As I manipulate the variables in my mind, I realize that mathematics and facts can be mutually exclusive.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Phil Jackson is a piece of .
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?
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?
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).
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.
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.
we had a pg... it was just that antonio daniels was doing ty.
I assume that Pop is not capable of winning.
Believe me I do get it
you'd be wrong. he's won three les. but that's six less than nine les.
Who is better player Tim or Horry?
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 don't have to say this and I don't know why I am, but
Phil > Pop
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.
So has Kevin Federline.
Let's agree to disagree.
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.
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.
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.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
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 - compe ion.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
