Phil Jackson talk/rumors (merged)

[bigbadred00]

So why couldn't other coaches before Jackson not win and likely not after. Honestly which coaches are you that amazed by? Is Larry Brown that amazing? 1 win in 17 tries? How bout Riley? Honestly if Jackson isn't one of the best, please start listing coaches who are in fact better.

 

[VF21]

Define better.

 

[Bricklayer]

So why couldn't other coaches before Jackson not win and likely not after. Honestly which coaches are you that amazed by? Is Larry Brown that amazing? 1 win in 17 tries? How bout Riley? Honestly if Jackson isn't one of the best, please start listing coaches who are in fact better.

We are going in circles here. Phil Jackson has entered the playoffs exactly ONCE in 14 years without AT LEAST 2 of the Top 50 players of all time on his roster, and at least 1 of the Top 10. He coached the majority of his career with arguably the greatest player of all time as his centerpiece in an era when there was no clear rival (there was no Bird to MJ's Magic, and the player who came closest in that era was ironically Hakeem who did so in the two years MJ (and surprise surprise PJ) took off). Gee, wonder what difference that could have possibly made.

 

[bigbadred00]

Well if Phil isn't the best or one of the best ever, please start listing "better" coaches in NBA history. Phil definite takes the cake if your talking about titles. Obviously some people here are defining it more with less, but noone has won a title with quote on quote less in the NBA.

I can easily define the best NFL coaches:

Walsh
Coach Billicheck
Coach of the Steelers in the 70s (can't remember for some reason)
Coach of Packers back in the Day.

In the NHL:
Boowman
AL Albour

Most are defined in leagues by title. But for some reason Red and Jackson aren't seen by many as that great? I guess you can judge it whos better with less? Honestly I just don't know.

 

[VF21]

How do you define better? Is it by wins? Is it by titles?

I was serious about my question, bigbadred00. Since you're the one asking the question, I think it's only fair you quantify what you think are the qualities that make Phil Jackson one of the best. It might be that you're judging "better" by a totall different criteria.

 

[bigbadred00]

Rudy didn't win titles without Hakeem top 5 center all time? Pop didn't win without Duncan top 10 player all time? Riley didn't win without Magic? Where all all these great coaches winning without any help? Please I'm looking and not finding. So he walked into the titles. Noone other than Arguably brown who has Ben Wallace who is one of the best ever, hasn't won the title without a top 50 player and probally hasn't made the playoffs without.

Rudy never made the playoffs without Hakeem. Larry has always had talented teams, maybe not the most talented and has only won once. AI is probally top 50 all time now and in the 70s Larry had David Thompson and in the 80s David Robinson, and in the 90s Reggie and 2000s AI. Honestly who are the coaches that make miracles Brick in the NBA, please show me some with consistant success.

 

[VF21]

As far as your statement about NFL coaches go, I'm going to assume you mean Vince Lombardi for the Packers and Chuck Noll for the Steelers...

 

[Bricklayer]

Rudy didn't win titles without Hakeem top 5 center all time? Pop didn't win without Duncan top 10 player all time? Riley didn't win without Magic? Where all all these great coaches winning without any help? Please I'm looking and not finding. So he walked into the titles. Noone other than Arguably brown who has Ben Wallace who is one of the best ever, hasn't won the title without a top 50 player and probally hasn't made the playoffs without.

Rudy never made the playoffs without Hakeem. Larry has always had talented teams, maybe not the most talented and has only won once. AI is probally top 50 all time now and in the 70s Larry had David Thompson and in the 80s David Robinson, and in the 90s Reggie and 2000s AI. Honestly who are the coaches that make miracles Brick in the NBA, please show me some with consistant success.

What are you talking about?

You keep on missing the point -- NEITHER HAS PHIL.

He is EXACTLY the same as the other top coaches in the NBA, EXCEPT that he has had greater players for a greater percentage of his career.

If you have 2 superstars and surefire Hall of Famers on your team, both guys can post and defend, then Phil can make them win. Then again, tailor those requirements slightly (i.e. Riley needs one of them to be a center etc.) and so can a number of guys.

P.S. Tim Duncan is not one of the ten best of All Time. He's Top 50, but 2nd tier great. Nobody would take him over Magic, Bird, MJ, Wilt, Russel, Hakeem, Shaq etc. etc.

 

[bigbadred00]

He won consistantly, he took teams which never won titles into the dominance bracket. No he never won without help, but he did it consistantly. I'm not saying he wasn't a jerk, I'm just saying he elevated the play of his greatest players from good to amazing, I'm not 100% sure without him they still couldn't have won titles, but I'm pretty sure 9 titles is well without of reach for all but a few coaches. Coaching in the NBA isn't exactly a cake walk.

This year for instance I think the best coaching job was Nate McMillian, but I don't necessarily think he's the best coach and I'd give that to Greg Pop cause he wins, he gets his guys to play great D, he wins without TD and he's leading a very good team, arguably the best although he does have great talent arguably more than Nate. Do I think Phil will work a miracle with Kobe next year? Not exactly sure, I doubt it, but what coach would succeed there? Put Pop there, it would still take him a while, they are in cap hell. Likewise, do I know who would do a better job in Sacto, honestly I don't know who'd do a better job than Adelman who did a stellar job.

Again, I'm not saying Phil is the definite best ever, but he's easily top 5. I can say without a doubt the best NBA player to me is MJ, closely followed by Magic, Wilt, Kareem. But again that's just my POV, I think top 5 player is easily defined in the NBA while coaches recieve much less credit than they deserve in basketball.

 

[bigbadred00]

Duncan is pretty close, 2 MVPs, 8 All NBA first teams, 7 All NBA Defensive Teams.

Check this out for reference, of the top 20 Players of all time according to the HOF Monitor http://www.basketballreference.com/leaders/leadershof.htm, Duncan is 11 and he's only 28 Brick. I don't even like Duncan but to depleat what he has accomplished is pretty rediculous.

Your right I'd rather have Magic, Kareem, Larry, etc. but he's a close whatever, and one of the best ever.

 

[bigbadred00]

As far as your statement about NFL coaches go, I'm going to assume you mean Vince Lombardi for the Packers and Chuck Noll for the Steelers...

Of course, I went blank.

 

[bigbadred00]

What are you talking about?

You keep on missing the point -- NEITHER HAS PHIL.

He is EXACTLY the same as the other top coaches in the NBA, EXCEPT that he has had greater players for a greater percentage of his career.

If you have 2 superstars and surefire Hall of Famers on your team, both guys can post and defend, then Phil can make them win. Then again, tailor those requirements slightly (i.e. Riley needs one of them to be a center etc.) and so can a number of guys.

P.S. Tim Duncan is not one of the ten best of All Time. He's Top 50, but 2nd tier great. Nobody would take him over Magic, Bird, MJ, Wilt, Russel, Hakeem, Shaq etc. etc.

So you can't give me a coach as a counter argument. Please give me a better coach in your eye and define the reason for me Brick. Cause honestly I don't understand your definition at all.

 

[VF21]

bbr00 - You are missing the point. Bricklayer is saying Phil Jackson is a good/great whatever coach BECAUSE of the tools he had available. There isn't a counter argument ... You're not understanding what he's saying. It isn't a matter of a better coach being out there. It's a matter of Jackson only being able to reach the pinnacle because of the pieces he had to work with...

 

[bigbadred00]

So what your saying is any good / great coach could have done the same thing?

 

[chelle]

So what your saying is any good / great coach could have done the same thing?

I believe so. I do think that Phil is a great coach, but there are other great coaches who could have done the same if they were blessed with the equal caliber players.

 

[VF21]

So what your saying is any good / great coach could have done the same thing?

It's much easier to win the Kentucky Derby with a thoroughbred than a plow horse.

 

[Bricklayer]

So you can't give me a coach as a counter argument. Please give me a better coach in your eye and define the reason for me Brick. Cause honestly I don't understand your definition at all.

My own personal "best" coach, for what it matters, would be Pat Riley. But NOT because of the Magic/Kareem years. That proved he was a great coach, but again, just like Phil, showed only that he could win with overwhelming talent. Showed he could win when he SHOULD win. But his ability to turn around the Knicks and Heat, and win in dramatically different fashion (slow down defensive squads asfter the Showtime years) than he had in L.A. proved his greatness for me -- versatile, could win it all with the most talent, could come close with less talent.

But you will note that Pat finally quit winning in the end once the talent base got thin enough. And so would Phil. His trick has been in never getting himself in a situation where the talent got that thin. His championships are legit. But his lack of failure is a fraud -- he's never coached without all-time greats on his team. And IMHO he never will. Because the moment he does the lightbulb comes on for all of those people out there mindlessly worshipping his rings without considering that he SHOULD have won nearly every one of them with the talent he's had. You have the best players, you win the title. Fine. You didn't screw up. But what exactly have you proven again that is so spectacular?

 

[Zyphen]

It seems to me that the entire argument hinges on a question that is pure opinion oriented (which I mean by: you can't bring any real evidence to bear - not even anything suggestive since you would have to go back in time and/or create a parallel universe) and not worth pursuing, though I'll put in my 2 cents anyway. Can anyone take a Phil Jackson team and win a championship with it?

I think a lot of the opposing opinions really come off hate or dislike of Phil or the idea that 9 championships can't be a fluke.

Some people seem to think that just because Phil has never proven himself with bad teams that somehow it's proof that he can't. And this also means that he's not that great of a coach. That's flawed logic. He may be opportunistic or whatever other label you care to put on him, but his "vision" of a championship team has worked for him so far in picking/polishing off winners.

On the other hand, I think this discussion really brings to light how much a coach really means to a team. Obviously, the players matter the most since they're the ones who actually directly determine the outcomes of games. Coaches can only give them assignments, minutes, and advice.

I disagree that there is such a huge gap between the top 5 players in the league and the rest of the top 10 where any coach can just waltz in and win it all with the upper echelon of that top 10. Really, I think that the best players are defined by their wins and success in the playoffs. If RA had won with Webber and Bibby in the 7th game against the Lakers that one year, wouldn't their ratings be changed? Just one possession would have been enough to bump RA and Webber/Bibby to elite status.

Kobe and T-mac only made the 3rd team in the NBA this year. They are not even in the top 10, let alone the top 5. If the All-NBA teams aren't a good measure of this, then I would point out that most rankings would still place Kobe and T-mac farther down on the totem pole. Dirk is top 5 along with Nash (though I think Nash probably deserves it this year, it's not a fluke like I previously thought).

Top players are defined by wins. Top coaches are defined by wins. If one says Phil can only win by having top players then it's a rather paradoxical argument because Phil had a hand in WHY those players are considered top players. Maybe a lot of coaches really are interchangeable but it's a tough perspective to swallow. A lot of playoff series come down to the wire and could go either way. A combination of several factors, which bigbadred00 did a good job of listing, somehow come together and give the victor the edge. We'll never know exactly how much each thing contributes but I think it's no less likely that Phil was the difference (rather than say, MJ/Kobe) when the Kings took the Lakers to 7 or the Pacers took the Bulls to 7.

 

[bigbadred00]

I think the argument lies on that in Basketball coaches mean less to a team's success than in other sports. In football it is easily seen that a superior coaching mind can succeed over superior talent namecase the New England Patriots. I won't deny that they are the best team in the league and maybe the deepest team in the league but noone will argue that Brady is the best player in the league although in the playoffs every year he proves that notion seemingly wrong. Brady may go down as the quote on quote best ever but he could be the perfect man for the job ALA Kurt Warner in St. Louis who is now a scrub after being MVP twice.

So is it the chicken or the egg? This is always the argument. With Phil it is definitely less defined than lets say with Belicheck. But then again Walsh is considered a genius for instituting the West Coast offence in the NFL which is now seen throughout the league cause if it's success, in the same right, Phil's Trinangle Offence is not implimented throughout the league even though it succeeded with two distinct sets of personnel with the similar component being a great shooting guard. Walsh for a time had by far the most talented team in the league especially with the supposed "cheating" allegations and the lack of a free agency yet he only won 3 titles with the quote on quote greatest ever in Montana.

My question to you is why haven't MJ, Kobe, Shaq or Pippen ever won titles without Phil. They had many years to do so and could never succeed although they all have gotten close without him. I cannot think of 1 player off hand that has led 2 teams to titles in the last 25 years. I am rather young, but I'm guessing Kareem did with the Lakers and the Bucks and Wilt with Philly and the Lakers but those are definitely distinct eras from the current situation. But as you can see in most major sports, players don't lead seperate teams to titles.

 

[uolj]

My question to you is why haven't MJ, Kobe, Shaq or Pippen ever won titles without Phil.

That question has already been answered.

http://forums.kingsfans.com/showpost.php?p=147706&postcount=118

 

[bigbadred00]

That's not answered, Shaq almost won in Orlando but he didn't. Shaq has a chance this year too but I doubt he will win it all. Pippen had a chance in Portland, but couldn't beat Phil even up by 20 in the beginning of the fourth. I guess they were before or past there prime, but really were they.

Like I said before these players without Phil NEVER finished the job but with him they finished it 6 and 3 times respectively.

 

[VF21]

Shaq - before prime and without Kobe.
Scottie Pippen - past prime and without MJ

You still can't isolate PJ as being the single difference between winning and losing.

 

[KA_2]

It's called luck. Phil Jackson was very lucky to have Shaq, Kobe, Pippen, and Jordan all smack in the middle of their primes, save for Kobe somewhat.

 

[Kingsgurl]

That's not answered, Shaq almost won in Orlando but he didn't. Shaq has a chance this year too but I doubt he will win it all. Pippen had a chance in Portland, but couldn't beat Phil even up by 20 in the beginning of the fourth. I guess they were before or past there prime, but really were they.

Like I said before these players without Phil NEVER finished the job but with him they finished it 6 and 3 times respectively.

If shaq and the Heat manage to win it all, what does that do to the argument? Does Stan Van Gundy leap frog suddenly into 'great' coach status?

 

[loopymitch]

There was an article in the paper this morning that he's being considered as GM and/or coach in Cleveland. It was from AP but I can't find the link. I'd be very surprised if he ends up there but they do have LBJ so who knows.

 

[bigbadred00]

It's called luck. Phil Jackson was very lucky to have Shaq, Kobe, Pippen, and Jordan all smack in the middle of their primes, save for Kobe somewhat.

Called luck? Oh, so every coach is who has won it is lucky, give me a break. No skills are involved in coaching in the NBA. Hmm.. Riley, Kareem, Magic, Worthy. Rudy, Hakeem. List goes on and on. None of you can still explain why some of the best ever, have only won with 1 coach and not seperate coaches. Hmm..maybe the coaches had something to do with there players success.

Kingsgurl. Maybe the heat do win it, but SVG won't even be 1/8th of the way of repeating what Jackson did. You act like Jackson did it once, he did in 9 times. If it was so quote on quote EZ to win a title, wouldn't you expect more coaches to have titles. Hmm..NBA right now, between 30 some-odd coaches currently in the NBA, 3 titles. Just think about that for more than 1 second.

 

[Bricklayer]

Called luck? Oh, so every coach is who has won it is lucky, give me a break. No skills are involved in coaching in the NBA. Hmm.. Riley, Kareem, Magic, Worthy. Rudy, Hakeem. List goes on and on. None of you can still explain why some of the best ever, have only won with 1 coach and not seperate coaches. Hmm..maybe the coaches had something to do with there players success.

Kingsgurl. Maybe the heat do win it, but SVG won't even be 1/8th of the way of repeating what Jackson did. You act like Jackson did it once, he did in 9 times. If it was so quote on quote EZ to win a title, wouldn't you expect more coaches to have titles. Hmm..NBA right now, between 30 some-odd coaches currently in the NBA, 3 titles. Just think about that for more than 1 second.

If more coaches had Michael Jordan and Shaq IN THEIR PRIMES -- quit being stubborn, that's not even arguable -- you're damn right more coaches would win titles. Not all of them. But the good ones would. You swap teams for MJ and Drexler in that '92 series between Portland and Chicago, and Adelman wins the title, PJ goes home emptyhanded. You swap Shaq and Webber in the 2002 WCF, then Adelman wins the series, PJ goes home emptyhanded (heck Adelman wins if even have a healthy team).

ONE MORE TIME: look at the names of the players who have led their teams to multiple titles -- MJ, Magic/Kareem, Bird, Hakeem, Duncan/Admiral, Shaq/Kobe etc. etc.. Just look at them. Absorb that list for a moment. The greatest players in NBA history. If you have them on your team, IN THEIR PRIMES, and you are a good coach, your chances are excellent. And if you are their coach when they are in their primes and you win with them (as you SHOULD), you don't get fired. You get to repeat. Pile up championships. Get impressionable youth to worship you without considering the context of your titles.

Phil's never won a title he shouldn't have. He's had the best players, he's had them in their prime, he should win the title. And EVERY SINGLE YEAR when he HASN'T had the best players, or they have been too young, too old, too injured, Phil has lost just like any other coach.

 

[thesanityannex]

Can anyone take a Phil Jackson team and win a championship with it?

.

Can Phil Jackson take any other championship team and win a championship with them???

 

[CaminoChaos]

Screw Phil Jack. He's the same guy who called Sactown "semi-civilized and full of rednecks." I don't effing want that hippie to be our coach.

isn't that true. i take it as a complament.

 

[Padrino]

It's called luck. Phil Jackson was very lucky to have Shaq, Kobe, Pippen, and Jordan all smack in the middle of their primes, save for Kobe somewhat.

"in my experience there's no such thing as luck."