In the 80s, this title was definitely Pat Riley's, but in the 90s and presently, PJax definitely gets the nod. Riley and Jackson have both benifited from inheriting talented teams with the best talent and players in the league on them (who were already in or entering their prime years), Riley with Magic and Kareem, Jackass with Jordan and now Shaq (incidentally Jordan was the best ever, which makes Phil even luckier of course). These coaches simply let these players do their thing, and of course the result was the natural effect of having the best players in the league -- championships. With the winning comes the respect factor, which follows these guys everywhere. Riley gets so much out of the Heat because he won championships with the Lakers -- these guys (Heat) have always busted their butts for Riley because he's been to the top, and they tune in when he speaks. Getting your players to listen and buy in to what you're trying to teach is probably at least 75% of the battle in becoming a great coach, and Riley and Jackson have this forever, courtesy of the players they inherited when they came in. In my opinion, these 2 guys are trying to ride that wave all the way to the end, only taking the jobs with the best chance of winning (New Jersey offered Jackson more money and more control, yet he took the LA job). On the other hand, a guy like Rudy T is willing to stick with the organization he came up with, and PROVE that he's a good coach, by making it work with whatever hand he is dealt. Chuck Daly also took a step down after winning 2 rings with the Pistons, by taking the Nets job. What makes Phil Jackass a little luckier than Riley in my mind, and therefore the luckiest coach in NBA history, is the injury factor, as well as the lack of competition. Riley had to deal with injury on many an occasion (Magic and Byron Scott going down in the '91 Finals, Magic going down in the '89 Finals, off the top of my head), as well as some great talent in the rest of the league ('86 Celts, Pistons). Jackson has NEVER had to deal with a significant injury to a key player at a key time during the Bulls title runs or to this point in his tenure with the Lakers, in fact so far he has benifited greatly to injury (Tim Duncan going down, SA swept the Lakers last year in the 2nd Round). Nobody can tell me that the Bulls would have 6 rings today had one of their key players been unable to play in the playoffs (Jordan, Pippen, Grant, Rodman, maybe even Kukoc). Wouldn't Rudy have loved to have this good fortune in '96, '97, or '98? ------------------ "It was the House of Whores, and then it became...the House of Horrors." -C.C. Deville
Sorry, I don't think you can compare Phil and Pat. Everywhere Phil has gone, he has created the number defense in the league. SA might have a slight nod on the Lakers this year, but not by much. I am always impressed by Phil's ability to get everyone to focus and play defense the entire game. I think his offensive coaches ability is highly overrated, but his defensive coaching ability is equally underrated. The Bulls won those titles on defense. Riley doesn't compare.
You can absolutely compare Phil and Pat. You say "everywhere he's gone...", but Jackson's only coached 2 teams, and only one year with his second team (Pat's only coached 2 teams as well). I pointed out the respect factor that comes with prior success that gets Jackson's players to listen to him...that means if Phil says to the Lakers, "Guys, we've got to play defense", they're going to listen to him and try hard on the other end (again, he's got the first or 2nd best player in the league buying in to what he's saying, which puts pressure on the rest of the guys to stay in line). Also, are you trying to tell me Pat hasn't coached good defense...that's a little ridiculous. The Heat have always been up there on the defensive end under Riles. Also, if you'll remember, when the Lakers repeated in '88, Showtime became Slowtime. They had to step it up on defense to stop the Pistons. "Riley doesn't compare"...give me a break! You say the Bulls won because of defense, they won because of JORDAN! I thought everyone knew that by now? Jackass is only reaping the benefits of Jordan's greatness. ------------------ "It was the House of Whores, and then it became...the House of Horrors." -C.C. Deville
Thanks Outlaw, although you made me look like an idiot, you also helped my argument -- the Knicks were also a great defensive team. ------------------ "It was the House of Whores, and then it became...the House of Horrors." -C.C. Deville
Freak, how can I argue with you when we are talking about the Jackass. I do think that 'the respect' thing may have been the difference between Harris & Jackass. Until Jackass has coached a mediocre team, I will not give him that respect.
I never said Riley doesn't coach good defense. btw: he has coached 3 teams. It is unbelievable to me the Knicks never won the championship. Riley shows no ability to coach an offense. The Heat are still playing Rudy Ball. The Knicks had much more talent than the Bulls did. A lot of people tend to remember the Bulls first three championships like they just waltzed through the East. They didn't. Jordan had several clutch shots on the precipice of defeat. Cleveland and the Knicks had several golden opportunities to beat the Bulls. Several. If you have to include Phil Jackson in Jordan-coattails arguments, fine. It is not all the interesting to me. But I fail to see how Pat Riley got anywhere close to the same level of full team, full court effort that Phil got out of his ragtag bunch that played with Jordan in 91, 92, 93. Come on the Knicks wit Ewing Mason Charles Smith/Oakley Starks/Mark Jackson Doc Rivers/Greg Anthony is pretty freaking loaded. Alright, now here comes the spin-the-argument -in-circles part where you say Mason and Starks were lose cannons that's why they lost. Or, let's not forget that Pippen was a superstar. It's your thread. Take the last word. Just don't give me arguments now about how the players blew it for Pat and won it for Phil. That argument really goes nowhere. The Bulls won 67 games with Quitten and Grant. Knicks NEVER came close to that. And the Heat has to be the biggest playoff chokers around.
heypartner -- Nothing you're saying is relevant to my original point that Riley and Jackson are the 2 luckiest coaches ever. Saying that Riley's Knick teams were loaded with talent, but couldn't go anywhere, further proves the point that he was extrememely lucky in the 80s to have inherited Magic and Kareem. He hasn't had them in the 90s to bail him out, thus no rings (I'm not talking about the players 'blowing it' for Pat, not sure where you got that from). Just like he was lucky in the 80s, Phil's been lucky in the 90s. That's the similarity. Talking defense and offensive strategy doesn't change that. (On an unrelated note, Mark Jackson wasn't on Riley's Knick teams, and Starks and Mason were both plucked from the CBA by Riley -- not 'loaded', as you say, but still talented, I agree.) If talking about Jackson riding Jordan's coattails doesn't interest you, you probably shouldn't have joined the thread, as that was a large part of my point to begin with. Try to tell me Jackson hasn't benifited from enormous luck. Name a significant injury to a key player that he had to overcome during the 6 title runs. Tell me he's not getting a free pass to the Conference Finals this year courtesy of Duncan's injury. Tell me the maturation of Shaq wasn't inevitable, and that he didn't take over both the Lakers and Bulls at the perfect time (the Bulls a "ragtag bunch"? Pippen and Grant were both top 10 picks). Tell me Jackson could've coached the Orlando Magic to a .500 record this year. Take a look at all the NBA champions from 1980 to now and tell me how many times the champion had the best player in the league on it...then try to tell me the Bulls won because of Phil's 'defense'. hp, I thought you were a Phil/Laker-hater like me and Moonbus...shape up. Btw, would've loved to have caught the Sac/LA game on tv with you the other night...maybe I could've brought some good luck. Sac sure needed it. ------------------ "It was the House of Whores, and then it became...the House of Horrors." -C.C. Deville
cool TheFreak... I'm ready to demystify the triangle with anyone...but my real purpose in life is to bash Pat Riley. I guess my main reason for joining in was to stress my opinion that to compare Phil to Pat makes it difficult to really establish the fact that Pat Riley sux. Oh...and Pippen wasn't a top 10 pick. Detroit never had the best player, and Mark Jackson was on Riley's team. Ha...you opened the door for a final jab! Knicks were hands-down the most loaded team. TheFreak...it is not that bad to agree here...cause then we really get to say Pat Riley sux. Come on ... join me!! [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited May 07, 2000).]
Partner, Pippen was a #5 pick in '87 (Grant #10), but you're right (now that I've looked it up), Mark Jackson was on the first Knick team with Riley in '91-'92. I agree, Detroit probably never had the best player (although Zeke probably could've been, if he wanted to, and Magic got hurt in '89-90). That brings it down to 18 out of 20 champions since '80 that didn't have the best player, or 90%. Taking that 90% do you think it's more likely the Bulls won due to Jordan, or Phil's defense? ------------------ "It was the House of Whores, and then it became...the House of Horrors." -C.C. Deville [This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited May 07, 2000).]
ah...man. Take pleasure in bashing Pat. Don't you see how yelling about a 6 ring coach is futile. It just dilutes your main goal that Pat Riley sux. (i am so confused about Pippen. no idea he was taken in top 10). about zeke...Jordan was the best player those years, no comparison. Oh, and how exactly does Boston, LA and Phil conveniently keep passes the best player status around to each other. Between the mistaken facts of the two of us, we are pitiful at prooving that either one of these coaches sux. I think it is best to delete this thread and regroup. We've got Pat on the ropes, let's not revitalize his Laker era by by even mentioning him in the same breath as a 6 time champion this decade. Forget about "lucky". you're confusing the issue that we want to explain how Rudy is underrated and they are overrated. Especially Pat Riley. Pat Riley Sux. And he has always had a 7 footer. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited May 07, 2000).]
How freaky is it that you guys talk about Pippen, the Knicks, and Mark Jackson : In 1987, Scottie Pippen was drafted #5 by Seattle from a pick they got from the Knicks. The Knicks in turn drafted Mark Jackson in the same draft. Ok, I'm out. ------------------ ?
Didn'y Jackson also coach in the CBA? See, they've both coached three teams! ------------------ Wanna play in the clutchcity.net game? Got some ideas? E-mail me at philip_w_moore_jr@hotmail.com and I'll send a batch e-mail with details as they develop.
TheFreak: Scottie Pippen missed 38 games in the 1997-1998 season due to a broken foot. I also know that Dennis Rodman missed many games during his tenure as a Bull due to various groin injuries, suspensions (who can forget the camera man incident which landed the worm a 10 game slam?). Speaking of the The Worm, name one other coach who could have handled Rodman nearly as well as Jackson did. Speaking of handling players who was it that was able to convince Michael Jordan to buy into the Triangle Offense and share the ball? Following your argument, this has even more weight because it was before Jackson had ever become somebody and had earned that respect. ------------------ "I don't care how tall the guy is, trade his ass!"
told you we should have deleted the thread and regrouped. now neither Phil or Pat sucks. And Rudy somehow got remembered as having the most talent-rich team in the NBA. lol
Okay cabby, we'll call that Pippen injury a legit one, but I already knew about that and purposely didn't include it. What I really meant by significant injury was someone key going down during a playoff run, a la Magic in '89 and '91, Isiah in '88 (played on one leg in decisive game), Kareem in '80 (LA still won), Phoenix losing Danny Manning for the year in '93, Duncan this year, Kidd/Gugliotta this year (Pho weren't contenders, but the injuries are good examples), Robinson the entire year before SA got Duncan, and who knows how many other teams that didn't have a chance to make it to the Finals due to injury that we don't know about or can't remember. Sure injuries are part of the game, but not for Phil's teams <luck>. As for Rodman, I think Chuck Daly handled him pretty well. Bob Hill even won 62 games with the guy, and I wouldn't say Rodman was the reason they didn't win the championship. I could just as easily argue that it was Jordan, not Jackson, that kept Rodman in line. I'll leave it to heypartner to shoot down the 'Triangle'...what was Jordan buying in to? It's an offense that caters to his strengths. That's almost like saying Rudy's a genious for getting Hakeem to agree to an offense where they throw it into the post everytime down. I subscribe more to the thinking that after 7-8 years in the league (10 in Hakeem's case), great players just start to figure things out for themselves. It's happening now with Shaq, and Phil just happens to be there at the right time. ------------------ "It was the House of Whores, and then it became...the House of Horrors." -C.C. Deville
IMO-these two along with Sloan are hands down the best coaches in the league. When Riley went to NY they weren't that good, when he went to Miami they weren't that good either. Check those teams regular season and playoff improvements once Riley got there. Further if it wasn't for a couple of John Starks misses Riley would have had a championship at the expense of a much more talented-and Rudy coached--Rockets team. The fact Riley got his team in position to win against Hakeem in his prime + the best defensive Rocket team ever is a great testament to his coaching ability. He did the same thing (got very close) against MJ teams, in fact his teams gave the Bulls the most fits during their heyday. I do agree what seperates these guys apart is not offensive x's and o's, but that is not the most important part of coaching. The most important part of coaching at the highest level is knowing ways to reach and motivate players, keeping them mentally/physically focused throughout the season, and instilling a value that team defense is the most important individual goal. In my mind the greatist coaches are not the ones that take poor talent and make average teams, of average talent to make good teams, but ones who can make good talent, or even great individuals, into great teams. In this way Jackson and Riley have the record to show they are the best. They may have good talent to work with, but they get their teams to play great as a unit. IMO Rudy is a good coach, but he is kind of a players coach in the model of Westfall or Adelman. And I don't where the theory comes from that Rudy didn't have a ton of talent. Despite 4 hall of famers and having Hakeem in his prime on his team for a large part of the last decade--Rudy never developed a team as dominant in the regular season and playoffs as Riley/Jackson. And consistent with the best player argument-Rudy should have been in the Finals alone 8 or 9 times because the best player in the conference was on his team. In my outsiders view, I don't believe Rudy knows how to push players buttons like the other two, nor has he shown the ability to manage ego's as well in keeping a team focused. While the others brought out the best in guys like D-Rod, Pippen, Mason, Mourning, Starks, Hardaway, etc., Rudy couldn't keep Drexler, Elie, Barkley, Pippen, etc focused as a team. ------------------
I don't think Philly had the best player either (I've always thought 17 out of the 20 teams had the best player, or 85%). Whenever Boston won, Bird was the best, whenever LA won, Magic was the best...they're practically on the same level in my view, so I call the winner the best player that year. I don't think that's unreasonable. Also, it was never my intention to prove that either coach sucked, only that they were lucky (or extremely fortunate, if you don't like 'lucky') from the outset. Never wanted to make a case for Rudy being underrated, either. Also, Riley was a 4-time champion in the 80s, appearing in 7 of 8 possible Finals when he was coach (better ratio than Phil), so mentioning him in the same breath as Phil is entirely possible, in fact it's probably the best comparison there is to Phil IMO. You hate Riley, I hate Phil, at least we've gotten that much from this thread. ------------------ "It was the House of Whores, and then it became...the House of Horrors." -C.C. Deville
I used to be a huge fan of Phil Jackson. Having lived in Chicago for awhile, I got to get a better sense of all Bulls players. They were my second favorite team since 1994. I love how philosophical he is, no matter how cheesy it may be. Plus having Pippen and Rodman on the same team is pretty hard to handle (I know MJ had alot to do with that). However, I have lost respect for him since taking the Lakers' job. Unlike Rudy T, he left a rebuilding team, and took possibly the cushiest (sp?) job in the NBA. While he may do what Harris and Rambis could not do, I still think he could have proven his worth better by taking the Nets or Magic job. ------------------ Get your proper swirve on...visit www.swirve.com (coming in late May, for now visit www.eesite.com)
I think going to a team with talent if you can is just being smart. Who doesn't want to be around better individuals if you have the opperunnity?? We don't fault Barkley for trying to join with the guy he couldn't get past (Dream), we didn't fault Moses Malone for getting his ring with a loaded Phily team. Think about anything else in life like business,etc. Should you be knocked for taking an oppertunnity with an excellently runned business or a functional organization. I understand sometimes we may have to try to turn disfunctional situations around, and applause is deserved when this works (in Riley's case this also applies as he turned around both the Knicks and the Heat in a short time)--but just because you don't always choose such an environment shouldn't tarnish your success. If Jackson had gone to the Wizards over the Lakers I would have called him a fool. As I pointed out before just being around great or good players doesn't make a team great. The most valuable coaches in my opinion are the ones who can get the best players to reach their potential in forming the most dominant teams. It is a nice story when a guy can take a rag tag bunch of guys and get them to play 500 ball, but I wouldn't confuse that with a consistent record of being able to bring the best out of the best. Maybe Jackson has selected the prime jobs, and maybe Riley has done this some too (but he also turned poor underachiving teams into good overachieving ones on multiple occasions), but IMO both deserve all their accolades. [This message has been edited by sir scarvajal (edited May 09, 2000).]
