If JVG fails and gets fired, would you want Phil Jackson?

If Jackson was such a "GREAT COACH" then i would think that the lakers would have done everything in their power to keep him, and that he would be willing to prove that he could still win no matter what players he had to work with. Instead he bails like he always does and makes it look like it was the teams decision, and hoping that a good team will give him a call, while letting good coaches like rudy take over after him and have to rebuild the team and catch all the flack. Jackson is a good coach no doubt about it , having good players doesnt gaurantee a championship. but i dont think he is the best ever when you consider that he has to go to the teams with the best avalible talent in the league.

 

Easy,

If you would be so kind to give us a list of coaches you consider great or better than Jackson. In additon, please list the teams they had that won without any dominant player.

Just curios..

 

ok, did u miss the whole thing about how kobe didnt want to play for jackson.

 

Just who would you consider to be one of the all time great players for detroit this year.

 

I repeat, if jackson was such a great coach then he could win with less talent. It just goes to show that the lakers believe that kobe is more responsible for their success than jackson

 

I already showed you how easy it is to make a bad team good by listing plenty of ROOKIE coaches that did it, you think those guys could do that as 1st year guys and Phil Jackson can't? Of course he can but that would be wasting time, he's a championship coach not a coach that takes a bad team to the playoffs and then loses in the 1st round. Winning more does equal winning more for a coach? What kind of logic is that? That's what they're supposed to do! Do you think Larry Brown has done more just because he has made a handful of full of bad teams good? It doesn't equate to scoring either...

Do you honestly think that Phil Jackson can't make a bad team good after seeing plenty or ROOKIE coaches do it? Come on now, that's one of the EASIEST things a coach could do, making a very good team great AND keeping them great for a few years in a row is one of the HARDEST things to do. Proven by the FACT that you could only name one other coach who has done it, Pat Riley.

HAHA! Just off the top of my head? You act like you could name a few more Pat Rileys, you could only name one who compares and has proven to be BETTER than Riley, Phil Jackson. Pat Riley and the Laker's dynasty lasted as long as Phil Jackson's with the Bulls, produced 1 less championship, even though the Bulls were without Jordan for 2 of those years.

Yeah, you want him to prove it by making a bad team good, the same thing plenty of coaches with A LOT less experience have done. That makes perfect sense, hate a guy basically because he's been better than everyone else at doing the things that really matter. Nobody is going to remember Doc River's run with the Magic, Larry Brown's run with all of his NBA teams before Detroit, Jim O'Brien's job with the Celtics, etc.

Well Walker was a bad example, but only because he couldn't do what he was supposed to do...

It proves that he can do it, but what makes him great, if not the greatest, are the 9 championships... and counting.

 

So your saying Larry Brown is a better coach than Phil? Larry is a great coach but at this point, based on their reume, Phil beats him by a mile.

Care to name me another coach who has done the same thing? I highly doubt that you can. To drive my point, asterisk that folks place on Phil's resume (not winning with a dominant player) is the same asterisk that you place on ALL great coaches.

 

Listing a few "rookie" coaches who could make bad teams good is not much of an argument at all. That's why I didn't even reply it. Phil himself won a championship as a "rookie." Rudy won in his second year. Does that mean winning a championship is easy? The answer is obviously "yes--if you have the best player on your team." That's the whole point.

Again, if you cannot understand there are things in coaching other than winning championships, then there's no use arguing with you. In fact, all I have heard from the Jackson worshipers is just the simple argument: He won more than everybody else. He must be the best. That just shows you these people know very little about basketball in general and coaching in particular.

I am speechless in your assertion here. You provide no basis for what you assert. How do you know what is easy and what is hard in coaching? If you use the "rookie" argument again. Please see my comment above.

I couldn't name more on top of my head because I couldn't remember who the Celtics coaches were. The fact that they won under different coaches who I couldn't remember just proves my point. A dynasty is sustained by the players, not the coach. The Lakers-Celtics rivalry lasted 9 years, starting from Magic and Bird's rookie season, until the Pistons defeated the Lakers when Kareem was in his last leg and Bird's back was bothering him. In those 9 years, the Lakers won 5 and the Celtics won 3. Phil's Bulls didn't have the inconvenience of a paralell dynasty as their rival.

Nobody is going to remember other what other coaches do because the vast majority of people are like you. They measure greatness by one single criteria: winning championship. The vast majority of people also don't know what coaching involves. They just assume that if the coach sit there calmly letting his superstars win ball games, the coach must have prepared better than everybody else.

I'm finished arguing with you and whoever just bring out the 9 rings. For the record, I don't like Larry Brown either. But I respect him more than Phil Jackson because Brown at least is willing to take on the challenge of coaching teams that don't have two of the top 5 players. I hate Riley about as much as Phil, probably because he's the Lakers coach. But I too respect him more than Phil. Riley took a lesser star in Ewing and a bunch of role players and made them a contender.

Could Phil do the same? Maybe, but he never tried. I've said it many times, Jackson is not a bad coach. He just hasn't proven that he is better than many other coaches. I've always said that there's no such thing as the greatest coach, not Red, not Pat, not Phil, noone. Different coaches are good at different situations. There are too many factors to measure greatness in any linear way.

 

Yo Slim,

Phil Jackson is the Suge Knight of the NBA yo.
Rockets fans don't like him yo.
We like JVG, the Bushwick Bill of the league yo.

 

It's not? Well list me some coaches that have done what Jackson has done, cause I could give you a MUCH bigger list of coaches who have made a bad team good. Phil Jackson didn't win a championship as a rookie, however he should have, the team was good enough but Jordan didn't think he needed to change anything about his game. Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, or Pippen were NOT the best players in the league before Phil Jackson started coaching them. Magic and Bird were better than Jordan before Phil Jackson, because other than playing basketball the "right" way, they were winning titles. Duncan was better than Shaq and he showed how obvious that was in the 99 playoffs, especially on Shaq's home court by averaging something like 36 and 14 against him.

Well, their have been A LOT of coaching jobs where a coach makes a bad team average, and only TWO that compare to Jackson's job.

The Celtics won under Red, Russell, Fitch, and Jones, out of those dudes only Jones compares in anyway to Jackson and Riley, THAT'S why you couldn't name any more.

And because coaching jobs like you want Phil Jackson to do happen a few times PER SEASON. Coaching jobs like Phil Jackson has done happened 3 times in NBA HISTORY. The vast majority of people are actually like you, they criticize successful people, especially when they leave most of the competition in the dust.

I'm not in that majority, I've heard from a few people that no one compares to him in terms or preperation for a game, even heard that he is one of the best defensive coaches around, who knew?

Phil Jackson did the exact same thing when he took a lesser star in Scottie Pippen and made them a contender as well. Do you remember who took Michael Jordan's spot in the starting 5 after he retired? He wasn't much better than my main man Ahmad Rashad, they only lost 2 more games, and should of been in the Finals if his lone super star would of played right.

Just so we're clear on this, who are these coaches that you think are better than him?

 

9. He made us the HOUSTON KNICKS.

 

Who's this "we" you are referring to? Plenty of fans (ones that can remember the championships) don't "like" Van Grumpy...

 

I said I was done arguing with you becaue we had fundamental differences in the concept of greatness.

So let me just answer your last question: Larry Brown, Hubie Brown, Jerry Sloan, Rudy T, just to name a few "on top of my head" . They all have done things Phil never wanted to try.