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

Stop the hattin!!

All those who claim that Jackson is not a good coach seems to be blinded by some sort of jealousy. They guy won 9 rings - that should mean something. You are so quick to point out the negatives (more like reaching) but conveniently discard all the good. These are what folks use to defend their claim that Phil Jackson is not a good coach:

"He only coaches teams with great players. He has not rebuilt a loosing team from scratch."


Phil came in as an assitant coach a year after Jordan came into the league. Prior to Jordan, they won 15 games.They eventually won 6 titles. Should you give him credit for that?

As far as inheriting a good team, Doug Collins (Bulls) and Mike Dunleavy (Lakers) both had the same roster for 2 years. They could not even get past the conference finals. Jackson took over the SAME identical team, 3 consecutive rings on both occasions.

Just in case folks have forgotten, the year after the first time MJ retired, the bulls had a record of 55-27. If it was not for the referee calling that phantom call (nobody could disagree that it was a bad call) on Scotty Pippen against the Knicks, they would have been in the finals. Do you know if any coach which could have gotten Pippen, Armstrong and Grant plus a bunch of scrubs to win 55 games and make it to the finals?

"He surrounds himself with great assistant coaches"

If these assistant coaches were so great, then how come they are not head coaches? You would think that teams would hire these great minds.

I am not a fan of his but he definitely needs to be credited for all that he has accomplished. Whether he is a good fit for us or not is a different argument but to discredit his accomplishments is just plain hatin.

 

I am all for phil jackson becoming a coach for the Rockets. We are already attracting agents with the thought of playing with Yao and T-mac, but imagine the publicity and marketing once we get Phil. I believe that the role players will start calling and beg to play with our tandem and our famous coach. I really doubt brining in Glamour to the Rockets would hurt.

 

Great points Bongman, I just dislike him b/c he is an arrogant b*stard and doesn't respect anyone or other teams in the league. It was GREAT to see the Pistons wipe that ARROGANT grin he always has off of his face. Not a Pistons fan, but thank you!!!

 

If you want to define greatness by winning championships, then fine. We've already gone through why ring-counting is a poor way to measure greatness in the other thread about Jackson. BTW, Wilkins didn't get selected, imo, because he didn't do much other than scoring. McGrady is already a much better all around player than Dominique.

If you want to say that getting Jackson will guarantee championships, then there isn't much we can discuss. Just agree to disagree.

 

What do you mean by winner? Do you mean championships? Or just making the playoffs?

 

EDC is the best.

 

bongman,

The Jackson "haters" aren't saying that he's a bad coach. All we are citicizing is that those Jackson worshipper only look at the 9 rings and say, "It's a guarantee for championships if we can get Phil to coach TMac and Yao." Well, if we are guaranteed to win championships with McGrady and Yao, then the guarantee lies in the greatness of these two players, not in any coach.

Jackson is not a bad coach. I agree that no bad coach could win 9 championships. (Yes, sometimes we haters do exaggerate a bit saying that anyone could have won with Jordan. But the worshippers exaggerate too. ) He might even be a great coach (debatable). But certainly not nine times better than Larry Brown, or 4.5 times better than Rudy and Pop, according to logic of the ring-counters.

The criticism is that Jackson never took on the challenge of coaching a team without top talent. The closest he got was the two years when Jordan went playing baseball. That first year was pretty good, as you pointed out. One might argue that they were riding on the momentum of the Jordan years, sort of like the Jazz last season.

He lucked into Jordan in his first head coaching gig. After that, he never wanted to coach anything less. I said it before. All he has to do is to take on a less talented team and do some good thing with it. Until then, there will always be an asterisk next to the number 9 as in "9 rings" in his resume.

 

Easy,

What with this obsession of wanting to see Jackson win with a decent team to "prove" himself? Is it a joke? The guy has done more than any coach in NBA history, his teams own so many records that it's ridiculous to ask him to prove anything. He owns the record for most wins in a season, is in the top 10 at least 4 other times, nobody is close to matching his winning % in the regular season or playoffs, he has 3 playoff runs where his team lost 2 games or less, there are plenty of other accomplishments I'm leaving out, so why ask for more?

For the record how hard is it to make a decent team good? Doc Rivers, Jim O'Brien, Rick Carlile, Terry Porter, Stan Van Gundy, all have done it, as ROOKIE COACHES! Making a decent team good looks pretty damn EASY, doesn't it? Now name me coaches that have made very good teams very great teams... Oh and make sure they not only make them very great for one year, but at least 3 years in a row, in other words show me some coaches that have maintained greatness... You can't name more than 3, and one happened to have the player with the greatest will to win in the history of sports, that same guy wasn't even an over .500 coach before Bill Russell. So all in all, only 2 coaches have been able to make a very good team among the greatest of all time, and you still want him to prove something?

It is not debatable as to if he is a great coach, at all, you have to be on crack to believe that. I figure people hate on him because they see him sitting on his butt for most of the game and they think the guy can't coach or teach. Well, hate all you want, the guy can do that because he prepares his team better than anyone in NBA history. He doesn't need to get up, point and scream at his players all game long because his players already know what has to be done to win that game. From the 5 greats he had, to the scrubs that came off the bench like Mark Madsen, Samaki Walker, Lindsey Hunter, etc. The guy doesn't need to coach in public, he does his coaching before a game and during half times if his game plan needs any adjustments.

That first season without Jordan was one of the best coaching jobs he's ever had, it would of finished in a Finals appearance if it weren't for a certain call, but mostly if Pippen would of listened to him. Even the second season during Jordan's return he still got that team to win 47 games and a playoff series.

When he lucked into Jordan was he the best player in the league? No, he wasn't even the best guard in the league much less the best player, the dude was just playing for himself. Jordan really didn't have a clue of how to play basketball the way it's supposed to be played, all he knew was how to play basketball the way he wanted to play it, which wasn't going to lead him to more rings than, say, Larry Bird. When he started coaching Shaq was he the best player in the league? No, that went to the dude that embarrassed him in the playoffs the year before, Tim Duncan. If Jordan and Shaq would of followed the same path they were on before Phil Jackson we wouldn't be talking about one being the greatest player of all time, and the other among the greatest centers of all time.

 

I don't know if anybody has claimed a guarantee. It would be foolish to do so. The logic behind preferring Jackson as our coach is the same logic we used to get Tmac. We felt that having Yao + Tmac will have a better chance of winning than our old roster. I would find it hard to believe that NBA teams would pick JVG over Phil.

If this is the only criteria that discredits him, then there are no great coaches in basketball. As somebody noted, Auerbach, Wooden, Coach K (Duke) and I am sure I am missing quite a bit - they all had a dominant player.

It is true that Larry Brown did it. Only time can tell if he can do this in a consistent basis.

Again, convenience. What about the possiblity that the reason Jordan became great was because of Phil? Jordan was all offense in his early years then became the best defensive player in the league that was not named Olajuwon.

Scottie Pippen was a nobody. Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong made it to the all star game (can you imagine?). Ron Harper revitalized his career. Rodman was tamed. Luke Wellington became a servicable center. John Paxon and Steve Kerr became major contributors. I am sure I missed a few more. That sir, is not luck. It definitely shows his ability to develop players or maximize their abilities for the good of the team.

 

i'm not exactly sure where i stand on phil as a coach.

has he always had the best players? yeah. does anybody win w/o the best player except on rare occasions? no.

did his players win before he got there? no. but didn't phil just come along at the right time? yeah.

kobe was going into his 4th year, a year most HSers blossom into greatness if they do. pippen was still young when phil got there. it isn't like pippen wasn't going to turn into an unbelievable w/o phil. he came to teams with the best player in the game and came when their supporting cast reached it's potential (this can't be argued as there is no basis for arguing kobe could've been better coming out of high school in years 1-3 and if you'll notice, phil didn't even win right away with the bulls, it took two years for pippen and grant to blossom).

despite all that, does phil pretty much win every single time he should? yes. last year and maybe the year before are about the only times you can say he didn't. 9 for 11 ain't bad.

did he do a good job getting 54 wins out of the post MJ bulls. yes.

do his assistants do more work than him? maybe so. but hell, good job having those assistants then i guess.

is he overrated? yes.

but again, does he pretty much always win? yes.

basically, it comes down to this. either:

a) he's so good he always wins (very unlikely).

b) he only coaches the best players and teams with the best players always win (most likely). so if he comes here, i guess we've got the best players which is good news.

c) he knows just when to come into a situation when it's on the cusp. again, if he comes here, then i guess we can be happy that we're on the cusp and about to win some titles.

d) the refs hand his teams titles (98 jazz series, 2000 blazers series, 2002 kings series). hell, i'll take it if they wanna give us some lovin' for once.

e) some of all of the above

either way, since he basically always wins (25 playoff series wins in a row at one point, 37-0 in series in which he leads i believe), i'll take him in even if i don't like him just because, no matter how overrated he may be, wherever there is phil jackson, there seem to be lots of championship rings and parades and such.

possibly, but not likely. pippen and grant were going to get better (and apparently it's said that mj was the guy who got on them to make them better) and there was no stopping kobe, phil or not.

however, i do agree with your general premise that phil is still very good and his teams haven't just been great, they've been dominant so some credit must go to him.

 

Magic Johnson was the best guard in the NBA, best player in the NBA was also Magic Johnson, Jordan took over those titles after he beat him. Despite all those stats Jordan was a wwaayyy better player after Phil Jackson started coaching him.

 

I have an easy way for Jackson to prove that he's a great coach: let him build a team on his own, as most coaches must do, and let us see how he fares. He lucked out with Jordan, and because of that luck, he got the Lakers job. With all his mystical powers he could only contain those egos for 3 championships? I'm unimpressed.

Have other coaches failed with top 50 players? Sure, but:
1) top 50 < top 1, way <
2) another coach's failure does not prove Jackson's greatness, only that he's either a) better than a failure or b) better suited to the situation, or a little of both.

You guys can think he's the best ever, I couldn't care less. It's really a 'so what?'; I doubt that he'll ever coach again.

 

Jumpman did.

College coaches are totally different. Their players come and go. Very little continuity. Also, college players need to be taught the game. The pro players are supposed to know how to play already. And they have the veterans to mentor them.

So if you can win consistently in college, that means you are either a very good recruiter, or you are a very good coach. In the pro, you have much better continuity, especially with your star players. If you can hang on to a couple of superstar, you can win for a long time without much coaching.

He may have credit for all that you said. But is he the only coach, or even the best coach, that can do that? Again, we are not disputing that he is a good coach. We are saying that he has not proven that he is greater than all other coaches. Yet, so many people just ASSUME he is the greatest simply because he has won more rings than others.

 

ole grumpy is a horrid coach. the only thing he does better than his predecessor is the media.

the original thread question is a huge insult to Phil Jackson. grumpy's name shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence ... thats like english 101, sheesh!

ole grumpy needs an x & o assistant much more than my beloved Rockets needs a pg or pf. someone who can school him about halftime adjustments, maximising players, flexible systems, blah ...

a personality assistant or implant wouldn't hurt either.

 

No, he has not done more than any coach in NBA history. He has not made a bad team good, like some coaches has done. He has won more than others. Doing more and winning more are not the same. You just can't get that out of your head, can you? Winning more does not equal to doing more. Just like scoring more does not equal to being the best. If you cannot understand this, there is no use of discussing it with you.

Uh, no.

Just on top of my head: Pat Riley. He didn't win 3 in a row, but his "dynasty" was a decade long, longer than any of Phil's. He couldn't win 3 in a row because there was inconveniently another dynasty going at the same time, the Celtics. Phil didn't have that inconvenience.

No, it has nothing to do with his coaching style. We "hate" him because he has not proven he's better than others, yet he acts like he is and so many people worship him thinking that he is.

LOL. How do you know that?

If you think Samaki Walker knows what he's supposed to do on the court, you haven't watch a lot of Lakers basketball. For the record, I watch A LOT of Lakers basketball. The only team I watch more is the Rockets.

Now, you are talking. You do agree that winnning without the best player does prove something, don't you?

 

ole grumpy has defenders. some folks struggle with their 'challenges' ...

Larry Brown is the only current coach worthy of a Jackson comparison. making a bad team good isn't the mark of a great coach, thats just doing the best you can with what you got.

a great coach should have options, choosing the best option is all part of being a great coach.

 

Jeff Van Gundy is not a horrid coach, just not (yet) a championship-caliber one. Whether he ever becomes more than the hard working, defensive specialist is uncertain.

 

folks keep mentioning this defensive thing, ole grumpy made modest improvements that aren't unrelated to Yao's natural development.

 

Larry brown proved that you win by playing great defense, so at least jvg is on the right tract there and you throw in some offensive firepower and your looking at the right mix for a championship. Jvg is a perfectionist and he knows that he couldnt ask for a better oppurtunity than he has right now so he is likely to be throwing fits on the sideline if things arent working out right and he wont be getting much sleep at night until he figures out a way to correct any problems. I think that we are headed in the right direction and may be closer to a championship than we are willing to let ourselves believe right now. So as for the way things stand right now, no I wouldnt rather have phil jackass as our coach.

 

nah, Larry brown proved you win by placing players in a position to succeed. the MVP of the finals was a castoff reject from many teams.

Larry Brown hasn't done anything to deserve an ole grumpy comparison.

give the NBA champion coach some respect!