It can be argued that the first three rings he got, he did play competition up to the level of the team. Those teams basically had Jordan, Pippen, Grant, and fill ins. They beat a Portland team with a very good starting lineup, they beat a very good Phoenix team, and probably the worst team they beat were the Lakers, who had an old Magic and old Worthy. But that first Bulls squad wasn't so stacked compared to the rest of the NBA.
During the Bulls run, the only other team with two top 50 players on it was Utah. They were also the only team with arguably two players at the top of their positions (MJ was the best SG, Pip was the best SF). Throw in an All-Star calibar PF (Grant/Rodman), shooters, a rotation of big men (since they rarely faced a team with a center) and Kukoc (essentially a starter) for the second run, and I would consider that more talent than most...especially when the games best player (who gets all the calls) is on your squad. Jazz had a shot and should have won, but Malone is a nut-up.
Neither Pippen nor Bryant made All-NBA first team until well into Jackson tenure (5th season for Pippen and 3rd season for Bryant). Neither were considered sure-fire hall of famers when Jackson started. I think you have to give Jackson some credit for their development. But don't take my opinion, take Kobe's. From the LA Times (2/15/2004):
My bad ... here's the quote: "Do we get along man to man? No," Bryant said. "But it's a good relationship from coach to player. I think it's good to have some kind of push-pull relationship. "I wouldn't have learned the mental aspect of the game without his help. You look at some of the other All-Stars, and they're playing on potential and talent. Phil has shown me a game at a different level, and so I've started to dissect it, understand momentum shifts and the little nuances. That's all because of Phil and his assistants. For me to say he restricts my game would be crazy. "We don't have to have dinner together. We don't have to like each other. We coexist just fine, and to me that's what is important with me playing here for the rest of my career. It's not about getting along with somebody. It's about winning."
Phoenix probably had the best Power Forward in the game, and K.J. probably the most underrated point guard ever. And I think they had a better supporting cast.
I am watching the 1999-2000 finals on espn classics. Back then the Lakers wasn't that dominating and Pacer did give them a good run for the money. That year Zo was first-team NBA because his defense. Shaq might be better offensively but he was offen lazy on defense. The 00-01 Lakers were much stronger, compling a 16-1 playoff record.
Before the season, everybody thought that. However, near the end of the season, all the talk was back in the Spurs court. The Lakers did not look like a championship team. However, the Lakers turned it around. You can say it was the players, but someone got them playing defense.
It would have been a major disappointment on the Lakers if they didn't win it all "with all those HOFers." So, no matter how you slice it, they have the talent and coach. They should win. If they didn't win, then Phil would certainly start looking at the age/chemistry questions and make the necessary changes. Shaq is getting older (same with Malone and Payton). And those issues matter. You can't deny that lack of chemistry was an issue early on. And if that wasn't resolved, then they was no ring in the future of the Lakers. If the players refused to trust each other, then Phil would have been powerless. The players have to buy into the team concept. So, Phil wins not with his "magic touch." But with a lot of factors: talent, chemistry, owning the "best player" and teaching. Lots of reasons. Just like Red.
True, but "everybody (most)" only looked at the talent. You have to have the other factors inline before there will be any "winning." Chemistry and team work: Can you say, "Fisher" and "Rush?" If Malone and Payton continued to play like it was "their team" then there would have been no opportunities for Fish or Rush to make any "big shots." It would have been a bunch of individuals running around trying to win it by themselves. You can't win that way. They figured this out. This inspired the role players like Fish and Rush to play beyond their "normal" capabilities (belief). But, sshhhhh.....Phil doesn't want them to know that yet. Shhhh.....
The Celtics faced the St. Louis Hawks who had Hall of Famers Bob Pettit, Cliff Hagan, Ed Macauley and Slater Martin, and later, Clyde Lovellette and Lenny Wilkens; the Philadelphia Warriors with Hall of Famers Chamberlain, Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, and four-time All-Star Guy Rodgers; the Cincinnati Royals with Hall of Famers Oscar Robertson, Jack Twyman and Jerry Lucas and five-time All-Star Wayne Embry; the Lakers with Hall of Famers Jerry West and Elgin Baylor; the Philadelphia 76ers with Hall of Famers Chamberlain, Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham, seven-time All-Star Chet Walker, Luke Jackson and Wali Jones; and in 1969 had to go through the New York Knicks with Hall of Famers Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Bill Bradley and Dave DeBusschere, and finally, the Lakers with Chamberlain, West, and Baylor, three of the top 10 players ever to play the game.
Of course they don't. Everyone's so willing to denigrate the achievements of past greats yet they have absolutely no knowledge about that time, merely trotting out the same generalizations that everyone uses.
wow so your saying that bryant "wasnt a sure-fire hall of famer" during his 3rd season out of highschool.
People rip Jackson because he's won his titles with players like Jordan, O'Neal and Kobe. Fair enough. But it takes a real talent to handle great players. Auerbach had superstars like Russell and Cousy, and also numerous Hall of Fame players. He was a brilliant coach (who had a fantastic eye for talent, but that's a different comparison) and is probably the best coach of all time. But Jackson isn't far behind him.
I'm saying that Jackson helped Kobe develop into the player he is today. Kobe is a sure-fire hall of famer today. McGrady isn't. Neither is Carter. Not even Iverson (IMHO). Kobe's got a mental edge to his game that I don't think those guys do. And according to Kobe (in the quote above), Phil gave this to him. A great coach takes the players he's given (the great, the good, and the mediocre) and makes them better. That's what Phil's done. From Shaq and Kobe to Fisher and Kerr. I'm not claiming that Phil's hands down the best coach in NBA history, but I think that it's obvious that he's a great coach. He's always made his teams better, and he's always gotten the most out of them. Before Phil, the Lakers were chronic underachievers. With Phil, they're a dynasty.
of course that is true Easy...... very similar tasks that needed to be done with both superstars... i love the way rudy did it too
funny Phil is a national spokeperson for the Positive Coaching Alliance, seen him speak and read several books by Phil and the head of PCA and also quotes from Horace about how things between Phil and Horace (and others) changed fromover time in Chicago from what believe.... the dogging didn't last for long Pip and Grant were what rookies, 2nd year players....... Jordan thought they did suck.... mmmm obviously Phil had nothing to do with Pip and Horace's development/growth/coming into their own....... you should do some reading on what Kobe's growth almost did to the concept of a team... phil did a great job turning disaster into chemistry and a title crap Jordan had one of the biggest of all time... who cares if other coaches also did, i not dismissing that other coaches haven;t and that dealing with ego's isn't a regular part of nba coaching.... just that Phil has been reasonably successful dealing with them... assuming NBA titles is a reasonable way of measuring success there are so many players in the league who can all be good defenders... getting them to do this consistently both individually and as a team is a great acheivement btw i didn't actually vote Phil was better than Red, but i can't stand why his achievements get dismissed so easily
so what if he had jordan, pip, kobe and shaq? you need someone that knows how to use players and get the most out of those players efficiently and effectively. i wouldn't give an untrained person a desert eagle and expect him to hit a can from 50 yards away just because it's a desert eagle.
