So is it great talent or greatest of all time talent? Jackson made his name with arguably the greatest player ever to play the game. That creates a lot of leeway between him and the other championship coaches. And now he has a center who could also be considered one of the most dominant players of all time at his position. And that could be attributed just to his physical abilities alone. So could he take, say, the Clippers or the Hawks or the Grizzlies and get them to at least the playoffs on a regular basis? That remains to be seen, and he's in no hurry to find out it appears.
Say what you will about Jackson, but he has a system and it works. Not only that, but he keeps the teams on the same page and keeps them motivated for the yr. If it was so easy to win rings with talent, how come Dunleavy couldn't do it with Portland? Aldeman with Portland when Clyde was there? Karl in Seattle? The list can go on and on but the sign of a great coach is organization and maximizing talent which Phil can do. Can he take and rebuild a team? Probably not, but he even admits his talents are more suited to existing teams. What he can do is convince star players to share the ball with teammates and play as a unit. He did it in Chicago and he's doing it in LA. Don't fault the man for choosing his jobs good. If it were so easy, why Del Harris and Rambis couldn't win with more talent?
Great talent by itself does not win championships. All you have to do is look at the Lakers before Phil came in there. They had more talent with Kurt Rambis and Del Harris than they do now. The 99-2000 version of the Blazers were more talented than the Lakers that year. The difference? Hmmmmmmm........
So..... here is a question: If Jackass goes to the Jailblazers, 6ers, Bucks, Pups, Spazz (2 years ago), Kings, Raptors, or the Mavs, would he (Jackass) have win championships with those teams over the MJ2/Shaq lead team? Maybe with the Jailblazers, but I seriously doubt he could've won with the other teams.
I'm sorry but I disagree about Jackson being a great coach. Let's see...he has only had the benefit of having possibly the 3 greatest players in the last 10 years play for him in Jordan, O'Neal, and Kobe. Who couldn't win with those players at the top of their game? And don't give me this bs about that MJ, Shaq, and Kobe only achieved their greatness because of Phil. He was in the right place at the right time. The man has been incredibly lucky about that. Like others have said, when he takes the Grizzle (which he had the opportunity to do, but curiously declined) or the Warriors or a team like that to the playoffs, then you will hear me give him his props. Larry Brown is 2 times the coach....unfortunately, he has only had Reggie Miller and Iverson & those 2 aren't even close to the level of MJ, Shaq, and Kobe.
I don't think Larry Brown (or Doug Collins) could do what Phil does merely because they create as many personality problems as they fix. PJ doesn't seem to do that.
Can you silly Bulls fans say Tex Winters? He is the reason these teams have won. Jackson is a role coach like he was a role player. Jackson took over a very successful Bulls team already making huge noise with the greatest player (according to some) on his roster. You guys say Sloan and Adelman haven't won sh*t, so we'll assume you only think winning a championship qualifies for winning sh*t. Without Jordan, Jackson didn't get his team to the Finals, even with one (puke) Hall of Famer/50 greatest player and a championship team of role players. And he didn't get win the next year either, with the same roster and Jordan back. Therefore, without the most dominant player in the game at the time, Jackson was proven to be a coach incapable of winning jack(son) sh*t. Lakers, same thing. You've got the TWO most dominant players in the game. Gimme a break. Doing better than Kurt Rambis is not a good 'greatest coach of all time' criteria. And again he's got ol Tex doing the actual coaching. Do you really think Shaq read Freidrich Nietzcshe, and THAT's why they turned it around? H-Y-P-E...pure and simple. I would compare Jackson to Rudy T. He is an ego massager/conflict mediator, but not a great all around coach. You could have put any other decent coach (I'll admit he's ok) in Chicago and they would have won. Put any other decent coach in LA and they would be winning now. He'd make a good super agent, but greatest coach of all time? Uh uh.
Funny how everyone seems to ignore the opinions of Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal, who I think have a pretty good idea of what makes an elite coach, or alteast a helluva lot better idea than all of us. Michael Jordan freakin retired because Phil left. Of course he came back, but the man retired nontheless. Shaq says if Phil goes, he goes. Doesn't that say enough?
I'm sure they like Jackson staying the hell out of their way. And I'm sure they like Tex Winters system. And I do agree that you don't have a helluva clue. Uh, no. He retired because the Bulls weren't going to bring him back. He retired because even if they did they were dismantling the rest of the team and he didn't want to rebuild. And because he didn't want to work with a ROOKIE coach. I would think that Michael saying "I'll never play for another coach" and then playing for another coach would say enough. If you really believe Shaq would retire if Jackson left, you need to come out of the cave you're living in and get a little fresh air.
Michael's been quoted as saying that Phil's leaving Chicago was one of the major reasons he decided not to continue playing there. No matter what any of us says, Jackson is among the elite coaches in NBA history simply because his players say so. Their opinions outweigh ours. For those saying that he's not an X's and O's coach, maybe that's not what's important. I don't like Jackson too much, but I can't ignore the fact his players love him and his players have taken him to several championships (lol), and that's what matters the most in the "who's the greatest" balloting. Quote by Jordan obtained from the Washington Post : --------------------------------------- “Obviously, when I left the game, I left something on the floor. You guys may not be able to understand that. After we won the last title, I didn’t sit down, ready to quit the game. I didn’t want to go through the whole rebuilding process at that time. If Phil [Jackson, the Chicago coach] had stayed there and the team had stayed intact, I would have still been playing.”
True, there have been a lot of coaches with talented rosters that didn't win. However, Phil didn't just have talented teams......he had the most dominating player in basketball in every title run, and that's what win's titles (Kareem, Bird, Moses Malone, Magic, Isiah, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan and Shaq). You are trying to compare other coaches with talented teams to a coach who ALWAYS had the games best player. BIG DIFFERENCE!!! He had Jordan.........you really had to be great to ride his back. Now he has Shaq, at a time when the other centers in the league are garbage........and mabye the best 2 guard in the game. So I don't see how you can compare his situation to other coaches with talented squads.....especially considering Tex Winters is the man running things anyway. Sloan had Malone & Stockton, but neither was ever the game's best player. Therefore, Utah lost to Hakeem & Jordan. The same can be said for the Blazers team. Talented to the core, but no true leader, or player that you can argue as the best of the best. Barkley's Phoenix teams were talented, but they also lost to the Rockets and Bulls. Name me a team in the last 20 years that won a title, and did not have arguably the league's best player on it. True, Riley, Rudy and others have latched on to the game's best player for a title run, but I respect them more because they have the nuts to coach a squad that does not have the top player on it, and their teams still compete and win. Phil hasn't shown me that, and until he does, I can't proclaim him as the best. Mabye the best at getting good coaching positions.....................
That is one way to look at it Icehouse, but I'm willing to wager you know very little about Phil's playing or coaching background. He has coached a losing team before and made it into a winner, albeit not in the NBA. As for having the best player when he has coached in the NBA, it took awhile for MJ to become "the best" and Phil played a major role in MJ's growth. Without Phil, MJ just might not have grown into the legendary player he is now known as. Many of you guys seriously underestimate Phil's head for the game. He is a great judge of talent and knows how to get the most out of his players.
You mean "albeit in the CBA." A fact you apparently know but chose not to include in your post since its such a credible and relevant fact. That's pretty ridiculous. Look at the numbers and you'll see this is just not true. MJ was on course to legendary status before Phil got there and there is no reason to believe he would not have attained ALL the accolades without Phil Jackson. If you factor in two things a) that most of the players who are the best of their generation that do win titles do not win titles right off the bat (Hakeem, Shaq, Zeke, Moses, the Big O, Wilt) and b) that the most important variable cited in Jordan's success has been his unparalleled competitiveness and single-minded pursuit of winning, you'll see that is would be very easy to conclude that without Phil, Jordan still would have dominated and still would have won rings. And the flip side, which is to say Jordan wouldn't be what he is without Jackson, is silly and totally unverifiable. I don't think that is true. Most everyone is willing to give the guy props for managing personalities well, and for surrounding himself with coaches who cover his deficiencies (Tex Winters). However, if you are talking about the 'greatest coach(es) of all time' then you'd want the total package. I think Riley is hands down better than Jackson. I think if you could go back in time and let Jeff Van Gundy switch teams with Big Chief Triangle, you'd be making the same statements about Van Gundy now that you do about Jackson, except you'd be more correct. I think Jerry Sloan is a better coach. I think Larry Brown is a better coach. As far as Phil's success with the Lakers, I think its total crap to say he's the greatest and then point to this team. Give this team to any of the above mentioned coaches and you'd get the same results. Hell, Brian Hill who got fired twice in the NBA in the last 10 years got to the Finals with a younger (and much less dominant) Shaq and Penny (who was nothing compared to Kobe). I think Doc Rivers or John Lucas or Rudy T or any of the other 'players coaches' who can get guys to play hard would have won back to backs with Shaq and Kobe. What distinguishes Phil? He is a good motivator, but so are all these other coaches. He is NOT a good x's and O's coach. He hasn't really had the chance to show if he would be good with player personnel moves, but he COULD have and chose not to. Why? Mainly because with Kurt Rambis coaching it was obvious he didn't have to risk ridicule and his reputation by taking the responsibility of building a team himself. Other coaches like the ones named above HAVE taken those challenges and proven that they COULD build winners in more than one place. Is he a good coach? Yes. Is he the 'greatest of all time?' No way.
Ummm, I wasn't sure it was the CBA which is why I said "albeit NOT in the NBA." So his success as a coach began in the CBA...what's your point?? Your statement is just as unverifiable as mine because who is to say MJ would have won rings without Phil? You took my statement out of context. Read it again. I said "Without Phil, MJ just might not have grown into the legendary player he is now known as." I didn't say it wasn't possible for MJ to dominate or win any rings becuase that would be a ridiculous assumption. Although MJ didn't win anything on the NBA level before Phil was given control of the Bulls, it's possible that he would have won a ring eventually, but IMO he wouldn't have racked up 6 of them without Jackson's guidance. My point was that Phil played a key role in MJ's growth as a player and as a man. MJ has often credited Phil for helping him become a more complete player and as you said MJ's unparalleled competitiveness and single-minded pursuit of winning were two key characteristics that made MJ great, but it took Phil basically selling a young MJ on a system of motion and passing that would get his teammates more involved in the game and make the whole team better at the same time. Right. Those guys have won so many titles and kept such a high level of consistency throughout their careers. Getting to the Finals is one thing, but winning them is totally different. Sure he has. Dennis Rodman. Nuff said. As I've said before in other Phil Jackson debates, I used to not like the guy and thought he was overrated, but I also didn't know much about his background. I highly suggest you read his book Sacred Hoops. It provides alot of insight to his views on the game, dealings with players, history as a player and growth as a coach. Now I can easily say that I think he is the GOAT. If I were to ever own a team, I'd want Phil as the head coach.
Good luck in that happening....unless you have one of the top 2 or 3 players in the game on your team, the "Zen-Meister" isn't coming. Don't believe me?? Just ask the Grizzle.
Silly Manny... It's not one of the top 2 or 3. It's either the greatest of all-time, or two of the top 2 or 3.
Actually, no. I even pointed out multiple cases of superstars who did not achieve success early in their careers, even as they dominated in the league. As they became veterans they all learned the same lessons you point out Jordan learned, that they needed a team to win, and they did. I point out historical consistencies such as this when I make my assessment that MJ would have won without Jackson. The main qualities I point out that took MJ to his titles, mainly his competitiveness, predated his association with Jackson, as so are not dependent on Jackson's tutelage. You, however, can point to NO historical comparisons as to why MJ would NOT have won rings without Jackson. Yes it would be ridiculous to say that. As I've pointed out it is a historical fact that many other champions learned the same lessons on needed a team to win, without Jackson. In fact, there are as many cases as there are championship coaches. To say that Jackson made a unique contribution on this point is to ignore the reality of a basketball superstar moving from his fourth or fifth year in the league to his six or seventh. Historical precedent denies your assertions. Uh, yeah, look at their records. Brown has won at every level. Christ, the guy even made the Clippers competitive. Riley has won five titles and remade TWO other franchises that totally sucked before he got there (an accomplishment Jackson has NEVER DONE at the NBA level). Sloan has twice taken a team to the Finals WITHOUT the best player in the game, something Jackson has never done. And he has coached his team to 50 wins many times on less than half the talent Jackson has had. I'm glad you liked his book. When you snap out of the hypnotic hangover you apparently came away with, you'll see I'm JUST RIGHT: Is Jackson a good coach? Sure. Is he an elite coach? No.
This is probably the only thing I agree with GB about... In my opinion, there are different types of coaches out there that have different styles that work for certain occasions. Larry Brown's the type of coach that I would want to coach my young inexperienced team fresh out of college and high school. He does tend to bump heads a lot with quite a few players (Iverson and Jalen Rose for example), but for the most part, he's pretty successful at making his team a contender. He's a teacher. Phil Jackson is the type of coach that can't do much with a bunch of young inexperienced players. He's a "player's coach". I don't think there are very many NBA players out there that wouldn't mind playing for Phil. He's a finisher. People talk about Jackson coaching teams with a lot of talent, well that's how most coaches win... Jerry Sloan has had one of the greatest 1-2 punches in Stockton and Malone for his entire coaching career. He's also had PLENTY of role-players that can hustle for him while Stockton and Malone did their thing. I think it's close to impossible to name the greatest coach of all-time without noticing the collection of all-stars that he's had on his teams. There are clearly "elite" coaches though...and I believe Phil Jackson is one of them. He has no reason to go coach some bad team when he's gathering championship ring after championship ring... I'm sure a lot of you guys would be saying Rudy T is the greatest coach in the league if he would have won championships with 3 top 50 players in his starting lineup...
