Reply With Quote
I have to say Jackson has been dealt the better hand while Pop has had to work for his...I cannot completely discredit Jackson though, because it does take something to coach a team of good players to play together and get the chemistry to work.
There appears to be more to this article, but it's an ESPN Insider piece.
I like Bucher's angle, but really don't know if I totally agree. I think the Spurs supporting cast has always been under valued.
By Ric Bucher and Chris Broussard
ESPN The Magazine
BUCHER: Two coaches have stood above the rest of the NBA during the past decade: The Lakers' Phil Jackson and the Spurs' Gregg Popovich. There are coaches who have been impressive in various ways -- the Jazz's Jerry Sloan and the Celtics' Doc Rivers immediately come to mind -- but they are, at best, fighting for a distant third. The question is, who deserves to be considered the best? I'm going to go with the man they call Pop.
BROUSSARD: Obviously, Pop is a terrific coach, one of the best to do it. But my pick for coach of the past decade or so is Jackson. With five les and seven NBA Finals appearances since 2000, he's led two separate dynasties in one decade. Not only has Jackson been the best coach of the past 10 to 12 years, he's been the best in NBA history.
RB: That was my initial thought, too. Who argues against all those rings? Jackson's five versus Pop's three since 2000, right? In fact, I'd be willing to concede that Jackson is battling Red Auerbach for best of all time when you include Jackson's Chicago run. But when I look at what he's working with, and where and for whom, this feels like a race in which one runner has a 10-yard head start every time.
The Los Angeles Lakers' winning has never come as a surprise; in fact, when they've lost, it has been an upset. The San Antonio Spurs, on the other hand, have been the favorite very few times because their talent never warranted it. Yet every season, including this one, they win more games and go deeper in the playoffs than their pure talent says they should. If you measure strictly by results, there is no argument here: Jackson wins. But measure results against what they were working with, and Pop clearly has "coached up" his teams more consistently than Jackson has.
I have to say Jackson has been dealt the better hand while Pop has had to work for his...I cannot completely discredit Jackson though, because it does take something to coach a team of good players to play together and get the chemistry to work.
Rivers ? WTF
Adelman is better than Doc
You can't argue with Phil's rings and success, however, it shouldn't be underestimated that he's coaching a team with a $90+ mil payroll year in,year out to Pop's usual just-under-the-tax-threshold.
Pop does have more coach of the month awards this decade than Phil.
Pop also has more coach of the month awards all time than Phil.
Fire Pop.
Good point. The Spurs are easily the best managed franchise.
I know a player's salary does not necessarily equate to talent, but it sure increases your options if you're not as concerned about that part of the equation.
Pop got coach of the year for 2002-2003
Phil has not gotten one since the Bulls 95-96
Adelman is the reason Drazen Petrovic rode the bench his first year.
Pop has done more with less than Phil. Period. Pop is the best.
Some great coaches have mad mistakes
Scola thread !!!!!!
true but Jackson deliver at the end and in the head to head, Jackson seems to get the best of Pop (although I agree, Jackson has a lot more to work with (money, collusions, refs, etc)
Pop >>>> Jackson in recruitment, drafting and team management
Jackson might be a better in game coach, but hard to tell because both work with lopsided resources
Interesting strategy by ESPN...taking an interesting debate topic, then letting their two biggest idiot basketball writers argue it out.
I don't think there is a wrong answer for that debate - but both guys use crappy (and often wrong) evidence to support their stance.
The only other coach I would throw in the mix is Karl who seems to do more with the most eclectic and immature squads and get something out of them and he is doing a of job this year in Denver with all that is going on. Thank God they did not mention D'Antoni IMO
Jackson's in game coaching is overrated. How hard is it to say: "Everybody clear out for Jordan" or "Everybody clear out for Kobe"?
#1 Pop
#2 Sloan
Sloan definitely in the conversation. But never won it all.
1. Jackson
2. Pop
3. Sloan
everyone else
Can't go wrong with either guy, I just think Pop is the better X's & O's guy of the two.
Broussard should just tattoo a Laker penis directly onto his cheek.
Really does matter how we look at it
Rings? Easily to Jackson, but does that mean you were the better coach or had the best players?. Even them Pop makes a point about having good players.
"dont it up". We cant knock out Jackson because he had more to work with or more moeny to work with then other coaches.
Best Winning % in last 10 years??
Im not really sure, I couldnt find stats for only last 10 yrs, but you would figures with more championships % should go to JAckson, however, I also know Spurs have 11 straight playoff appearances. more then any other current team. Is it enough? Im not sure. someone cananswer this one.
Done most with the Least.Hands down I still have to say Sloan. Less talent more times then not and always always always compe ive.
Last edited by YODA; 01-21-2011 at 01:08 PM.
It's really only between Pop and Jackson, IMO, and Phil has more hardware, so the Zen Master gets the nod from me.
Sloan is a great coach, but ultimately it's about getting to the finish line...
Phil will be always be looked upon, by and large, as the best coach of this period. 11 championships, with an opportunity to obtain his 4th three-peat. Two different teams. Having either the single best or two best players at that time, and getting them to mesh their talents around a supporting cast.
However, I personally believe Pop is THE better coach because of what many have already said. For the majority of his tenure, Pop has had to work with less. Less talent, less financial flexibility, less assets. He won his four les with at least two, maybe even three incarnations of Spurs teams. A pretty incredible feat.
His philosophy centering around keeping things simple, securing players that have "gotten over themselves" and holding everyone accountable - from the superstar, to the last man on the bench. His no-nonsense approach toward teamwork and defense. As an in-game strategist, he HAS no peer.
It may be a biased opinion, and while I appreciate coaches like Sloan, Rivers and Jackson, but in my mind, Pop has been the best.
May be the Spurs have had less talent than the Lakers, but it's not by much.
I actually think it's more the Spurs have been able to find talent where others could not. They pioneered/mastered the drafting of international players.
I wonder who is more involved in personnel decisions for their teams, Pop or Jackson?
The ability to sustain excellence is impressive. Who gets a three-peat, much less three in a career?
Spurs can really help Pop out in this argument if they run off the next three championships. Course, if next season is shortened with a lockout, Phil would be able to put an asterisks next to Pop's three-peat.
I've always thought it was interesting to hear guys like Broussard question the Spurs talent in the moment and then suggest later that it was always about the same as some of the more high-profile clubs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
