Pop vs. Zen Master Coaching Trees

[ezau]

POP

http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/dam/assets/140306195205-20140306-gt-popovich-buford-coaching-tree-00030823.1200x672.jpg

Z:lolN M:lolSTER

http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/assets/4339033/Phil-Jackson-Coaching-Tree.png

[Mal]

Although Brett Brown or Jacques Vaughn records arent good, they were fucked from the beggining

[Twisted_Dawg]

Shouldn't Steve Kerr be on both lists?

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Although Brett Brown or Jacques Vaughn records arent good, they were fucked from the beggining

Even though there's a clear reason why their records are bad, they're not comparable at all - Brett Brown is a good coach, who is thrown into a coaching hell due to some almighty dumb plan. He can't do anything with d-leagers. Jacque just isn't that good. He's had some nice talent in Orlando and wasn't able to set a style, improve the team and develop the players. Perhaps he was too quick to get a coaching gig and should have stayed with Pop for a couple more years, but who could blame him. I really hope he gets another chance.

[DMC]

Shouldn't Steve Kerr be on both lists?
No. He never coached under either Pop or Phil.

[FromWayDowntown]

No. He never coached under either Pop or Phil.

Doc Rivers didn't coach under Pop, either. And he never played for Pop -- at best, he was a player that Popovich, as general manager, successfully acquired in a trade. While Doc played for the Spurs for most of two seasons, his only coach in SA was Bob Hill.

[Spurs9]

Doc Rivers didn't coach under Pop, either. And he never played for Pop -- at best, he was a player that Popovich, as general manager, successfully acquired in a trade. While Doc played for the Spurs for most of two seasons, his only coach in SA was Bob Hill.
But but it still :cryounts :lol

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Yeah if you're gonna claim Doc by those standards then you'd have to put AJ on that list, though given his career arc I would say he would look more at home on Bob Hill's coaching tree.

[hater]

different styles. Pop is the Socialist version of a coach.(all get a say and are treated equal) KFC is the Ayn Rand version of a coach.

[DMC]

Doc Rivers didn't coach under Pop, either. And he never played for Pop -- at best, he was a player that Popovich, as general manager, successfully acquired in a trade. While Doc played for the Spurs for most of two seasons, his only coach in SA was Bob Hill.

People often confuse Pop's coaching tree with former Spurs who are now coaches in the league.

[hater]

and to think Pop is just a tree in the Larry brown forest

[100%duncan]

and to think Pop is just a tree in the Larry brown forest

Tree>Forest

[hater]

Tree>Forest

illogical

[DMC]

Tree>Forest

Pop is a great coach but Larry Brown is probably the greatest coach of all time.

[ezau]

Shouldn't Steve Kerr be on both lists?

It's not updated, but you're right. Kerr should be there.

[TDMVPDPOY]

lol brian shaw didn't he just got fired?

and for fisher, I think his going to get fired also from the knicks....there main tv cable sponsor is stopping casting knicks remainder home games or someshit

[100%duncan]

Pop is a great coach but Larry Brown is probably the greatest coach of all time.

For what? For coaching and "proving" something in college?

[DMC]

For what? For coaching and "proving" something in college?

What do you need as proof? Wins? Transformations of teams? Peer consensus? He proved something in college before he came to the NBA. He doesn't need to prove anything. Do you have any idea who Larry Brown is?

Let me help you out:

Lawrence Harvey "Larry" Brown (born September 14, 1940) is an American basketball coach, who is currently the head coach at Southern Methodist University. He is the faculty advisor for the student spirit group supporting the campus's athletics programs named "The MOB," as Brown is known as "The Godfather." [1] Before coaching, Brown played collegiately at the University of North Carolina and professionally in the American Basketball Association (ABA). He has been a college and professional basketball coach since 1972. He has won over 1,000 professional games in the ABA and the National Basketball Association (NBA) and is the only coach in NBA history to lead eight different teams to the playoffs. He is also the only person ever to coach two NBA franchises in the same season (San Antonio Spurs and Los Angeles Clippers during the 1991-92 NBA season[2]). He is 1,275–965 in his career. He is also the only coach in history to win both an NCAA National Championship (University of Kansas, 1988) and an NBA Championship (Detroit Pistons, 2004).

[100%duncan]

Wins? Pop has a better record. Transformation of teams? Transition from David to Duncan from Duncan-centric to big 3 from big 3 to being a 15-man wrecking machine. Peer consensus? Everybody respects Pop and have him as their GOAT Coach.

Gregg Charles Popovich (born January 28, 1949) is an American basketball coach who is currently the head coach of the National Basketball Association's San Antonio Spurs. Taking over as coach of the Spurs in 1996, Popovich is the longest tenured active coach in both the NBA and all US major sports leagues. He is often referred to as "Coach Pop" or simply "Pop".[1][2] He holds the record for most consecutive winning seasons in NBA history at 17. Popovich has won five NBA championships as the head coach of the Spurs. He is one of only five coaches in NBA history to win five or more NBA championships. Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach, Pat Riley, and John Kundla are the other coaches. He is also one of 9 coaches in NBA history to have won 1,000 NBA games.

[DMC]

Wins? Pop has a better record. Transformation of teams? Transition from David to Duncan from Duncan-centric to big 3 from big 3 to being a 15-man wrecking machine. Peer consensus? Everybody respects Pop and have him as their GOAT Coach.

Gregg Charles Popovich (born January 28, 1949) is an American basketball coach who is currently the head coach of the National Basketball Association's San Antonio Spurs. Taking over as coach of the Spurs in 1996, Popovich is the longest tenured active coach in both the NBA and all US major sports leagues. He is often referred to as "Coach Pop" or simply "Pop".[1][2] He holds the record for most consecutive winning seasons in NBA history at 17. Popovich has won five NBA championships as the head coach of the Spurs. He is one of only five coaches in NBA history to win five or more NBA championships. Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach, Pat Riley, and John Kundla are the other coaches. He is also one of 9 coaches in NBA history to have won 1,000 NBA games.

Larry has more NBA wins than Pop so you cannot use the record argument until Pop has as many wins as Larry. Pop could have a worse record than Larry if Pop ever coaches that many games. Larry was Pop's mentor at Kansas. Pop is a great coach, probably 2nd best all time imo, based on how he's handled these past few years of mediocre player acquisitions, however Larry Brown did that most of his career on different teams. Both coaches have faults. Larry coached the non-superstar Pistons to a trollop of the 4 HOFer Lakers in 04 and came pretty damn close to a b2b with them on 05.

[100%duncan]

He also has 533 games more :lol

[DMC]

He also has 533 games more :lol

So when Pop has 1200 wins you can see what Pop's losses are and then decide, otherwise a coach with 1 win and 0 losses has a better record than Pop.

[100%duncan]

So when Pop has 1200 wins you can see what Pop's losses are and then decide, otherwise a coach with 1 win and 0 losses has a better record than Pop.

Nice backtrack. :lol The percentage shows one is clearly better than the other. 1 win 0 loss fuck off with that false equivalency It's not like Pop has less than 500 games under his belt . He also has more than a thousand and yet he has a way better winning percentage. How about transformation of teams? Peer consensus? What's your rebuttal on that?

[DMC]

Nice backtrack. :lol The percentage shows one is clearly better than the other. 1 win 0 loss fuck off with that false equivalency It's not like Pop has less than 500 games under his belt . He also has more than a thousand and yet he has a way better winning percentage. How about transformation of teams? Peer consensus? What's your rebuttal on that?

Ok forget 1 and 0, but if you want to show how something doesn't work you have to take it to absurdity. Let's say a coach has 600 wins and 300 losses. He's doing real well. Now lets say he has a bad stretch where he's doing a Brett Brown or Byron Scott role, tanking. Let's say he took it upon himself to go to teams that needed him instead of staying where the path was already laid. He could very well end up 700 and 550 or worse.

You have to get to the same point in the race to know whether or not you have a better record, you basically have to retire from the game. That's why I don't judge records alone (hell Phil has a great record, I don't think he can coach for shit). I'd have a hard time arguing either over the other because of personal bias, I know Larry Brown personally, but I am also a huge Pop supporter and I believe Pop is the greatest coach in the NBA today bar none. It would be a close race between Pop and Brown if you considered Brown's basketball acumen and ability to coach guys he doesn't even know. Pop is a different type of coach.

Larry Brown would tell you Pop is the greatest coach of all time, but Pop would point to Larry.

Pop has not transformed a team. He has basically had the same team for 12 years (same core) and had two of the best big men the league has ever seen, at the same time. Pop's real virtuoso performance came in the last two seasons, and actually crescendoed in 2014 with the motion offense. Larry went to several teams that were suffering and turned them around. I'm not going to list them all, you can call ass if you disagree. Larry did the same with every program he's been at, and his real weakness has been staying in one place, because of his style and that he doesn't get along with the front offices of almost every franchise. He does it his way, they don't like it, he gets results and he leaves.

[100%duncan]

Ok forget 1 and 0, but if you want to show how something doesn't work you have to take it to absurdity. Let's say a coach has 600 wins and 300 losses. He's doing real well. Now lets say he has a bad stretch where he's doing a Brett Brown or Byron Scott role, tanking. Let's say he took it upon himself to go to teams that needed him instead of staying where the path was already laid. He could very well end up 700 and 550 or worse.

You have to get to the same point in the race to know whether or not you have a better record, you basically have to retire from the game. That's why I don't judge records alone (hell Phil has a great record, I don't think he can coach for shit). I'd have a hard time arguing either over the other because of personal bias, I know Larry Brown personally, but I am also a huge Pop supporter and I believe Pop is the greatest coach in the NBA today bar none. It would be a close race between Pop and Brown if you considered Brown's basketball acumen and ability to coach guys he doesn't even know. Pop is a different type of coach.

Larry Brown would tell you Pop is the greatest coach of all time, but Pop would point to Larry.

Ok fair enough with the wins part. But Pop still wins since he got the most out of what was offered to him in lesser quantity. But wins/regular season records alone don't measure who's better.

Now you go in-depth, like I said, what has Brown done in your own terms "Transformation of teams" that Pop hasn't? To reverse things around, what has Pop done that Brown hasn't? Has Brown coached a team with the best player being as important as the 8th guy in the rotation? Has Brown coached a team as dominating as last year's Spurs? You can't rebutt that because he simply hasn't yet, and I doubt he will.

You can also go with rings, h2h match-ups etc. 5>1, and Pop beat him in 05.

I'll give the college accomplishment to Brown, no problem. Consensus of peers can be pretty cliche but whatever both of them receive the same level of respect anyway.

If you take all of these into consideration, since it's pretty dumb to choose who's greater with just 1 category, then I don't know how one can take Brown over Pop.

[KaiRMD1]

Where's Derek Fisher?

[DMC]

Ok fair enough with the wins part. But Pop still wins since he got the most out of what was offered to him in lesser quantity. But wins/regular season records alone don't measure who's better.

Now you go in-depth, like I said, what has Brown done in your own terms "Transformation of teams" that Pop hasn't? To reverse things around, what has Pop done that Brown hasn't? Has Brown coached a team with the best player being as important as the 8th guy in the rotation? Has Brown coached a team as dominating as last year's Spurs? You can't rebutt that because he simply hasn't yet, and I doubt he will.

No one has. You cannot tell me Patty Mills is as important as Tim Duncan. Never has been. Brown coached the Pistons who shared the ball and played their bench. They had 4 guys make the all star game one year, if that tells you anything. None of them were superstars.

I'd say the 2004 Pistons were pretty dominating. They destroyed the Lakers, a much stronger team than what Miami had last year. Like SA they made it B2B and they had to beat Lebron to get there.



You can also go with rings, h2h match-ups etc. 5>1, and Pop beat him in 05.

Phil destroyed Pop.
Phil 11 Pop 5

Phil is not a better coach than Pop. Phil is not a better coach than Pat Riley.

The rings argument is easily defeated.



I'll give the college accomplishment to Brown, no problem. Consensus of peers can be pretty cliche but whatever both of them receive the same level of respect anyway.

Brown is a disciple of Dean Smith, who is a disciple of Phog Allen, who is a disciple of James Naismith. James didn't have a coach.


If you take all of these into consideration, since it's pretty dumb to choose who's greater with just 1 category, then I don't know how one can take Brown over Pop.
Because Brown is retired and because Brown didn't ride out the success he created at these franchises.

All these teams he turned around, taking some to their first ever playoff appearances. He turned the Jayhawks around as well. When a guy can turn a team around like that, and do it multiple times in various cities with a myriad of different pieces, there's something to him. Pop might be able to do that, but we'll never know. Pop has had the luxury of being coach and president of basketball operations since he fired Bob Hill, so never had to answer to his president of basketball operations. He's had a GM who played with Larry Brown in Kansas in RC, and he's had an owner who let him coach without being a Mark Cuban or Jim Buss type owner. There are a lot of circumstances surrounding the success of Gregg Popovich that many here either are ignorant of or have forgotten or just don't care due to homerism, but Pop has been able to lay in the bed he made, and had to freedom to make it how he saw fit. Even then, I'd put him 1b, not 2. That's only considering how good of a coach they are, not necessarily how well they did as a coach. I just think it's easier to pick out Larry's success since it followed him and he moved enough to make it obvious. I can understand if you don't however.

[CitizenDwayne]

Larry Brown would tell you Pop is the greatest coach of all time

Actually he would probably use some racial slur, then tell you to fuck off

[DMC]

Actually he would probably use some racial slur, then tell you to fuck off

Which one? I've known Larry for a long time, never heard him utter a racial slur. I doubt Pop uses them either. OHHHH you were trying to be funny.

[CitizenDwayne]

I've known Larry for a long time

Do tell.

In all seriousness though, Brown is an absolute mastermind when it comes to Xs and Os, but in my opinion his greatness takes a hit when you consider that he just hops from team to team, never really settling down for any period of time (I could be wrong, but I think his current stint at Southern Methodist is his longest reign as coach, and it's not like he's accomplished a great deal there).

[CitizenDwayne]

And no I wasn't really trying to be funny, I just know of Brown as a hardass taskmaster with an abusive streak. Can't see him showering acclaim on anyone else, even a protege of his

[DMC]

And no I wasn't really trying to be funny, I just know of Brown as a hardass taskmaster with an abusive streak. Can't see him showering acclaim on anyone else, even a protege of his
He is a hard ass, but you said "racial slur". There's a huge difference. Pop is no Mr Rogers.

[CitizenDwayne]

He is a hard ass, but you said "racial slur". There's a huge difference. Pop is no Mr Rogers.

I'm aware of that, but considering Sean Elliott's issues with Brown and his weird relationship with AI, I think there's more ammo against him that against Pop, about whom just about no former player has had anything negative to say.

Also, let us not forget that for a pretty substantial period of time Brown was nothing but George Karl essentially, hopping from one team to the next, improving them but not accomplishing shit. If not for Danny Manning, we would not even be having this discussion.

[ElNono]

I think Pop > Larry, but Larry is a phenomenal coach that won both at the college and pro levels, and that was successful in almost every team he coached. Not just the Pistons, but also took a team like Charlotte and put them in the playoffs.

His main drawback is that he wants constant challenges, so it's difficult for him to stick around one place for too long.

He's a HoF coach, no doubt about it. He's up there with other legendary coaches like Don Nelson (another coach Pop has said many times he's taken things from).

[DMC]

I'm aware of that, but considering Sean Elliott's issues with Brown and his weird relationship with AI, I think there's more ammo against him that against Pop, about whom just about no former player has had anything negative to say.

Also, let us not forget that for a pretty substantial period of time Brown was nothing but George Karl essentially, hopping from one team to the next, improving them but not accomplishing shit. If not for Danny Manning, we would not even be having this discussion.

How can you improve a team and at the same time not accomplish anything? Improvement is an accomplishment. If you judge coaches by rings, Phil is the greatest ever. What coach has ever won multiple titles by taking shitty teams from rags to riches in only a few seasons, over and over?

[DMC]

I think Pop > Larry, but Larry is a phenomenal coach that won both at the college and pro levels, and that was successful in almost every team he coached. Not just the Pistons, but also took a team like Charlotte and put them in the playoffs.

His main drawback is that he wants constant challenges, so it's difficult for him to stick around one place for too long.

He's a HoF coach, no doubt about it. He's up there with other legendary coaches like Don Nelson (another coach Pop has said many times he's taken things from).

There's a difference between being successful and being the catalyst for success. Larry was the latter. Barry Switzer was successful, but he inherited a champion and could only fuck it up. Larry adopted broken teams and fixed them.

Purely from a coaching standpoint, it's hard to beat Larry. What Pop has done will probably never be done again in our lifetimes by any other coach, but the Spurs have been on the precipice for many years, and at times they've broken through. Last year they happened to have a battering ram. Pop didn't make them shoot like that. You have to give the Spurs organization credit for the entire package from drafting to training to execution. Pop is a huge part of that, but he's not the only part of it. Larry, for the most part, went into situations that didn't have that kind of foundation and he changed it.

I guess it comes down to what you consider coaching to be. I know one thing, if either Pop or Larry ever writes a book about their careers, I'll buy it.