If people want to keep insisting that JVG is the best thing since lime-aid, and that everyone needs to LUV him, and if you don't you are some sort of heretic, I'll respond...
I agree...the "what-ifs" don't matter. However, like it or not, there is a difference between the lockout-shortened season and a regular 82-game season. That difference is not one of semantics, but a real one. Want to claim that the 50-game season was equally rough to a regular 82-game season because they had to sprinkle some back-back-back occurences in there? That's a reasonable argument, but don't say "They are the same because they played a full playoff run." As to "ignoring the victories," JVG gameplanned well for game one of the Mavericks series. He gets some credit for game two as well, although that was more of a "steal" than a coaching thing. He also needs to take partial credit for the collapse, and lack of heart resulting in the eventual embarassment. One player, even the most talented in the game is not an "unfair advantage." Further, for a sufficiently large sample size, 70% is the highest "championship percentage" any coach, in any professional sport has ever had. Complaining because that percentage is not HIGHER is silly.
"JVG gameplanned well for game one of the Mavericks series." Hey, a compliment! Meaning that you're not 100% biased against the guy, that's fair and I'll end the debate here.
Whatever. I said the same thing on page 3 of this thread. He had a decent gameplan for game 1. Doesn't excuse the turnaround resulting in the Rockets losing four of five, or the coaching job required to join the "biggest playoff losers" club...
so what does that have to do with JVG's coaching ability? you basically just admitted that JVG's coaching caused an older team to get that far..
Your use of the word "finishing" is a loaded word in terms of coaching. Sure, a 40 point loss is very bad. But so would a 20 point loss. The fact is that we were overachving with our bench and lack of depth. And it caught up to us. Saying we needed quicker/younger players is one thing. But saying "finishing" with the same shallow roster is another. You can't have it both way in your logic. Else, Phil should have "finished" with his older roster (Malone and Payton) in LA vs the Pistons. As far as the 1999 season. I think everyone needs to check the ages of those players. Ewing was old. But most of the roster was in the 25-29 range. The east was very evenly matched in terms of "team play." The shortned season made it hard to gauge how good/bad they really were. To me, they were all good/average. But no really great teams. In the west, they had that guy named Duncan. And that team was just better. He edged them into another level. Not just over the Knicks. But the rest of the league.
I agree with you. I thought Jackson would win that series. Perhaps they should have been able to "finish," but nine rings gives one a lot of leeway. JVG has none. "Finishing" is not just being blown out in game seven. It is letting a team up from an 0-2 hole, or completely collapsing in the last quarter of (last) season. That is one reason an extra 30-games (plus 10 preseason) matter.
Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. I don't have a problem with your personal opinion of JVG, I've just never seen a post where you mentioned anything remotely positive about him (which, to me, was unfair). But at least you mentioned something, so that's cool.
P.J is far better than JVG, that's why he makes twice salary as does JVG, he did some right things, he stood up for Yao; he changed the whole team to support T-Mac. But what counts, he lacks of abilities to utilize players, he has 2 all stars while most teams don't. What he did is just bringing a Knicks to Houston, that is all he can do, he's short of eyes to spot young talent player. That's why he likes his former players. You just can't get Champ if you have a coach like that. I am fine with JVG, I don't expect this team reaches the final in 2 year neither does Les. So using JVG is a right decision for business. He saves money a lot for Rockets.
"Letting" is not an automatic choice. There is no magic wand. You don't just wake up one day and say, "I will not let your team beat mine regardless of the our lack of depth." It's about allowing to teams to go head-to-head and battle it out. The outcome was a direct correlation to the teams themselves. Seeing Mike James out there getting doubled by Fin, Stack, and Armstrong was hurting our confidence. We had no one to counter with. J Howard could have helped. So, saying "Phil has leeway" and "JVG doesn't." That's just allowing him that leeway in your own mind, using a different metic for JVG. The context was "fininshing with the players you have" regardless of titles -- you just added the title thing because you've bought into the Phil is god (ignoring the star players and depth he had). That's how you were using it. So, the same metric goes to any coach. You only give Phil leeway and omit the player factor because you choose to do so for your argument for the Mavs seven game series. It's biased. I know you like to ingore the player performance when talking about Phil or JVG: i.e. all credit to Phil but zero credit to JVG. So, lets not blame the coach for *all* those things too. It goes both ways. As the LA/DET series showed. A younger Malone and Payton probably would have edge the Lakers over the top. As our roster gets better and deeper that "not letting" and "finishing" will become that much easier. I know you know this. You just like to pretend you don't.
"Letting" is a choice. That is the very definition of "heart of a champion." "I will not allow you to beat me today," is quite reasonable as long as one or the other is not massively overmatched. The 1995 Rockets were not the favorite against the Utah Jazz, and even with Drexler and Olajuwon, the loss of Carl Herrera and Vernon Maxwell left them undermanned relative to the deep Jazz. Guess who won. Quite simply, given that these two teams were the number 4 and number 5 seeds, there is no excuse for the Mavericks coming back from 0-2. NONE. As to the other, experience matters. A history of winning matters. Phil Jackson has won, and knows how to win. Jeff Van Gundy hasn't learned those lessons yet. Put JVG in charge of those Lakers of two years ago, and I don't see him getting to the Finals.
None huh? Really? Dirk Nowitzki Michael Finley Jerry Stackhouse Josh Howard Jason Terry Erick Dampier Marquis Daniels Devin Harris Alan Henderson Darrell Armstrong I'd say the Mavs won for a reason. Again, you are just making up things in your mind by declaring the "0-2 Mavs" or "4th vs 5th seed" as guarantee to beat them. We were playing our hearts for those two games. And it just caught up to us. The 1995 team is a different team. Lets not compare Hakeem to TMac and Drexler to Yao just yet. Again, just wait until this team has faster/quicker/younger depth. Just like that 95 team had. By the way, the 1995 Rockets were not the favored because Drexler joined the team 47 games into the season. The perception of that team was a 47 win team. That team was better than 47 wins. That team would had a better record if they had Drexler at the start of training camp. They were a 55-57 win team IMO. So, not favored? We know why. Regular season records have that effect on the media. The team on the court is all that matters. There were quicker/deeper and had those two guys named Hakeem and Drexler. Sometimes I wonder if you really understand anything about the dynamics of basketball. Your views can be so narrow; "Well, he has rings, that must count for something!" You state past facts or stats -- use them as absolutes -- but have no clue how they even came about. Really? Yet he reached the finals with team (1999 Knicks) that had less leading talent than the Lakers (Shaq/Kobe). I'd say they those two players are a bit better than A. Houston, Johnson, Spree and an older Ewing. In the end, those guys got beat out by Duncan's leadership. I'd think that Shaq/Kobe could have done better. Yes, he'd get to the Finals and win it. Defense would have been preached and the Lakers really lacked that early on. Shaq was most dominating when he was playing both ends of the court. Same with Kobe.
(1) The Mavs were better than the Rockets, but not "so much better" that they should win four of five. Period. (2) The Rockets lost two key players going in to the 1995 playoffs. The Jazz had the advantage in terms of chemistry, quickness AND depth. Those Rockets gutted it out and found a way to win, just as these Rockets collapsed like a house of cards. (3) Did JVG take the Knicks to the finals more than once? Did he ever get to the finals in a season that wasn't lockout shortened? Phil Jackson WINS. No, not 100% of the time, but more frequently than any other coach in professional sports.
1) Period? I thought we played the best of 7. I could be wrong. Let me check. Yep, it was seven. So, the Mavs were "so much better" that they won 4 out of 7 games (4-3). 2) The 95 Rockets lost of two key players didn't affect them as much as losing one player (Howard) did to the current Rockets. We had less depth to start with than the 95 team. Lose Cassell or Horry and it's more inline to what you'd have with our current team. Losing Howard killed us and not having another scoring option besides James limited our chances. Sura nursing back injuries all season didn't help our PG spot. Also, I hate to break it to ya, but Yao is not as consistent as Drexler. So, that's another weakness for this team. 3) JVG taking any team to the finals also requires a little help -- almost like you are requiring him to go the finals every year by himself -- just because. Wow! Must be easy! Hmmm, I'll just pull a Shaq out of the hat! Maybe a Jordan? Walla! The more you post, the more I realize you view the game in black in white terms. All or nothing. Cut and dry. That's fine when you're a casual observer. But has no place in basketball analyst. Bill Walton is that you?
Jackson was a great coach. Emphasis on the WAS. His heyday is over. Just like Pat Riley, Rudy, Chuck Daly and all of the great coaches of yesteryear. His time has passed. His last great coaching job was nearly a decade ago with the Bulls. The Lakers run was nothing more than coattail riding. The NBA has changed. The new rules make his triangle offense ineffective, just like it made Rudy's ISO offense ineffective. I don't know why you continue to bring up Jackon's past success. It's the past. He was severely outcoached by Popavich 2 years ago and severely outcoached by Brown last year. I'm against getting rid of Van Gundy, but if he were to be replaced, I would much rather get a young coach than an senile over-the-hill coach like Phil Jackson. Look at all how much success all these rookie coaches have had. Avery Johnson replaced the 2nd winningest in NBA history and took them further than Nelson ever could. Phil Jackson will not win another championship again in his coaching career. His 9 championship doesn't mean a thing today. Live in the now.
Ok, so you disagree, we get it. You think Phil Jackson would be better then JVG. Great, well guess what. It's not happening anytime soon. You might as well say that we'd be better of getting Steve Nash then T-mac....you can argue it until the cows are old and the burgers are cold, but IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! Put it to rest man.
(1a) Did the Rockets go 1-4 at any point in the series? (1b) How many teams in the history of the NBA have allowed their opponent to come back from an 0-2 hole? (2) The question is not the '95 Rockets versus the '05 Rockets, but the '95 Rockets versus the '95 Jazz. The deeper, quicker team lost to the team with more heart. (3) JVG has been a head coach in the NBA for nine seasons. He has yet to put together a championship team. Any of the final eight teams should have the ability to win a championship. JVG has gotten to that point on several occasions, and never won.
1) Oh my god the world is coming to an end! You'll be ok. Have a drink. Big deal. We move on. We got beat! Didn't you even watch the Mavs play? Didn't you even see the great plays they were doing? Any of them? It would've been nice if we had a least one more 10ppg+ player. We didn't. You're more hurt by the embarrassment, rather than the circumstances that caused the loses. You want revenge for that hurt, don't ya? 2) The question WAS about 95 Rockets vs the 05 Rockets because you were implying that just becasue the 95 team beat the Jazz that the same thing was "supposed" to happen this year. Please...you live in an idealistic world. Anyway, the Jazz were NOT quicker. We were. They were deeper. But our speed, defense and our good depth (Cassell, Mario and Charles Jones) helped out greatly (better depth than we have today). Note that Hakeem made up for any lack of depth, as did Drex. Can Yao do this? Well, see. Sure would be great if he'd foul less, don't ya think? 3) Should? Really? Just like that. Snap your fingers. Wow! Sigh...
