About Rick Adelman VS Phil Jackson,Larry Brown,Gregg Popovich

Cut the freaking crap, you're talking like coaches are the whole game, is it really weird that PJ has won so much? He coached the 2 greatest teams of the 90's and after 2000, put who the hell you want with some basketball-knowledge as a coach for the 90's Bulls and they would still have won...

You guys are overrating the impact coaches have on the game, at least in the nba.. It's the players that wins the games, not the coaches or do you think that PJ would have won 6 titles in the 90's if he coached the Nets?

 

You are right, Adelman let Artest and Brooks do whatever they want, and he has no a clue to close a game when it matters most, I sense that we will lose next three games of five.

 

Rick Adelman has always been out-coached by Phil Jackson, It's no different than Tracy McGrady getting hurt every year.

I honestly do believe a new coach is needed. RA just doesn't know how to use anybody effectively except Kyle Lowry.

 

Riiight. They decide the makeup on the floor and the plays to run. Yeh i guess they don't do much at all. The only team I would give you this statement is the Cavs.

 

These last 3 games say nothing at all. However, the long resumes of these coaches clearly prove Adelman deserves no mention with PJ and Pop. His ability to manage a game, make substitutions, control his players, think outside the box and play-call in end of game situations pales in comparison to Pop, who is the best in the business. Pop's combo-offense of motion & ball movement combined with PnRs is every bit as good as Adelman's. And get this: He actually makes his players execute it or they get benched! On defense, it isn't even close. Besides the occasional zone he throws in to cover up Yao, I still don't know exactly what the foundation of Adelman's defensive philosophy is.

 

When Lakers need to score in closing moments, they rely on Kobe.

When Spur need to score in closing moments, they rely on TD and Parker.

When Rox need to score in closing menents, they rely on AB's circus shots and Artest's dribble,dribble, long bombs.

That's really the difference.

 

I agree. Would it be accurate to say that firing JVG and hiring Adelman was nothing more than a lateral move? IMO, I think it made us a little worse because this is Yao's team, and Yao was a better fit for JVG/Thib's coaching/mentoring.

 

Not overracting, but I can't think of one instance that after a Timeout in closing moments this season, Rockets ran a good play to make key baskets, instead of lucky ones.

 

Ok, I exaggerated some but I think you got my point anyway. Any coaches in the NBA are able to win the finals if they have good players. Just look at the Celtics, the season before KG and Allen arrived only Memphis had a worse record then the Celtics and the year after they won 42 more games and won the finals... Did Doc Rivers win 42 more games last year then then the previous year because he got better at coaching or did his team improve bigtime?

 

At best, it was a lateral move. I don't see how anyone could argue differently right now. If the Rockets get out of the 1st round this year, that's different.

 

So, how many titles did the Bulls win with Collins before PJ replaced him? Can you name any players other than Scottie Pippen in that MJ-less team which won 55+ games? How many titles did the Lakers win before PJ replaced Harris? I guess the team owner should just hire you, and then roll the ball to the players, that way the team can save 10mil.

 

Can you cite an example of Popovich winning anything w/o Tim Duncan? Also, can you name a player Adelman has had that was as good as Duncan? Thanks in advance.

 

They went to the conference finals. The same place that they lost in Jackson's first year. Then Detroit got old, and they got past them. Just like they could have with Collins were he to stick around.

They won 61 games and made it to the conference finals in '98. They lost to the champion Spurs the next year. In Phil's first year, Duncan was injured, so they didn't have to face the Spurs.

What was your point?

 

Duuuh, he hasn't won a title without Tim Duncan. Clyde Drexler was probably the best player Adelman ever had.

You are welcome, whatever this is supposed to prove, which seems to be nothing.

Pop >>>>>>> Adelman. If you think Adelman is better in any category I named (or one I left out), please explain. Thanks in advance. It's not even debatable that Pop is better.

 

That's your evidence? He won championships with Tim Duncan?

The point is, he owes all his success to Tim Duncan. When you have the best player in the game, you're going to win. History proves it. Adelman has won with multiple teams. Popovich hasn't.

When did Adelman have a team that should have won a championship but didn't? Besides of course the '01 Kings who were robbed.

Or - when did a Popovich team clearly over-achieve? Give me an example of that.

 

I'm not sure if you watched the series between the Bulls and the Pistons, or followed the Bulls at all then. Yes they lost to the Pistons in PJ's first year, just as Collin's previous year, but they were a much better team. They were swept by the Pistons the previous year, had no chance at all, but won each of the three homes in a convince fashion. They lost 4 away games in Detroit, three of those games were very close.

Of course, you can say that the Bulls could do just the same, or better with Collins if he stick around, but the fact is he couldn't get the Bulls over the Pistons, and that's why he was replaced, and the Bulls became a much better team the very next year.

We'll never know if the Spurs could have stopped the Lakers with a healthy Duncan, just like we'll never know if The Rockets could have won the two titles had MJ didn't go to play baseball. The fact is that Harris was not able to get the Lakers over the hump, and Jackson did it in his first year. I still remember the main stream media opinion at that time when Harris was fired, "LA would never win a title because of the egoes that team had", "Jackson won't be able to win without a veteran leader like MJ", etc. Nobody thought they could have won the first title, and they did.

My point is coach has a big impact on the game, and PJ is a great coach who has a big impact on the outcome of the game.

 

I'm not debating history. If you do that, Pop wins in a slam dunk. I'm debating right now. Do you watch Spurs games? Have you seen Pop draw up game-winning plays? Have you seen him yank a player that wasn't performing instead of sticking with him out of "loyalty"? Have you seen him chew out his star players when they slack? How many times do the Spurs lose due to lack of effort, hustle or defense? Never. He doesn't allow it. On the other hand, there have been numerous times where Coach "Concrete" is overly loyal to players and puta them in key situations even when they play like dogs because he's stuck in doing things the same way. Coach "Concrete" couldn't draw up a game-winning play if his life depended on it. Coach "Concrete" will keep players in the game even when they hurt the team. How many times have we seen that just this year? On Pop's teams, even a wild horse like Stephen Jackson had to toe the line, and he left dodge after winning a championship partly because he wanted more freedom.

Forget history. Look at right now. This will explain some of the history.

daoshi, your points are well taken. Most people have no clue about the Bulls back in the day. The players were ready to throw Doug Collins off a bridge. They were sick and tired of listening to his non-stop nattering just like we are today during his color commentary.