just what was phil jackson given, in chicago a team that had repeated playoff failure, in los angeles a team that had being swept for three seasons running. the bulls and lakers were mid range playoff teams when pj took control of them,how many mid range playoff teams have there being in the history of the nba? now how many of those teams evolved into becoming a dynasty? you say its because the players on his teams "developed" thus the improvement? no ****, no team can get better if its players dont get better. if you use that excuse you should negate all coaches of having any effect, you go name me a coach who made his players worse but his team better. phil doesnt turn make teams better? los angeles lakers 98/99(without phil jackson) 31-19 .620 los angeles lakers 99/00(with phil jackson) 67-15 .817 a one year improvement of nearly .200, which is massive. and anybody would tell you its harder to make a team from good to great than to make one from average to good.
funny larry brown said hes the best ever, do you know better than larry brown. I didn't know Larry Brown was the judge of all talent. And if he does think that Shaq is the best ever, I've lost a whole lot of respect for his basketball knowledge. puuuhlease, now we're going to have a record for "regular season record when the lakers are in turmoil"? You said the Lakers were the 2nd best team in the NBA even when they were fueding. My point was that they were not the 2nd best team in the league when fueding, and their pre-April record reflects this. stand corrected on the win total. why was the championship a fluke, the lakers won 67 games and were up 3-1 in that series. youre starting to sound like a blazer fan, sorry to tell you but a game goes for 4 quarters, theres no prize for having "the lead at the end of the 3rd quarter" title. Agreed. My point is, your logic is also very shaky when implying the Rockets title was a fluke. I'll agree with you on this point, but don't reply about the Rockets championship being a fluke either. The logic to say that is just as shaky as what I posted on the Blazers. (and thus my rationale behind it) del had 4 all stars on that 97 team and got swept. the lakers team of 98/99 had a near identical roster to the one in 99/00, one was a 5th seed and got swept in the second round, one had the 3rd best regular season record of all time and won the championship. The difference in the individual elevation in Shaq and especially Kobe's games between the 99 and 2000 seasons was tremendous. Kobe improved in many areas on the court in both skills, intangibles, etc., and I seriously doubt it's all due to Phil. Kurt Rambis would've coached either of these two teams to a championship, imho. your points are just filled with biased and ridiculous excuses, a typical hater. I hope you're still around here next May... we'll see who was biased.
I didn't know Larry Brown was the judge of all talent. And if he does think that Shaq is the best ever, I've lost a whole lot of respect for his basketball knowledge. he did say it, so i guess he lost your respect, not that he needs it You said the Lakers were the 2nd best team in the NBA even when they were fueding. My point was that they were not the 2nd best team in the league when fueding, and their pre-April record reflects this. you cant just say once they start winning that the feud is over, there was other factors for why the lakers started winning such as shaq and kobe both getting over their injuries, shaq getting into shape, return of fisher, etc... the lakers had an injury plagued, incident laden season and still came out as one of the best teams in the nba. plus the point is, theyre .765 in the last 2 seasons, feuds or not, thats a damn good percentage. Agreed. My point is, your logic is also very shaky when implying the Rockets title was a fluke. I'll agree with you on this point, but don't reply about the Rockets championship being a fluke either. The logic to say that is just as shaky as what I posted on the Blazers. (and thus my rationale behind it) i wasnt trying to attack the rockets at all, i dont think any team that wins a championship is a fluke. the rockets won 2 in a row so obviously they were a true championship calibur team. The difference in the individual elevation in Shaq and especially Kobe's games between the 99 and 2000 seasons was tremendous. Kobe improved in many areas on the court in both skills, intangibles, etc., and I seriously doubt it's all due to Phil. Kurt Rambis would've coached either of these two teams to a championship, imho. it was, but with team improvement comes player improvement, no team can improve if its players dont improve. you cant start speculating what they do behind the scenes, its like people saying phil is a bad x and o's coach. phil went to chicago, they win, phil goes to la, they win. coaches are ultimately judged by the success of their teams I hope you're still around here next May... we'll see who was biased. i will be
Sure they do....Phil Jackson. As much as I disliked this guy in the past, after reading his book "Sacred Hoops", I have a newfound appreciation for how he coaches basketball.
Man, I hate coming in late on long threads! Not to turn this into a Phil Jackson thread, but I feel the need to defend the guy. C'mon guys, you can't deny the fact that Phil Jackson is one of, if not the greatest coach to ever coach the game. True, he has had some of the greatest players to ever play the game on his teams, but it takes alot of planning, strategizing and motivating to get every player on the team, from the superstar to the frequent IR guy, to understand and accept his role and to perform his role day in and day out. As for commenting on his ego, if you'd won as many rings as he has, wouldn't you have an ego too? I really don't think his ego is that out of control. He knows his teams have the talent to win every year, IF they come together and focus on the common goal and isn't afraid to talk about it. On the other hand, when his teams slump, he also isn't afraid to criticize them. You can only downplay success to a certain level before you become a complete yes man and a bore. I like that the guy has a personality and isn't afraid to be himself. Cat, Manny, and everyone else who is dogging Phil, you really don't know what you're talking about. I could sit here and debate point by point, but it would be a long winded, and possibly pointless debate. I suggest reading his book. Shaqkobe, stick around. This place gets hoppin once the season starts, but be careful not to become a troll.
Phil Jackass is a joke. Compare the talent of his championship teams to the talent of Rudy's, and you'll see what coaching is all about. Bryant is nowhere close to the 2nd best player in the league, he just gets the benefit of having the defense always being focused on Shaq-fool. If Steve Francis got to play 1-on-1/2 instead of 1-on-2, he'd put up great numbers too. As for Shaq-fool, you can't count on him in the 4th quarter because he can't hit free throws! How many "best players to ever play" candidates couldn't be counted on in the 4th quarter? How many times has Shaq had to sit down in the 4th quarter because he is a liability from the charity stripe? It's flat-out embarassing...having to bench the MVP because he can't hit a free throw! Oh my gosh! Does anyone in their right mind think Shaq-fool and Phil Jackass could've won a title last year with Vernon Maxwell, Kenny Smith, Robert Horry, and Otis Thorpe as their supporting cast? Don't ever come here and try to say Shaq is better than Hakeem! You should be banned! As for Phil Jackass...the team with the best player in the league on it usually always wins the championship, no matter who the coach is.
I sure hope you are not calling the 95 championship a fluke. that would be a huge can of worms you would never get closed. Also you might be banned from the board. Dont forget that in 95 there were several teams that won 50+ games in the western confrence and 2 that won 60+. that could be why the rockets lost a few more because there were teams that flat our dominated in the regular season. more so than last year. My take on this is that the lakers are not going to be better than last years team. Shaq just had surgery and is out for a bit he is also our fo shape big time. . . the only reason he relized he needed surgery was becuase he had just began training for the season. Late aug. is not when you start training for the season. So Kobe is going to have to carry the team while shaq once again plays back into shape. However now he has to deal with a zone defense and the only way he is going to beat that is with some type of jump/hook shot. No more bull the guy over(some call it a offensive foul in hs or college) and dunk he will really have to work for his points. The lakers are still good but they will not be as dominate as they were last year in the playoffs
kobe in 00/01 when shaq didnt play:32.4 points, 7.8 rebounds, 3.9 assists, 1.4 steals, 1.5 blocks. no freak, kobe wasnt doubled and tripled in those games, the defense was too busy trying to shut down mark madsen and brian shaw to worry about kobe. . shaq is better than hakeem, ban me wilt chamberlain was the best player in the nba for most of his career, his team didnt win. isiah thomas wasnt the best player in the nba when the pistons won their titles. bill walton wasnt the best player in the nba when the blazers won in 77. shaq wasnt the best player in the nba when phil jackson came. he was second team all nba the season before. 7 seasons of failure and underachievement was turned around by phil the first season he came. once again los angeles lakers 98/99(without phil jackson) 31-19 .620 los angeles lakers 99/00(with phil jackson) 67-15 .817 when your beloved rudy t can goto a team and raise their winning percentage by 20% in the first season, maybe he could be on the same level as phil. "Going into the 2000-01 season, Jackson owns a career coaching record of 612-208, his .746 winning percentage being by far the best in NBA annals. He has a career playoff record of 126-49, his winning percentage of .720 also heading the list" phil jackson has coached the best regular season team in history (72-10) and the best playoff team in history(15-1). he coached a team of scottie pippen and scrubs to 55 wins. this was their starting lineup f-pippen f-grant c-perdue g-pete myers g-armstrong that is a team of pippen, and very mediocre talent. perdue and pete myers are just nothing near nba starting standards. you can keep on ****ting on all you like, it wont change the fact when people in 20 years look in the history books, phil will have all the titles and records. phil will go down as possibly the greatest coach of all time. theres nothing you can do about it.
RocketsPimp: I know that Phil Jackson is knowledgeable about the game. After all, he is a former player. However, I have always felt that he was vastly overrated as a coach. Didn't he become coach of the Bulls shortly after the Bulls beat the Cavs and made it to the Eastern Finals when Doug Collins was their coach? It's like Collins did all the hard work and then Phil just slid in to take the finished product i.e. a mature Jordan and win titles and become "a great coach". Same thing with the Lakers--both Shaq and Kobe were in their blossoming stages before Phil. I guess you can argue that his presence inspired them to play better, but let's face it, as much as I hate the Lakers, Shaq and Kobe are 2 of the top 5 players in the game. It was a matter of time before the Lakers would win it. I just think that he has been an incredibly lucky guy to be in the right place at the right time. If he taken the Vancouver job when they first offered it to him, and if he led them to the playoffs, then I would have said yes he's a great coach. It's like TheFreak, at least I think it was him, said, do you think that Jackson leads the Lakers to an NBA title with Shaq at center and Vernon Maxwell, Kenny Smith, Robert Horry, and Otis Thorpe as the other starters? I don't think he could.
Actually MJ was still a young immature player who relied soley on his own athletic ability to win games when Phil took over. Phil went to MJ and asked him to sacrifice his own game for the benefit of the team, to get his teammates more involved of every play and thus make the entire team better. A better question for you guys to answer would be do you think the Bulls would have won 6 titles with Doug Collins and the Lakers 2 rings with Kurt Rambis, Del Harris, Magic, etc. rather than Phil Jackson as their coach? I highly doubt it. Like I said before, read the book and you will have a newfound respect for the man.
And who helped them develop so that they could get the most of their talent? Don't say it would have happened naturally. Jordan was in the league seven years before it happened for him Phil has won at every level, as a player and as a coach (and with and without big name superstars). Give him some credit.
