Phil Jackson vs. Pop?

[GINNNNNNNNNNNNOBILI]

From ESPN's daily dime


Phil Jackson, meanwhile, was surprised to hear that the amount of Larry Brown's settlement . . . $18.5 million of the $41 million the Knicks owed him . . . had become public. I asked him what his reaction was, and whether he had any concerns.

"I don't want to express them. I just refuse to say anything about them," Jackson said before going ahead and saying something anyway. "Larry made out fine, and as long as he has a chance to come back and have another job, I'm sure he'll be coaching again next year and making a great salary."

I noted that Spurs coach Gregg Popovich said many coaches around the league were dismayed that Brown took a settlement, saying he hopes it does not set a precedent.

Jackson, not a big fan of Popovich or Brown, had this to say in response:

"If that was a concern to people, Popovich probably should have weighed in on [Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald] Sterling two or three coaches ago when he was breaking all their contracts years ago. That was a time when he should have been backing up coaches, not a $40 million situation that ends up with $18 million, but guys who were owed $500,000 or $600,000 and needed that kind of money.

" Fitch was one of them, [B]Bob Hill, [Alvin] Gentry, [Jim] Todd, Bob Weiss, they had to go to court. Those were concerns to our coaches' association, where an owner was exacerbating a situation. It was really something that got us angry as an association, but Mike Dunleavy has changed all that and has gotten them to spend some money."

[Louie Vega]

From ESPN's daily dime


I'm glad to see that Coach Coattails is doing fine! That is until the Spurs beat up on his boys and really piss him off!

[GINNNNNNNNNNNNOBILI]

Was that a cheap shot with the Bob Hill reference? or was that from another team?

[samikeyp]

Phuck Phil

[Joepa]

Phil is a terd sandwich.

[ShoogarBear]

Before anything intelligent can be said, it must be established whether Phil has his facs correct or not.

[Solid D]

I agree with ShoogarBear in that Pop may have supported the other coaches several years ago, but ESPN didn't care what Pop thought back then. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to listen....

[Mr. Body]

Meanwhile, Phil Jackson doesn't lift a finger...

[Dave McNulla]

"If that was a concern to people, Popovich probably should have weighed in on [Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald] Sterling two or three coaches ago when he was breaking all their contracts years ago. That was a time when he should have been backing up coaches, not a $40 million situation that ends up with $18 million, but guys who were owed $500,000 or $600,000 and needed that kind of money.the relationship between larry and gregg is well known, in addition to pop being asked to testify in the case. of course they are going to ask him about it.

maybe pop did chime in on the clipper sitations, or maybe he didn't because he wasn't asked.

[Solid D]

" Fitch was one of them, [B]Bob Hill , [Alvin] Gentry, [Jim] Todd, Bob Weiss, they had to go to court.

Awkward.

[Notorious H.O.P.]

I think Phil will always be at odds with Pop. I think Phil is concerned not only for his spot in the current coach "rankings" but also for his place among the greatest coaches of our time.

Sure, he has six rings to Pop's three but each of his championship squads had a pair of players from the NBA's 50 Greatest. Also, he pretty much stepped right into those situations whereas Pop had to build the Spurs piece by piece in a small, less player attractive market with an owner who put financial restraints on him. And when you consider the revolving door of role players, he won each championship with unique squads that he had to mold each time.

A lot of people can argue that these facts make Pop the better coach (or course, a lot of people will argue Phil's side as well) and I think Jackson is disgusted that Pop might be considered that.

[ShoogarBear]

Uh, no. Pop hasn't done squat without Tim Duncan. And nine rings to three? And back-to-back-to-backs?

Much as I dislike Phil, his resume dwarfs Pop's.

[picnroll]

Did Phil stand up for Gentry, Hill, Fitch, Todd and Weiss or was he too busy working on his tell all memoirs, trashing his own players?

[whottt]

Phil's just forging the us VS them mentality for his team against the team he figures to be the toughest to beat in the playoffs.


Phil talks smack, his team rallies behind it, his opponents get distracted...it's something he's done with great success throughout his career.

Been there done that....

Besides, everyone knows that Pop does get Larry Brown's back out of a sense of obligation as much as anything else.

Larry Brown is no angel.

IMO, Pop would have rather not been included in this whole Knicks VS Brown thing...but without Brown Pop would likely not have a career as an NBA coach.

Just loyalty from Pop...admirable.

No other coaches like Phil so he's essentially got nothing to lose by doing this sort of thing.

Last time Phil took a personal shot at Pop though, the simulator crew whipped his butt. Let's hope for a repeat of that.

[ShoogarBear]

Oh, yeah, by the way . . . the Lakers are back!

:ihit:ihit:ihit

[Notorious H.O.P.]

Uh, no. Pop hasn't done squat without Tim Duncan. And nine rings to three? And back-to-back-to-backs?

Much as I dislike Phil, his resume dwarfs Pop's.

On the nine to three basis of course but I think if Pop had those same teams, his result would have been the same. I would even argue that the result may have even been better since he may have been able to convince all of the Jerrys to hold onto the teams a little longer. The Bulls probably still had one or maybe even two championships left in them before the decision was made to blow up the team and in LA, I think Pop would have worked the Shaq-Kobe-Jerry relationship to a point where they could have stayed together.

And for the purposes of this discussion, I haven't argued that Pop is the better coach, only to say that Jackson may perceive that some people may consider him to be. Jackson is an arrogant jerk that would be insulted to have anyone even think about it or even that he has a peer on his level and I believe that is where his Pop hate is rooted.

[ShoogarBear]

On the nine to three basis of course but I think if Pop had those same teams, his result would have been the same. I would even argue that the result may have even been better since he may have been able to convince all of the Jerrys to hold onto the teams a little longer. The Bulls probably still had one or maybe even two championships left in them before the decision was made to blow up the team and in LA, I think Pop would have worked the Shaq-Kobe-Jerry relationship to a point where they could have stayed together.

And for the purposes of this discussion, I haven't argued that Pop is the better coach, only to say that Jackson may perceive that some people may consider him to be. Jackson is an arrogant jerk that would be insulted to have anyone even think about it or even that he has a peer on his level and I believe that is where his Pop hate is rooted.Well, that's a pretty bold statement, and I don't buy the case that another coach could have won MORE championships than Phil if he had his teams.

That's like saying another coach could have won 10/10 years with Russell instead of Auerbach's paltry 9/10.

And the fact is that when ever Pop and Phil have gone head-to-head, Pop only has won when he's had the superior team. Phil at least showed in 2004 than he can beat Pop with an inferior team.

[Obstructed_View]

You have to forgive Phil; he's just so giddy that Red Auerbach is dead that he can't control what he says.

[Notorious H.O.P.]

That's like saying another coach could have won 10/10 years with Russell instead of Auerbach's paltry 9/10.

That's not in any way, shape or form what I've said. My opinion is based on the idea that each squad was broken up or allowed to fall apart before their potential championship runs were over.

Keeping those teams together MAY have and probably would have resulted in additional championships.

[FromWayDowntown]

And the fact is that when ever Pop and Phil have gone head-to-head, Pop only has won when he's had the superior team. Phil at least showed in 2004 than he can beat Pop with an inferior team.

I'm not sure that the O'Neal-Bryant-Malone-Payton-Fisher-George Lakers of 2004 were an inferior team to the Nesterovic-Duncan-Bowen-Turkoglu-Parker-Ginobili Spurs of 2004. Certainly, Malone and Payton weren't what they had been, but they (particularly Malone) were still quite serviceable players. I'd think most Spurs fans would have taken a Nesterovic for Malone deal, for instance, without batting an eye.

I'd give the Lakers of that year the nod from a talent standpoint, but I still think the Spurs should have beaten that team.

[ShoogarBear]

Oaky, but there's no guarantee that Pop would have won the six championships with the Bulls that Jackson did. In fact, i would suggest that it's extremely unlikely.

And I don't see Pop in any way, shape, or form winning anywhere near three rings with those Lakers.

[ShoogarBear]

I'm not sure that the O'Neal-Bryant-Malone-Payton-Fisher-George Lakers of 2004 were an inferior team to the Nesterovic-Duncan-Bowen-Turkoglu-Parker-Ginobili Spurs of 2004. Certainly, Malone and Payton weren't what they had been, but they (particularly Malone) were still quite serviceable players. I'd think most Spurs fans would have taken a Nesterovic for Malone deal, for instance, without batting an eye.

I'd give the Lakers of that year the nod from a talent standpoint, but I still think the Spurs should have beaten that team.Maybe at the start of the year you would have an argument about the talent, but by the time that series started, nobody thought the Spurs would lose.

And the major reason for them losing was that PJax outcoached Pop.

[whottt]

Oaky, but there's no guarantee that Pop would have won the six championships with the Bulls that Jackson did. In fact, i would suggest that it's extremely unlikely.

And I don't see Pop in any way, shape, or form winning anywhere near three rings with those Lakers.


Pop did try to get DFish in the 2000 offseason....


Would have made all the difference in the world in one of those playoff series.


FWIW, I agree with you that Phil is the best coach...9 rings is 9 rings, lots of coaches have had talent...few have 9 rings.

However, that doesn't change the fact that Phil is a dickhead and it doesn't mean he always speaks the truth...

[wildbill2u]

The thing Pop has been able to do is win with a small franchise which is not a mecca for superstar players.

Building and rebuilding teams in San Antonio to championship caliber is more difficult than persuading players to go to flashy urban cities like LA or Chicago to play with a pair of dominant all-time players like Jordan-Pippen or Shaq-Kobe.

But comparisons are futile because each coach has strengths and a good resume.

[hitmanyr2k]

Oaky, but there's no guarantee that Pop would have won the six championships with the Bulls that Jackson did. In fact, i would suggest that it's extremely unlikely.

And I don't see Pop in any way, shape, or form winning anywhere near three rings with those Lakers.

With the way Popovich handles his players and his inconsistent (and sometimes stupid) rotation pattern there's no way in hell he wins 3 straight titles with the Lakers. He's a good coach and all but he hurts his team by micro-managing everything. Makes me think the guy is a control freak sometimes. And the "small ball" crap he pulled last year against the Mavs in the playoffs was just idiotic. I just don't think Phil Jackson would be dumb enough to keep sending a small lineup out there on the floor when the opponent is killing his team on the boards game after game.

[Obstructed_View]

What's the head to head record between them in the playoffs again?

[jacobdrj]

It really does depend on the team that is being coached, but head to head, all things equal, after last year, it is clear, at least to me, that P-Jax is the better coach, because he isn't just a closer, he is also a damn good builder when push comes to shove, and NOBODY is a better motivator or game tactician.

[Phenomanul]

What's the head to head record between them in the playoffs again?

4-1 Jackson....

But the coaches don't play.... the players do... and the '00-'02 Lakers were complete and dominant.

[whottt]

3-1 Jackson....

Playoff Games:
14-7 Jackson....

[Obstructed_View]

4-1 Jackson....

But the coaches don't play.... the players do... and the '00-'02 Lakers were complete and dominant.
The Lakers won most of their games in the second half. That means adjustments, not talent.

[ShoogarBear]

There isn't a single quality about PJax I would take over Pop.

Except this: if I needed one coach to win one series.

[timvp]

There isn't a single quality about PJax I would take over Pop.

Except this: if I needed one coach to win one series.

:tu

Phil Jackson is a great, great coach. The best I've ever seen. As whottt has explained in this thread and in the past, Jackson turns his teams into machines that have no fear. He also figures out the weak links on the other team and exposes them.

Pop is a Hall of Famer and a great coach. No sane person could say otherwise. But Jackson is a step above him. He's had great talent but he's turned that into rings.

Give Phil Jackson the Spurs team from last year and he beats the Dallas Mavericks 100 out of 100 times.

[polandprzem]

:tu

Phil Jackson is a great, great coach. The best I've ever seen. As whottt has explained in this thread and in the past, Jackson turns his teams into machines that have no fear. He also figures out the weak links on the other team and exposes them.

Pop is a Hall of Famer and a great coach. No sane person could say otherwise. But Jackson is a step above him. He's had great talent but he's turned that into rings.

Give Phil Jackson the Spurs team from last year and he beats the Dallas Mavericks 100 out of 100 times.

Or give him Shaq, Kobe, Malone and Payton and he will destroy all leauge sweeping everybody in the playoffs !!!!!!!!!

[ShoogarBear]

Or give him Shaq, Kobe, Malone and Payton and he will destroy all leauge sweeping everybody in the playoffs !!!!!!!!!Remember all that crap that went on with the Lakers that year? Think anyone else would have gotten that dysfunctional crew to the NBA Finals?

[Obstructed_View]

Or give him Shaq, Kobe, Malone and Payton and he will destroy all leauge sweeping everybody in the playoffs !!!!!!!!!
I saw that team just absolutely kill the Spurs in every fourth quarter. Isn't that the series where they'd play straight defense until the fourth quarter and then double and triple team the shit out of Duncan? Genius. The Spurs were by far the more talented team and they just got out-zenned.

[picnroll]

Pop got beat by the Jackson and Lakers two times in the playoffs because the guys who were supposed to hit the open outside shots couldn't do jack, nothing more, nothing less. If guys like Horry and Hedo didn't stink it up when they had open looks Phil would be short two of his rings.

[whottt]

:tu

Phil Jackson is a great, great coach. The best I've ever seen. As whottt has explained in this thread and in the past, Jackson turns his teams into machines that have no fear. He also figures out the weak links on the other team and exposes them.

Pop is a Hall of Famer and a great coach. No sane person could say otherwise. But Jackson is a step above him. He's had great talent but he's turned that into rings.

Give Phil Jackson the Spurs team from last year and he beats the Dallas Mavericks 100 out of 100 times.


Werd :tu


One could say that Phil Jackson gets his players to reach their potential like no other coach in history...

MJ was not a winner(in the NBA) before Phil.
Scottie Pippen was not even a player.
Kobe and Shaq got swept before Phil.
DFish and Steve Kerr turned into heartbreakers.


He gets scrubs to believe in themselves better than any coach IMO.


One other common denominator in all of the Spurs titles other than Tim Duncan and Gregg Poppovich?

All of them had a player that learned to win under Phil play a key role in them.


99 - Will Perdue
03 - Steve Kerr
05 - Robert Horry....Horry is really the only stretch there, since he was already Horry before Phil got hold of him...but it certainly didn't hurt Horry anyway, and I'd say he got even better at doing it under Phil.


Great Coach...Arrogant, a shithead, but Great Coach, his teams never beat themselves(well except for Kobe beating them in 04), or lack confidence, and IMO they usually overachieve, for the simple reason that Phil gets them to believe they are invincible.


He's also a near genius at isolating the choker and exploiting him(See, Turkoglu, Hedo in 04)

[ShoogarBear]

Pop got beat by the Jackson and Lakers two times in the playoffs because the guys who were supposed to hit the open outside shots couldn't do jack, nothing more, nothing less. If guys like Horry and Hedo didn't stink it up when they had open looks Phil would be short two of his rings.If Horry doesn't stink it up in 03, Pop is short one ring. If Rasheed hits a couple of jumpers in 99, he's short two rings.

You can play "if" all you want, but the only facts are the nine rings.

[picnroll]

If Horry doesn't stink it up in 03, Pop is short one ring. If Rasheed hits a couple of jumpers in 99, he's short two rings.

You can play "if" all you want, but the only facts are the nine rings.
The point is everyone saying how brilliant Jackson is and how he kicked Pop's butt in coaching. What was Jackson's brilliant coaching manuever? Pack the lane, get physical with Parker and Duncan and take away the inside game, take his chances that the Spurs couldn't burn him from the outside. Brilliant move.

[ShoogarBear]

Yes it was, since Pop had no idea how to counter it.

Anybody who saw that series will tell you that there looked like no way the Lakers were winning after the first two games. Jackson decided where the weakness was, made the adjustment, and put his team at an advantage where previously there was none. That's what coaching is all about.

And "We didn't hit our shots" must be the lament of every fired coach in history.

[ambchang]

Maybe at the start of the year you would have an argument about the talent, but by the time that series started, nobody thought the Spurs would lose.

And the major reason for them losing was that PJax outcoached Pop.
I actually thought the Spurs were favoured because the Lakers underachieved throughout the season.
And then there was the finals, where Larry Brown played Phil Jackson like a piano. I can see why Phil Jackson hates the Brown/Pop alliance.
Phil Jackson, as good as he is, has peers. Riley, Larry Brown, and yes, even Pop, are the few coaches who are at least on the same level as Jackson, despite fewer rings.
A good argument would be a coach like Chuck Daly, who revolutionized the game, but won "only" two rings. Is he the same as Rudy Tomjonavich, who also won two rings? Not a chance! Anybody who ever watched the game would know that Rudy is a one trick pony (pretty good trick though), and Daly is far and away the much better coach.

[picnroll]

Yes it was, since Pop had no idea how to counter it.

Anybody who saw that series will tell you that there looked like no way the Lakers were winning after the first two games. Jackson decided where the weakness was, made the adjustment, and put his team at an advantage where previously there was none. That's what coaching is all about.

And "We didn't hit our shots" must be the lament of every fired coach in history.
Name me the team in recent NBA history that couldn't hit their outshide shots for jack throughout a series against another elite team and went on to win to championship. As I recall even the mighty Phil with MJ and Pippen relied on some timely shooting from guys like Kerr Armstrong, and Paxson or Fisher and Horry. Sometimes your players just don't come through and do even a slightly below average job for you.

[ShoogarBear]

:lol Whatever, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Jackson made Pop look crazy in that series.

[whottt]

To be fair...it's really not Pop's fault that Hedo was a choking heartless bitch...

Difference between Pop and Phil? Phil saw Hedo for what he truly was...while Pop didn't. And Phil's guys never choke...either he knows how to get the choke out of them...or he is able to discern if they are chokers before letting them into the rotation. It's a talent. He didn't dare Stephen Jackson to beat him...


The good news in all of this?

Tony Parker is the only PG I have ever seen pull a double team out of Phil in the playoffs....this while he was being forced to double Duncan as well. Phil knows the chokers, he also knows the killers....that double team was the ultimate compliment from Phil Jackson to Tony Parker....and just think...Tony was only 21 then.

[picnroll]

Point is the dumbest coach in the league could figure "Hey their killing me in the paint. I think I'll try packing the lane." So is Jackson a genius for doing what any goof would do. And how was Pop supposed to counter Hedo, Horry, Manu clanking all their shots? Sneak Ray Allen and Michal Redd into Spurs' jerseys and hope nobody noticed?

[whottt]

He was supposed to sigh Stephen Jackson and not trade for Hedo.

[picnroll]

As I recall Jackson's impatience had something to do with the Spurs not being able to make him an offer.

[whottt]

And as I recall...having Hedo instead of Jackson had something to do with us losing...

I made my point...what's yours?

[The Truth #6]

I think SJ wanted more than 10mil/3years, I think that's the supposed contract he turned down hoping for a better offer..

[picnroll]

That Jackson was asking for a boatload of money. Spurs couldn't wait for him to realize that nobody was going to give him the boatload of money he wanted.

[Guru of Nothing]

As I manipulate the variables in my mind, I realize that mathematics and facts can be mutually exclusive.

[hitmanyr2k]

:lol Whatever, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Jackson made Pop look crazy in that series.

Like putting in a small lineup game after game when you're getting killed on the offensive boards. Sometimes Popovich has the mind of a gnat when it comes to adjustments.

[Zunni]

Phil wouldn't have started Parker in 2001-2002. He never would have PLAYED Ginobili in 2002-2003. That's his weakness as a coach: he doesn't play or develop young players very well. Had he been the Spurs coach for the 1999 team, he never could have recovered from the 2001 aging implosion. That would have been his exit queue, just as the aging implosion of the Bulls in '98 and the same for the Lakers in '04 were his queues.

[whottt]

9 Championships doesn't leave a whole lot of room to second guess who was given playing time.

Pop started Parker because we had no PG btw.

Phil has played younger players if he had too and they deserved it...but I can't see many young guys that he overlooked that went on to be stars.



And um...Phil just named Adrew Bynum the starter for the rest of the season, even after Kwame returns. Bynum is a 19 year old at one of the top two most difficult positions to learn in the NBA.


I also bet Phil would have played Manu...he played Kukoc.

[polandprzem]

Remember all that crap that went on with the Lakers that year? Think anyone else would have gotten that dysfunctional crew to the NBA Finals?

I've got to say few things:

One: Phil is a great coach, yup his is arogant and has one of the bigest egos as a coach in NBA. And we are not gonna to agrgue about that
TWo: because of that ego he doesn't car4e about players private life, (so what?) well when Shaq and Kobe were "not on the same page' he did nothing. And that caused what it caused.

Phil was not that much of a genius. he came to Chicago where there already was a great team. Then he lost twice without MJ.
He lost to the spurs in 2003 losing the decisive game by 28 as I remamber correctly.

hedo? Sheesh - he was killing everybody from the 3 point land the whole season only to choke against LA.

Was Phil who made the Fisher shot?
Was Phil who was making clutch Kobe shots? Nope.


And losing to Detroit? In a bad fashion way? wow.

[IX_Equilibrium]

Phil Jackson is a piece of shit.

[ShoogarBear]

Phil was not that much of a genius. he came to Chicago where there already was a great team. Then he lost twice without MJ.
He lost to the spurs in 2003 losing the decisive game by 28 as I remamber correctly.

hedo? Sheesh - he was killing everybody from the 3 point land the whole season only to choke against LA.

Was Phil who made the Fisher shot?
Was Phil who was making clutch Kobe shots? Nope.


And losing to Detroit? In a bad fashion way? wow.So . . . Red Auerbach is not a genius. He coached for 10+ years without Russell and never came close to winning a thing. Auerbach = 0 championships without Russell.

And Pop is certainly not a genius. He's just been riding Duncan's coattails, and is too chicken to stay around to show what he could do after Duncan retires.

Out of the top coaches, the only ones who have proven they can win with different casts are Phil Jackson and Pat Riley.

Oh, and BTW, have you been paying attention to what Jackson has done the last two years with the Lakers? Or remember what he did with the Bulls after MJ's first retirement?

[polandprzem]

What he did to those Bulls?

I do not want to argue which coach is better cause every coach has their better and worse points.
What I wanted to say is that you never know. And saying that Phil would win 100 out of 100 series having the spurs in the Dallas matchup is BS.
IMO the most part in the victories are due to players.

As you've said Auerbach was not winning until Bill came to Boston. Bill was great. Red couldn't win with McCauley (HOF) having Bob and Bill S.

So mostly - yes it depends on players.

As for this year Lakers - yup Phil did a great job.

What else?

[Dave McNulla]

i can't believe i still see this argument. i hate phil jackson, but i can't deny his greatness as a coach. he took two perenial playoff losers and win nine championships. jordan was the greatest player to never win a championship until phil showed him how. shaq was getting swept out of the playoffs nearly every season until phil showed up. scotty pippen and kobe bryant were jokes before phil.

if pop coached the 91 bulls, would they have won the championship? i don't think so. not by a long shot. if pop had coached the 2000 lakers, would they have won the championship? probably not. before those seasons, the bulls and lakers were not champions. without those, the 92 bulls and 01 lakers would not have had championship experience.

there doesn't even need to be this discussion. it's so one-sided that it's stupid. pop is the second or third best coach in the nba today (riley could be considered for #2).

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

They are both great coaches, but the tie breaker for me is this:
Would Pop keep his job if he was nailing Holt's daughter? Probably not. PJ's a pimp like that.

[2Cleva]

I guess someone doesn't remember Chicago getting to what - Game 7 of the ECF without MJ.

If you're going to be a true fan of the game, be knowledgeable and don't let hate and biases blind you. I like coming to this site because many get it. But there are always a few that go Chris Childs on the situation.

[jman3000]

Pop started Parker because we had no PG btw.


we had a pg... it was just that antonio daniels was doing shitty.

[polandprzem]

i can't believe i still see this argument. i hate phil jackson, but i can't deny his greatness as a coach. he took two perenial playoff losers and win nine championships. jordan was the greatest player to never win a championship until phil showed him how. shaq was getting swept out of the playoffs nearly every season until phil showed up. scotty pippen and kobe bryant were jokes before phil.

if pop coached the 91 bulls, would they have won the championship? i don't think so. not by a long shot. if pop had coached the 2000 lakers, would they have won the championship? probably not. before those seasons, the bulls and lakers were not champions. without those, the 92 bulls and 01 lakers would not have had championship experience.

there doesn't even need to be this discussion. it's so one-sided that it's stupid. pop is the second or third best coach in the nba today (riley could be considered for #2).

I assume that Pop is not capable of winning.

[polandprzem]

I guess someone doesn't remember Chicago getting to what - Game 7 of the ECF without MJ.

If you're going to be a true fan of the game, be knowledgeable and don't let hate and biases blind you. I like coming to this site because many get it. But there are always a few that go Chris Childs on the situation.

Believe me I do get it

[Dave McNulla]

I assume that Pop is not capable of winning.
you'd be wrong. he's won three titles. but that's six less than nine titles.

[polandprzem]

you'd be wrong. he's won three titles. but that's six less than nine titles.

Who is better player Tim or Horry?

[Guru of Nothing]

And Pop is certainly not a genius. He's just been riding Duncan's coattails, and is too chicken to stay around to show what he could do after Duncan retires.

Out of the top coaches, the only ones who have proven they can win with different casts are Phil Jackson and Pat Riley.


Okay, Pop is not a genius, but he has certainly carved out his own unique style of coaching, and he has three rings to show for it. ...but please, don't call him a chicken and then hold up Pat Riley as a shining example. That makes no sense, and I won't even begin to waste words proving my point.

[E20]

I don't have to say this and I don't know why I am, but


Phil > Pop

[ShoogarBear]

Okay, Pop is not a genius, but he has certainly carved out his own unique style of coaching, and he has three rings to show for it. ...but please, don't call him a chicken and then hold up Pat Riley as a shining example. That makes no sense, and I won't even begin to waste words proving my point.I was just making a point that there isn't a single critcism you can make about Jackson's success that doesn't apply doubly to Pop.

Whatever personal enmity you have toward Riley, the fact is he's accomplished things Pop never will.

[Guru of Nothing]

Whatever personal enmity you have toward Riley, the fact is he's accomplished things Pop never will.

So has Kevin Federline.

Let's agree to disagree.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Pop is one of the better coaches today, but he isn't in Phil Jackson and Pat Riley's class.. I think he could better himself if he adjusts. He takes after Larry Brown too much in terms of style, cuz he's a bit stubborn, but he's better than Larry Brown, because he adjusts. It just takes him a while.

If Pop gets another Championship or two, people will have to reconsider how good he is.

I don't like Phil Jackson, but come on! Give him his due credit.

[timvp]

In Pop's defense, I think the 2003 championship run might go down as the most impressive coaching performance of All-Time. I think it's definitely top three.

That Spurs team should have never won a championship. You had a 20 year old point guard who was not only the first European point guard in the NBA, but also the first point guard in the NBA who never went to college. You had a shooting guard who was basically a rookie who played way over his head. Bruce Bowen was a far worse offensive player than he was now. The bench was good but inconsistent. It was basically Tim Duncan and an aging David Robinson with a mix of really young and really old role players.

Additionally, more than half the team became free agents after the year. The job Pop did with that team was by far his best coaching job and perhaps the best coaching job in the history of the league. There's no way they should have won it.

[polandprzem]

We know that timvp :)


Riley?
Please. He is great but not that much better (if better, IMO not).

He had the best team, packed with great players in LA (Wilkens, magic, jabbar, Scott, Green, Cooper, McAdoo) It's just insaine that team could even exsist in NBA standards.

And let me remind you8 about those two years in Miami when he was not able to advance to playoffs so he quit the job returning when Shaq & Wade was in town

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

We know that timvp :)


Riley?
Please. He is great but not that much better (if better, IMO not).

He had the best team, packed with great players in LA (Wilkens, magic, jabbar, Scott, Green, Cooper, McAdoo) It's just insaine that team could even exsist in NBA standards.

And let me remind you8 about those two years in Miami when he was not able to advance to playoffs so he quit the job returning when Shaq & Wade was in town
You can pull the superstar card with both Phil and Pop.

[polandprzem]

You can pull the superstar card with both Phil and Pop.

As to all great coaches, That's why I've said it is mostly on players who will end up as a champion.
You can also say that one superstar does not equal the other, same the supporters and role players, same - competition.
Plus luck and injuries as well as havong the best form at the best time.

(The time- IMO if the spurs met the mavs in the West finals I think the spurs would be succesfull, the same with 2004 and LA team. They played IMO 5-6 great games (up to their potential) in that playoffs.


So many things leads to success that I think we cannot say who is better counting his rings or looking at his stats.

:toast

[Obstructed_View]

In Pop's defense, I think the 2003 championship run might go down as the most impressive coaching performance of All-Time. I think it's definitely top three.
The '03 team was by far the most talented of any of the Spurs teams. Ever. Pop didn't coach those teams to 30 point runs to seal games.

[Laker-USC]

The ZEN MASTER

[timvp]

The '03 team was by far the most talented of any of the Spurs teams. Ever. Pop didn't coach those teams to 30 point runs to seal games.

Yeah, there was a reason that team would dig giant holes and blow leads in the fourth quarter. That team wasn't very good compared to '99 or '05.

[duncandaman]

he's just pissed cause every year we keep winning and they keep sucking, i guess he finnaly knows who the real coach is

[duncandaman]

he kknowswho the real coach is

[Dave McNulla]

Who is better player Tim or Horry?
12 players, 1 coach. it's just the same thing.

[Obstructed_View]

Yeah, there was a reason that team would dig giant holes and blow leads in the fourth quarter. That team wasn't very good compared to '99 or '05.
Exactly. They were so much better than everyone else they lost focus easily. It required huge offensive spurts at the end in order to win, which has ZERO to do with coaching.

[ambchang]

All the talk about a stubborn Pop, I am not sure about that.
Which other coach would have used Steve Kerr at such a crucial time in 2003? Who else would have relied heavily on Jaren Jackson and Stephen Jackson in 99 and 03? Pop used a smaller lineup vs. the Suns in 05, he would have been called a genius if the Spurs pulled out a series win vs. Dallas last year with the small ball line up. How many coach/GM would give Oberto the starting job after the suckage he pulled last year? Signed Butler and Elson?
Every coach had his times of stubborness and flexibility, remember how Jackson got KILLED in the 04 finals by Brown? He was stubborn in not changing his game plan around even through he was murdered throughout the series (game 2 was only won on a last second miracle shot by Kobe to force OT), Riley's major suckage with Miami? Last year, he was on his way out, Heat fans were calling for his head, but then things turn all peachy after the Heat won the ship. The point is, the result justifies the methods, and Pop, winning 3 championships with very different lineups since 98 is as impressive as Riley winning 5 rings in 20 odd years of coaching, or Jackson winning 9 in 15 or so years.

[Obstructed_View]

Which other coach would have used Steve Kerr at such a crucial time in 2003?Steve Kerr had been backup point guard for much of the season, was an energy guy and the Spurs were down by a large margin and needed three pointers. In case you didn't know, Steve Kerr is the best three point shooter of all time by percentage.


Who else would have relied heavily on Jaren Jackson and Stephen Jackson in 99 and 03?What were his alternatives again?


Pop used a smaller lineup vs. the Suns in 05No he didn't.


he would have been called a genius if the Spurs pulled out a series win vs. Dallas last year with the small ball line up. But they didn't, so he isn't.


How many coach/GM would give Oberto the starting job after the suckage he pulled last year? Again, what were his alternatives?


remember how Jackson got KILLED in the 04 finals by Brown? He was stubborn in not changing his game plan around even through he was murdered throughout the series (game 2 was only won on a last second miracle shot by Kobe to force OT), The Lakers lost to a better team. They had just gotten done beating another better team in the WCF.


Riley's major suckage with Miami? Last year, he was on his way out, Heat fans were calling for his head, but then things turn all peachy after the Heat won the ship.Read the last five words of your quote. The Heat won with a team most people still think is a joke. It ain't "major suckage" when you win.


The point is, the result justifies the methods, and Pop, winning 3 championships with very different lineups since 98 is as impressive as Riley winning 5 rings in 20 odd years of coaching, or Jackson winning 9 in 15 or so years.Your numbers look skewed. According to my remedial math, Pop took over in 1995 so he wins a championship on average of every four years (3/12). Jackson started in '89 so he wins a championship on average every other year (9/18). Jackson also leads the league in winning percentage for regular and post season. He's also leading against Pop head to head, even with inferior teams.

Game, set and match.

[ShoogarBear]

LOL, you guys don't know that the only reason Pop went to Kerr is because Duncan told him to?

[Obstructed_View]

LOL, you guys don't know that the only reason Pop went to Kerr is because Duncan told him to?
Duncan > Phil

[adidas11]

Ok, so it looks like the argument has turned into whether or not Phil > Pop, and not about the statements that Phil made about Larry Brown getting the settlement, etc.

When judging any coach, I think sometimes you have to look at the seasons where the team DIDN'T win the championship, to determine how great a coach is.

To start off with about Phil, he worked his way up the coaching ranks, and won a title in the CBA before coming to coach in the NBA.

And he was an assistant coach with the Chicago Bulls, before they fired Doug Collins to become the head coach. The reason they went with Phil was because Jordan and others went to management after Phil coached them to a win in overtime during the regular season (a game where Doug Collins got ejected). The players basically demaned to management to hire Phil as the head coach. So all of this talk about he just chose the Bulls because they had the best players isn't necessarily true. In Doug Collins final year, the Bulls were no better than a 6th seed in their conference. And yes, they did make it to the conference finals in the playoffs that season, but they were in no way this elite team before Phil took over that everyone is making them out to be. He came in, and the next season transformed their style of play. You should watch some of the game tapes in Doug Collins final season, and the first and second season of the Bulls. Actual ball movement, instead of everyone standing around to watch what MJ would do next.

And remember, in the 1993-1994 season, the Bulls had lost MJ to his first retirement over the summer, and had to reconstruct their team on the fly and they won TWO LESS GAMES than the season prior. And they took the eventual eastern conference champs (the Knicks) to a seven game series in the Eastern Conference semi-finals that year. In my opinion, that was his finest coaching season, and solid proof of how great a coach that he is.

[ambchang]

Steve Kerr had been backup point guard for much of the season, was an energy guy and the Spurs were down by a large margin and needed three pointers. In case you didn't know, Steve Kerr is the best three point shooter of all time by percentage.

Steve Kerr also happened to be in his last season, and was 37 years old. Wanted 3 pters? He could have went to Bowen, Ferry, Smith, and Steve Jax. All happened to be pretty good 3 pt shooters. There was also a much younger Speedy Claxton waiting, and that leads to another point, in which Pop used both Claxton and Kerr at the right time in the Nets series. That seems pretty flexible to me. The point is, Pop was flexible enough to use a 37 year old at such an important time.


What were his alternatives again? (on using the Jacksons)
Not having them shoot 3 pters would be an alternative. Not giving either one of them a major role in the offense would be an alternative. In 99, Mario Elie and Antonio Daniels would have easily eaten into J Jackson's minutes.


No he didn't. (on using a smaller lineup in 05 vs. Suns
Good job backing your claims up.
Nazr averaged 18 mpg in the regular season, 22.2 in the Suns series.
Rasho went from 22.5 to 1.8, Horry went from 18.6 to 33. I would say going from Nazr/Rasho to Horry is going quite a bit smaller.



But they didn't, so he isn't.
Just like how Phil Jackson missed the 2004 season expectations by a wide margin?


Again, what were his alternatives? (On Oberto Starting

Elson, Butler, Horry, went small.


The Lakers lost to a better team. They had just gotten done beating another better team in the WCF.

So whenever P Jackson lost, he lost to a better team, but when Pop does it, he lost to a worse team? the 04 Lakers were supposed to win 70+ games, were supposed to roll through the playoffs. How is Shaq + Kobe + Malone + Payton + anybody < Pistons on talent?

Come to think of it, ANYBODY predicted the Spurs win the title in 99 and 03? 03 was supposed to be a rebuilding year.


Read the last five words of your quote. The Heat won with a team most people still think is a joke. It ain't "major suckage" when you win.

Yeah, because I am sure Riley coached one year in Miami. After 03, people were calling for Riley's head, resulting in him passing the team to Stan Van Gundy, who did a MUCH better job than him. I am not going to say that SVG > Riley, because that would be untrue, but it's not like Riley never missed expectations.


Your numbers look skewed. According to my remedial math, Pop took over in 1995 so he wins a championship on average of every four years (3/12). Jackson started in '89 so he wins a championship on average every other year (9/18). Jackson also leads the league in winning percentage for regular and post season. He's also leading against Pop head to head, even with inferior teams.

Game, set and match.
Pop joined in 97, the horrible year where EVERYONE was injured, and Nique was carrying the team with *gasp* Monty Williams. And that is 3 championships in 10 years, in which 2 were totally unexpected (99 and 03). Your method puts winning percentage mightily high.
Rudy Tomjonavich won 2 championships in 13 years, Larry Brown won 1 in 23 years, and nobody in their right minds would EVER say RT > LB as a coach.
There is NO WAY you can say Coach A > Coach B without any evaluation of talent. That's like saying Lenny Wilkens > Charles Barkley because he's got one more ring.
I went look up the numbers.
Pop - 3/10
Jackson - 9/15
Riley - 5/22

So I supposed going by your logic, PJax> Pop > Riley.

Besides, I am not saying who is better than who, it's about Pop is not as stubborn as a coach as people say he is.

[Obstructed_View]

Good job backing your claims up.
Nazr averaged 18 mpg in the regular season, 22.2 in the Suns series.
Rasho went from 22.5 to 1.8, Horry went from 18.6 to 33. I would say going from Nazr/Rasho to Horry is going quite a bit smaller.
This is the only part of your rambling that even rates a response: Did Pop sprain Rasho's ankle in order to go "small"? You do know that he was hurt, right? If Going small is having a center play 22 minutes a game, then how do you justify having a center play ZERO minutes a game against the Mavs? This wasn't intended to say that Pop isn't a good coach, but you chode-sniffers are just amazing. Talk to me in two or three more championships when Pop is in Jackson's league and the debate will at least be close.

[ambchang]

This is the only part of your rambling that even rates a response: Did Pop sprain Rasho's ankle in order to go "small"? You do know that he was hurt, right? If Going small is having a center play 22 minutes a game, then how do you justify having a center play ZERO minutes a game against the Mavs? This wasn't intended to say that Pop isn't a good coach, but you chode-sniffers are just amazing. Talk to me in two or three more championships when Pop is in Jackson's league and the debate will at least be close.

Nice to only quote parts of the response you can only respond to and ignore the rest, I don't understand how

Pop joined in 97, the horrible year where EVERYONE was injured, and Nique was carrying the team with *gasp* Monty Williams. And that is 3 championships in 10 years, in which 2 were totally unexpected (99 and 03). Your method puts winning percentage mightily high.
Rudy Tomjonavich won 2 championships in 13 years, Larry Brown won 1 in 23 years, and nobody in their right minds would EVER say RT > LB as a coach.
There is NO WAY you can say Coach A > Coach B without any evaluation of talent. That's like saying Lenny Wilkens > Charles Barkley because he's got one more ring.
I went look up the numbers.
Pop - 3/10
Jackson - 9/15
Riley - 5/22

So I supposed going by your logic, PJax> Pop > Riley.

Besides, I am not saying who is better than who, it's about Pop is not as stubborn as a coach as people say he is.
in refuting your response of how more championships/years coached = better coach is irrelevant in the conversation.
Again, try to read what I wrote, I am not saying Pop > Phil, my original point was that Pop is not inflexible.
Care to elaborate how using a 37 year old Steve Kerr and a backup point guard in Speedy Claxton at important points of the playoffs is inflexible?
How Riley should be excused from his coaching nightmare of the 2003 Heat?
How Jackson failed to coach a talented 2004 finals to expectations?
You seem to harp over and over on Pop's failure, yet try to ignore the ones of Riley and Jackson.
And yes, going from almost 40 minutes of centre play to 24 minutes is going small, having Horry take more and more of those minutes as the series progress showed it. Why not play Nazr more minutes? Why play Horry at crunch time every time?
Perhaps you can refresh my memory on Rasho's injury. I seem to recall him playing a few minutes here and a few minutes there, with a couple of DNP-CD.

[Obstructed_View]

Nice to only quote parts of the response you can only respond to and ignore the rest
Actually, I was refuting the only part of the response that was the most blatant product of not knowing the facts, since I'm rushing around trying to get ready to leave for Houston to see the Spurs beat the Rockettes tomorrow night, but I'll give it a shot.


Pop joined in 97, the horrible year where EVERYONE was injured,
Wrong. Pop fired Bob Hill and made himself coach. He was already GM.


and Nique was carrying the team with *gasp* Monty Williams. And that is 3 championships in 10 years, in which 2 were totally unexpected (99 and 03). Your method puts winning percentage mightily high.My method counts every year the coaches were the head coach of an NBA team and divides by the number of championships, without making any excuses for a specific situation. BTW, I mistakenly added two years that Jackson sat out. In case you didn't think championships were a good way to rate it, I also mentioned winning percentage. In case you didn't think that was convincing enough, I mentioned playoff winning percentage. In case you didn't think that was convincing enough, I mentioned head to head against Popovich. I didn't even mention who had home court in the head to head, but since none of the other facts seems to mean anything to you, I didn't figure it was worth the trouble.


Rudy Tomjonavich won 2 championships in 13 years, Larry Brown won 1 in 23 years, and nobody in their right minds would EVER say RT > LB as a coach.
This discussion is about Pop vs Jackson. What the hell do Rudy T and Larry Brown have to do with it?


There is NO WAY you can say Coach A > Coach B without any evaluation of talent. That's like saying Lenny Wilkens > Charles Barkley because he's got one more ring.
I went look up the numbers.
Pop - 3/10
Jackson - 9/15
Riley - 5/22

So I supposed going by your logic, PJax> Pop > Riley.
Again, the argument is Pop vs Jackson. You have PJax > Pop. I believe that was precisely my original statement.


Besides, I am not saying who is better than who, it's about Pop is not as stubborn as a coach as people say he is.
Then why are we having this conversation? Jackson is a better coach than Pop in every quantifiable way it can be measured. Pop is also very inflexible, as evidenced by Jackson killing him head to head due to better adjustments.



Care to elaborate how using a 37 year old Steve Kerr and a backup point guard in Speedy Claxton at important points of the playoffs is inflexible?Again, Parker had four points and three turnovers, and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Kerr and Claxton were the backups. How is it some great argument for a coach that he played his backups when the starter was stinking up the joint? If you ever come up with a lucid argument as to why Rasho and Nazr sat on the bench against the Mavericks, even though they were scoring at will on the inside, we can revisit this.



How Jackson failed to coach a talented 2004 finals to expectations?By the EW formula at basketballreference.com, the Spurs were expected to win 10 more games in the regular season than the Lakers. The Spurs had a 2-0 lead on them and then dropped four straight. That's hardly great coaching.


You seem to harp over and over on Pop's failure, yet try to ignore the ones of Riley and Jackson.It's funny that the only Jackson failure you cite is a year that his team beat the Spurs seven games out of ten and then eliminated them in the playoffs.



And yes, going from almost 40 minutes of centre play to 24 minutes is going small, having Horry take more and more of those minutes as the series progress showed it. Why not play Nazr more minutes? Why play Horry at crunch time every time? :bang Rasho was hurt. Was Pop supposed to play four guys? If he'd pulled Nazr completely off the floor for the entire series it would have been closer to what he did against Dallas. In reality, what Dallas did against the Spurs in '06 is closer to what the Spurs did against the Suns in 05. That's being outcoached. Maybe the fact that the same guy was dribbling the ball up the floor for the Spurs in '99 was a bigger help than most of you realize.


Perhaps you can refresh my memory on Rasho's injury. I seem to recall him playing a few minutes here and a few minutes there, with a couple of DNP-CD.Off the top of my head, Rasho sprained his ankle sometime in April (a nationally televised game IIRC) and lost his starting spot. Pop never got him back into the rotation even after he got healthy and he didn't collect much more than garbage minutes for the remainder of the season. You can look it up if you like.


I'm gone. See ya in Houston. Go Spurs.

[ambchang]

Actually, I was refuting the only part of the response that was the most blatant product of not knowing the facts, since I'm rushing around trying to get ready to leave for Houston to see the Spurs beat the Rockettes tomorrow night, but I'll give it a shot.

Wrong. Pop fired Bob Hill and made himself coach. He was already GM.

I am not talking about GM duties, and I don’t think you were either. He started being a coach in 97. Why not take his tenure as an assistant coach under Larry Brown too if you want to talk about Pop’s Spurs career?


My method counts every year the coaches were the head coach of an NBA team and divides by the number of championships, without making any excuses for a specific situation. BTW, I mistakenly added two years that Jackson sat out. In case you didn't think championships were a good way to rate it, I also mentioned winning percentage. In case you didn't think that was convincing enough, I mentioned playoff winning percentage. In case you didn't think that was convincing enough, I mentioned head to head against Popovich. I didn't even mention who had home court in the head to head, but since none of the other facts seems to mean anything to you, I didn't figure it was worth the trouble.

With no regards for talent? Jordan and Pippen, Shaq and Kobe, those are some pretty stacked teams. And no, I never said Pop > PJax. I am saying that:
a) Pop is not inflexible
b) You method of using championships and winning percentage to rate a coach is not accurate.
c) Pop’s accomplishments are as impressive as Riley’s or PJax’s.


This discussion is about Pop vs Jackson. What the hell do Rudy T and Larry Brown have to do with it?

It just showed your above method of evaluating a coach to be limiting.


Again, the argument is Pop vs Jackson. You have PJax > Pop. I believe that was precisely my original statement.

Then why are we having this conversation? Jackson is a better coach than Pop in every quantifiable way it can be measured. Pop is also very inflexible, as evidenced by Jackson killing him head to head due to better adjustments.

I am not the one to argue Pop > PJax, I never said anything on that matter. I simply stated that Pop is not as inflexible as people label him as, and that his 3 championships are as impressive as Riley’s or PJax’s accomplishments.


Again, Parker had four points and three turnovers, and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Kerr and Claxton were the backups. How is it some great argument for a coach that he played his backups when the starter was stinking up the joint? If you ever come up with a lucid argument as to why Rasho and Nazr sat on the bench against the Mavericks, even though they were scoring at will on the inside, we can revisit this.

He could have stuck with a terrible player, like how PJax stuck with Horry in the 03 playoffs and have him go 2 for 38 in 3 pters in the playoffs.

I thought Rasho and Nazr went 0 for 0 in both games 1 and 2, then didn’t see daylight from Games 3 on.


By the EW formula at basketballreference.com, the Spurs were expected to win 10 more games in the regular season than the Lakers. The Spurs had a 2-0 lead on them and then dropped four straight. That's hardly great coaching.

Not from the analyst and general public. And going on the same lines as your used-Steve-Kerr-out-of-necessity argument, what were PJax’s options other than packing the lane?


It's funny that the only Jackson failure you cite is a year that his team beat the Spurs seven games out of ten and then eliminated them in the playoffs.

Just quoted another one. See usage of Horry.


:bang Rasho was hurt. Was Pop supposed to play four guys? If he'd pulled Nazr completely off the floor for the entire series it would have been closer to what he did against Dallas. In reality, what Dallas did against the Spurs in '06 is closer to what the Spurs did against the Suns in 05. That's being outcoached. Maybe the fact that the same guy was dribbling the ball up the floor for the Spurs in '99 was a bigger help than most of you realize.

Off the top of my head, Rasho sprained his ankle sometime in April (a nationally televised game IIRC) and lost his starting spot. Pop never got him back into the rotation even after he got healthy and he didn't collect much more than garbage minutes for the remainder of the season. You can look it up if you like.

He twisted his ankle WAY back, and instead of giving more minutes to Nazr, he went small with Horry. Rasho got some minutes at the end of the regular season, about 20 or so a game, still had minutes in the Denver and Sonic series, and didn’t get any in the Suns series. So no, it’s not because of an injury that Rasho didn’t play, it’s because Pop decided he wouldn’t fit into the game plan.


I'm gone. See ya in Houston. Go Spurs.

I wish I can see the Rockets lose tonight in person. Well, have fun.

[conqueso]

I think two things are worth mentioning:

1. Phil Jackson always had two HOFers at or near their prime. Pop had only one in '03 and '05.

2. The offensive scheme that frustrated opposing coaches for years (the triangle) was developed and refined by Tex Winters, NOT Phil Jackson. All Phil did was implement it. In my mind, Phil's always been more of a personnel guy, working with the confidence and mentalities of the players, while the Xs and Os were handled by his staff.

Neither of those things necessarily make Pop > Phil, but they're something some of you are forgetting.

And as an addendum, I don't know who mentioned it, but Phil Jackson certainly did NOT outcoach Pop in '04. You don't coach .4. And everyone knows that was the difference, not some crucial adjustment at a critical time.

[conqueso]

Steve Kerr also happened to be in his last season, and was 37 years old. Wanted 3 pters? He could have went to Bowen, Ferry, Smith, and Steve Jax. All happened to be pretty good 3 pt shooters.I hate to back up one of O_V's points, but Pop has said in multiple interviews that he put Steve Kerr in as a last ditch effort. "No one else was making threes, and it seemed only logical to give him a shot." (That's from the championship DVD.) He hadn't made any meaningful contribution in the playoffs, the Spurs needed points in a hurry, and there was literally no one else to go to since everyone else was blowing balls. I agree that it was flexible coaching, but Pop had already gone to everyone else, to no avail. As O_V said, there were no other viable options.

[gameFACE]

Give Jackson his props for his 9 rings. But basically he's turning into a shriveled up old crab. There was a time, more than two Spurs championships ago, when he could get into the Spurs heads. That's what this is really about to me. Not Pop vs. Phil. He can't play that kind of mind game anymore. STFU and retire - you'll never pass up Auerbach...............

[ambchang]

I hate to back up one of O_V's points, but Pop has said in multiple interviews that he put Steve Kerr in as a last ditch effort. "No one else was making threes, and it seemed only logical to give him a shot." (That's from the championship DVD.) He hadn't made any meaningful contribution in the playoffs, the Spurs needed points in a hurry, and there was literally no one else to go to since everyone else was blowing balls. I agree that it was flexible coaching, but Pop had already gone to everyone else, to no avail. As O_V said, there were no other viable options.

But doesn't that lead to Pop being flexible in digging deep into his bench to use a 37 year old vet who had been a non-factor throughout? A coach could easily stick to his non-performing players. Pop didn't.

[samikeyp]

Give Jackson his props for his 9 rings. But basically he's turning into a shriveled up old crab. There was a time, more than two Spurs championships ago, when he could get into the Spurs heads. That's what this is really about to me. Not Pop vs. Phil. He can't play that kind of mind game anymore. STFU and retire - you'll never pass up Auerbach...............

I would agree.

Besides...he isn't even the best basketball coach in LA.

[ShoogarBear]

Dunleavy better than Jackson?

:lmao Ask Blazer fans about that.

[samikeyp]

Dunleavy better than Jackson?

Ask Blazer fans about that.

Who said anything about Dunleavy?


I was referring to John Wooden. :)

[ShoogarBear]

:lol Nice.

[adidas11]

The ZENMASTER

Don't compare 2 1/2 to 9 rings. It is that simple. Bunch of Homers.


Oh and Phil has 10 Rings (9 as a coach 1 as a player)


:king

Actually, Phil has 11 rings (that's if they also give 'rings' in the CBA) He won a title when he was coaching in the CBA.

[ShoogarBear]

Here's an interesting article on Phil vs. Red from this weekend's Boston Globe. Whatever you want to say about Jackson's lack of class, he's nothing compared to Auerbach, who was as graceless as they come.

One interesting tidbit. Jackson claims they eliminated the jump ball at the start of every quarter because Auerbach got the rule changed after the Celtics got 6'8" Dave Cowens as their center.

Link (http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2006/11/12/like_red_ex_knick_has_knack/)
Like Red, ex-Knick has knack

By Dan Shaughnessy, Globe Columnist | November 12, 2006

LOS ANGELES -- He has never fought back. Phil Jackson is comfortable and secure. He's got a great job as coach of the most visible professional sports team in a starstruck town. He's got five grown children and a reputation as the Zen master of basketball. So it was never necessary to defend himself when he'd get ripped by the late Red Auerbach.

Red's been gone for two weeks and Jackson continues to take the high road when he speaks of the Celtic godfather. It can't be easy. Red didn't like the idea of a former member of the New York Knicks closing in on his record of nine NBA championships as a coach. When Jackson was getting close to clinching his own No. 9 with the 2001-02 Lakers, Red had a hard time being gracious. Old Arnold said Jackson was a guy who "picked his spots." Red reminded us that he'd assembled his teams all by himself. There were no scouts and no assistants.

"It's a very different game now," Jackson said, reluctantly defending his record. "It's hard to compare eras. The Celtics ran six plays. They won 11 championships. They had five or six variations off those plays. But it's not like today where there's 30 different offensive sets. But basketball is still basketball. It's fundamentals. It's execution. It's determination. It's defense."

He doesn't mention that Red conveniently dismissed the notion that it was easier to win championships in a smaller league with fewer rounds of playoffs.

None of it would have mattered with Red. Auerbach simply didn't want Jackson beating his record of nine titles and -- as is the case with Celtic dancers -- it's somehow appropriate that Red never lived to see anyone beat his record.

Jackson's got an outside chance if he sticks around for long enough with these Lakers. He's in the second year of his second tour in LA, and his Lakers look pretty good thus far. They've got some good young players, Kobe Bryant (now wearing No. 24) is on the mend, and they take a 4-3 record into tonight's game against Memphis at Staples Center. Not only that, but Laker games are events in this town. The stars come out. The media arrives in full force. It's like Celtic games were in Boston in the 1980s.

Jackson's been around pro basketball since he was drafted by the Knicks in 1967. He knows Red hated the Knicks -- a grudge dating to the 1930s, when Red's George Washington University was snubbed by the then-prestigious National Invitation Tournament at Madison Square Garden. Jackson was a member of the 1973 Knick team that beat the Celtics in a seventh game at Boston Garden. When fans and experts would compare the Knicks of the early '70s to Red's dynasty of the '60s, the smoke didn't come off the tip of Red's cigar, it came out of his ears.

Red might have been OK if one of his guys -- Don Nelson or K.C. Jones perhaps -- came close to his records. But a former member of the Knicks? No way.
"Without a doubt, it was a New York vs. Boston thing," Jackson said as he stood in the Laker locker room last week. "It was never about an individual. It was about New York, but not about me. When I got to the Knicks there was still all that innuendo about how many times the Celtics had beaten the Knicks over the years. How Allie McGuire would stand up on the training table and say, 'I'm going to shut out Bob Cousy,' then he'd foul out in six minutes and say, 'See, he didn't score on me.' It was the whole Celtic-Knick rivalry. We'd look up in the stands and see the students from New York fighting the kids from Boston. It was very heated. There was a mystique about it. A fire alarm went off at 3 in the morning when we were there in '73."

Really? That's the same complaint Pat Riley submitted when he brought the Lakers to Boston for the finals in 1984, '85, and 87.

"The 1980s Lakers were not the first team that that happened to," said a smiling Jackson.

As for Riley's contention that his Lakers were mistreated -- all the stuff about Red shutting off showers and turning on heat in the old Garden locker rooms? Jackson's got the same memories from his days with the Knicks.

"I'm sure the competitive nature guides you, but Red Holzman [Jackson's coach with the Knicks] was gracious about it," said Jackson. "When we played the Celtics in the playoffs in '73 we were in four different locker rooms in four different games. They had us outside in a hallway where there had never been a team before. All the little things you went through that were irritating with the Celtics. They'd won 68 games that year. It was an amazing team. But when we finally beat them, Red Holzman came over to me and said, 'This is one of those times when good overcomes evil.' "

Ouch. Now that's a shot. But Phil is quick to go back to high ground.

"The day after Red passed away, we had a little meeting and I told my players some stories about Red and his legend in the NBA," said Jackson. "I told them about all the rules that he changed. It used to be if you called time out in the backcourt, you lost the ball. Well, in the playoffs against the Celtics, we trapped Don Nelson in the backcourt and he called time out and they lost the ball. The rule was changed the next year. Red could do those things. When [ Dave ] Cowens became the center, there were no more jump balls every quarter. Red had a way of getting the rules changed in his favor."

Jackson played under Bill Fitch at the University of North Dakota, then played 12 years in the NBA with the Knicks and Nets. He was a player/assistant coach in his final two NBA seasons, but his first head coaching position was with the Albany Patroons of the Continental Basketball Association from 1982-87. His Patroons won the championship in 1984. It was in his capacity as a CBA coach that he first sensed that Red didn't like him.

"I'd been around him a little bit after I came into the league because my teammate, Bill Bradley, had a relationship with him from his time as a page in Washington," said Jackson . "Bill was in Washington in the summers and Red was a presence on the city courts in D.C. So I was familiar with Red's reputation and who he was. Years later when I was coaching the Albany Patroons, my son and I made a trip to Boston to watch the Celtics play the Chicago Bulls. My son was a Michael Jordan fan. The Celtics were playing the Bulls near the end of the year, so we drove over from Albany. I had seats I'd gotten from Jimmy Rodgers, who was an assistant with the Celtics then. The seats were right above where Red sat. Well, Red saw me and gave me one of those 'What are you doing here?' looks. Even though I was retired, he was still giving me hell. I said, 'I see you're still as gruff as ever.' He asked me how I got the seats. He softened a little bit, but he still had to put up that gruff exterior."

It would not be the last time Jackson saw Jordan. Jackson took over as coach of the Bulls in 1989, and won his first six championships while sitting on the bench watching perhaps the greatest player ever. He took a year off after the last banner was raised in Chicago. Then he joined the Lakers, replacing Del Harris in 1999. Los Angeles had a center named Shaquille O'Neal, but the Lakers had been unable to win a championship in Shaq's first three seasons in LA. Everything changed with Jackson in charge. The Lakers won back-to-back-to-back titles, giving Jackson rings 7, 8, and 9.

"When I was a kid, I looked at statistics and saw the nine championships Red had won," said Jackson. "It was like looking at the records set by John Wooden and Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio and Babe Ruth. You'd always think there's no way anyone's ever going to touch that. It's a remarkable thing to have the opportunity to win that many times. You look back. It's remarkable to have your name mentioned in the same breath as Red Auerbach."

They didn't see much of one another in the final years of Red's life. Jackson remembered seeing Red at a scouting combine in Chicago, but said he hadn't been face to face with the Celtic legend in more than 10 years.

But he always knew Red was there . . . sending none-too-subtle smoke signals from Boston and Washington.