Who is the greatest coach. Red Auerbach publicly denies that Phil Jackson is in his league. What do you think?
You saw that thing on ESPN after Sports Center too? I just don't think Jackson is a good coach, if you put any coach on the Bulls (Jordan era) or the Lakers (Kobe and Shaq era) they would done the same. Red gets my vote. When I think of NBA coaches I always get a picture of Red smoking his cigar in my mind
Phil just gets no credit. Look at this year. Going into the playoffs, noone expected the Lakers to win and they thought that the Lakers were going to blow up from poor chemistry. Three series later, people are back to saying "Well, anybody could win with Shaq and Kobe". It's not like Red didn't have an overwhelming amount of talent on his teams. Bill Russell was better than Ben Wallace on defense, and he was bigger than Ben, especially compared to the players in his day. Hell, he was good enough to slow down Wilt (nobody could stop Wilt). Look, we'll never know what someone could have done in Phil's place, but we do know what he did. He collected championships and won whenever it was possible. He managed egos the size of the Titanic. He even convinced Karl Malone to play dirty. Okay, so the last one was a gimme - but the man is clearly a winner.
Yeah, poor Phil going into the playoffs with only 4 future HOF's. If we are talking about matching ego's, yeah Phil is probably better. I know that is part of coaching, but the better all around coach has got to be Red.
Red. No doubt about it. Phil has done nothing in the NBA but coach two teams already loaded with 2 top 5 players to championships. His method is underrated, but he isn't the greatest ever. Just picks his jobs well. On the flipside, I don't think it's fair to say 'anyone' could have coached the Bulls or Lakers to the championships, because both squads were underachieving before he arrived. He does have superb talent for taking teams on the cusp to the highest level. Evan
it's not as if auerbach didn't have good players, russell, cousy, havelicek... i think he coached something like 10 hall of famers. that's comparable to what Jackson has had, no? plus... sure it looks like Jackson has HOFs... but besides dirty play, Malone has only been able to contribute with his passing, and Payton has been average at best. malone is no better now that Laker heyday Horry, and GP is no better now than laker heyday ron harper. someone has said this already, it sure didn't look like the Lakers were going to win entering the playoffs or at any point in the second half of the season. i'm sure it's not because things all of a sudden randomly came together. PJ deserves some credit.
To me, Red will always be better, because while he had talent like Jackson, it was only because he built those teams himself. Phil came into a great situation in Chicago, and then when that team fell apart, he publicly said he was done with coaching. But then when the Lakers job came around, he said to himself "Hmmmmm... free championships, anyone?" Even besides that, Red coached in a league of about 10 teams, while Phil coaches in today's watered-down 30 team league. But to answer the question of "Who's the greatest coach?", I'd have to say it's neither of those two. My all-time pick is Alex Hannum, current is Jerry Sloan.
Big Chief Triangle is a good coach, nothing more. Until he achieves anything w/o having the most dominating player in the league on his team, he will never be a top coach in my mind.
in that sense it's ironic that he and kobe have the same thing to prove. i think it may be argued that it's tougher to win in a 30 team league, no?
The less teams there are in the league, the more concentrated the talent is. While the Celts had numerous hall of famers on their team, other teams had plenty of hall of famers as well. I believe Wilt's Sixers had four hall of famers on the team. Now, a team with that many hall of famers is almost destined to win the title(See the Lakers). Back then, they managed to win only one.
Red Auerbach? He didn't prove he could manage the Titanic egos of modern players in Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Bryant, Shaq, Malone, and Payton etc. He managed the small egos of some poorly paid players who thought tatoos were bad with little marketing and media hype compared to today's standards. He coached in an era in which defense wasn't up to par with today's, giving rise to some HOFs padding stats against subpar defense, leading to the false impression of better competition. There's no way Wilt can average 50 points a game in today's league, even though he's no less dominant than Shaq. Players get paid a lot less in those days and they weren't very willing to throw their bodies around on defense. Red coached in an era with little games to be played, which reduced the friction between egos through the grinding and injuries of a long season, and the focus of players were easier to maintain. And what is this nonsense of Phil could only win with HOFs? Which coach won without a HOF? Red Auerbach won rings with 8 HOFs in their prime. Jackson won with 4 HOFs in their prime and two others in their former shell. Yet Jackson is reaching his tenth ring compared to Red's 11. I don't know who's the greatest coach, but for people to say for sure that Red is better than Phil, they need to make a stronger case.
Just a question I'm not sure about, did Red build his teams from scratch or go through some lean years before greatness? We all know Phil didn't build either Chicago or LA, he signed on to mesh great players, not help make great players.
Have to agree with you here. Even if you were to accept this "watered-down" model of NBA history, it's still easier to beat fewer opponents than more. fasthand, Guttersnipe, you've both said no one expected the Lakers to win this year and I have to wonder if you've been watching the same league I have. When the Lakers picked up Payton and Malone, the talking heads pretty much shoved San Antonio aside and gave the title back to LA. They'd even do things like call them the defending champions, rewriting how the season went down last year. I've heard numerous people comment that the title was LA's to lose, or that the road to the championship went through LA. Does anyone know the odds Vegas put on the Lakers? A good number of people did think they would win.
Vegas gave them the highest odds. I think they were 4-1 or less. Also, everybody seems to think there were no ego's way back when, you have got to be kidding me. Egos have been around since the beginning of time. And keeping them in check is always the issue.
Not if you have a healthy Shaq playing for you. When he is healthy his team should be favored every year, even ahead of TD's team. When Red was winning all his titles, he did not have Wilt on his team, big difference.
