Reply With Quote
Pop has gotten outcoached by how many coaches this season.
Unless this thing turns around soon, the debate about who is the better coach will be closed.
Say what you want about Phil, it is absolutely guaranteed that by the end of the year, he would find a way to have a team with as much talent as the Spurs have ready for a deep run into the playoffs.
The most disappointing thing about this season is seeing Pop turn to the worst side of his Nelson/Brown roots, poor-mouthing the Spurs talent level.
Pop has gotten outcoached by how many coaches this season.
....and bad mouthing ex-Spurs that helped carry is defensive "system".
Yeah, that was also a move straight out of Nellie. (Although Phil would be capable of something like that, too.)
Especially in Portland. But Pop is the better coach he uses the minimal talent he has to win championships.
Phil Jackson vs. Pop . . . Pat Riley vs. KC Jones ???
Both won les
One coached his team to wins, the other rode having the better team?
Phil has had Kobe, MJ, and Shaq.
WTF?
Phil "play Derek Fisher 30 minutes a game when he's shooting 4-for-2000" Jackson?
Phil "Puke Walton has to bench HIMSELF before I start playing Trevor Ariza" Jackson?
Not really accurate. The Spurs won several les without having the best overall talent, although they had the best two-way team player. Pop deserves all the credit for molding the system around Tim.
But . . .the thing I always gave Phil props for was that he never shied away from the expectations of having lots of talent. Lots of people slammed him for always having an MJ or Shaq or Kobe, but the fact is that some coaches will run away from that or try to minimize their roster in the media. (Nellie is the A#1 example. The guy has always angled more for Coach of the Year awards than championships, and was more interested in having a reputation as a "genius" and complaining about what he didn't have.)
There's no way the current Spurs roster wouldn't make the WCF with Phil coaching them.
There's a debate?
Coaching is really overrated in the NBA..a coach can hurt a team a lot more than he can hurt it..
Phil Jackson has never won a le without having the most talent in the NBA..
Pop has never won a le without the greatest PF of all-time and arguably the best defender in the NBA for those le teams..
Phyllis owns Pop. It's sickening.
Best talent overall in the league wasn't exactly it, I'm talking about match-ups.
Some questions I was saving for a new thread topic and may still yet do:
1. Have the Spurs ever won a le when they were underdogs? Not favorites, or even, but underdogs? They've never been in that position.
2. Now how many playoff series period have the Spurs won as underdogs under Pop? Now how many series have they lost while they were favorites?
Honest answers to those questions aren't in and of themselves an indictment of Pop, and prove nothing.
But it has led me back to KC Jones.
He had a 5 year stretch that was amazing, very close to Pop's best 5 year stretch, and that was when the Celtics had to deal with the Laker dynasty and the rise of the Bad Boys.
In 5 years, KC had 2 les, 2 finals losses, and 1 loss in the ECF. A great 5 year run. But when it comes to discussions about the great coaches of all time, he never gets mentioned. Ever. He's not in the hall of fame for his coaching.
Why? I don't know. I'm not old enough to remember those years too well.
But if KC Jones, multiple ring winner, all-around elite winner with the Celtics, doesn't get any credit because he had a legend like Larry Bird . . . maybe that shouldn't be the only case?
You can see where I'm going.
Yeah, I was in Boston for those years so I know what you're talking about.
For one, K.C. inherited a championship-level team from Bill Fitch. So what he did was closely (but not exactly) analogous to George Seifert picking up the 49ers after Walsh left. However, K.C. had already been a successful coach with the Bullets and taken them to the Finals.
Pop obviously deserves more credit that K.C., since he didn't take over a ready-made team. On the other hand, K.C. probably deserves a little more credit than he's gotten historically.
I don't buy that it's easy to win when you have the talent. Don Nelson, to bring up my favorite whipping boy again, won two COY awards during K.C.'s era at Boston for doing substantially less, excepting the category of media pandering.
I will agree with your points about Pop only winning when he's a favorite, and getting upset at least twice (04 and 06). On the other hand, you could argue that in both of those cases, the teams that beat him intrinsically had more talent, even though the Spurs were favored.
True
But one could also argue in those cases (04 and 06) that coaching decisions made an impact on the Spurs chances for winning (not guarding the inbounds for 0.4 and smallball, respectively).
Also Pop does deserve credit for building a team without a le core, but it did have a core. Robinson, Elliott, Avery, that was a core of a team that had been to the WCF.
Was this actually a debate?
To be clear, I think Pop is a great coach -- looking at things on the big picture level. But PJ is the best coach I've seen in any sport at any level.
PJ Carlisimo?
Phil is the only coach I've ever heard of who actually incorporated Buddhism into his coaching style.
It's a crazy idea and it totally has worked.
I agree with this. Fact is, almost all of winning comes down to the players themselves. Coaches rarely pull out crazy lineups to create massive matchup problems and win with some genius move. Some coaches are better at Xs and Os than others. Pop is a genius at drawing up a play for instance.
But when it comes down to it, nearly any coach in the NBA can read match-ups correctly and field a lineup capable of winning. Its up to the players to win from that point out.
This year has been a testament to a coach hurting a team more than helping. Pop's quest for a killer lineup and attempt to mismatch and opponent with small ball has actually led to his team being mismatched against the other one.
Phil probably could have a better record than Pop right now with the same team, mostly because he wouldn't be fielding a different lineup every 2 minutes of a game and at the start of each new game.
Yes. For example, this noted Popapologist with the classic argument:
I agree, the best coach is the one that screws his team the least.
I thought for a second you were going to quote me. I was readying my backpedal.
For example, look at Mike Brown..
The guy can barely run a play..he just gives it to the best player in the NBA and let's him do whatever he wants..this strategy got them to the NBA Finals, a game 7 in the semis, and the WCF..the only thing stopping them was lack of talent..
He keeps it simple..he's a good defensive coach that let's the best player in the NBA control his team..
Do you guys believe Doc Rivers is a better coach than Phil Jackson?..
Coaching is just incredibly overrated when it comes to the positives of a team..I think you can rate coaches as good/bad, but ranking them and giving them so much credit is just stupid IMO..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
