IBM was a great corporation before Jack Welch took over and Jack made IBM an even much greater company. I guess Jack isn't a great business leader because he never managed a poor company into a great one. Coaching a bad team into a good one isn't the only gauge of greatness folks.
It's funny how people are bashing Phil for the Lakers recent suckage. If the Lakers went into the year knowing they'd only have Payton at PG, to go with 11 scrubs (when Malone, Shaq, and Kobe are jurt), then he would be able to implement a system that would be useful for that roster. INstead, he hasn't had time to adjust really. I'm not sure how many coaches would thrive after losing 3 HOF players to injury. The Lakers lack serious depth, which is being shown whenever someone is hurt. Once they get healthy, this thread will probably disappear.
Sure, Phil has superior talent compared to the rest of the league, but just the fact he could keep a team focused during the regular season to win 67 games more than once is amazing. I am not a Phil Jackson fan, but the results speak for themself. How many teams have won 67+ games in the regular season? B
I am not trying to bash Phil here, he is a good caach, and there is no doubt about that. He didn't just win by accident, he knew what he was doing. But, so often it seems the TV people just immediately jumped to the conclusion that Phil has to be the BEST coach out there because of his record.. like he is the fastest coach to reach something like 800 wins?? or because he won so many championship. Then they automatically claim he has to be a better coach than the other coaches such as Larry Brown and Jerry Sloan etc. I am asking is his status as the BEST coach a little overrated, since he always havs the best players on his team. Kind of like the saying that Wilkens is the winningest coach in NBA history, but Wilkens also lost the most games! Do you think if PHil was coaching the Kings, he could have beaten the Lakers coached by say jerry Sloan? Could not another coach such as larry brown have done the same thing with the Bulls?
Man, you really have to be a good coach to keep Jordan focused, especially when he's getting his ass kicked by the Pistons every year. I don't recall Pippen and Grant referring to how much Phil pushed them (they always mention MJ). I'm sure it was real hard to get Shaq focused, especially when he had been swept out of the playoffs every year. Hell, can you even say Shaq was focused during the last two Laker titles? I think the fact that he was the only center in the league had more to do with them winning than anything else. You don't think Kobe would be focused under another coach? Phil is a good coach, and he knows how to get superstars to mesh (supposedely). However, he has also been very fortunate in his career. The Bulls were losing to the championship Bad Boys before Phil took over. It's not like he took over a crappy team. Chigaco was just coming into their own. Pip and Grant were entering what...their 3rd or 4th season when they finally won (something like that). LA was in the same situation. Kobe was just entering his own. Shaq was tired of losing, and every other decent big man in the game was old/retired. Both squads had two superstar players on it, in an era where you only needed two to win. Both squads had the games best player on it at that time. hell, the offensive system that "he runs" is not even his (thanks Tex). Now why is he a "great" coach again?
Don't forget that when Jordan left to play baseball, Phil and the Jordan-less Bulls had a record of (55 - 27). That's only two more losses than the previous year with Jordan. Also that year the Jordan-less Bulls took the Knicks (the eventual Eastern Conference champions) to seven games. Of course, we all remember that it took seven games for the Rockets to beat the same Knicks team.
So why wasn't Shaq and Jordan focused enough before Phil got there. You can't just ignore that. Phil might not be the best coach ever, but he's definitely a great coach for great players with great egos. The fact that Rodman pretty much behaved under his watch is enough to convince me.
My point is that Phil did a good job with the Bulls when Jordan left because they were playing at a high level even without Jordan.
1. First off, as MadMax has said, saying Jackson is overrated is not the same as saying he's a bad coach. This is NOT the issue, please don't waste time discussing it. When we say he's overrated, we mean his "one of the greatest" status is not deserved. 2. The most obvious criticism about Phil Jackson is this: He's never done anything great with a team that doesn't have two of the best players in the league. All he has to do is to show his critics wrong. But as of now, he has not done anything to dispel that. All we know is that he can lead a team with great talents to win. That's it. 3. Here's a football analogy. Is a running back getting a lot of touchdowns a great player? Probably, but you have to know how he gets his TDs. A guy who is good at short yard situation might get the ball every time they face goal line situation and he converts most of the time. Thereby he gets lots of TDs. But on an open field, he seldom gain more than a few yards per carry. Is he a great player then? No. Is he a good and valuable player for his team? Yes, if his team can get close to the goal line a lot. Phil Jackson is kinda like a short yardage RB. He can get over the goal line very well when they are close. But he has not shown that he can do anything special when they are not close to the line.
1. I hope you at least don't think any current head coach is better than Phil right now. His place in history is debatable. But it's really a no-brainer that he's in a class by himself. I really don't want to hear about Larry Brown, and his 1 (I believe) whole Finals appearance, when he lost in 5 to Phil's Lakers. 2. The most obvioust thing, actually, is that the Bulls never won anything before Phil. The Lakers were looked at as serious underachievers who would annually lose in 4 or 5 in the 2nd round of the playoffs. There was also talk that Kobe and Shaq would never be able to win together. I think people conveniently forget that neither the Bulls or Lakers dynasty took off, until Phil's very first year at both Chicago and LA. If Kurt Rambis and Doug Collins had one titles with LA and Chicago as coaches, then maybe you would have a point. 3. How about this football analogy... LA was what UT is right now in football. Constantly underachieving with obvious talent. Bring in Phil, and LA reels off 3 straight titles. That is akin to UT hiring someone like Stoops or whoever, and winning a title the next year. Surely, that coach would get credit for doing what Mack could not do, right? Your football analogy is ok, but I think you are placing too much of an emphasis on the regular season. Phil has never really placed too much emphasis on it, because he knows that rings are won in June, not April. Moreover, it's not like the Lakers are coached by one coach during the regular season, while Phil just joins the team for the playoff run.
Dead on. Phil has the ability to win with distractions. 99% of head coaches would not have kept Kobe or Shaq during the Kobe-Shaq feud, that may still exist. Phil was able to excude enough patience and confidence in the two players to let things be, despite the in-fighting. If talent was all it took, without much coaching, then the Blazers should have won a ring or two in the last 10 years. Ditto for teams like the Warriors from the early 90s, etc. Phil's main attribute is that he is able to get his team to focus when needed. His teams seem to coast a lot, but it doesn't really matter if they show up when needed. Last season was Phil's first year to not win a title as a coach since 94-95, when they had MJ for less than half a year. I don't think you can argue with 9 rings in 12 seasons.
Maybe he couldn't take the Jazz to where they are this year...but I bet he could have gotten the Jazz a ring. Jerry Sloan had two of the best players ever at their positions for 20 years, and couldn't get a single ring out of it.
JORDON.....SHAQ.......KOBE. Phil has always picked the right situations....put larry brown...Rudy-T..... any players coach any yes you will have a 100 rings like Phil. He's not the best coach ever!!! A guy who makes a bad team win is a VERY GOOD coach...so just figure out the worst team to ever win a Ring...and you got your best coach ever.
Phli Jackson is NOT overrated of course! You have to understand being a coach as a champion contender team is even more difficult than the one as a lottery team in a sense before you start this post.Phli has wisdom to inspire fight of those superstar and harmonize relations with them, which many coaches can't do. Share the idea with you!
I guess Detroit getting old can make you look more 'focused' when you finally get by them. Similarly, Duncan getting injured in his title defense year can also make one look more 'focused' when they don't have to play his team in the playoffs as a result.
Well said. The Bulls finally won because Scottie stopped playing like a lil girl (and once again, I always recall him and Grant mentioning how Mike pushed them, not Phil), and Detroit got old. I don't think you can say MJ was less focused before he won a ring. His teammates got better. Having Duncan (what other decent big man was in the league besides him) get hurt surely didn't hurt LA. I mean, didn't the Spurs beat LA on their title run? Once again, I don't think Shaq has been focused at all in the last two Laker runs. I just think he was THE ONLY big man in the game.
