Reply With Quote
Negro should be at the bottom. He was a in assistant GM for Christ's sakes.
http://www.examiner.com/x-441-Golden...tman-at-bottom
Ranking the NBA coaches: Phil Jackson at top, Randy Wittman at bottom
Matt Steinmetz
It never ceases to amaze me, the opinions about Don Nelson. Not only are there tons of opinions they tend to the extreme: Genius, snake oil salesman. I tilt significantly toward genius, if for no other reason than he was the guy who finally got the Warriors back into the playoffs.
It got me to thinking, so what better time than now to rate the NBA coaches. As you would figure, first-year coaches all rank near bottom because who knows?
1. Phil Jackson: Nine les is it? The problem with not putting Jackson first is you can’t win an argument if you don’t.
2. Larry Brown: A significantly better tactician and strategist than Jackson. But Jackson gets the player-relating edge and le advantage.
3. Gregg Popovich: Considered putting him above Brown, and you could make the case he belongs there, but Tim Duncan and David Robinson deserve a lot of credit. Even Popovich might agree, but in any case No. 3 is pretty good.
4. Don Nelson: He’s obviously a great offensive coach, but also upper echelon when it comes to getting stars to play at their best. Clearly one of the game’s forward-thinkers.
5. Rick Adelman: I respect Adelman because he handled two brutal years in the Bay Area (home games in San Jose; practice at St. Mary’s auxiliary gym) like a grown-up. He’s had good talent, but he’s also let them play.
6. Jerry Sloan: For sheer longevity, Sloan has got to be near the top.
7. Eddie Jordan: One of the most underrated coaches in the league, Jordan has found a way to keep Gilbert Arenas, Antawn Jamison and Caron Butler on the same page. He should have never been fired in Sacramento.
8. Mike D’Antoni: After one year with the Knicks, he might be lower on the list, but until he becomes a worse coach by having to deal with Eddy Curry, Jamal Crawford and whoever else is on New York’s roster, we’ll give him props for being one of the best offensive minds in the NBA.
9. Byron Scott: He is proof that you've got to stay open-minded about coaches. His reputation was shot after Jason Kidd and Baron Davis did their things. But one Chris Paul can make up for both. Maybe Scott knew Paul was the one _ not Kidd or Davis _ to hitch his wagon to.
10. Doc Rivers: He probably moved up six to eight spots at least because of Boston’s le. But the reason I won’t put him any higher is because I believe all the coaches above him would have won with the Celtics this year. The ones below … I’m not so sure.
11.Mike Dunleavy: Another underrated coach with an understanding of the pro game, a feel for how to deal with its star players and, perhaps more important in this business, staying power.
12. Scott Skiles: He’s prepared, disciplined and tough-minded, and when he gets a chance to set up shop, Skiles is a damn good coach.
13. George Karl: He seems to have lost a little bit off his fastball lately but that might simply be the result of having to coach players such as Carmelo Anthony, J.R. Smith and Allen Iverson.
14. Rick Carlisle: One of Carlisle’s strengths is an ability to discard any kind of outside distractions. It’s a good kind of tunnel vision and focus, but his impersonal style wears out in about three years.
15. Nate McMillan: He did a great job with Portland in 2007-08. By the end of 2008-09 he’ll either be much higher or much lower on this list … depending.
16. Mike Brown: He’s got a reputation for being a basketball mind, and he deserves credit for getting Cleveland to the Finals a year ago. But there’s not enough there.
17. Lawrence Frank: Give the kid credit. He’s been the coach since 2003, knows his X’s and O’s and is as competent as most on the sidelines.
18. Sam Mitc : He’s learned to function on the hotseat.
19. Stan Van Gundy: He’s not bad, but he’s no Jeff.
20. Terry Porter: He didn’t make much of a mark in Milwaukee; he’ll get a chance with much more talent in Phoenix.
21. Maurice Cheeks: With the exception of last year’s second-half run by the 76ers, Cheeks hasn’t done much in his coaching career. Expectations are higher in Philly so Cheeks will get a more critical look.
22. Mike Woodson: Getting Atlanta into the playoffs in 2007-08 kept Woodson out of the bottom five.
23. Reggie Theus: Most are calling Theus’ first year in Sacramento a success. That is way premature.
24. P.J. Carlesimo: He’s gotten better when it comes to relating with players, but his offensive and defensive schemes are among the least creative in the league.
25. Marc Iavaroni: I have a soft spot for Iavaroni because I used to play pick-up basketball with him back in the day on the Jersey Shore. Weak, I know.
26. Michael Curry: Considering he was the NBA union rep, is it logical to surmise he’ll be a players’ coach?
27. Erik Spoelstra: By all indications he has Pat Riley’s work ethic. Good start.
28. Vinny Del Negro: He could be a little aloof and sure of himself as a player. If he’s that way as a coach, he’s going to struggle.
29. Jim O’Brien: Plain, inflexible and aloof is no way to go through an NBA coaching career.
30. Randy Wittman: There is nothing noteworthy on Wittman’s resume except perhaps that he has Kevin McHale listed among his references.
Negro should be at the bottom. He was a in assistant GM for Christ's sakes.
since when did scott skiles and eddie jordan become geniuses
Nelson's kinda high.
How are you going to use Duncan and Robinson, and not mention anything about Jordan/Pippen/Shaq/Kobe?
Exactly.
Brown #2?
Right. There goes that article.
Some of the coach's may be at their right prospective position, but the reasons the writer dictates are all a little out there.
wtf? Del Negro has never coached a game and is already ranked last, you should rank him after his first season.
Popovich at #3?
ya i know. he should be #1!Popovich at #3?
Because I believe Duncan and Robinson are referenced as reasons why the writer placed Larry Brown ahead of Popovich, and doesn't have anything to do with Phil Jackson.
Jackson and Popovich are the two best coaches in the league and I wouldn't argue against either being the best. I think Sloan is the third best coach, best not to have won a le.
Obviously the list is pretty subjective, but one of the main issues I have with it is I think Nate McMillan should be much higher. I don't really agree with all the rankings, but I don't have any huge problem with any other rank.
What's the beef 'tween Kidd, Davis & Coach Scott?
Take another look.
I agree. I was in Seattle while McMillan was there and I watched him turn that team around. I had the opportunity to see him speak a couple of times and I was always impressed with him.
JamStone,
I will agree with your post.
Even though I'm a Spurs fan and have a lot of respect for Coach Popovich. I think Phil Jackson is the best coach in the league.
I don't most people really appreciate what he has done. Everyone thinks because he had Jordan/Pippen/Shaq/Kobe...those nine les were given to him by default.
That's nonsense!
The hardest thing to do in professional sports is to go from good to greatness. It's much easier to go from mediocre to good.
And for Jackson's arrogance and mind playing games (against his opponents)...he has been able to get 4 of the top 100 players in NBA History to play for him and sacrifice their individuality to win multiple championships.
Two three-peats with the Bulls & 1 three-peat with the Lakers! That's incredible! As a Spurs fan.....all I can do is tip my cap to him and appreciate what he has done.
As a coach, you must learn how to get to the top of your profession with the greatest talent and get that talent to buy in with your program. Jackson has been able to do that....with great success.
That's why....I believe Popovich (even though he would never admit it) learned from Phil on how to reach superstar players. Pop immediately when to Duncan after he was drafted and developed a relationship. He knew if I can get Duncan to buy in to his philosophy....it will eventually bring the team a championship.
Jackson is the best coach!!!! Popovich, Brown, & Sloan are the next three in any order.
There should be an asterisk by Phil Jackson for overwhelming talent. I don't think he is the best coach. If he were to go to Atlanta and win a le I'd be impressed. He just went from one stacked situation to another.
Randy wittman sucks, as soon as Dwyane Casey got fired and Wittman got hired the T-wolves started sucking.
28. Vinny Del Negro: He could be a little aloof and sure of himself as a player. If he’s that way as a coach, he’s going to struggle.
I'm not sure why Del Negro was so full of himself as a player. It's not like he's ever done in the league as a player. Aloof? I can understand. Sure of himself? Nah.
You win with the best talent! You very rarely win with mediocre talent at the highest level...in any profession!
To say you are not impressed is missing out on his accomplishments. I don't care for Phil Jackson (in a public sense) but you do have to acknowledge his abilities as a coach.
Furthermore, The Chicago Bulls had Jordan/Pippen before he came and they didn't win a championship until he came.
The LA Lakers had Shaq/Kobe before he came and they didn't win a championship until he came. Even Shaq has said publicly during their run...that Phil was the difference.
I don't think it was just coincidence...that he happened to be the coach in both situations.
Everyone uses the argument that if Phil Jackson would have coached The Hawks or The Clippers to winning a championship that would be more impressive. Well, that would be impressive in taking those teams from bad to good.
However, it's more impressive to take a team from good to greatness and win consistently. You had superstar egos, executives, hangers-on, and everybody else wanting to be a part of their success. In both cases, the Bulls-two three-peats & the Lakers-one three-peat.
So Phil Jackson deserves all the credit in the world for doing something that very few coaches have done in all of professional sports. Going from Good to Great!!
Also, if you ever get a chance...there is a book written by Jim Collins called "Good to Great". He writes about big companies who are good and big companies who are great and their differences. You can apply a lot of those differences...to any profession.
Thibadueuasddsa should be #1.
LeBron deserves better.
Theus in front of Carlesimo also gave me a big chuckle.
Your view would be correct if he did not make the assumption that all the coaches above Doc Rivers would have won with the Celtics.
He said Phil gets number 1 because of all the chips? He said the guys above Doc would have won with his team. He mentions Duncan and D-Rob as reasons Pop won.
He makes no mention of all the players Phil had and what he thinks Pop would of done if he had all those players.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
