Yes , so elite he is . No one mentioned after his team lost to the "Cow Town Kings" , He sticks his gum under the seat and leaves .
Oh yeah, Shaq SURE is a great judge of coaches. The same player who a few years ago said he had won a championship on every level but high school, college and the pros.
When 2 of the 3 best players over the last 15 years want to play for you or no-one, and you have won 8 of the past 11 titles--never losing a single finals, you must be doing something right. You may not like him, but he is the best in the business.
When Jackson takes a team like the Clippers and makes them NBA Champions, then I'll say he's the best out there. But I have a hard time giving that title to someone who has had the benefit of having the best players in the game to make his reputation. Don't misunderstand me: I know Jackson is a good coach. I think what he has is the ability to put a team in its place and bring them into the roles they need to have. But that's about the extent of it. He had Jordan in Chicago; then got everyone else to fall into the roles they needed. He walked into a situation in LA with Shaq and Kobe coming into their primes. The reason Shaq is loyal is because he has those rings; pure and simple. And, like Jordan, he's got a coach to put the rest of the team in its place and to have them all fall in line behind their star. Shaq loves the attention, and he loves being considered the best...Jackson has helped to solidify that reputation (most importantly, on his own team). But as far as offensive/defensive game plans, evaluating upcoming talent, judging matchups...I'm not as sure of that.
He did have to coach a season without MJ and I believe, minus the playoff success (dang refs! ), that the Bulls still had a successful season...
I'd say that would make him GOD Seriously, name 1 coach who one jacksh** with sh** in the NBA?However plenty of coaches haven't won jacksh** with TOTALLY loaded teams during the last 15 years though (e.g., Dell Harris, Kurt Rhambis, Rick Adelman(2 places), Doug Collins, Dunleavy, Brian Hill, etc.)
Winning with good teams is simply not the only aspect of coaching. It's simply one part of it. Wow, what a professional. It takes a coach to get him to the next level? Great attitude. Could you hear Tim Duncan saying "If Pop leaves, I leave. He's the only coach that got me to the next level". LOL.
Phil Jackson is not an elite coach. Elite coaches win championships with less than championship talent. Phil jackson, as a coach, is an opportunist. He will not take an NBA coaching job unless the best player in the league is on his roster.
Someone tell me a coach who won a championship without a Hall of Fame (current or future) player???? I can't remember any off the top of my head (for sure over the last 20 years). I think Sloan is an awefully good coach. But Jackson beat him twice in the finals and maybe another time in the playoffs (don't recall if the Lakers-Jazz have played with him at the Lakers) yet Sloan has had two no-brainer HoFs who also were probably the 2 most consistent and injury free players over the last 20 years. Sloan appears to have a lot going for him (2 HoFs throughout their careers, no major injuries) to have not even WON ONE single itty bitty title. I know Freak will bring up Rudy, but Rudy had 2 HoFs his second run plus the most dominant player in the league for the 1st one. Also, considering Rudy had the best player in the Western conference for about a 10-year span and having two teams with 3 HoFs, his overall record does not stand up at all to Jackson's IMO.
Lenny Wilkens won in Seattle in the late 70's without a true superstar or Hall of Famer. Oh and by the way Phil jackson is the greatest opportunist coach the world has ever seen. This in my opinion does not make him an actual great coach. I just dare him to not take the most talented team in the league next time. Oh wait he's the kinda guy who won't do that.
Sikma, Gus (Johnson?, I think), Freddy Brown (they might have had 3 great guards can't quite remember if Brown was the 3rd or 2nd guy). While they had 3-4 excellent players, you might be right that none of them were HoFs. I do think Lenny is great, but he hasn't been able to break through since.
So we've come up with 1 example in the last 30 years of winning without great talent. Ergo, you need great talent to win. That means that the difference between winning championships and losing in the playoffs every years (see the Jazz) is the coaching. Great coaching is handling the elite talent properly and getting the best performances out of them. Not everyone gets this chance...but of those who have, Phil is the best.
