ESPN Daily Dime: Who has been the best coach of the past decade?

[Old School 44]

There appears to be more to this article, but it's an ESPN Insider piece.
I like Bucher's angle, but really don't know if I totally agree. I think the Spurs supporting cast has always been under valued.

By Ric Bucher and Chris Broussard
ESPN The Magazine

BUCHER: Two coaches have stood above the rest of the NBA during the past decade: The Lakers' Phil Jackson and the Spurs' Gregg Popovich. There are coaches who have been impressive in various ways -- the Jazz's Jerry Sloan and the Celtics' Doc Rivers immediately come to mind -- but they are, at best, fighting for a distant third. The question is, who deserves to be considered the best? I'm going to go with the man they call Pop.

BROUSSARD: Obviously, Pop is a terrific coach, one of the best to do it. But my pick for coach of the past decade or so is Jackson. With five titles and seven NBA Finals appearances since 2000, he's led two separate dynasties in one decade. Not only has Jackson been the best coach of the past 10 to 12 years, he's been the best in NBA history.

RB: That was my initial thought, too. Who argues against all those rings? Jackson's five versus Pop's three since 2000, right? In fact, I'd be willing to concede that Jackson is battling Red Auerbach for best of all time when you include Jackson's Chicago run. But when I look at what he's working with, and where and for whom, this feels like a race in which one runner has a 10-yard head start every time.

The Los Angeles Lakers' winning has never come as a surprise; in fact, when they've lost, it has been an upset. The San Antonio Spurs, on the other hand, have been the favorite very few times because their talent never warranted it. Yet every season, including this one, they win more games and go deeper in the playoffs than their pure talent says they should. If you measure strictly by results, there is no argument here: Jackson wins. But measure results against what they were working with, and Pop clearly has "coached up" his teams more consistently than Jackson has.

[sa_butta]

I have to say Jackson has been dealt the better hand while Pop has had to work for his...I cannot completely discredit Jackson though, because it does take something to coach a team of good players to play together and get the chemistry to work.

[lefty]

Rivers ? WTF


Adelman is better than Doc

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

You can't argue with Phil's rings and success, however, it shouldn't be underestimated that he's coaching a team with a $90+ mil payroll year in,year out to Pop's usual just-under-the-tax-threshold.

[Blake]

Pop does have more coach of the month awards this decade than Phil.

Pop also has more coach of the month awards all time than Phil.

Fire Pop.

[Old School 44]

You can't argue with Phil's rings and success, however, it shouldn't be underestimated that he's coaching a team with a $90+ mil payroll year in,year out to Pop's usual just-under-the-tax-threshold.

Good point. The Spurs are easily the best managed franchise.

I know a player's salary does not necessarily equate to talent, but it sure increases your options if you're not as concerned about that part of the equation.

[sa_butta]

Pop does have more coach of the month awards this decade than Phil.

Pop also has more coach of the month awards all time than Phil.

Fire Pop.
Pop got coach of the year for 2002-2003
Phil has not gotten one since the Bulls 95-96

[in2deep]

Rivers ? WTF


Adelman is better than Doc

Adelman is the reason Drazen Petrovic rode the bench his first year.

[TampaDude]

Pop has done more with less than Phil. Period. Pop is the best.

[lefty]

Adelman is the reason Drazen Petrovic rode the bench his first year.
Some great coaches have mad mistakes

Scola thread !!!!!!

[in2deep]

Pop has done more with less than Phil. Period. Pop is the best.

true but Jackson deliver at the end and in the head to head, Jackson seems to get the best of Pop (although I agree, Jackson has a lot more to work with (money, collusions, refs, etc)

Pop >>>> Jackson in recruitment, drafting and team management

Jackson might be a better in game coach, but hard to tell because both work with lopsided resources

[K-State Spur]

Interesting strategy by ESPN...taking an interesting debate topic, then letting their two biggest idiot basketball writers argue it out.

I don't think there is a wrong answer for that debate - but both guys use crappy (and often wrong) evidence to support their stance.

[Rummpd]

The only other coach I would throw in the mix is Karl who seems to do more with the most eclectic and immature squads and get something out of them and he is doing a hell of job this year in Denver with all that is going on. Thank God they did not mention D'Antoni IMO

[cd98]

true but Jackson deliver at the end and in the head to head, Jackson seems to get the best of Pop (although I agree, Jackson has a lot more to work with (money, collusions, refs, etc)

Pop >>>> Jackson in recruitment, drafting and team management

Jackson might be a better in game coach, but hard to tell because both work with lopsided resources

Jackson's in game coaching is overrated. How hard is it to say: "Everybody clear out for Jordan" or "Everybody clear out for Kobe"?

[bigfan]

#1 Pop
#2 Sloan

[cheguevara]

Sloan definitely in the conversation. But never won it all.

1. Jackson
2. Pop
3. Sloan

everyone else

[alchemist]

Can't go wrong with either guy, I just think Pop is the better X's & O's guy of the two.

[Mugen]

Broussard should just tattoo a Laker penis directly onto his cheek.

[YODA]

Really does matter how we look at it

Rings? Easily to Jackson, but does that mean you were the better coach or had the best players?. Even them Pop makes a point about having good players.
"dont fuck it up". We cant knock out Jackson because he had more to work with or more moeny to work with then other coaches.

Best Winning % in last 10 years??
Im not really sure, I couldnt find stats for only last 10 yrs, but you would figures with more championships % should go to JAckson, however, I also know Spurs have 11 straight playoff appearances. more then any other current team. Is it enough? Im not sure. someone cananswer this one.

Done most with the Least.Hands down I still have to say Sloan. Less talent more times then not and always always always competitive.

[ElNono]

It's really only between Pop and Jackson, IMO, and Phil has more hardware, so the Zen Master gets the nod from me.

[ElNono]

Sloan is a great coach, but ultimately it's about getting to the finish line...

[SenorSpur]

Phil will be always be looked upon, by and large, as the best coach of this period. 11 championships, with an opportunity to obtain his 4th three-peat. Two different teams. Having either the single best or two best players at that time, and getting them to mesh their talents around a supporting cast.

However, I personally believe Pop is THE better coach because of what many have already said. For the majority of his tenure, Pop has had to work with less. Less talent, less financial flexibility, less assets. He won his four titles with at least two, maybe even three incarnations of Spurs teams. A pretty incredible feat.

His philosophy centering around keeping things simple, securing players that have "gotten over themselves" and holding everyone accountable - from the superstar, to the last man on the bench. His no-nonsense approach toward teamwork and defense. As an in-game strategist, he HAS no peer.

It may be a biased opinion, and while I appreciate coaches like Sloan, Rivers and Jackson, but in my mind, Pop has been the best.

[Old School 44]

May be the Spurs have had less talent than the Lakers, but it's not by much.
I actually think it's more the Spurs have been able to find talent where others could not. They pioneered/mastered the drafting of international players.

I wonder who is more involved in personnel decisions for their teams, Pop or Jackson?

[senorglory]

The ability to sustain excellence is impressive. Who gets a three-peat, much less three in a career?

Spurs can really help Pop out in this argument if they run off the next three championships. Course, if next season is shortened with a lockout, Phil would be able to put an asterisks next to Pop's three-peat.

[FromWayDowntown]

I've always thought it was interesting to hear guys like Broussard question the Spurs talent in the moment and then suggest later that it was always about the same as some of the more high-profile clubs.

[jimo2305]

I have to say Jackson has been dealt the better hand while Pop has had to work for his...I cannot completely discredit Jackson though, because it does take something to coach a team of good players to play together and get the chemistry to work.


You can't argue with Phil's rings and success, however, it shouldn't be underestimated that he's coaching a team with a $90+ mil payroll year in,year out to Pop's usual just-under-the-tax-threshold.


Pop has done more with less than Phil. Period. Pop is the best.


true but Jackson deliver at the end and in the head to head, Jackson seems to get the best of Pop (although I agree, Jackson has a lot more to work with (money, collusions, refs, etc)

Pop >>>> Jackson in recruitment, drafting and team management

Jackson might be a better in game coach, but hard to tell because both work with lopsided resources


Can't go wrong with either guy, I just think Pop is the better X's & O's guy of the two.

my thoughts exactly :toast

[phxspurfan]

Sloan definitely in the conversation. But never won it all.

1. Jackson
2. Pop
3. Sloan

everyone else


4. Larry Brown (Sixers in the finals, winning a game against the Lakers? Charlotte in the playoffs? rofl)
5. Byron Scott (Nets? Hornettes? Good PGs but rofl gg)
6. SVG (underrated coach)
7. Adelman (respectable runs with Kings and Rockettes)
8. Don Nelson
9. Alvin Gentry (yup)
10. Doc Rivers (yup, behind Gentry)

Honorable Mention: *Riley, if he coached a whole season and didn't bandwagon his way to a title

[ALVAREZ6]

G-Pop no doubt


Everyone is so damn caught up on being retarded and only considering championships whenever these discussions come up. Happens all the time. Who's the best coach in the NBA? Who's the best player in the NBA? Who's the best quarterback in the NFL?
Random retard that only considers one factor in any argument: Rings! Wow championships!!! Who has more????? WOWOWOWOWOWOWOW who's better Dirk or Odom???? Clearly Lamar!

[DMC]

It's all relative to draft picks and trades. Players make coaches. Phil would be nobody without Jordan, and Pop would be nobody without Tim Duncan. Pop would be the first person to tell you this if I didn't.

[DMC]

G-Pop no doubt


Everyone is so damn caught up on being retarded and only considering championships whenever these discussions come up. Happens all the time. Who's the best coach in the NBA? Who's the best player in the NBA? Who's the best quarterback in the NFL?
Random retard that only considers one factor in any argument: Rings! Wow championships!!! Who has more????? WOWOWOWOWOWOWOW who's better Dirk or Odom???? Clearly Lamar!
Who's the best golfer or cyclist? Tiger and Lance? Why? Because they had great form? No, because they WON.

[dunkman]

- In '99, the Lakers had similar talent but they got swept by the Spurs. But this one was in the 90's, so it doesn't count.
- In '00, Duncan was injured. The Lakers "miraculous" comeback was made with amicable refs in the game 7, WCF against the Blazers.
- In '01, the Lakers were in talent advantage over any other team, a very dominant run. DA was injured and the unbalanced Spurs team got swept by the Lakers.
- In '02, the Spurs gave fight with Duncan, rookies, washed up veterans and cast offs of other teams. 1:4 all close games. Years after, an NBA ref admits that the Kings team was sabotaged in the closing games. Everyone sees how Kobe violently fouls Bibby without a call, he knew too the refs were rooting for the Lakers.
- In '03, the Spurs had Duncan, the Lakers had Shaq and Kobe. Pop surprises Phil Jax and takes some credit for the development of Parker, S-Jax and Manu.
- In '04, the Lakers had 4 HOF's, they get all-stars on the cheap (Payton for the MLE, Malone for the BAE). Should have cruised all the way, Pop's Spurs give them solid opposition but Phil out-coached him in the 0.4 to win the game 5. Phil gets completely defeated in the finals to Larry Brown coached Pistons, a team inferior in talent.
- In '05 Phil gets fired for the last season failure. At that point, Pop was considered better. Pop win it all against Larry Brown Pistons in a very close series. Horry, a player considered completely done by the Lakers two seasons ago, is the Spurs second best bigman.
- In '06 Phil gets the Lakers to playoffs for a first round exit. Crawford ruins the heavy favorites Spurs against the Mavs. Manu also makes a mistake and allows Dirk to make a 3 points play to send game 7 to OT.
- In '07 Phil with a solid team goes out in the first round, the Spurs win the championship in dominant fashion.
- In '08 Phil gets a good roster upgraded with Gasol by mid-season, without giving much. Bynum and Ariza were injured, but Manu was hurt too in the previous series. Everyone comments the Lakers are superior in talent. The Spurs had to play game 1 after sleeping at the airport and lose the game. In game 4, Crawford makes a no call on an obvious foul that would have sent game 4 to OT. Instead 2:2, the series end with the unsurmountable 1:3 with the next game at the Staples. Phil soundly loses in the finals by team and a coach that is considered inferior in talent and the Spurs too old.
- In '09 the Spurs were still inferior in talent. Manu missed the playoffs and it was a first round exit for Pop against a superior Mavs team. Phil wins it all.
- In '10 the Spurs get a talent upgrade, go out in second round. Pop gets outcoached by Gentry. Phil adds Artest to the roster while Ariza signs with the Rockets. Phil wins the serie against Gentry in the next round, but despite superior talent his team seems inferior against the Celtics. In game 6 of the finals Perkins gets injured and the Lakers win a game. For game 7, the Lakers get awarded a lot of FT's in 4-th quarter and the Celtics lose the championship. At this point Phil is considered better coach, but this is another decade.
- In '11 the Spurs have a 36:6 start. The Lakers are considered the NBA best team in talent and in size, but they have a slower start, despite of their stars logging heavy minutes. It has to be seen who wins it all this year. Pop changed the offensive for this season, something unheard of. Previously, Phil was considered the better offensive coach and Pop the better in defense. This year, Pop seems to be better in both offense and defense. This despite the Lakers having superior talent.

Phil had 4 championships in the decade vs. Pop's 3, but some of the Lakers championship runs were aided by strange trades and refs help. When Phil won championships he also had superior talent. But he lost the finals sometimes with superior talent ('04 and '08). Pop disappointed in '06 (with Crawford making bs calls and ejecting Duncan while he was on the bench!). But the '03 and '05 titles were against teams that were heavy favorites. And the '11 run is unexpected too, everyone had the Spurs as a done team.

It seems to me that Pop is the better coach of the two.

[DMC]

didn't read...

[dunkman]

didn't read...

You would find it a riveting tale bro. . .

[wildbill2u]

One coach can not only offer the glitter of LA and celebrity, but he can virtually buy whatever he needs off the FA shelf. Need Shaq? Not a problem? Want Gasol? Easy does it. When Jackson doesn't win with his advantages it is a miracle.

Pop has a small market family town to offer and a budget year in and year out that stays below the luxury tax. So He pulls players (not rabbits) out of a hat and makes the team concept and hard work (keep hammering that rock) a mantra that all the players have to buy into.

When Pop wins with all his disadvantages it is a miracle.

[ALVAREZ6]

Who's the best golfer or cyclist? Tiger and Lance? Why? Because they had great form? No, because they WON.

Gee that's a great observation you have there. Do you want to know how their cases differ from an NFL quarterback, who is one of many(when I say many I mean 30-40) players to touch the field for his team any given game and is only in for half the time, or an NBA player or coach???

Well...I think I've already told you indirectly in the question itself. Tiger and Lance play individually.

[bigfan]

Ill give Jackson some credit when he makes a winner out of a team like the Kings, Hornets, Raptors ect ect...