Reply With Quote
better than pop, not red.
Red won all of his championship in Boston. Pop won all of his in SA. Jackson who won his les with two teams.
So does this make him better than the two?
better than pop, not red.
Going to a team with Bavetta, Delaney, Shaq, Kome, and company does not make Phil better.
But owning Pops ass 4-1 certainly does.
Reddy and Phil its hard to say. Most of us are too young to have seen the Red Celtics and is much dvd of games even available?
In my case, I think Pop and red is way better than Phil.
Both coaches won with the same team..What does it say about that.
It means that their a true coach of a team. Thru thick and thin - they're there and they won.
Jackson won with two teams only because they were great team even before he got there. He left those team when things are going under. He left Chicago after MJ finally decided to hang his shoes. He also left LA when he figured that no championship was going to happen.
Pop and Red > Phil.
During Red's era there were like 11 teams you played 60 games a season and the compe ion against Bill Russel was fail (sans Wilt, but this was near the end of Russels career). Phil Jackson probably thinks all of Red's championships should have asterisks next to them.
Also I don't even thinking coaching matters that much
. It's all about the players. The players make the team from, their at ude to their play. Doc Rivers situation is a prime example. The coach just tells them what plays to run and gives them a pep talk, make some strategic subs. But in the end it's all up to the players.
Last edited by E20; 06-15-2008 at 12:47 AM.
Red coached a team that was guaranteed the #1 draft pick if they won it all, you have to think about that while comparing the 3.
would you happen to know who they got for those picks?
Laker fan has no room to disparage Boston's earlier championships since they still brag on those Minny Laker 'ships from the 40s.
Laker fan can talk all the he wants about BOS's championships in the 60's considering they've won 8 rings since the 1980's. BOS has only 3. The Lakers have proven to be good in nearly every era of the NBA, never falling into obscurity for 2+ decades like the Celtics. Even this current Celtic team will be a one-off show a la Miami and the Celtics will go back to suck ude for a long time since they have no more young talent to build a franchise around.
pop is a mule and i hate him for that sometimes....but pop never had anyone close to a mj or a kobe.....he did however have a few close to shaq a snaq...(a-train,whopper,david,tim) so i can easily without any thought say....pop is a better coach then zen, and about red...i wasnt into basketball then so i couldnt tell ya....go spurs go
I'v No idear...
Pop never had Gilmore or Paultz on any team he has coached, that was more than decade before he became coach.
Who cares, every team has its peaks and valleys. Comparing Boston to Miami? i'll bet the farm Boston does not get swept next year in the 1st round of the playoffs and will win more than 15 games in 2 years. Boston's championship will also be more legit if they do indeed hold on to this lead.
Rondo, perkins, and powe... not extraordinarily talented players, but still young players.
60s and 70s were not kind to the Lakers, nor were the 90s. They've had their LoB droughts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
