How many rounds of playoffs did the Celtics have to go through on their way to those Auerbach championships - 2? How many Hall of Famers did he have? People denigrate Jackson because of his attitude or because he had Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe, but reality is that nobody wins NBA championships without Hall-of-Fame caliber players.
It is easier to win in a watered down league. The talent is spread out over more teams, so it is not as hard to win a game on a nightly basis. If you have one of the best players in the league, how often do they play against some real comp (especially when your best player is holding down a practically extinct position). The Celtics had a lot of HOF's, but so did the teams they beat. Didn't the Lakers have Wilt, West and Elgin at the same time, and still lose to Boston? The teams that the Bulls beat had an equal number of star players (except for the Lakers and Sonics), but that is not the case for the Lakers. LA has 2 of the top 5 players in the game. No other team has more than 1 (if they have 1). That disparity is greater than what the Celtics had. A playoff format with less rounds does not give your team a chance to rest up and coast to the title by playing teams with almost no chance of beating you (#8 seed vs #1). You think the Celtics would have coasted to the title playing Wilt's Sixers, the old Lakers, the Bucks (with Kareem & Oscar), or Pettit's Hawks? They both had great amounts of talent on their squads. However, Red BUILT those teams. Yes, a coach is not a GM these days, but you must give him some credit for that. In both situations (LA and CHI), PJ came to a talented squad that needed a little push to get over the top. Both squads had the best player (who also happened to be tired of losing). Not to mention the offense that he runs isn't even his.
Were both Shaq and Kobe considered top 5 players back in 1999? I remember the Lakers had been swept by Jazz twice with Shaq at his prime. Yes. He has been the best center since 1996-1997. Lakers also had Nick Van Excel and Eddy Jones then. A formidable team but won nothing. Jackson Jackass may be classless, but he's great to take a good team to Championships. Neither Jordan or Shaq won anything before he took over. So please give credit when it's due.
Shaq was still #1. Kobe was definately top 10 (2nd Team All-NBA). Was their any other team with 2 players in the top 10? Kobe was not into his own yet, so it was still Shaq and no other top player. And I give him props for that. But I don't think taking a good team that almost got there the year before (both squads had lost to the eventual NBA champion), and just happens to have more talent on it than any other squad is a sign that you are a "great" coach.
I disagree. In a "watered-down" league, you only need one or two of the most dominant players to be better than everybody else. In a more talent-concentrated league, you have to have more great players on the same team to win. The Celtics in the 80s had arguably the best front court ever. They couldn't win consecutive titles. Why? Because the Lakers were even more talented. I doubt that we could ever see that kind of high talent level team in a "watered-down" league. In other words, in a watered-down league, you just need to be lucky enough to land one or two of the best players. In a smaller league, you need to carefully build a very talented team to win. If Phil Jackson is truly an opportunist par excellent as many believe, he can only do it in this expansion era. In Red's time, you'd have to actually assemble a team. You can't just luck into it.
Thank you, that was my intended original point... apparently I did not expound on it enough. It just seems like so many that cite the talent Red had forget how few teams there were, and therefore what talented teams he was always up against (that is if they even know in the first place, which also seems rare).
Bill Sharman KC Jones Sam Jones Bill Russell Bob Cousy Tom Heinsohn John Havlicek Frank Ramsey (all Hall of Fame) MJ Pip Shaq Kobe Malone (at age 40) Payton (well past his prime) I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I do find Auerbach's constant public snipings at Jackson a little curious.
You know players have "primes" right? And in these "primes" they play their best basketball. Phil Jackass is a student of the right place right time school of coaching. Nothing more. The man can barely adjust to a pick and roll. Auerbach is leagues better than Jackass. No contest. You're only even having this debate because he's on Sportscenter and in the public eye, but I don't think anyone who's not just sensationalizing current events thinks he's better at what he does than Red freaking Auerbach.
Eh, it's called pride. I'd be miffed at the suggestion too. Kids nowadays grew up thinking Phil Jackson was some sort of basketball God. He aint. What forum does Red actually have these days? It's not like he's on anything aside from ESPN classic. The people gotta know. The man was greatness.
interesting you say this and I'm sure in part you are right... but one self centred player doesn't win a title and it wasn't until MJ trusted and believed in his teammates that they were able to win the titles... surely Jackson played a part in that and Shaq was in LA before Phil arrived right i like the way he is able massage the massive egos of the superstars of today he has coaches and gets them to play as a team for all the talk the Triangle gets, for me the defense Jackson's teams play is completely underrated and was/is usually the backbone of all the titles his team has won they are both great coaches I love the way Jackson manages and communicates with his players
tex winter developed the triangle offence...phil assigned reading material. no question phil is a great coach but definitely not the best of all time.
Peter May acts as his (deserved) mouthpiece every Sunday morning in the Boston Globe. Red keeps getting asked what he thinks about Jackson breaking his record, and Red responds by slamming Jackson. Jackson stays quiet. They're not asking Red, "is Phil Jackson a better coach than you?" If they did, by all means, Red, flame away ... And, if Jackson had Auerbach's status as GM, who knows if he'd still be in coaching in Chicago, or have a better future in El Lay. Again, I don't want to say either is better than the other. I just don't want to take away from either man by belittling their accomplishments.
I guess Rudy wouldn't also get any credit about the two titles. With similar argument, you can say he just came in at the the right place right time. But Hakeem hadn't won anything before Rudy stepped in. Almost all champion teams have a top 3 player. The old Celtics even had 7 Hall of Famers. Yes. You need top players to win the championships. But their coachs also play an essential role.
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/0603aurebach.html "I'd say he's a good coach because you can't fake results," he said. "But nothing he's done awes me." Red, shut up and let your rings do the talking. Go stuff your face with some pot stickers or something.
Red took over a mediocre Celts team after a few horrible years (33%-win) in Washington. In the draft a few months later, he passed on adding Cousy, claiming he didn't want a "local yokel." He remedied that by taking the Couse in the dispersal draft. He then turned that team around by emphasizing the running game. Unfortunatly, they couldn't hang with the better teams because of poor interior defense. Sort of an old-school Nuggets team that was having success like a modern-day Kings team. In the summer of 1956, he pulled off the greatest draft ever -- DRAFTING Tommy Heinsohn and KC Jones, while trading All-Star Ed Macauley (sp?) for Russell. Amazing. After that, the team had it's fast break catalyst and leader in Russell.
That was only in 2000 after Jackson's first year in LA. In 99, Shaq was 2nd team All-NBA and Kobe was 3rd team. When Phil took over, Alonzo Mourning was the #1 center, Karl Malone was the reigning MVP, and Tim Duncan was widely considered the best big man in the game. Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, it was far from a foregone conclusion that the Lakers were on the verge of a dynasty. They seemed to have far more in common with Shaq's Magic - a team on verge being blown up. They'd already lost Van Exel, Jones, and Campbell. Shaq and Kobe had zilch in the way of chemistry. Getting Phil was a last ditch effort to salvage something.
Ok, here's where the conversation was about "greatest coach of all-time" so what're you talking about?
Jackson knows he should keep his mouth shut, but it's not like he's an especially tactful guy. I doubt that a huge number of basketball fans not living in Boston read the Sunday morning Boston Globe. I don't and I'm originally from beantown. But like I said, Red doesn't have any forum today to speak his mind because he's so darned old and the casual fan wont see him on Sportscenter being jocked.
Did he really? I never recall Pip or Grant (the two teammates who made a difference) mentioning how P.J. motivated them. They always talk about how MJ used to dog them in practice, and worked to make them tougher. Also, it seems a lot easier to trust your teammates when they don't suck (the Hakeem factor). Chicago started to win when Pip and Grant came into their own. And when they lost to the Jazz, Kobe was a kid shooting airballs. When Kobe finally started coming into his own, they lost to the only team capable of beating them in 5 years (Spurs) because of the twin towers (and because Kobe wasn't as dominant yet, since he was the main reason LA got past SA). What great coach hasn't had to massage the ego's of at least 2 star players? Rudy and Pop are the only coaches to win on a team without 2 stars in the last 20 years. As someone else mentioned, ego's were not created in the 90's. Jordan, Pip, Grant, Harper and Rodman were all good defenders. So are Laker players (Kobe is good, and when does Shaq usually have to defend anyone). Rudy continued to have success without superstar talent (see the time he coached the Dream team). Also, no one is debating Rudy as the greatest coach ever. 98-99 was Kobe's first year with complete control of the 2 spot (Eddie Jones was traded 20 games into the 50 game season). He still made 3rd team. Tell me who the real #1 center was: Mourning: 46g, 38.1m, .511 fg%, 11.00 rpg, 1.6 apg, 3.91 bl, 20.1 pts Shaq: 49g, 34.8m, .576 fg%, 10.70 rpg, 2.3 apg, 1.67 bl, 26.3 pts Once again, LA lost to the only team capable of beating them in a 5 yr span. In you notice, that team was out of the way the next yr when Phil came (Duncan injury). Phil Jackson = Greatest Opportunist of All-Time
Everything you said (except the Triangle) applies to Rudy too. If Jackson's greatness lies in his ability to convince a super talent to trust his teammate, Rudy was better. Is it easier to convince Jordan to trust, Shaq to trust Kobe, or to convince Hakeem to trust a bunch of mediocre talents? Many people forget how "selfish" Hakeem's game was before Rudy became the head coach.
