Phil Jackson talk/rumors (merged)

[Nikos]

That was one helluva post, Bricklayer. I've already worn that discussion with Nikos to death and he wasn't any more convincing this time than he was last. If he thinks the 03 Lakes were comparable to the 01 Lakes, he wasn't paying attention.

Since Brick judges by regular season stats, they were very comparable.

BTW not only was Derek Anderson hurt, Drob was not completely healthy either (had back troubles come up at the time).

Doesn't matter if Kobe had 50 in the regular season, Derek was the Spurs third best offensive player and second most utilized. The 0001 Spurs obviously needed some offense in that series. ANY offense. Porter, AJ, Elliot? Excellent supporting cast. All on the brink of retirement and weren't very good at all that season, actually neither was that good for 2-3 years up to that point. The head of the snake was Duncan/Drob/DA. With 2 of those 3 not at full strength, not tough to see how Duncan was overmatched.

Gargamel you are not convincing now or before whatsoever. BTW, the 2001 competetion was still weak.

 

[Nikos]

1999 Lakers = 4th seed. Coaching change, Derek Harper, JR Reid starters during the series. Rodman fiasco. Mid-season trade nixing Jones for Rice who never regained his form pre-elbow surgery and couldn't play off of Shaq/Kobe well.

2003 Lakers = 5th seed. 3-9 start. Only 16-14 in the first 30 games after Shaq returned. Shaq bothered by conditioning and toe problem all season long. Horry and Fox were ancient bodywise as starters on a legit title contender. Horry shot .005 from the arc during the two playoff series. Even at that, they took the Spurs to 6 games -- 7 games if not for a clanking 3 by Horry.

Duncan could never beat LA when they were both at a comparable level. Matter of fact, the Spurs were methodically taken apart in 2001, 2002, and 2004. I think the fact that Brick, as an unbiased observer, is claiming this makes this argument all the more solid.

Yeah Robert Horry who uses about 10% of the Lakers possesions on offense even if he plays a 48 minute game.

Considering Shaq and Kobe combined for about 60ppg in the 03 playoffs and Fisher was actually not that bad in the Spurs series, I think they could have managed to beat Duncan and a bunch of ROLE players.

After all, Shaq and Kobe and a solid Laker cast did not exactly dominate Duncan in 2002 (when Drob didn't even play half of the playoffs). They did win 4-1, but Duncan was again virtually by himself that series as well.

The Horry shooting excuse is pointless to me when you have Kobe and Shaq playing their games on offense, and its not like the Lakers weren't on FIRE coming into the playoffs......

Duncan was never dominated by Shaq and the Lakers because of his poor play. When Duncan actualy had a relatively healthy Drob in 99 he swept Shaq. Wonder why? Maybe because Kobe wasn't a superstar at that time? Maybe because Tim actually had some help? Granted Drob was not that much worse of a player then Duncan that year.

I respect the Lakers for their titles, but I do not agree with the whole notion that Duncan was outclassed by Shaq etc... Shaq and Kobe lead their team over Duncan and his role players. Thats how it usually ended up.

 

[Gargamel]

Duncan was outclassed. Face facts. Three series against Spurs teams at or near the top of the conference and at or near the top of the NBA defensively is hard to dispute, yet you're trying to revise history to be more kind to SA.

2003 Spurs = Duncan and role players. Lmao. You're flailing.

Don't ask me again about 1999 with those circular reasoning skills. I already listed that the Lakers' were a 5th seed, mid-season coaching change, JR Reid/Derek Harper as starters, mid-season trade that didn't work out. Those are the reasons the Lakers sucked that year. Oops...half year.

 

[Nikos]

Who on the Spurs was not a role player in 2003? The whole team was filled with role players around Duncan. Every series someone different stepped up and helped, but there was not one consistent supporting force next to Duncan throughout the playoffs.

What makes you think otherwise?

 

[Iggy]

Phil jax

News 10 just said that he might have pursued the job if Adelman had been sacked earlier.

 

[kingsfan52miller]

News 10 just said that he might have pursued the job if Adelman had been sacked earlier.

Hopefully he does not sign a long term contract with the lakers and there is always next year

 

[BigWaxer]

I agree with all what VF said

Phil's ego will not allow him to be in Sac. If so it will cost the Kings 10+mil. I am pretty sure Phil will be coaching for the clowns down south or not at all.

 

[bigbadred00]

Duncan was outclassed. Face facts. Three series against Spurs teams at or near the top of the conference and at or near the top of the NBA defensively is hard to dispute, yet you're trying to revise history to be more kind to SA.

2003 Spurs = Duncan and role players. Lmao. You're flailing.

Don't ask me again about 1999 with those circular reasoning skills. I already listed that the Lakers' were a 5th seed, mid-season coaching change, JR Reid/Derek Harper as starters, mid-season trade that didn't work out. Those are the reasons the Lakers sucked that year. Oops...half year.

It's not that hard to outclass Duncan when 3 of the times he went against two of the top what 7 or 8 players in the league with D-Rob on the serious decline, Elliott being a non-factor, and players like Steve Smith, Antonio Daniels and others being good but minor factors. I never said Duncan was the best player ever. I said he is the best power forward ever. The 4 position has not dominated the league like the 2 and the 5 position have.

The funny thing is, you guys state when the Spurs were on a comparable level, and that is only the years the Lakers won. But when the Lakers lost, there is a mariad of excuses of why the Lakers weren't that elite. I could honestly careless if the Lakers were at the top of there game or not, or if the Spurs were, the point being is the Spurs beat the Lakers with Shaq and Kobe, not once, but twice in the playoffs. Something NO other team, until Detroit did it, the last 6 years. If the Lakers were weak so be it, they were better than any other team in the league in those years. I didn't see our beloved Kings, roll through the playoffs any of those years. I can't believe were making up excuses of why the Lakers lost those years. Yes the teams were definitely not as good those years as during the Laker dynasty years, but the reverse can also be said. The Spurs teams during the Laker dynasty weren't as good. Last year was definitely a showing of what better role players can do for Shaq and Kobe. Now Duncan has much better role players than either of them and the league might be in trouble.

 

[Bricklayer]

It's not that hard to outclass Duncan when 3 of the times he went against two of the top what 7 or 8 players in the league with D-Rob on the serious decline, Elliott being a non-factor, and players like Steve Smith, Antonio Daniels and others being good but minor factors. I never said Duncan was the best player ever. I said he is the best power forward ever. The 4 position has not dominated the league like the 2 and the 5 position have.

The funny thing is, you guys state when the Spurs were on a comparable level, and that is only the years the Lakers won. But when the Lakers lost, there is a mariad of excuses of why the Lakers weren't that elite. I could honestly careless if the Lakers were at the top of there game or not, or if the Spurs were, the point being is the Spurs beat the Lakers with Shaq and Kobe, not once, but twice in the playoffs. Something NO other team, until Detroit did it, the last 6 years. If the Lakers were weak so be it, they were better than any other team in the league in those years. I didn't see our beloved Kings, roll through the playoffs any of those years. I can't believe were making up excuses of why the Lakers lost those years. Yes the teams were definitely not as good those years as during the Laker dynasty years, but the reverse can also be said. The Spurs teams during the Laker dynasty weren't as good. Last year was definitely a showing of what better role players can do for Shaq and Kobe. Now Duncan has much better role players than either of them and the league might be in trouble.

Thsi revisionist history has to stop how. Its sad.

The Lakers in '99 and '03 were NOT "better than any other team in the league". They were also rans. Neither favored to win the title, nor particularly credible threats to.

The Spurs in '01 and '04 in particular WERE. Here's what we've got:

'99
Spurs 37-13, 1st (tied) in league (61 win pace)
Lakers 31-19, 7th (tied) in league (51 win pace)
Playoffs: Spurs 4-0

'01
Spurs 58-24, 1st in league
Lakers 56-26, 2nd (tied) in league
Playoffs: Lakers 4-0

'02
Spurs 58-24, 2nd (tied) in league
Lakers 58-24, 2nd (tied) in league
Playoffs: Lakers 4-1

'03
Spurs 60-22, 1st (tied) in league
Lakers 50-32, 5th (tied) in league
Playoffs: Spurs 4-2

'04
Spurs 57-25, 3rd in league
Lakers 56-26, 4th in league
Playoffs: Lakers 4-2

So one more time -- in years when BOTH teams were among the elite, Lakers spanked the Spurs. Think in '01, '02, '04 the combined playoff whoopings added up to a 12-3 record among theoretical equals. But when the Spurs were a 60 win team, and the Lakers were a 50 win team, yes the Spurs won. Imagine that.

 

[Nikos]

To be fair, last years Lakers team would have won a hell of a lot more games if they had a healthy Malone. Hell not only was Malone out half the games, but their mega stars Shaq and Kobe were out a combined 32 games. They were better than a 56 win team, substancially better. Malone being out was killer for them in the finals as well. Actually I am not sure Malone was ever the same coming back later that season, have to ask Gargamel on that one?

It's pointless to argue this now. I think the Spurs had their share of injuries down the line, much like the Kings. But a lot of times its forgotten, and assumed that Duncan got owned etc. Well if Duncan got owned, than Shaq sure as hell got owned plenty of times in his day.

 

[Gargamel]

'03
Spurs 60-22, 1st (tied) in league
Lakers 50-32, 5th (tied) in league
Playoffs: Spurs 4-2

Forgot to mention that what Nikos refers to the 03 LAL being on fire in the 2nd half of that season was only attributable to Kobe going on a historical scoring streak that only Chamberlain and Jordan had done before. He's never been that hot for any stretch before or since (hitting 12 of 18 threes in one game and 9 of 13 in another, 42 pts in a half, 55 & 52 pts in 3 quarters, etc). They were 19-23 before his streak and everyone was convinced they'd miss the playoffs for sure. If not for the streak, there's no way in hizzell they make the playoffs. Players 10-12 couldn't score (or defend) anymore. Vets they depended on in previous years hit the wall at mach speed that summer. That 50 win total is deceptive.

 

[VF21]

News 10 just said that he might have pursued the job if Adelman had been sacked earlier.

Sacked EARLIER? Hmmm. I didn't know Adelman had been sacked at all...

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Sacked EARLIER? Hmmm. I didn't know Adelman had been sacked at all...

Or if we would even know about it until he had already signed PJ, you know how Geoff works...who freaking knows!

 

[chelle]

Sacked EARLIER? Hmmm. I didn't know Adelman had been sacked at all...

Personally, I do not think he should be fired, but . . .

Since Phil Jackson is not longer a realisitc option (don't think he ever really was) and the Maloofs do fire Adleman, who do we end up with this season? If there is already a thread on this (I seem to think there is somewhere), please disregard!!

 

[Iggy]

well adelman is a lame duck coach now.....

 

[VF21]

Personally, I do not think he should be fired, but . . .

Since Phil Jackson is not longer a realisitc option (don't think he ever really was) and the Maloofs do fire Adleman, who do we end up with this season? If there is already a thread on this (I seem to think there is somewhere), please disregard!!

There is NO reason to believe the Maloofs will FIRE Adelman. They just gave him a one-year extension. What they will more likely do, unless something truly drastic happens, is simply allow his contract to expire at the end of the 2005-2006 season.

Finding a new coach will depend, most likely, on what players Petrie has been able to get AND what direction the team appears to be headed. Trying to figure out what's going to happen in that regard is something with too many variables and unknowns. Right now, I think the Maloofs are more worried about getting players to fill out our roster.

 

[scarlet_steph]

There is no way the Maloofs will fire Adelman. He has been a coach of the Kings for quite some time now and the Maloofs aren't that rude to get rid of him just like that. If ever they will let him go, I think (as VF21 said) they will just allow his contract to expire. The Kings organization respects him a lot. They won't fire him...

EDIT: I'm closing this thread since the topic is no longer relevant and there's no reason to keep the Zen Master on the front page of the Kings forum discussions.