Reply With Quote
The ZEN MASTER
The '03 team was by far the most talented of any of the Spurs teams. Ever. Pop didn't coach those teams to 30 point runs to seal games.
The ZEN MASTER
Yeah, there was a reason that team would dig giant holes and blow leads in the fourth quarter. That team wasn't very good compared to '99 or '05.
he's just pissed cause every year we keep winning and they keep sucking, i guess he finnaly knows who the real coach is
he kknowswho the real coach is
12 players, 1 coach. it's just the same thing.
Exactly. They were so much better than everyone else they lost focus easily. It required huge offensive spurts at the end in order to win, which has ZERO to do with coaching.
All the talk about a stubborn Pop, I am not sure about that.
Which other coach would have used Steve Kerr at such a crucial time in 2003? Who else would have relied heavily on Jaren Jackson and Stephen Jackson in 99 and 03? Pop used a smaller lineup vs. the Suns in 05, he would have been called a genius if the Spurs pulled out a series win vs. Dallas last year with the small ball line up. How many coach/GM would give Oberto the starting job after the suckage he pulled last year? Signed Butler and Elson?
Every coach had his times of stubborness and flexibility, remember how Jackson got KILLED in the 04 finals by Brown? He was stubborn in not changing his game plan around even through he was murdered throughout the series (game 2 was only won on a last second miracle shot by Kobe to force OT), Riley's major suckage with Miami? Last year, he was on his way out, Heat fans were calling for his head, but then things turn all peachy after the Heat won the ship. The point is, the result justifies the methods, and Pop, winning 3 championships with very different lineups since 98 is as impressive as Riley winning 5 rings in 20 odd years of coaching, or Jackson winning 9 in 15 or so years.
Steve Kerr had been backup point guard for much of the season, was an energy guy and the Spurs were down by a large margin and needed three pointers. In case you didn't know, Steve Kerr is the best three point shooter of all time by percentage.
What were his alternatives again?
No he didn't.
But they didn't, so he isn't.
Again, what were his alternatives?
The Lakers lost to a better team. They had just gotten done beating another better team in the WCF.
Read the last five words of your quote. The Heat won with a team most people still think is a joke. It ain't "major suckage" when you win.
Your numbers look skewed. According to my remedial math, Pop took over in 1995 so he wins a championship on average of every four years (3/12). Jackson started in '89 so he wins a championship on average every other year (9/18). Jackson also leads the league in winning percentage for regular and post season. He's also leading against Pop head to head, even with inferior teams.
Game, set and match.
Last edited by Obstructed_View; 11-12-2006 at 06:25 PM.
LOL, you guys don't know that the only reason Pop went to Kerr is because Duncan told him to?
Duncan > Phil
Ok, so it looks like the argument has turned into whether or not Phil > Pop, and not about the statements that Phil made about Larry Brown getting the settlement, etc.
When judging any coach, I think sometimes you have to look at the seasons where the team DIDN'T win the championship, to determine how great a coach is.
To start off with about Phil, he worked his way up the coaching ranks, and won a le in the CBA before coming to coach in the NBA.
And he was an assistant coach with the Chicago Bulls, before they fired Doug Collins to become the head coach. The reason they went with Phil was because Jordan and others went to management after Phil coached them to a win in overtime during the regular season (a game where Doug Collins got ejected). The players basically demaned to management to hire Phil as the head coach. So all of this talk about he just chose the Bulls because they had the best players isn't necessarily true. In Doug Collins final year, the Bulls were no better than a 6th seed in their conference. And yes, they did make it to the conference finals in the playoffs that season, but they were in no way this elite team before Phil took over that everyone is making them out to be. He came in, and the next season transformed their style of play. You should watch some of the game tapes in Doug Collins final season, and the first and second season of the Bulls. Actual ball movement, instead of everyone standing around to watch what MJ would do next.
And remember, in the 1993-1994 season, the Bulls had lost MJ to his first retirement over the summer, and had to reconstruct their team on the fly and they won TWO LESS GAMES than the season prior. And they took the eventual eastern conference champs (the Knicks) to a seven game series in the Eastern Conference semi-finals that year. In my opinion, that was his finest coaching season, and solid proof of how great a coach that he is.
Steve Kerr also happened to be in his last season, and was 37 years old. Wanted 3 pters? He could have went to Bowen, Ferry, Smith, and Steve Jax. All happened to be pretty good 3 pt shooters. There was also a much younger Speedy Claxton waiting, and that leads to another point, in which Pop used both Claxton and Kerr at the right time in the Nets series. That seems pretty flexible to me. The point is, Pop was flexible enough to use a 37 year old at such an important time.
Not having them shoot 3 pters would be an alternative. Not giving either one of them a major role in the offense would be an alternative. In 99, Mario Elie and Antonio Daniels would have easily eaten into J Jackson's minutes.
Good job backing your claims up.
Nazr averaged 18 mpg in the regular season, 22.2 in the Suns series.
Rasho went from 22.5 to 1.8, Horry went from 18.6 to 33. I would say going from Nazr/Rasho to Horry is going quite a bit smaller.
Just like how Phil Jackson missed the 2004 season expectations by a wide margin?
Elson, Butler, Horry, went small.
So whenever P Jackson lost, he lost to a better team, but when Pop does it, he lost to a worse team? the 04 Lakers were supposed to win 70+ games, were supposed to roll through the playoffs. How is Shaq + Kobe + Malone + Payton + anybody < Pistons on talent?
Come to think of it, ANYBODY predicted the Spurs win the le in 99 and 03? 03 was supposed to be a rebuilding year.
Yeah, because I am sure Riley coached one year in Miami. After 03, people were calling for Riley's head, resulting in him passing the team to Stan Van Gundy, who did a MUCH better job than him. I am not going to say that SVG > Riley, because that would be untrue, but it's not like Riley never missed expectations.
Pop joined in 97, the horrible year where EVERYONE was injured, and Nique was carrying the team with *gasp* Monty Williams. And that is 3 championships in 10 years, in which 2 were totally unexpected (99 and 03). Your method puts winning percentage mightily high.
Rudy Tomjonavich won 2 championships in 13 years, Larry Brown won 1 in 23 years, and nobody in their right minds would EVER say RT > LB as a coach.
There is NO WAY you can say Coach A > Coach B without any evaluation of talent. That's like saying Lenny Wilkens > Charles Barkley because he's got one more ring.
I went look up the numbers.
Pop - 3/10
Jackson - 9/15
Riley - 5/22
So I supposed going by your logic, PJax> Pop > Riley.
Besides, I am not saying who is better than who, it's about Pop is not as stubborn as a coach as people say he is.
This is the only part of your rambling that even rates a response: Did Pop sprain Rasho's ankle in order to go "small"? You do know that he was hurt, right? If Going small is having a center play 22 minutes a game, then how do you justify having a center play ZERO minutes a game against the Mavs? This wasn't intended to say that Pop isn't a good coach, but you chode-sniffers are just amazing. Talk to me in two or three more championships when Pop is in Jackson's league and the debate will at least be close.
Nice to only quote parts of the response you can only respond to and ignore the rest, I don't understand how
in refuting your response of how more championships/years coached = better coach is irrelevant in the conversation.
Again, try to read what I wrote, I am not saying Pop > Phil, my original point was that Pop is not inflexible.
Care to elaborate how using a 37 year old Steve Kerr and a backup point guard in Speedy Claxton at important points of the playoffs is inflexible?
How Riley should be excused from his coaching nightmare of the 2003 Heat?
How Jackson failed to coach a talented 2004 finals to expectations?
You seem to harp over and over on Pop's failure, yet try to ignore the ones of Riley and Jackson.
And yes, going from almost 40 minutes of centre play to 24 minutes is going small, having Horry take more and more of those minutes as the series progress showed it. Why not play Nazr more minutes? Why play Horry at crunch time every time?
Perhaps you can refresh my memory on Rasho's injury. I seem to recall him playing a few minutes here and a few minutes there, with a couple of DNP-CD.
Actually, I was refuting the only part of the response that was the most blatant product of not knowing the facts, since I'm rushing around trying to get ready to leave for Houston to see the Spurs beat the Rockettes tomorrow night, but I'll give it a shot.
Wrong. Pop fired Bob Hill and made himself coach. He was already GM.
My method counts every year the coaches were the head coach of an NBA team and divides by the number of championships, without making any excuses for a specific situation. BTW, I mistakenly added two years that Jackson sat out. In case you didn't think championships were a good way to rate it, I also mentioned winning percentage. In case you didn't think that was convincing enough, I mentioned playoff winning percentage. In case you didn't think that was convincing enough, I mentioned head to head against Popovich. I didn't even mention who had home court in the head to head, but since none of the other facts seems to mean anything to you, I didn't figure it was worth the trouble.
This discussion is about Pop vs Jackson. What the do Rudy T and Larry Brown have to do with it?
Again, the argument is Pop vs Jackson. You have PJax > Pop. I believe that was precisely my original statement.
Then why are we having this conversation? Jackson is a better coach than Pop in every quantifiable way it can be measured. Pop is also very inflexible, as evidenced by Jackson killing him head to head due to better adjustments.
Again, Parker had four points and three turnovers, and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Kerr and Claxton were the backups. How is it some great argument for a coach that he played his backups when the starter was stinking up the joint? If you ever come up with a lucid argument as to why Rasho and Nazr sat on the bench against the Mavericks, even though they were scoring at will on the inside, we can revisit this.
By the EW formula at basketballreference.com, the Spurs were expected to win 10 more games in the regular season than the Lakers. The Spurs had a 2-0 lead on them and then dropped four straight. That's hardly great coaching.
It's funny that the only Jackson failure you cite is a year that his team beat the Spurs seven games out of ten and then eliminated them in the playoffs.
Rasho was hurt. Was Pop supposed to play four guys? If he'd pulled Nazr completely off the floor for the entire series it would have been closer to what he did against Dallas. In reality, what Dallas did against the Spurs in '06 is closer to what the Spurs did against the Suns in 05. That's being outcoached. Maybe the fact that the same guy was dribbling the ball up the floor for the Spurs in '99 was a bigger help than most of you realize.
Off the top of my head, Rasho sprained his ankle sometime in April (a nationally televised game IIRC) and lost his starting spot. Pop never got him back into the rotation even after he got healthy and he didn't collect much more than garbage minutes for the remainder of the season. You can look it up if you like.
I'm gone. See ya in Houston. Go Spurs.
I am not talking about GM duties, and I don’t think you were either. He started being a coach in 97. Why not take his tenure as an assistant coach under Larry Brown too if you want to talk about Pop’s Spurs career?
With no regards for talent? Jordan and Pippen, Shaq and Kobe, those are some pretty stacked teams. And no, I never said Pop > PJax. I am saying that:
a) Pop is not inflexible
b) You method of using championships and winning percentage to rate a coach is not accurate.
c) Pop’s accomplishments are as impressive as Riley’s or PJax’s.
It just showed your above method of evaluating a coach to be limiting.
I am not the one to argue Pop > PJax, I never said anything on that matter. I simply stated that Pop is not as inflexible as people label him as, and that his 3 championships are as impressive as Riley’s or PJax’s accomplishments.
He could have stuck with a terrible player, like how PJax stuck with Horry in the 03 playoffs and have him go 2 for 38 in 3 pters in the playoffs.
I thought Rasho and Nazr went 0 for 0 in both games 1 and 2, then didn’t see daylight from Games 3 on.
Not from the analyst and general public. And going on the same lines as your used-Steve-Kerr-out-of-necessity argument, what were PJax’s options other than packing the lane?
Just quoted another one. See usage of Horry.
He twisted his ankle WAY back, and instead of giving more minutes to Nazr, he went small with Horry. Rasho got some minutes at the end of the regular season, about 20 or so a game, still had minutes in the Denver and Sonic series, and didn’t get any in the Suns series. So no, it’s not because of an injury that Rasho didn’t play, it’s because Pop decided he wouldn’t fit into the game plan.
Off the top of my head, Rasho sprained his ankle sometime in April (a nationally televised game IIRC) and lost his starting spot. Pop never got him back into the rotation even after he got healthy and he didn't collect much more than garbage minutes for the remainder of the season. You can look it up if you like.
I wish I can see the Rockets lose tonight in person. Well, have fun.
I think two things are worth mentioning:
1. Phil Jackson always had two HOFers at or near their prime. Pop had only one in '03 and '05.
2. The offensive scheme that frustrated opposing coaches for years (the triangle) was developed and refined by Tex Winters, NOT Phil Jackson. All Phil did was implement it. In my mind, Phil's always been more of a personnel guy, working with the confidence and mentalities of the players, while the Xs and Os were handled by his staff.
Neither of those things necessarily make Pop > Phil, but they're something some of you are forgetting.
And as an addendum, I don't know who mentioned it, but Phil Jackson certainly did NOT outcoach Pop in '04. You don't coach .4. And everyone knows that was the difference, not some crucial adjustment at a critical time.
I hate to back up one of O_V's points, but Pop has said in multiple interviews that he put Steve Kerr in as a last ditch effort. "No one else was making threes, and it seemed only logical to give him a shot." (That's from the championship DVD.) He hadn't made any meaningful contribution in the playoffs, the Spurs needed points in a hurry, and there was literally no one else to go to since everyone else was blowing balls. I agree that it was flexible coaching, but Pop had already gone to everyone else, to no avail. As O_V said, there were no other viable options.
Give Jackson his props for his 9 rings. But basically he's turning into a shriveled up old crab. There was a time, more than two Spurs championships ago, when he could get into the Spurs heads. That's what this is really about to me. Not Pop vs. Phil. He can't play that kind of mind game anymore. STFU and retire - you'll never pass up Auerbach...............
But doesn't that lead to Pop being flexible in digging deep into his bench to use a 37 year old vet who had been a non-factor throughout? A coach could easily stick to his non-performing players. Pop didn't.
I would agree.Give Jackson his props for his 9 rings. But basically he's turning into a shriveled up old crab. There was a time, more than two Spurs championships ago, when he could get into the Spurs heads. That's what this is really about to me. Not Pop vs. Phil. He can't play that kind of mind game anymore. STFU and retire - you'll never pass up Auerbach...............
Besides...he isn't even the best basketball coach in LA.
Dunleavy better than Jackson?
Ask Blazer fans about that.
Who said anything about Dunleavy?Dunleavy better than Jackson?
Ask Blazer fans about that.
I was referring to John Wooden.
Nice.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions