This whole thread is ridiculous. Rudy T's 1994 team was NOT aesthetically pleasing for the large majority of the season, save for Hakeem Olajuwon (the 2nd highest scorer was OT with 14 points per game). I watched 81 of the 82 games that year and every playoff game, and I'm telling you, you just never felt comfortable with that team dominating the offensive side of the ball. What about the 1999 Spurs? Or the Bulls for a large majority of their championship runs? What about the Pistons? What's the common denominator running through those teams? DEFENSE! Coaches have strengths and weaknesses. Don Nelson can be a great offensive coach, but his defensive strategies leave a lot to be desired. Pat Riley was the championship coach of a team that included Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and James Worthy. Phil Jackson? I'm not even going to go there. What did Phil do in 1994 without Jordan? Did he even lead his team to the NBA Finals? If you don't personally like JVG, fine. But no offense, EDC- the only time you ever post is to criticize JVG. So don't expect us to take you seriously, since you choose the road less taken. Bottom line is- if you're going to use any type of criteria to judge a coach, let it be on wins and losses. There's a difference between saying someone is a good/bad coach and saying that you don't personally like a style. But then, some of us are more interested in style than substance. Some of us want aesthetics, and others want heart. Some of us want Dom Perignon, and others prefer Miller Genuine Draft. Some of us admire the fame, and others admire the person. Some of us choose to criticize at every turn, and others choose to show support, Personal choices all, but choices nonetheless. So, I think I can speak for some in that it's good to have the naysayers and those more interested in style than substance. It can help us to appreciate the substance that much more. Veritas, et robitasse, superomnia.
