Could Lakers win championship without Phil Jackson

Yes.

 

I think Jackson gets too much credit. He has always had the best players in the NBA to work with. Give him the cavs and they still suck.

Any coach could have won championships with Jordan back in the day and with the current lakers.

Phil is not the main reason the Lakers performed a 3peat. Give me Shaq and Kobe and I'll show you a 5-peat.

 

Yeah, well, give the Cavs the best coach on the planet and they still suck.

 

The year before Jackson entered as coach, Shaq and Kobe missed a lot of the season. Before that year, Kobe was not near the player he has become. Phil became the coach at the perfect time.

 

thats doubtful.


Regardless, Shaq is the most dominating player in the game with or without Phil.

 

Right, so Phil has always won championships while sporting the best player in the NBA on his teams...There is nothing noteworthy about that.

 

Some people think Phil Jackson is the best coach ever because of all those rings he has. That's like thinking Horry is a better player than Hakeen because he has more than twice as many rings.

Some people think Jackson is just a lucky guy who happens to have the best players in the league. That thinking overlooks that fact that other coaches also have some great talent but can't win championships.

I think Jackson is somewhere in between the two extreme views. He is good at putting great players into a system where they can win. He is also good at manipulating minds (his players and his opponents) to the advantage of the team.

But winning lots of championships doesn't make him the best coach. He is not good at developing a team from the ground up. Red Auerbach accused him of having all his teams "ready" made. I think that is only half true. He does need to have all the talent on hand in order to succeed. He has not shown that he has the ability to manage personnel. But his teams were far from "ready made." Both the Bulls and the Lakers when he took over were talented but raw, and underachieving. He deserve the credit of moding these raw talents into champions.

I would not call him the best coach ever until he is willing to take on the challenge of turning the Cavs, or Warriors into a championship team.

 

Shaq was in his prime when Jackson took over. Horry was a veteran of the game. The same goes for Fox. Fisher had 3 years under his belt at the time. As for Kobe, he would be a great player with or without Jackson.

This team was "ready made"

 

If Jackson wants a talented but raw team, he should trade his lakers gear for clippers gear. Then, we can see how they do.

 

"Raw" not just in terms of individual talent but the team as a whole (chemistry, if you will). The Lakers were underachieving before he got there.

There is, of course, a possibility that Kobe just happened to start growing up at the time Jackson came in and had nothing to do with what Jackson did. IMO it's too much of a coincidence that both MJ and Kobe started growing up when Jackson took over. I'd say either Jackson is very very lucky, or very very good at timing his arrival at a team ready to bloom, or he does have something to do with their success.

BTW, I think Jackson would probably do pretty well with the Clippers. Now that they have Andre Miller. They are "ready made" now! (If only Sterling stays out of the way.) But he would be fired after just 2 years with the Cavs.

Just my 2.

 

i think the lakers could still win the championship without phil. they have the most dominating player shaq and they have kobe bryant who is one of the best shooting guards there is. even if they went against jordan and his bulls back then with rodamn and pippen and phil coaching them. i think the lakers can still win it. but i would want the bulls to.

 

There are plenty of coaches who could win with the Lakers, or Jordan's Bulls, for that matter.

Phil Jackson is a good coach. However, his best aspect is taking ready-made teams and making them "mesh" better. He's a very good psychologist.

On the other hand, he isn't a particularly good evaluator of talent, he hasn't shown any ability or desire to try and win with lesser teams, and he isn't a creative or genius-level basketball mind. His offenses evolve around one or two star players, and rely on overpowering other teams (literally in Shaq's case). Phil has also benefitted heavily from preferential treatment from referees for his stars (Jordan, Kobe, Shaq).

I will say again, Phil Jackson is a perfectly good coach. But there are plenty of coaches that are better than he is: Rudy T, Larry Brown, Rick Carlise (spelling?), and Jerry Sloan.

Historically, I don't think Jackson is even particularly deserving of being in the Top 10 coaches.

 

Jackson, in my opinion, is an overrated coach. You could have the worst coach in the NBA coach the Lakers, and they still would've won 3 straight championships. I think that Jackson is a really good coach, but he's overrated. I mean I could probably even coach the Lakers to a championship . That's probably pushing it though.

 

I say they win 2 out of 3 without Jackson