Official NBA Discussion Thread

[BHK1978]

My point is he never challenged himself as a coach. He went to a team that had the talent. So how do we know that he is a great coach if he never took a crappy team to the top?

 

Look at football, Bill Parcells to me that is a great coach. He took a nothing Giants team and turned them around to win two Superbowls. He turned the laughingstock of the Boston area sports teams around and made them into a big name franchise. Turned both the Jets and the Cowboys around. Now granted he only won Super Bowls with the Giants but he turned the other three teams into winners. He took nothing and made them into something. He was not afraid to take risks, where as I would bet any amount of money that Phil Jackson would never want to tarnish his legacy.

 

Lazorbeak you are right about Horry not being on that team, but Horace Grant was there. Look it up if you do not believe me.

 

I made the bold statement in another thread about the Yankees being the greatest franchise in Pro Sports history and I was called to task on that (even though I still believe it to be true, but I can see how others could argue about it. To me saying Phil Jackson is the best coach in the history of the NBA, beyond a shadow of a doubt is a little bold. Red, Pat Riley, Lenny Wilkens, Jerry Sloan, Gregg Popovich, and John Kundla could all be considered in this talk.

 

Remember, just because you coach a team to multiple championships does not mean you are the best. I mean come on Terry Francona has two World Series rings and that guy does not know his you know what from his elbow.

 

Once again, to fall back on baseball, Warren Spahn once said of former Yankees manager (and the man many people think is the greatest baseball of all-time) Casey Stengel:

 

That he played for Casey before and after he was a genius. Meaning that the before Casey went to the Yankees he was the manager of the Boston Braves and he stunk. He went to the Yankees and won seven World Series. Later on, he managed Sphan on the horrible 1962 Mets team.

 

So if Phil had decided to go and coach a team like the Clippers instead of the Lakers. Would he still be the greatest?

 

And that is all I am going to say on this subject, there is no need for this topic of discussion to keep on going back and forth. We can agree to disagree, the fact of the matter is we are all dealing in opinions (Yeah I know your opinions are fact and should not be argued against.).

[jbergey_2005]

In order to get these dream jobs you have to be respected enough to get them. He may be the luckiest person in the world that he got the Bulls job but he easily could have messed it up like Doug Collins did and be doing color commentary the rest of his life. Whether or not he is the best is debatable however results based all he has done is win which is a difficult feat no matter who you have on your team.

 

If you want a coach to coach a bad team Id take Larry Brown any day of the week however if I want to win championships Im taking Phil as he has proven he can do it and the players will respect him enough to want to buy into his system.

[lazorbeak]

Lazorbeak you are right about Horry not being on that team, but Horace Grant was there. Look it up if you do not believe me.

 

Okay, it turns out Grant was on that Lakers team, although he was 38 years old and averaged 4 points and 4 rebounds a game. I forgot he was on that roster only because he was such a nonentity on that team.

 

Remember, just because you coach a team to multiple championships does not mean you are the best. I mean come on Terry Francona has two World Series rings and that guy does not know his you know what from his elbow.

 

Once again, to fall back on baseball, Warren Spahn once said of former Yankees manager (and the man many people think is the greatest baseball of all-time) Casey Stengel:

 

That he played for Casey before and after he was a genius. Meaning that the before Casey went to the Yankees he was the manager of the Boston Braves and he stunk. He went to the Yankees and won seven World Series. Later on, he managed Sphan on the horrible 1962 Mets team.

 

Again, ten championships in 18 seasons, something no one else has ever done, and after the advent of free agency. Not really comparable to two rings. And your other example doesn't work either because Jackson has never coached a "bad" team. Even his Bulls teams without Jordan and Kobe without anyone else were teams that made the playoffs and pushed good teams like the Knicks and Suns. And we can tell those were his less talented teams because virtually every other season he coached he's reached the finals, something no one in history can compare to.

 

So if Phil had decided to go and coach a team like the Clippers instead of the Lakers. Would he still be the greatest?

 

First of all, why would he do that? And second of all, yes! He turned a 34 win Lakers team into champions in 4 years, and kept only 4 guys from that 34 win team: Kobe, Odom, Walton, and Vujacic. Is it so hard to imagine rebuilding a team like the Clippers assuming they'd be willing to spend some money and re-structure some of their nonsensical deals? I mean, Baron Davis has struggled to shoot 40% from the field and is a human turnover but made 12 million last season. He's not a guy I can see having success in a Phil Jackson system, because he does not play team basketball and is not a winner. But keep Blake Griffin, Steve Blake, Chris Mihm and one other role player, add a 2-3 who can shoot and drive, surround them with more role players, and even the Clippers could be 60 game winners in a few years. Most franchises aren't willing to make such a long-term commitment to success which makes the ones that do stand out.

 

And that is all I am going to say on this subject, there is no need for this topic of discussion to keep on going back and forth. We can agree to disagree, the fact of the matter is we are all dealing in opinions (Yeah I know your opinions are fact and should not be argued against.).

 

Yes when I say Phil Jackson is statistically the greatest coach in NBA history it is a fact because he has the best statistics in NBA history to back him up. We're not talking about a guy who lucked into a situation and won a title or two without understanding how, we're talking about someone who holds virtually every coaching record that isn't based on longevity and who has had repeated success that no one in NBA history can compare to. When I say that I think he's the best coach ever based on those statistics, yes that is an opinion, but it's one that I have no shortage of factual support for. It's become such an assumption that Phil Jackson coached teams must win that the only time he won coach of the year was when the Bulls set the all-time regular season record. I don't understand the need for the sarcastic parenthetical, either. I don't think I've said anything to indicate I don't want a dialogue and if I did, I apologize for it. But to act like I'm not even responding to your arguments is disrespectful and unnecessary. Just like your opinion is built on facts (Jackson taking over the Bulls when they were already getting good, Jackson taking over the Lakers that were already talented), mine was focused on rebutting those facts (how the Lakers were re-built, lack of success for players without Jackson, the fact that no one in history can compare to what Jackson has accomplished despite talented teams) with other facts. This is how debate works. It's fine if you feel like you've made your points, but it's not like we're just spitting in the wind here or I'm calling you names or not listening to you.

[CQI13]

All you need to know is that Doug Collins had MJ, and Rudy Tomjanovich had Kobe, and couldn't win titles. To his credit Rudy T did get the repeat when Jordan retired.

 

On other notes, is it Game 3 of the Finals yet? That's right about when the NBA gets exciting nowadays.

[Remianen]

Now the reasons why the Bulls team did not win a championship after he left was because, Jerry Krause destroyed that team. And began a rebuilding process that is still going on today. But yeah Phil could have probably turned a team with Toni Kukoč, Dickey Simpkins, and Brent Barry on it into championship team number seven.

 

You seem to be conveniently forgetting that even JORDAN was at odds with Jerry Krause. It was JORDAN threatening to leave that kept Krause in line (according to many in the sports press). It was KRAUSE who fell in love with Toni Kukoc (soft European player who didn't fit a team regularly going head to head with the East's biggest bangers, the Knicks).

 

Next up is his post-Bulls championships, why did Phil go to the Lakers and not a team like the Warriors, Bullets, or Clippers. Would that not test him? Well yes and that is probably the reason why he went to the Lakers. Because Phil didn’t want to be tested, he wanted to go to the team that had the greatest chance of winning a championship.

 

The very definition of 'specious argument'. The Warriors, Bullets/Wizards, and ESPECIALLY the Clippers have poor organizations, top to bottom. No coach who genuinely wants to win and has a choice of suitors, is going to work for those organizations. They suck, plain and simple. They aren't totally committed to winning championships (most often happy just to make the playoffs) and thus, surprise surprise, they don't win championships.

 

If you're a renowned car designer, are you gonna take the offer to work for GM or Ford or Chrysler or will you wait and take the job with Daimler-Benz? Who would fault you for doing so? Well, you would probably fault yourself, given this logic.

 

I mean granted he must have had a tough time coaching talent less hacks like Kobe, Shaq, Robert Horry, Ron Harper, Rick Fox and Derek Fisher. Oh the humanity! How could someone possibly be expected to win with a team like that?

 

Quick! Name the number of titles that Lakers team you mentioned won before Phil Jackson. I'll wait....

 

And yeah Phil never had a stacked team like Red did with the minimum of two future Hall of Fame players and one who is already in there. Oh wait he did! The 2003-2004 team had Karl Malone, Shaq, and Kobe on the same team. Along with The Glove, Derek Fisher, Horace Grant, and Rick Fox and they still managed to lose to the Pistons who were nowhere near as talented as that Lakers team was.

 

I have to ask, did you actually watch these teams or are you speaking just from an 'on paper' perspective? The Gary Payton who played for the Lakers was not 'the Glove'. He had deteriorated significantly. Same way the Karl Malone who played for the Lakers was not 'The Mailman', he too had deteriorated significantly. So you have big names as role players. So what?

 

I think it's telling that you try to weave baseball and football into a basketball discussion. Do you not realize the sports are FAR different? There are many people who believe that no Yankee manager in the Steinbrenner era should be considered a hall of fame manager, regardless of merit. Do you agree with that assertion? You think you could manage the Yankees to a title? It doesn't require any skill, after all, given their level of talent, right?

 

You look at the numbers and Jackson is the greatest coach of all time. Just like if you look at the numbers, the guy whose name is on the Super Bowl trophy, is the greatest coach of all time. Now, when someone comes along and surpasses that (Belichick had a chance but it's fading fast), then we can bring it up again. For now, it's tabled since all the specious arguments ("He had great talent" - duh? Great talent wins championships. Is this not elementary? "He didn't work for crap organizations" - Um, this would be why the Bills don't have any titles in the modern/Super Bowl era and why Cowher turned them down flat) don't apply in the least. By your definition, Tony Dungy wasn't a good coach because BY GAWD, he had Peyton Manning...and Marvin Harrison....and Reggie Wayne...and Dwight Freeney...and Bob Sanders (healthy).

 

When Phil becomes eligible for Springfield, no one's going to say 'Don't vote him in. He only won with great talent and great organizations'. And lazorbeak is right. By any form of measurement, Phil Jackson is the greatest coach of all time. There's no opinion involved in that. You can say Don Nelson is better due to sheer win total (longevity based) but look at win percentage and he falls flat. So, by the way, does Lenny Wilkens. Titles? Jackson. Playoff win percentage? Jackson. The only way Jackson isn't the greatest of all time is in the court of opinion. What's odd is, I agree with you to an extent. I would've loved to see what Jackson would/could do with a team like the Hornets or the Thunder, young teams with tons of talent and burgeoning stars. That, I believe, would've led to the closest thing to a dynasty in the NBA since the Bulls, Showtime, or the Celtics. But he doesn't seem to be doing too bad in LA.

[BHK1978]

This is truly my last post on this subject.

 

lazorbeak, it was not my intention to disrespect you and if you feel that I did, I am sorry. There are a few posters on here that seem to enjoy talking down to people and condescending to others (this is not meant as a flame). And I for one would not like to be grouped in with them, so like I said I am sorry.

 

Remianen, I would never think that I could coach/manage in any pro sport I am just not that knowledgeable enough to do so. My point being, that any good coach could guide those teams to championships.

 

Phil Jackson is already in the Hall of Fame and has been there since 2007. I am not saying he is a horrible coach, in fact I think he is one of the best but I don't think he is leaps and bounds above the rest.

 

As to the quick name how many titles Kobe, Shaq, Robert Horry, Ron Harper, Rick Fox and Derek Fisher had before Phil Jackson. Well Shaq in Orlando, Harper with the Bulls and Cavs were the only two that were on teams talented enough to win championships. Horry does not count as has been pointed out, he was not even on that team. Rick Fox was on very bad Celtic teams before he went to L.A. Kobe and Fisher were on some decent Lakers teams before him but I am not sure they were talented enough to win championships.

[lazorbeak]

lazorbeak, it was not my intention to disrespect you and if you feel that I did, I am sorry. There are a few posters on here that seem to enjoy talking down to people and condescending to others (this is not meant as a flame). And I for one would not like to be grouped in with them, so like I said I am sorry.

 

No problem man I was just confused as to the sudden shift in tone.

 

 

As to the quick name how many titles Kobe, Shaq, Robert Horry, Ron Harper, Rick Fox and Derek Fisher had before Phil Jackson. Well Shaq in Orlando...

 

Might want to check that fact again. Shaq did reach the finals once... and failed to win a single game. And Horry did win as a rookie and sophomore in Houston, making him one of a very small group of guys to win championships with 3 teams. He was just a great team player: a clutch shooter who could spread the floor and play tough defense. His physical tools weren't great but he knew what he had to do to be successful in the league.

 

Anyway after that game 4 I am definitely behind the Celtics. They play unselfish team ball and get a lift from some of their smaller names. The Cavs are just so painfully dull to watch when Lebron runs the offense. It's just the same pick-and-bulldoze to the rim move over and over. I just don't see how they can win against top teams with that system.

[BHK1978]

No problem man I was just confused as to the sudden shift in tone.

 

 

 

 

Might want to check that fact again. Shaq did reach the finals once... and failed to win a single game. And Horry did win as a rookie and sophomore in Houston, making him one of a very small group of guys to win championships with 3 teams. He was just a great team player: a clutch shooter who could spread the floor and play tough defense. His physical tools weren't great but he knew what he had to do to be successful in the league.

 

Anyway after that game 4 I am definitely behind the Celtics. They play unselfish team ball and get a lift from some of their smaller names. The Cavs are just so painfully dull to watch when Lebron runs the offense. It's just the same pick-and-bulldoze to the rim move over and over. I just don't see how they can win against top teams with that system.

 

Yeah that was what I meant about Shaq. He was on a team good enough to win a championship but they were swept (I remember that well because I dislike Shaq and was very happy to see the Magic get swept:D). As for Horry I discounted him because as you pointed out he was not on the team that I was talking about.

[GatorBait19]

I believe Jackson is a very good coach but I always believed he has had his flaws

 

1) I don't remember him developing any superstars himself, Shaq, Kobe, Pippen, Rodman, Jordan, Gasol were all all-stars before him. Andrew Bynum is getting better but he isn't up there

 

2) He has always won with great teams (i.e Lakers and Bulls) but when the Lakers only had Kobe they barely made the playoffs

 

Now I am not saying that Phil is a bad coach, I just believe (imo) that he's been fortunate with great players.

 

I still believe the best coach all time was Red.

[Tha Black Phenom]

He didn't need to develop superstars, what he rather did was give roles to the smaller players. He worked things around for everyone to drop their input and make their worth. Fisher became clutch, you had Horry and Fox doing their thing, in the Bulls it was Harper and Longley, who were sure as hell not great players on their own, but with what he did he made them look like more than decent starters. And THAT is a hell of a job in itself, just as much as your idealistic fairy tales of picking up X mediocre team with decent stars and pushing them to championship status. Really...

 

Best example was Dennis Rodman. I mean holy ****, just knowing what the guy was about would make any coach pull their hair out. The man was a trainwreck if not for his amazing rebounding. Won DPOTY so many times, that's all well and good. But he sucked in jumpshots, he sucked in free throws, he sucked in close scoring for the most part and most importantly he sucked in attitude. Phil stuck to his guns though and worked with him to play to his strengths and hide/damper his weaknesses. Now, Jackson has his work cut out with Ron Artest, trying to keep that S.O.B. in place so he doesn't go pick a fight in the stands again. And yes, probably every coach has their dwindles and downsides but to work through them and gain championships is a whole nother thing.

 

Developing superstars? protip: for the most part, superstars develop themselves. They either come into the game red hot, or they evolve in a sporadic tremendous way. But hell, without Jackson, Jordan and Kobe hadn't done or won squat. Kobe missed the playoffs and Jordan was the dominant player who could never reach the finals... kinda like LeBron. Even with decent or "good" coaches, they probably wouldn't have gone further, or maybe as much as one title, if anything. Jackson rather pulled a dynasty out of their asses.

 

He modernized the triangle offense and ran with it. Other coaches tried to emulate him and fell flat on their faces. We can always ask the "what ifs" of if he poached a lesser team but we're never gonna find that out, nor would he have ever thought of doing it, and rightfully so.

[GatorBait19]

He didn't need to develop superstars, what he rather did was give roles to the smaller players. He worked things around for everyone to drop their input and make their worth. Fisher became clutch, you had Horry and Fox doing their thing, in the Bulls it was Harper and Longley, who were sure as hell not great players on their own, but with what he did he made them look like more than decent starters. And THAT is a hell of a job in itself, just as much as your idealistic fairy tales of picking up X mediocre team with decent stars and pushing them to championship status. Really...

 

Best example was Dennis Rodman. I mean holy ****, just knowing what the guy was about would make any coach pull their hair out. The man was a trainwreck if not for his amazing rebounding. Won DPOTY so many times, that's all well and good. But he sucked in jumpshots, he sucked in free throws, he sucked in close scoring for the most part and most importantly he sucked in attitude. Phil stuck to his guns though and worked with him to play to his strengths and hide/damper his weaknesses. Now, Jackson has his work cut out with Ron Artest, trying to keep that S.O.B. in place so he doesn't go pick a fight in the stands again. And yes, probably every coach has their dwindles and downsides but to work through them and gain championships is a whole nother thing.

 

Developing superstars? protip: for the most part, superstars develop themselves. They either come into the game red hot, or they evolve in a sporadic tremendous way. But hell, without Jackson, Jordan and Kobe hadn't done or won squat. Kobe missed the playoffs and Jordan was the dominant player who could never reach the finals... kinda like LeBron. Even with decent or "good" coaches, they probably wouldn't have gone further, or maybe as much as one title, if anything. Jackson rather pulled a dynasty out of their asses.

 

He modernized the triangle offense and ran with it. Other coaches tried to emulate him and fell flat on their faces. We can always ask the "what ifs" of if he poached a lesser team but we're never gonna find that out, nor would he have ever thought of doing it, and rightfully so.

 

If I remember right Rodman was a very good shooter, even would step back from time to time for the three, yes his free throw shooting wasn't the best (never hurt Shaq)

 

Rodman was never asked to be a points guy, he was asked to be a goon pretty much, and his numbers in Chi town were actually some of the worst in his career besides the last two jokes of his career

 

Kobe and Jordan never went to finals with out Phil, Lebron has

 

Lakers were a playoff team that went to the Conf. finals the year or two before, Phil just made them a champion, kind of like what Gruden did to Tampa or Ozzie to Chi. Sox

 

he never took a bad teams and made them good (larry brown) he's always taken playoff teams and made them champions

 

and Horry was already know for being a role player, and a clutch player at that

[BHK1978]

If I remember right Rodman was a very good shooter, even would step back from time to time for the three, yes his free throw shooting wasn't the best (never hurt Shaq)

 

Rodman was never asked to be a points guy, he was asked to be a goon pretty much, and his numbers in Chi town were actually some of the worst in his career besides the last two jokes of his career

 

Yeah that was his role on the Pistons as well, get rebounds and rough people up.

[GatorBait19]

Yeah that was his role on the Pistons as well, get rebounds and rough people up.

 

I was looking over his stats just now, he actually shoot above .500 from the field in his career

[lazorbeak]

I believe Jackson is a very good coach but I always believed he has had his flaws

 

1) I don't remember him developing any superstars himself, Shaq, Kobe, Pippen, Rodman, Jordan, Gasol were all all-stars before him. Andrew Bynum is getting better but he isn't up there

 

2) He has always won with great teams (i.e Lakers and Bulls) but when the Lakers only had Kobe they barely made the playoffs

 

Now I am not saying that Phil is a bad coach, I just believe (imo) that he's been fortunate with great players.

 

I still believe the best coach all time was Red.

 

1) Pippen wasn't an all-star before Jackson, and Kobe, while an all-star, was an all-star who shot 26% from the 3-point line, lacked toughness on defense, and averaged 20 points a game. In short he was an all-star because he was an above-average shooting guard who played in a major market. To argue that Jackson didn't develop these guys is pretty bizarre considering both were in their early 20's and are now hall of famers based almost exclusively on what they did while Jackson was coaching. Gasol is another guy who has changed his game from the tissue-paper soft style that saw the Grizzlies fail to win a single playoff game, ever.

 

2) Yes, he won with great teams, but somehow that makes Red the best ever? Red didn't coach great teams? He had the best defender and rebounder in the league in Bill Russell, a Steve Nash-level point guard in Bob Cousy, a great shooter and tough defender in Tom Heinsohn and an elite scorer like John Havlicek coming off the bench. Plus 5 more hall of famers over the course of his coaching career.

 

Again, Red Auerbach coached an NBA league that expanded to TEN teams, and had talent far above that of any other team in the league for over a decade. Free agency and the salary cap make that kind of team impossible for a prolonged period of time.

 

he never took a bad teams and made them good (larry brown) he's always taken playoff teams and made them champions

 

Except, again, he did take a 34 win Lakers team and won a championship in 4 years.

 

Oh, more support: Deron Williams, following the Jazz's unceremonious sweep from the playoffs, their first in 2 decades: "they're just better than we are. We're a playoff team and they're a championship team." The Jazz have been a playoff team for pretty much the entire Deron Williams era, but while the Jazz have consistently gotten to the semi-finals, they haven't really managed to do anything else. They do have a very good coach, but they haven't been able to get to that championship level that Jackson-coached teams seem to get to on a regular basis.

[Tha Black Phenom]

If I remember right Rodman was a very good shooter, even would step back from time to time for the three, yes his free throw shooting wasn't the best (never hurt Shaq)

 

Exactly my point. It could've hurt Shaq, in many ways, but Phil Jackson worked around it. I sure many can't forget the infamous Hack-a-Shaq tactic used numerous times on both Rodman and Shaq.

 

I rather think Rodman was fairly inconsistent overall, in some games he shined but it wasn't his forte, evidently.

 

Rodman was never asked to be a points guy, he was asked to be a goon pretty much, and his numbers in Chi town were actually some of the worst in his career besides the last two jokes of his career

 

Again.. exactly.

 

Kobe and Jordan never went to finals with out Phil, Lebron has

 

Okay, that.. still doesn't change much from the original point. As well with the fact that LeBron barely got to the finals and got swept away with a broom.

 

Having the most dominant players doesn't do it alone. You need the team and uncanny strategy around it, and the star power Jordan and LeBron were left with were far from favorable. Until Jackson did something 'bout it(for the Bulls).

 

Lakers were a playoff team that went to the Conf. finals the year or two before, Phil just made them a champion, kind of like what Gruden did to Tampa or Ozzie to Chi. Sox

 

he never took a bad teams and made them good (larry brown) he's always taken playoff teams and made them champions

 

and Horry was already know for being a role player, and a clutch player at that

 

I never said what Horry did or didn't do before. I'm saying that's where he was at during his tenure with the Lakers.. which is true. He could've flopped and went back down.

 

Lakers WERE one of those "bad teams" when Phil came back. That's what I'm saying. Kobe wasn't always the top dog, and I'm not talking about Shaq's presence or anything. Phil came back and gave them another breath of life, because he can. Larry Brown did his thing and Phil did his too.

[GatorBait19]

1) Pippen wasn't an all-star before Jackson, and Kobe, while an all-star, was an all-star who shot 26% from the 3-point line, lacked toughness on defense, and averaged 20 points a game. In short he was an all-star because he was an above-average shooting guard who played in a major market. To argue that Jackson didn't develop these guys is pretty bizarre considering both were in their early 20's and are now hall of famers based almost exclusively on what they did while Jackson was coaching. Gasol is another guy who has changed his game from the tissue-paper soft style that saw the Grizzlies fail to win a single playoff game, ever.

 

2) Yes, he won with great teams, but somehow that makes Red the best ever? Red didn't coach great teams? He had the best defender and rebounder in the league in Bill Russell, a Steve Nash-level point guard in Bob Cousy, a great shooter and tough defender in Tom Heinsohn and an elite scorer like John Havlicek coming off the bench. Plus 5 more hall of famers over the course of his coaching career.

 

Again, Red Auerbach coached an NBA league that expanded to TEN teams, and had talent far above that of any other team in the league for over a decade. Free agency and the salary cap make that kind of team impossible for a prolonged period of time.

 

 

 

Except, again, he did take a 34 win Lakers team and won a championship in 4 years.

 

Oh, more support: Deron Williams, following the Jazz's unceremonious sweep from the playoffs, their first in 2 decades: "they're just better than we are. We're a playoff team and they're a championship team." The Jazz have been a playoff team for pretty much the entire Deron Williams era, but while the Jazz have consistently gotten to the semi-finals, they haven't really managed to do anything else. They do have a very good coach, but they haven't been able to get to that championship level that Jackson-coached teams seem to get to on a regular basis.

 

first thing, you can't really put NBA salary cap in any conv. because it's a joke

 

"okay teams, we are giving you 53 million (for 12 players) and well please don't go over it..... but if you do it's completely fine, you'll just have to match dollar for dollar what you spend" so a team (say the magic right now) have a 70 million dollar payroll this year, but they are spending an extra 15 mill on tax...... does this hurt them? No they just put together a great season and have been do record attendance

 

plus the MLE??????? i mean NBA's salary cap is a joke beyond joke. I remember reading one time a team asked their star player not to sign his contract until they signed all of their free agents..... why because when he signed he count against the cap, but if he waited, they could spend freely and then still sign him to top dollar

 

 

Also Red did just more than coach, he spent 16 years as GM when he retired, where he continued to find great players. he was apart of 16 different championship teams with the C's

 

Also under Jackson, Kobe posted his lowest 3% shooting ever as well, I still think Gasol is a soft player (sure he looks tough against the weaker Centers in the league) I remember one of the finals games last year when Petrius fouled Gasol and everyone got in front of Petrius and no one tried to stop Gasol

 

and where did this all come back to me saying I thought Phil was a bad coach? I believe I said he was a good coach who was lucky

 

Why put that Phil turned around the Lakers after they won 34 games? Brown has done it mult. times, hell he even took the Clippers to the playoffs twice. The bobcats went this year and I can't even name a starter there

 

but talking about which coach is the best is dumb, they were all different and brought different things to the table

 

1) Red coached in a different era like you said, but he had an eye for talent

 

2) Phil's triangle offense changed the game, he took players like Kobe and Pippen and made them better, and took others like Shaq and Jordan and made them into Champions

 

3) Larry Brown was a D man, he took teams that struggled and turned them into winners

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last thing, so Lebron wants a championship, why not take a MLE (which could be up to 5.3 mil a year) for one year from the Lakers, the endorsments he would get in LA alone would make up for any lost income, then next year (after they win the series) Lakers have his bird rights and sign him to a max deal

 

lol dream I know, but if he was smart he could do it

[lazorbeak]

Also Red did just more than coach, he spent 16 years as GM when he retired, where he continued to find great players. he was apart of 16 different championship teams with the C's

 

Yeah but since we're talking about coaching all the non-coaching stuff he did really isn't relevant, is it?

 

Why put that Phil turned around the Lakers after they won 34 games?

 

As a direct contradiction of what you said?

 

he never took a bad teams and made them good

 

Since, well... he did.

 

I agree different guys brought different things, but when you look at the results Phil has had in 3 different environments over the past two decades it's unbelievable and I don't think anyone can compare to what he's accomplished.

[GatorBait19]

Yeah but since we're talking about coaching all the non-coaching stuff he did really isn't relevant, is it?

 

 

 

As a direct contradiction of what you said?

 

 

 

Since, well... he did.

 

I agree different guys brought different things, but when you look at the results Phil has had in 3 different environments over the past two decades it's unbelievable and I don't think anyone can compare to what he's accomplished.

 

Doc Rivers took a horrible C's team and made them into champs lmafo, and Phil and the Lakers weren't a powerhouse (again) until the remarkable trade for Gasol, also remember that The Lakers were 24-19 before Rudy T resigned for health issues and Kobe missed 16 games down the strech

 

Hell Rivers even took a scrapped Magic team in 99 with no superstars and went 41-41

 

He turned Rondo into probably one of the top 3 PG, made McGrady into a star without any help.

 

Phil still had Kobe when he got back........ how'd he do with out Jordan, when he only had Pippen? still went to the playoffs just didn't win anything

 

Once again, I am not taking anything away from Phil, I think he is a very good coach, but to me a great coach is someone who can take a loser with no superstars, and make superstars, develop rooks into players, and make them a winner. Names like Rivers, Brown, Auerbach (when the league was 17 teams, and the C's in the 4 years prior had a winning% of .352), D'Antoni (made David Lee a big time threat, turned Nash into a superstar, Joe Johnson became a big score under him, Nate Robinson even flourished under him), Stan Van Gundy (took a player like Wade who many wrote off as being a good player but wont reach that next level and developed him into a superstar, turned Dwight Howard into a 20 point guy, helped turn Jameer Nelson into an All-Star point Gaurd, help Gortat become a big man people want, and helped Petrius and Barnes become better players, heck Hedo had his best years under him)

 

Thunder Coach Scott Brooks (need I say more?)

 

You want to see a great coach in my eyes, look at Gregg Popovich and the names he has helped, Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Bruce Bowen (defense wise), DeJuan Blair looks like an up and comer, 12 out of his 14 years he has won 50 or more and only one losing season (his first) and the other was a strike shorten year where his winning % was .882

 

look at people like Vinny Del Negro development wise, he took a guy like Joakim Noah, when people were starting to doubt is abilities and his toughness and made him into a double double guy, that will probably grow still. D-Rose is an All-Star, Taj Gibson has a very respectable rookie year.

[jbergey_2005]

I'm finished with my input on Phil being a great coach. I think that should be fairly obvious. If Phil went to the Cavs next year and won the championship some of you would say well it wasnt Phil it was because of Lebron James despite the fact the Lebron hasnt won one and is starting to look unlikely this year.

 

I just wanted to mention that Rodman was never a good shooter. He was a very poor shooter. He shot over 50 percent because all he did was shoot layups.

 

Also, while I agree the NBA cap is a joke it isnt exactly how its been explained. You can go over the cap to sign your own players and teams that are over the cap are allowed 1 mid-level exception(5.3 mil). The explanation given made it sound like you could go on some sort of spending frenzy without consequence.

[Tha Black Phenom]

A lot of those talents haven't been necessarily crafted by their coach, they could've well evolved themselves and have the coach adjust to it. And to pander to your point, you could just as well say Phil took a moderately solid player with crazy potential in Kobe and turned him into what he is today.

 

But I'm also finished, indeed we can agree to disagree. We could instead talk about the ass-kicking the Cavaliers got handed tonight. I mean that was.. crazy. When Shaq's the top scorer, you know there's something wrong going on, lol

[lazorbeak]

The Celtics play great team ball and are a lot more fun to watch than the Cavs. I'll definitely be pulling for them to close out in 6, and I think Orlando might actually get challenged for the first time in the playoffs.

 

Also I don't think the Suns match up well with the Lakers at all. They're just giving up a lot of size at every position.

[jbergey_2005]

The Celtics play great team ball and are a lot more fun to watch than the Cavs. I'll definitely be pulling for them to close out in 6, and I think Orlando might actually get challenged for the first time in the playoffs.

 

Also I don't think the Suns match up well with the Lakers at all. They're just giving up a lot of size at every position.

 

Id agree with this.

 

Athough I didnt think the Suns matched up well against the Spurs and they swept them. I am not sure what got into the Suns in the 2nd part of the year but they actually started playing defense. Its very strange.

 

Shaq is a liability at this stage in his career as well. The Cavs are better off without him IMO. He just clogs the lane so Lebron has no room to operate.

[GatorBait19]

The Celtics play great team ball and are a lot more fun to watch than the Cavs. I'll definitely be pulling for them to close out in 6, and I think Orlando might actually get challenged for the first time in the playoffs.

 

Also I don't think the Suns match up well with the Lakers at all. They're just giving up a lot of size at every position.

 

I like how C's are taking it to the Cavs

 

I think a C's vs Magic match-up will be good.

 

They match up well together

 

Dwight Howard vs Perkins (Perkins and Big Baby gave him hell last year)

 

Rhasad Lewis vs Garnett (Garnett has some wear and tear but it should be a good match up to watch Garnett gaurd on the prem.)

 

Matt Barnes vs Paul (this is a match up that favors the Magic mostly because of the depth at the position and the fact that Paul hasn't shown up yet)

 

Carter vs Allen (two aging former stars, Carter is still the faster of the two and has done well in the playoffs)

 

Nelson vs Rondo (this will be the match-up of the series, will Rondo keep up his great playoff? has Nelson really turned the corner towards that elite PG that he's been looking like this playoff)

 

 

The big thing is the bench players, while both have nice benchs, (IMHO) the Magic seem to have the deeper bench

 

Petrius went toe to toe with Lebron last year and defended him well (didn't shut him down but did well against him), Jason Williams has looked good this season, along with Anderson and then you also have Gortat and Bass

 

But Magic are also a streaking team who is hotter than anyone, but they also rely on the 3 a lot

[GatorBait19]

I'm finished with my input on Phil being a great coach. I think that should be fairly obvious. If Phil went to the Cavs next year and won the championship some of you would say well it wasnt Phil it was because of Lebron James despite the fact the Lebron hasnt won one and is starting to look unlikely this year.

 

I just wanted to mention that Rodman was never a good shooter. He was a very poor shooter. He shot over 50 percent because all he did was shoot layups.

 

Also, while I agree the NBA cap is a joke it isnt exactly how its been explained. You can go over the cap to sign your own players and teams that are over the cap are allowed 1 mid-level exception(5.3 mil). The explanation given made it sound like you could go on some sort of spending frenzy without consequence.

 

You are right I should have put that part about for you players, but also look at David Lee this year, how do you think the Knicks will handle him

 

If they go out and Sign the likes of Lebron and Bosh/Wade then offer their MLE to someone then sign Lee to his contract it's okay. So they will wait to offer Daivd his contract so they have the room to sign two or three players

 

But if David signs early then his contract counts instantly, plus all the bull crap of you have to have a certain amount of players under contract (no expired) so the NBA doesn't add money to what you are already spending, then you have stuff like Trade Ex. (example) sign and trade Magic and Raptors did last year for Hedo, Magic got nothing but an 8 Million dollar trade ex. where they could package Gortat and his 5.3 million along with that 8 to have 13.3 million to trade for someone (which they probably will because it'd be a waste to let the trade ex. expire and also to keep Gortat and his 5.3 million or Brandon Bass and his 3.3 million sitting on the bench when they are unhappy and want to start)

 

Plus the fact you can make trades when you are over the cap as long as the salaries are within 5% of each other I believe

 

and if Phil went to the Cavs who retained Lebron next year and won a championship, I would see Phil as the coach that got them over the hump, but let's be frank, if he doesn't stay with the Lakers then he isn't coaching next year, I doubt he's going to want to take a team and try to improve their record when he can stay with LA and pretty much know he'll make the Finals (because the west has lost a lot of swagger it once had)

[maskedpropaganda]

3 down 1 to go and the evil empire of King James is overthrown VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!!!