Maybe Kobe did get him fired, that still doesn't take away from the what he did for him while he was there. It sounds dumb because he's done MORE than what you're asking him to do, coaching 3 seperate teams to 3 peats is A LOT greater than leading a sorry team or 2 to a 1st round exit. Even though those teams were one of the top teams in the NBA before he got there, they still weren't champions, much less dynasties. If you want to look at a coaching job like you're wanting him to have, you could look at the season after Jordan retired and the Bulls won 55 games, and were still a championship contender despite losing the games best player 2 weeks before the season started.
You apparently didn't read my earlier post. Who, among these four players is the best: Larry Bird, Charles Barkley, Robert Horry, Hakeem Olajuwon? Right. I knew you'd answer "Horry."
A high school team could beat them? They couldn't do crossovers? Do you have any idea how stupid you're making yourself look? If you know NOTHING about an era, don't mouth off about it. And even if all the players were that bad (which isn't the case at all), that would mean Red had THE SAME BAD PLAYERS ON HIS TEAM. It's not like Red bought a team in the 90s and transported them back in time, he was on the level with everyone else, so his championships are just as legit.
I did not assume. I said 20 of the past 24 champions have had "arguably" the games best player on it (meaning you could make a solid argument that Player X is the best in the league). Look at the list again and show me how I am mistaken. Are you serious? I also did not count Isiah...hence 20/24. Who was better than MJ? He wasn't arguably the games best player? Ewing, Barkley, Malone and Robinson all lost to a player that you could 100% say was better than them at that time. Would you take any of those players over Jordan or Dream? I didn't think so. Not when those teams have more talent on it than every other team in the league, including the games best player. Not when that team has the game's best player, who happens to be the only damn center in the league. As far as Red goes...I ain't saying he is the greatest either. But at least he was beating squads stacked with HOF players as well (no one wants to remember that).
you should see the stuff that he leaves on the D&D board, most of it is textbook illogical and ill informed. In otherwords, its not worth the words and its beyond repair.
Tell me who you consider 'great' on that Pistons team. Who falls into place with Jordan, Shaq, Dream, Magic, etc. from that team. Seriously, I want to know who you would lump into that group. Beyond that, what is your point? I was responding to the idea that 'best player' doesn't matter in the NBA, which is insane. And Sac, Dallas and Indiana are not examples of current decent teams? Really....what league are you watching? Have you not watched the playoffs for the last 3 or 4 years?
Hey yaopao, he did not have "Joe Superstar", he had Jordan, and then Shaq. In 1999, did you not think Shaq had a championship in his near future? He got lucky probably in coming to the Bulls situation, and rode that into coming to the Lakers at the right time. And like Icehouse said, the guy ran when the talent left, twice. Did Rudy T.?
Then why didn't those teams with the most talent and the games best player ever win BEFORE Phil Jackson got there? Red had plenty of HOF players as well, AND the player with the biggest will to win in the history of sports!
They had great talent on that team, meaning they had great team talent, could you find any wink links to that team? You don't need to have an individual great to have great team talent. Point was the Pistons were not an average to good team. If you consider 50+ win teams with loads of talent decent then I guess the Kings, Mavericks and Pacers are decent.
Right. One explanation was. 1) Because the teams he lost to were better than the squads he lost to during the 3-peat. That doesn't even make sense... 2) Because Kobe was not the player he was when they were losing. As great as Shaq is, he still needs his closer. True, but Shaq's Laker teams before Kobe became the best guard in the NBA, were more talented than the teams that actually won the championship and way more talented than anything Hakeem ever had, Shaq just didn't know how to win at that time. Another explanation consisted of YOU saying that he might of been the reason that they started winning championships...
Peter Jackson is the greatest coach ever and as such should only coach the bestest players. not his fault the team bailed on him and reddenbocker is lucky that not only were players inable to perform such elementary moves as crosover and dunks michael jordan didn't play back then either. jordan is the phil jacksn of ball
We're not talking about Peter Jackson. He bailed on his teams (plural) when the going got rough, not the other way around. As I already said in my previous post, if EVERYONE in the league had the same skill level, INCLUDING THE PLAYERS ON RED'S TEAM, then how are his wins any less legit? And regardless of that massive logical flaw you have there, Jordan may not have done so well back then. Sure, he'd play well for a few games, but I've got news for you: every player used to have a little box installed next to their locker to keep their false/loose teeth, and very few didn't have to use them. There were also no flagrant fouls. If Jordan ever tried his fancy swooping to the hoop crap, someone would put him in the hospital for a month, unlike today, where Jordan got a foul called if someone so much as breathed on him.
AMEN, BROTHER. I'd like to see him take the CLIPPERS to a championship. How about the Charlotte Bobcats?
It makes a lot of sense if you know your b-ball. The Bulls hired PJ in 89-90. In 88-89, the Bulls team had 7 new starters and finally started to mesh in the Playoffs, where they lost to eventual champion Detroit. They lost to Detroit the following year when Pip was a wus with his "migraine". MJ got on that ass (Pip's and Grant's, and this info is documented in one of those MJ books), the Pistons GOT OLDER and Chicago finally beat them. Forgive me if I don't give Phil too much credit for taking over a team that was meshing under Collins, while MJ (not the coach) was getting on the 2 other cogs on a daily basis. Did I mention that Detroit got older? The year before LA won the title, they lost to the Spurs, who had the twin towers. Most importantly, they had a lively David Robinson (who is better than most at making Shaq work...amazing when there is an actual center left in the game), and a squad full of shooters. The following year (when LA won), Duncan missed the playoffs. When LA met SA again, Robinson was older and the perimiter shooting was gone. Big coincidence that SA won again once they got some outside scoring huh. If you put those teams (Pistons and Spurs) in the league when Chi and LA won their titles, I'm sure they would win again. It's not that hard to comprehend. Shaq didn't win because you can't go to him to close a game out. The LA teams were more talented, but none of those players (especially E. Jones) were as clutch as Kobe.
That statement made no sense... How could he lose to teams during the 3 peat? What exactly was the point of all that? To take away from the Bulls 1st championship? It didn't work, that team was on a mission, they only lost TWICE in the playoffs, the Pistons weren't stopping that team even if they were a year younger. San Antonio won that time because Shaq was a bumb and was dominated by the real most dominant player in the NBA, Tim Duncan. You put the young Pistons against that 1st championship Bulls and you'd see them lose again, just not in a sweep. You put those Spurs against the 1st championship Lakers and they'd lose because Shaq was finally playing up to his potential. Shaq was swept every single time in the playoffs before Phil Jackson for a reason, he wasn't a true GREAT until after Jackson coached him, again that's what Jackson is great at, making players GREAT.
The point was to answer the questions you posed (why the teams did not win before he arrived). They didn't win because the teams they lost to were better, and it's my opinion that if those teams were the same, they would have dusted the Bulls/LA teams that won championships. When Chicago eclipsed Detroit, that Piston team was on it's last legs. At that time, they had been together for at least 4 seasons, had already been through the wars with Boston (who got old and eclipsed) and LA. Did you even watch that series? Shaq was not a bum. The main difference was: 1) David Robinson was still a damn good center. Robinson (and the twin towers) usually do a great job on Shaq (Robinson's D was still effective in Shaq at 36). In case you didn't notice, that playoff season is the last one where Shaq actually had to guard another teams big man. In case you didn't notice, Shaq is a different player when he actually has to gold someone, as opposed to just camping his fat butt in the lane. When LA and SA met again, it was 2 years later and Robinson was not the same (he was 35 and shot under 50% for the first time in his career). 2) The Spurs team had shooters (Elliott, Elie and J. Jackson were all on). When LA did beat them, Elliott was sick, Jackson couldn't even get into 30 games, and Elie was gone. Big difference. 3) Kobe Bryant!!! He was not a killer in 98/99 (his first season starting, where he avg 19 a game). When they met SA again, he averaged 28 per game that season, and is typically credited with getting LA past SA. Kobe is the closer that the other coaches didn't have (at least not the killer Kobe). Sorry, but I think Kobe would have developed into a killer even if I coached him. Maybe he agrees, since he ran Phil out of town. It's easier to play up to your potential and dominate when every other center in the league is garbage, and you honestly don't have to guard one of them. That's because his fat ass can't close games (hence the need for Kobe). Once again, I think the teams he lost to were better and would kill LA. That includes the Rockets (with Dream), the Spurs (with the twin towers) and the Jazz (with Stockton & Malone, who would pick and roll them to death).
