great players make make great coaches. how can you say that phil isnt a great coach? just because he had mj/pippen and kobe/shaq? rudy t took over when hakeem was reaching his prime. he didnt do much with pippen/barkley/and dream too. riley had kareem/magic/worthy
Honestly, how can you say having the best player (or someone that you can argue as the best player) does not mean much? 2004 - Pistons - no best player 2003 - Spurs - Duncan 2002 - Lakers - Shaq 2001 - Lakers - Shaq 2000 - Lakers - Shaq 1999 - Spurs - Duncan 1998 - Bulls - MJ 1997 - Bulls - MJ 1996 - Bulls - MJ 1995 - Rockets - Hakeem 1994 - Rockets - Hakeem 1993 - Bulls - MJ 1992 - Bulls - MJ 1991 - Bulls - MJ 1990 - Pistons - Isiah 1989 - Pistons - Isiah 1988 - Lakers - Magic 1987 - Lakers - Magic 1986 - Celtics - Bird 1985 - Lakers - Magic 1984 - Celtics - Bird 1983 - Sixers - Malone 1982 - Lakers - Magic 1981 - Celtics - Bird 1980 - Lakers - Kareem In 24 years, a team with "arguably" the best player has won 20 times. Yeah, they only got 4 because the coach with the best player (MJ) got the other 6. See above. Is 24 years a better sample size? No one is arguing that Rudy is the greatest coach ever. Even then, he still proved he was a damn good coach after he didn't have the best player on his Rocket teams, and during his Olympic coaching bid. And when he had Pippen, Drexler and CB34, NONE OF THEM WERE ARGUABLY THE GAMES BEST PLAYER. Just like Phil, he won when he had arguably the games best player (Dream). Riley took another team to the Finals, without arguably the games best player. Guess what team he lost to (and what player they had).
He took the Clippers to the playoffs, and? It's already been said that he can make bad teams good... When Jackson took the Laker's job Shaq and Kobe were not the 2 best players in the game, Duncan was the best player and probably still is. Shaq never reached his true potential until that first season with Jackson and Bryant took a huge leap with Jackson. You won't see his as a fraud because he isn't, the guy is easily one of the top 5 NBA coaches in NBA history.
How many coaches have taken average to good talent to the top? Not Larry Brown, the Pistons had GREAT talent on their team. Sacramento, Dallas, and Indiana are not decent teams...
Geez, that is the whole point. No one else had taken that sorry sack of a franchise to the playoffs twice, let alone once. Are you trying to tell me that your boy, Jackson, could do it? Um, no because Fraud Jackson doesn't coach teams unless they have the best player on it. There are MANY people who would vehemently disagree with you on that. Shaq played 4 seasons with the Magic before coming to the Fakers. In his 2nd and 3rd seasons, he averaged 29.3 PPG which he has only eclipsed once which was the '99-00 season by a whopping .4 PPG to 29.7. Not much of an increase, if you ask me. Could it be that Shaq was already a dominant player before Big Chief Triangle came into his life? But Jackson lovers always like to trot out that line, "Shaq really came of age with Phil," when it is very clear that O'Neal was already a force to begin with. As for Bryant, he wasn't even a starter until his 3rd season in the league and was still very young. I mean with his talent, he would have improved no matter who was coaching him, even if it was Larry Smith on the bench. Um no, as said earlier in this thread, he had an excellent chance to show the world including his critics like myself how great of a coach he really was by taking the Vancouver job. Instead he wussed out because he is well, an opportunist and that is putting it nicely. And until the day comes (which will be never) when that jabroni will take a losing franchise and take them to the playoffs like a Larry Brown, he will never get any respect from me or from many other NBA fans. So, keep pumping him up to be the greatest thing since sliced bread because there are numerous people here including Icehouse, Easy, myself, etc. that are going to continue to disagree and will until the man does the one thing he has always avoided - take over a team without the best player in the game on it.
Yes, so nice of you to simply *assume* that the best player on the championship team is the best player that year, period. Shaq was not the best player in the game for all 3 Lakers championships. Isiah was most certainly not the best player in the game for the Pistons championship games. Magic was not the best player during every single Lakers championship years., although he was in several. I don't disagree that superstars tend to win championships. But plenty of superstars DON'T win championships. Ewing never did. Barkley never did. Malone never did. Robinson never did until he became a secondary player. The list goes on and on and on. Coaching superstars guarantees nothing.
Could you Jackson haters at least admit he's a great coach of elite talent? He may not be the best overall coach in all situations...but, if anything the 2004 finals (where he blew it) should demonstrate that talent alone most definitely does not necessarily win championships.
With Shaq PPG don't matter, stats don't matter, he reached his peak in that 1st season with Jackson, that's why he won his only MVP award that season. It's clear that Shaq was dominating before Phil Jackson, as it was clear that Jordan was dominating before Phil Jackson, but they weren't true GREATS until Jackson was their coach, that's what Jackson is better at than anyone in NBA history. Bryant owes a lot to Jackson as well, in fact every great player he's coached will say they owe a whole lot to Jackson, but you think he's a fraud? Do you know how dumb you sound? You want him to take a bad team to the playoffs to prove his worth even though he's already led very good teams to NINE championships!
reddenbocker only won because the nba was so small back then. a good high school team today could win a championship back then1 nobody could even do crossovers in the 60s! phil is the greatest accept it or go home
Guys guys guys, we've turned into the jerks from high school who would pick on the new kid from a foriegn land when he came to your school.
I don't think we are disputing Jackson's ability to take great talent to win championship. We are disputing his "greatest ever" status using nothing but ring-counting as the standard. BTW, I don't think Red Auerbach is the "greatest ever" either. In fact, I don't think there is such a thing as the greatest coach. As you have rightly observed, different coaches are good at different situations. Saying one coach is the greatest because he wins more rings than others is grossly overrating.
but how else could you prove who is best championships are the goal whoever wins the most is the best therefore phil jackson is the best.thank you good night
Yea, Kobe really owes a lot to Phil - maybe that is why he had him fired from LA. Talk about sounding dumb... And why does it sound dumb to want to see this guy prove himself with a team that doesn't have the best player in the game on it? I mean if you are going to laud all these hyperboles on him as the "greatest ever" and other BS, you should be prepared to have people disagree with you on that. But it is a flawed argument - sorta like which came first, the chicken or the egg? There is no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong until Jackson takes over a team that doesn't have the best player in the game on it. And that will never happen, so this discussion is a fruitless one and I am ending my take in it with this post.
