counts for something.

I'd agree that a lot of that 2nd group would absolutely be in the top tier, if circumstances had been more favorable

Purch
07-16-2017, 05:51 PM
Obviously Pop gets a recency boost due to the fact he's still coaching. Riley's last championship team was 06, Phil's was 2010 and Pop's was 2014.

JasonJohnHorn
07-16-2017, 07:22 PM
While Kerr will certain give Jackson a run for his money, Phil Jackson was the luckiest coach in NBA history.

Was Phil the best? I would say no. Absolutely not. He was a great defensive coach, and handled egos well, which is 90% of your job when you got a contender. However, the triangle was Tex Winter's baby, and Jackson never showed the kind of coaching diversity that we have seen both Pop and Riley display.

That said, PJax was amazing as well as lucky. He got handed the key to a dynasty, and then Jordan earned 6 rings, and PJax's coaching help shore up the loose pieces who served as role players and ensured they fit in the system, while also developing Pippen and Grant, and later managing Rodman's ego. But the Lakers... I mean... it's like: here's another dynasty Phil. He got to coach Jordan Jr. and Shaq. His most impressive coach, in my mind, came when he returned and got a couple in with Gasol/Odom/Kobe... but the other thing is he always had friendly officiating, which Pop did not.

Riley is amazing and adaptable. He's just also a huge @$$#0le from what people say. The impression I got is he took more credit than he deserved in LAL and got a big head, which ruffled feathers and led to his exit. In NY, he picked up on what the Pistons had been doing and turned that team into a defensive juggernaut. Great work. Did something similar in Miami with Mourning, and then, after his time off... he came back and took Shaq/Wade there. But he burns a lot of bridges with players.


Pop, on the other hand... I've never heard a player complain about him (I'm sure people can dig stuff up on that though). He's won with different styles with the same organization. The twin towers. The Post+wings. The 3pt game. The time with Leonard uses a lot of similar things with the Duncan/Parker/Manu in and out ball motion thing, but he doesn't have a guy like Duncan commanding as much attention in the paint, so he's made further changes to that. And, he's always had trouble with officials calling games hard against him and still won 5 rings.

Every ring that Riley and Phil won, they won with teams where the officials were handing out BJs to the players during the game. That isn't meant to take away form what they did, because they both earned every ring they got, and they(along with Pop, Red and Sloan) are in my top-five all time, and are like 2 (Phil) and 3 (Riley) in my eyes. But still... that friendly officiating kills it for me a bit.

The weird thing is Riley did his best coaching in NY and his first tenure with Miami, neither of which led to a title. His titles in LAL and the second run in Miami weren't as impressive from a coaching stand point, in LAL because I give more credit to West for putting an super team together and Magic and Kareem for being MVPs who put their egos aside, and Miami... well (sorry Heat fan), but the officials shoved that one through hard, both against Detroit in the conference finals, and against Dallas in the finals.

But I think Riley gets the credit he deserves. People usually rank him in the top 3 and certainly the top five, and given how subjective such things are, I think that is fair.

I don't think I could name five coaches I would say are better. Pop, PJax, Riley, Sloan and Red are the best in my eyes. I'd like to put Daly on there too... being a Detroit fan, and I know he has a lot of respect from other coaches, but I also think his coaching sample size is small, and he didn't see much success outside of Detroit.

Purch
07-17-2017, 06:08 PM
While Kerr will certain give Jackson a run for his money, Phil Jackson was the luckiest coach in NBA history.

Was Phil the best? I would say no. Absolutely not. He was a great defensive coach, and handled egos well, which is 90% of your job when you got a contender. However, the triangle was Tex Winter's baby, and Jackson never showed the kind of coaching diversity that we have seen both Pop and Riley display.

That said, PJax was amazing as well as lucky. He got handed the key to a dynasty, and then Jordan earned 6 rings, and PJax's coaching help shore up the loose pieces who served as role players and ensured they fit in the system, while also developing Pippen and Grant, and later managing Rodman's ego. But the Lakers... I mean... it's like: here's another dynasty Phil. He got to coach Jordan Jr. and Shaq. His most impressive coach, in my mind, came when he returned and got a couple in with Gasol/Odom/Kobe... but the other thing is he always had friendly officiating, which Pop did not.

Riley is amazing and adaptable. He's just also a huge @$$#0le from what people say. The impression I got is he took more credit than he deserved in LAL and got a big head, which ruffled feathers and led to his exit. In NY, he picked up on what the Pistons had been doing and turned that team into a defensive juggernaut. Great work. Did something similar in Miami with Mourning, and then, after his time off... he came back and took Shaq/Wade there. But he burns a lot of bridges with players.


Pop, on the other hand... I've never heard a player complain about him (I'm sure people can dig stuff up on that though). He's won with different styles with the same organization. The twin towers. The Post+wings. The 3pt game. The time with Leonard uses a lot of similar things with the Duncan/Parker/Manu in and out ball motion thing, but he doesn't have a guy like Duncan commanding as much attention in the paint, so he's made further changes to that. And, he's always had trouble with officials calling games hard against him and still won 5 rings.

Every ring that Riley and Phil won, they won with teams where the officials were handing out BJs to the players during the game. That isn't meant to take away form what they did, because they both earned every ring they got, and they(along with Pop, Red and Sloan) are in my top-five all time, and are like 2 (Phil) and 3 (Riley) in my eyes. But still... that friendly officiating kills it for me a bit.

The weird thing is Riley did his best coaching in NY and his first tenure with Miami, neither of which led to a title. His titles in LAL and the second run in Miami weren't as impressive from a coaching stand point, in LAL because I give more credit to West for putting an super team together and Magic and Kareem for being MVPs who put their egos aside, and Miami... well (sorry Heat fan), but the officials shoved that one through hard, both against Detroit in the conference finals, and against Dallas in the finals.

But I think Riley gets the credit he deserves. People usually rank him in the top 3 and certainly the top five, and given how subjective such things are, I think that is fair.

I don't think I could name five coaches I would say are better. Pop, PJax, Riley, Sloan and Red are the best in my eyes. I'd like to put Daly on there too... being a Detroit fan, and I know he has a lot of respect from other coaches, but I also think his coaching sample size is small, and he didn't see much success outside of Detroit.

Any reason for Daly over Brown, considering you're a pistons fan?

JasonJohnHorn
07-18-2017, 07:40 PM
We didn't see any player develop under Phil.

I'll put Pop ahead of Phil every time, but Phil did a great job developing guys, and maximizing guys.

Craig Hodges was a horrid defender, but Phil knew when to put him in to make him useful. Dude couldn't even get a job when he left the Bulls.

Even as an assistant, Phil spent a lot of time with Pippen developing him. It took several years for Pippen to really develop and mature. A lot of that is on Phil.

With Rodman, it seemed like he was off the rails. He had a bad relationship with D-Rob, was in his prime with the Spurs, who had a great team, but couldn't pull it together. Phil gets him and Rodman has to play with two guys he fawking HATES. I mean HATES. And he get Rodman to focus (head butting officials and kicking camera men in balls aside).

Didn't help Kobe develop? Kobe was a circus-shot chucking glory hound before Phil came in. He wasn from getting 1.2 assists per turnover, to nearly doubling that ratio while increasing the number of possessions with the ball and shots taken. Kobe had so much ego, but Phil got him to buy into a system where he shared the ball more. I still think Kobe could have shared more, but anybody who suggests that Kobe didn't improve with respect to his fundamentals under Phil wasn't paying attention.

Fisher also played his best ball with Jackson.

I will concede as quick as anybody that Phil was blessed with talented teams, and I will also point out quicker than most that he had the officials giving him back massages at half time, but he was great a develop and moulding players.

Laker Legend42
07-18-2017, 09:19 PM
Pat Riley was so ahead of his time it's crazy. Teams are now doing what Riley talked about years ago. I remember he was asked years ago what would be his ideal team. He said a team made up of guys all 6ft 9. In other words positionless basketball. A team of guys that could switch everything. Also he one of few coaches that coached based on the guys he had. With the lakers it was showtime run and gun. New York it was grind it out low scoring defensive basketball. Now everyone needs a certain type of guy. Riley will forever be my favorite coach of all time....that is all 😏😏

JasonJohnHorn
07-18-2017, 11:55 PM
Any reason for Daly over Brown, considering you're a pistons fan?

I think Brown was a great Xs and Os coach who knew the game well, but I don't think he had a good relationship with people. Alfred Hitchcock once said that actors were like cattle, and while hyperbolic, I feel like that is akin to what Brown was like. I know he had close relationships with some players (Iverson and Manning), but I felt like Daly was every bit as good as Brown with respect to his knowledge of the game, but also a strong mentor an paternal figure for a lot of the guys. I felt like he was a guy who considered himself lucky to be coaching the players he had, and to be likely to stick up for them and understand their short coming and focus on their effort. Looking at Rodman, I see a clear example of that. With Daly, Rodman was in a really good place, but when Daly left, he went off the figurative rails.

With Brown, I feel like he was the kind of guy to throw a player under the bus. He did that with Iverson (justifiably I think, so I should fault him for that), pushing a trade that never went through. And he also seemed to 'give up' on teams, I think in instances where he could have done better if he held himself accountable. He quit on the Clippers. He was apparently talking with NEw York, or asking for permission to do so, while in the middle of the playoffs with the Pistons. He left the Pacers after his first losing season there. I think he left the Spurs too (could have been fired; I forget).

I feel like he quits when things become challenging. I don't like that. I understand it in some situations (like 'Antoni in NY), but when you do it all the time, it becomes a pattern.

Also... his ring in Detroit... I felt like the was Carlisle's. Him and Dumars really built that team in tandem, and I feel like Dumars should have stuck it out with him, but it was clear Dumars lost confidence in him (I think in part because Carlisle wasn't playing Prince, which was the right call for Dumars to call him out on that, especially how he shut down McGrady after Detroit went down 1-3), but that team was handed to Brown on a silver platter. He did great there, but... It was like having teammates make a perfect save on a bump, then set up a perfect volley and you taking all the credit for the spike (sorry for the Vball reference).

Brown was great. Don't get me wrong. But Daly... I dunno.. I likely dont have a very good reason for it given his NJ and Orlando tenures, but I think Daly was better.

Purch
09-03-2017, 06:52 AM
I think Brown was a great Xs and Os coach who knew the game well, but I don't think he had a good relationship with people. Alfred Hitchcock once said that actors were like cattle, and while hyperbolic, I feel like that is akin to what Brown was like. I know he had close relationships with some players (Iverson and Manning), but I felt like Daly was every bit as good as Brown with respect to his knowledge of the game, but also a strong mentor an paternal figure for a lot of the guys. I felt like he was a guy who considered himself lucky to be coaching the players he had, and to be likely to stick up for them and understand their short coming and focus on their effort. Looking at Rodman, I see a clear example of that. With Daly, Rodman was in a really good place, but when Daly left, he went off the figurative rails.

With Brown, I feel like he was the kind of guy to throw a player under the bus. He did that with Iverson (justifiably I think, so I should fault him for that), pushing a trade that never went through. And he also seemed to 'give up' on teams, I think in instances where he could have done better if he held himself accountable. He quit on the Clippers. He was apparently talking with NEw York, or asking for permission to do so, while in the middle of the playoffs with the Pistons. He left the Pacers after his first losing season there. I think he left the Spurs too (could have been fired; I forget).

I feel like he quits when things become challenging. I don't like that. I understand it in some situations (like 'Antoni in NY), but when you do it all the time, it becomes a pattern.

Also... his ring in Detroit... I felt like the was Carlisle's. Him and Dumars really built that team in tandem, and I feel like Dumars should have stuck it out with him, but it was clear Dumars lost confidence in him (I think in part because Carlisle wasn't playing Prince, which was the right call for Dumars to call him out on that, especially how he shut down McGrady after Detroit went down 1-3), but that team was handed to Brown on a silver platter. He did great there, but... It was like having teammates make a perfect save on a bump, then set up a perfect volley and you taking all the credit for the spike (sorry for the Vball reference).

Brown was great. Don't get me wrong. But Daly... I dunno.. I likely dont have a very good reason for it given his NJ and Orlando tenures, but I think Daly was better.

I definitly understand the critism of brown for abandoning teams after a couple years. It's rare to see a coach that has been as much of a journeyman as Brown was in this league.

Also, do you buy into the idea that Brown was a big reason that Darco failed?

Laker Legend42
09-03-2017, 04:09 PM
I think pop and pat are/were the best being able to change they're coaching style based on personnel. When Pat Riley was with the lakers it was run and gun high scoring. With the knicks it was slow down grind it out defensive low scoring games. Once the leauge went from a half court inside out game and went 3pt crazy pop adjusted and incorporated some of that into what he was doing. A few times the spurs were the best 3pt shooting team in the leauge. Here's what's funny to me. Teams are doing what Pat Riley talked about years ago. Can't remember if he was with the Lakers or knicks but he was asked what would be his perfect team. pat said a team of guys that were all 6ft 9in. In other words positionless basketball. A team that could switch everything. Phil gets credit for the number of rings but he could only coach one way. The lakers missed out on really good players because Phil said they weren't smart enough to learn the triangle. Eventhough both Michael and Kobe would operate outside of the triangle often but the triangle still got the credit for being this great offensive system. Having all time greats didn't hurt either.

Balltime
09-04-2017, 12:32 PM
I think what Riley did with those Knick teams is just as impressive as with his championship teams.

LaVar Ball
09-04-2017, 12:58 PM
It's because he's now more known as a front office head figure and a godfather recruiter. Something that Phil provided to be disastrous at and something that Pop always had the luxury of having an RC Buford.

Vinsanity115
09-06-2017, 10:04 PM
Who is Riley and Phil? Neither are in Pop's league.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Laker Legend42
09-06-2017, 11:32 PM
Who is Riley and Phil? Neither are in Pop's league.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
What makes you say that?

Purch
10-27-2017, 05:31 AM
Who is Riley and Phil? Neither are in Pop's league.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

What has Pop accomplished, that Riley hasn't?

FlashBolt
12-22-2017, 02:40 PM
The 2005/06 ring is misleading. Stan Van Gundy was doing a terrific job in 04-05 but Wade got purposely injured by Rasheed Wallace. I forgot the play but it was definitely 100% intentional if I had to judge. Riley's titles just stretched back way too far. Most of his success was with the Showtime Lakers and that was over 30 years ago. He also ran off to many different teams whereas Pop/Phil were with one team so his legacy isn't as solidified in that respect. The feeling is, after Riley's Showtime run, he wasn't really winning like the other guys. Phil won multiple rings in 90-early 2000's. Pop is still winning rings and getting his team to compete. He's definitely a top ten coach but he's not mentioned precisely because it was way too long ago. Red Auerbach will never get any credit, too.

JasonJohnHorn
12-23-2017, 10:57 AM
I would say no. When people talk about the best coaches, they go with Red, Phil, Pop and Riley in their top four in varying order.

Riley may get a little less, in part, I think, because he's a bit of an @$$#013. He was very fortunate to get the Lakers mid-dynasty, and judging from Jerry West's autobiography, the feeling was that Riley took more credit in those days than he ought to have, and it rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. And Riley seemed to become aware of that anc chose to leave on his own terms.

When Riley got to NY, he proved his value, taking a completely different and struggling roster, and creating an entirely new system focused on defense, and winning.. alot. However, he lost to the Bulls repeatedly. I think officiating had something to do with that to be frank. The official were giving MJ BJs every night, and treating him like he was the fawking president. I feel like the Knicks would have won at least one of those Bulls MJ series were the officiating even. But hey... anyways... Riley ALWAYS lost to Phil in the playoffs. Every time they met. No exceptions. So I think that weighs heavily in a lot of people's minds.


In Miam, Riley did the same thing he did in NY. Made an average team a contender, but didn't win it all. And when they did win it all? He 'fired' Stan Van Gundy (or SVG 'stepped down'; whatever) and took over a contender mid-season and rode it out to a title the officials made up for theri star treatment of Jordan against Riley for so many years by lifting Wade up on a litter as if he were emperor of the Qing dynasty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litter_(vehicle)) and carrying him to the basket.


Pop was luck to get Duncan; but he created a team around him that maintained an unprecedented level of winning, and made it to back-to-back NBA finals with an aged-well-past-his-prime Duncan and no legit 'franchise' player at the time (Leonard has since proved that he is a franchise player). He' kept a team at 50+ wins (or equivalent winning percentage) for over 2 decades. TWO DECADES!! He's steady and he's stayed in one place. I think people respect that.

P-Jax was lucky. Very lucky. He was in the right place at the right time. He had a great offensive coordinator (Tex Winters) who had a perfect offensive system for the Bulls (the triable) which Jackson almost always gets full credit for (it's kind of like how Doc got credit for Thib's defensive sets). Jackson was a great defensive coach, and took over a team on the cusp of a dynasty. He rode that out, then waited for the next dynasty to have a coaching vacancy. He's great, but he's lucky. His ability was truly shown when returned to LAL and build a champion. He proved himself there. But he's got 11 titles. Red's got 10. Riley ain't got anywhere near that, and a lot of people go to the ring count.

Pop: 20+ seasons at 50+ wins and 5 rings all with the same team of varying rosters.
Jackson: 11 rings.
Red: 10 rings.
Riley: 5 rings, three different teams, first was a dynasty he picked up after they'd already won, the last was one he picked up after taking a team over mid-season.


I don't mean to discredit Riley here. I'm just pointing out his wins in context and how others might construe (or misconstrue) his success.

To me... right now... Pop and Red are likely the greatest coaches. Riley, I think, id better than Phil because he's shown what he can do with different rosters, but the difference is likely negligible. Both are amazing.


I think the coaches that get underated the most, to be in my opinion, are Chuck Daly (Detroit fan bias perhaps, but what I saw him do against the Bulls and Lakers is amazing) and Lenny Wilkens, and to a lesser extend, Jerry Sloan.

europagnpilgrim
12-23-2017, 12:09 PM
It seems on the surface that you can make the argument than Riley was the most adaptable coach in history. I can think of very few coaches that have been successful coaching teams as radically different as the Showtime Lakers and the 90's knicks.

He has all the championship hardwear, was very highly regarded and in many years his teamed performed much higher than expectations.

Also, Pop and Riley were the only coaches to ever win 3 coach of the year awards


So speaking strictly in terms of coaches, why is he sometimes thought of as less than these 2?

Not overlooked to me as so much to being the Godfather of the 3, he was winning titles while Pop/Jackson were still drinking similac it seems

its like lets talk about his sons more and the success they have accumulated, which one of his sons is still coaching at high level while his other son drifted into the sunset after his major failure in NYC as GM, but still Riley sons combined for like 16 rings and I think Riley has like 5 or 6 as coach

Riley took 3 different franchises to Finals and to me I look at it like a player who could take 3 different teams to Finals as 1st/2nd option(if older/slowing down but still very effective) which would be major proof of solo dominance, its probably only a couple handful who can do that

Riley is the Father in Godfather, while the other 2 are Michael and Vito, and now Pop is the new Godfather since his dad Riley has called it a coaching career, while both have been serving as GM once again that was started by Riley out of the 3

Riley even wears his hair like he know he is a ''made man'' aka TheGodfather

europagnpilgrim
12-23-2017, 12:17 PM
I would say no. When people talk about the best coaches, they go with Red, Phil, Pop and Riley in their top four in varying order.

Riley may get a little less, in part, I think, because he's a bit of an @$$#013. He was very fortunate to get the Lakers mid-dynasty, and judging from Jerry West's autobiography, the feeling was that Riley took more credit in those days than he ought to have, and it rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. And Riley seemed to become aware of that anc chose to leave on his own terms.

When Riley got to NY, he proved his value, taking a completely different and struggling roster, and creating an entirely new system focused on defense, and winning.. alot. However, he lost to the Bulls repeatedly. I think officiating had something to do with that to be frank. The official were giving MJ BJs every night, and treating him like he was the fawking president. I feel like the Knicks would have won at least one of those Bulls MJ series were the officiating even. But hey... anyways... Riley ALWAYS lost to Phil in the playoffs. Every time they met. No exceptions. So I think that weighs heavily in a lot of people's minds.


In Miam, Riley did the same thing he did in NY. Made an average team a contender, but didn't win it all. And when they did win it all? He 'fired' Stan Van Gundy (or SVG 'stepped down'; whatever) and took over a contender mid-season and rode it out to a title the officials made up for theri star treatment of Jordan against Riley for so many years by lifting Wade up on a litter as if he were emperor of the Qing dynasty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litter_(vehicle)) and carrying him to the basket.


Pop was luck to get Duncan; but he created a team around him that maintained an unprecedented level of winning, and made it to back-to-back NBA finals with an aged-well-past-his-prime Duncan and no legit 'franchise' player at the time (Leonard has since proved that he is a franchise player). He' kept a team at 50+ wins (or equivalent winning percentage) for over 2 decades. TWO DECADES!! He's steady and he's stayed in one place. I think people respect that.

P-Jax was lucky. Very lucky. He was in the right place at the right time. He had a great offensive coordinator (Tex Winters) who had a perfect offensive system for the Bulls (the triable) which Jackson almost always gets full credit for (it's kind of like how Doc got credit for Thib's defensive sets). Jackson was a great defensive coach, and took over a team on the cusp of a dynasty. He rode that out, then waited for the next dynasty to have a coaching vacancy. He's great, but he's lucky. His ability was truly shown when returned to LAL and build a champion. He proved himself there. But he's got 11 titles. Red's got 10. Riley ain't got anywhere near that, and a lot of people go to the ring count.

Pop: 20+ seasons at 50+ wins and 5 rings all with the same team of varying rosters.
Jackson: 11 rings.
Red: 10 rings.
Riley: 5 rings, three different teams, first was a dynasty he picked up after they'd already won, the last was one he picked up after taking a team over mid-season.


I don't mean to discredit Riley here. I'm just pointing out his wins in context and how others might construe (or misconstrue) his success.

To me... right now... Pop and Red are likely the greatest coaches. Riley, I think, id better than Phil because he's shown what he can do with different rosters, but the difference is likely negligible. Both are amazing.


I think the coaches that get underated the most, to be in my opinion, are Chuck Daly (Detroit fan bias perhaps, but what I saw him do against the Bulls and Lakers is amazing) and Lenny Wilkens, and to a lesser extend, Jerry Sloan.

Brown is easily the ''best' coach, his resume of taking bottom feeders and making them playoff or fringe title contenders is amazing and don't give him ready made or he will go to Finals like he did 04&05 seasons, Sloan is up there as well though he was stubborn to a fault when it came to defense strategy

those other coaches are more hyped up because of the stupid ''ring'' factor but none can outcoach Brown from a pure getting the most out of the least and doing the most when equipped with proper team talent

Daly and Wilkens are damn good coaches no matter how you slice it, same with Nelson/Carlisle/Casey and others

but to keep it simple all those coaches needed the players to do it and all those coaches who have won the most titles have easily had the best players or at worst top 3 during that time which is why I went with Brown since he seemed to turn around the majority of the projects he took over, what he did in Philly for 6 years and a Finals trip was damn near a miracle, what he did in Detroit wasn't that impressive but it solidified his status of getting ready made title team to get them there and almost won back to back titles, Brown is easily the BOAT of coaches

B = Best

europagnpilgrim
12-23-2017, 12:24 PM
The 2005/06 ring is misleading. Stan Van Gundy was doing a terrific job in 04-05 but Wade got purposely injured by Rasheed Wallace. I forgot the play but it was definitely 100% intentional if I had to judge. Riley's titles just stretched back way too far. Most of his success was with the Showtime Lakers and that was over 30 years ago. He also ran off to many different teams whereas Pop/Phil were with one team so his legacy isn't as solidified in that respect. The feeling is, after Riley's Showtime run, he wasn't really winning like the other guys. Phil won multiple rings in 90-early 2000's. Pop is still winning rings and getting his team to compete. He's definitely a top ten coach but he's not mentioned precisely because it was way too long ago. Red Auerbach will never get any credit, too.

Coached Lakers to titles
Coached/GM Knicks to Finals
Coached/GM Heat to titles

doesn't matter if it was 30yrs ago since it stays with his resume, just like it doesn't matter he won first Heat title in 06' or last one in 13', It will stick with him forever

after showtime he took 2 more franchises to the title round, that is more impressive than his Lakers stint as a coach because of his dual role with the later 2 teams

well if Riley success was over 30yrs ago with Showtime then how do you expect Auerbach to get the credit when he coached 30yrs before the 30yrs ago of Showtime/Riley? Auerbach to me had the territory on lock and almost got Wilt/Russell on same team if he had gotten Wilt to go to eastcoast college, that's highway robbery back in that day to operate like that, Auerbach didn't have to coach since he had that supreme superstar in Russell who did it for him basically, Auerbach was a hell of a recruiter/salesman/owner, you could have coached that Celtics from home and won titles back then

FlashBolt
12-23-2017, 06:04 PM
Coached Lakers to titles
Coached/GM Knicks to Finals
Coached/GM Heat to titles

doesn't matter if it was 30yrs ago since it stays with his resume, just like it doesn't matter he won first Heat title in 06' or last one in 13', It will stick with him forever

after showtime he took 2 more franchises to the title round, that is more impressive than his Lakers stint as a coach because of his dual role with the later 2 teams

well if Riley success was over 30yrs ago with Showtime then how do you expect Auerbach to get the credit when he coached 30yrs before the 30yrs ago of Showtime/Riley? Auerbach to me had the territory on lock and almost got Wilt/Russell on same team if he had gotten Wilt to go to eastcoast college, that's highway robbery back in that day to operate like that, Auerbach didn't have to coach since he had that supreme superstar in Russell who did it for him basically, Auerbach was a hell of a recruiter/salesman/owner, you could have coached that Celtics from home and won titles back then

Because you're an oldie who sticks to the past. Pat Riley was a great coach but he's had decades without winning anything. He's also not a recent coach who has won consistently (other than 06 but it was just one ring). He's a top ten coach but he's not going to be remembered as the one who coached MJ and Pop's long history of winning year after year is nothing short of legendary.

europagnpilgrim
12-23-2017, 06:45 PM
Because you're an oldie who sticks to the past. Pat Riley was a great coach but he's had decades without winning anything. He's also not a recent coach who has won consistently (other than 06 but it was just one ring). He's a top ten coach but he's not going to be remembered as the one who coached MJ and Pop's long history of winning year after year is nothing short of legendary.

I am not old at all I just respect what was done already while you respect what is being done in the present, Pat was the dual threat role as Pop is doing right now and succeeded at it, Knicks were built in the Riley mold even when VanGundy took over and led them to 99' Finals

he is going to be remembered for coaching Magic/Kareem/Showtime Lakers which is just as impressive as what Jordan/Pop did once you sit back and think about it, especially turning Knicks and Heat into title contenders, winning with Heat

Pat did it for 3 diff. franchises, Phil did it for two which puts him over Pop, Pop is still doing it but has only 1 title in the past 10yrs but I guess he gets judged by how many 50win seasons in a row he can get when I thought it was all about winning rings, his teams compete no doubt but 1 for his last 10 is not nothing to brag about coming from the way Spurs rung off like 4 titles in a 8 or 9yr span

with the way media is and how people have such short memory span nobody will be remembered like they should, Phil is considered a loser by most just off what he recently did in NewYork, those 11 rings didn't mean jack **** when it came to him being a disaster in NY, coaching Jordan/Pippen/Shaq/Kobe didn't mean jack **** and nobody remembered that in NewYork

Showtime Lakers are nothing short of legendary, and that was spearheaded by Magic(cant mention showtime without his name attached) along with Kareem/Worthy/Scott etc. coached by the Godfather himself, P Riley

also winning or almost winning with 3 different franchise in basically 3 different ways is pretty incredible seeing that you didn't coach a prime/peak Shaq/Kobe/Jordan/Pippen, that is what legends are made of when you are actually talking about doing something

Had Riley coached a young Jabbar and Magic in prime they would have won 8-9titles in a 12yr span, they would have reached the Finals for all but probably 1 season, if healthy

and I would still look at Riley the same as I do now, rings don't move me like its does you and others

JasonJohnHorn
12-23-2017, 07:58 PM
Brown is easily the ''best' coach, his resume of taking bottom feeders and making them playoff or fringe title contenders is amazing and don't give him ready made or he will go to Finals like he did 04&05 seasons, Sloan is up there as well though he was stubborn to a fault when it came to defense strategy

those other coaches are more hyped up because of the stupid ''ring'' factor but none can outcoach Brown from a pure getting the most out of the least and doing the most when equipped with proper team talent

Daly and Wilkens are damn good coaches no matter how you slice it, same with Nelson/Carlisle/Casey and others

but to keep it simple all those coaches needed the players to do it and all those coaches who have won the most titles have easily had the best players or at worst top 3 during that time which is why I went with Brown since he seemed to turn around the majority of the projects he took over, what he did in Philly for 6 years and a Finals trip was damn near a miracle, what he did in Detroit wasn't that impressive but it solidified his status of getting ready made title team to get them there and almost won back to back titles, Brown is easily the BOAT of coaches

B = Best

We seldom agree on much, but I will gladly concede that Larry Brown is one of the best X's and O's coaches in the history of the game.

The Philly/Toronto series was one of the best coached series I've ever seen. Each night the respective coach would come back with a game plan to adjust to what the other coach had done the time before. The coverage on Iverson was great one night, then he went lights out (one of two 50-point games); Wilkens set up a double team to adjust, and Iverson played like garbage for two games (7-22; 1030). Iverson worked out another 50-point game, but then, in response to the double team, Iverson was kicking it out instead of trying to score, he killed it with the assists in game seven (16).

They were going back and forth with how Carter was playing as well. Both guys like master chess players moving their pieces around the board. Carter dropped a 50-point night and a 39-point night. And that series came down to a game-seven, final shot with a controversial no-call on Carter's shot.


Yeah.. Larry Brown was great. I feel like, had Iverson really taken what Brown taught him and pushed him to do, that Iverson could have been one of the greatest play-makers the league has ever seen, because he had the skill to do that. He just had that 'get-it-done-myself' attitude when it came to scoring that he couldn't shake.



Last season in TO he got fired after winning 24 games with a roster that would have set the league record for most losses with almost any other coach. Their players missed a record number of games due to injury, and there were games where they were playing guys who hadn't even practiced with the team.