Actually you couldn't be more wrong, Hayes, and you continue to twist my words. I never said MJ would not have won any rings without Phil, so I really don't need to provide comparisions to support that do I? Even with all of your historical comparisions, you are ignorant of the fact that you can't really predict what would have happened if Jackson never coached MJ. However you could predict what would have happened if he continued to play under Collins because of trends from the previous years. He probably would have continued to dominate the ball while ignoring his teammates. He probably would have won a ring or maybe two, but I highly doubt he would have won 6 of them without Phil and his ideas. You provide all of these useless comparisions of previous champions and progression of players as the years pass, but I can point to dozens of players that improved throughout their careers and are considered great players, but never won the whole enchilada. As for your comments on other coaches I couldn't help but laugh when you said Sloan coached his team to 50 wins many times on less than half the talent Jackson has had. That is hilarious because I always thought, no matter how dirty they were, that Malone, Stockton and Hornicek were a pretty talented team. As for your Riley reference, I would hardly say he remade the Knicks. Ewing was already in place and when you have one of the more dominant centers of the time, you just need to fill in the missing pieces. Its a proven fact that Phil dramatically influenced MJ's career and made him a better all around player and I believe helped elevate MJ from just a great player to a legendary one. Basically your whole argument is based on twisted personal opinions rather that true facts and common sense. And you really shouldn't speak about something you obviously know nothing about, the book. To say someone that has coached some of the greatest players in NBA history, won 8 rings, won numerous coaching awards and is highly looked up to in the field is not an elite coach is simply close minded.
Flyguy, if that is true then you can't either, stupid. Which means if that is true there is no way to evaluate whether or not Jordan would have done better, worse, or the same with a coach other than Jackson. Thanks for removing ALL of your support for how great Jackson is. No, if you can't predict a counterfactual outcome, then you can't predict a counterfactual outcome. You can't have it both ways. We CAN speculate. Two points on this 1) The Bulls were becoming a better team under Collins than before Collins took over and 2) ANY coach, including Collins would eventually have to tell Jordan to get his teammates more involved when it became apparent he could not deliver a championship himself. Right, cause Phil Jackson is the only coach ever to say "Hey basketball is a team sport and one player can't beat a good team." Grow up. ALL SUCCESSFUL COACHES say that. You don't have anything to back up your assertions of probability. My view, which is that Jordan's nature would have been the same regardless of Jackson, and that the teams assembled around him would have been the same (Pippen, Grant, Cartwright -since Jackson was NOT running personnel) means that the PROBABILITY is that MJ would have won at least as much without Jackson. What if they had hired Tex Winters when they fired Collins? What if they had hired Larry Brown or Pat Riley or Lenny Wilkins? The PROBABILITY is that Chicago would have won a lot of titles. Well, they aren't useless since they show that it is natural for the superstars who win championships to take a few years to mature, specifically learning to share the ball. As such, the fact that MJ didn't win in year 4 or 5 with Collins is historically consistent with other champions routes to the top. In addition, the fact that he did win in year 7 is also consistent with the path of other champions, meaning that Jackson was not a unique variable in MJ's championships. It is a fact that Stockton and Malone have always had a poor supporting cast. When the cast was close to average they went to the Finals. It is also a fact that Sloan is widely recognized as a great coach. So what is your point? Mine is that if Sloan had MJ, Pippen, and the rest of the cast, there is no doubt that he would have coached championship clubs. Well you don't know much about basketball. The Knicks had not been contenders in the East for a long time before Riley got there. They had not been contenders for a title since the early 70s. And Riley completely turned around a hideous Miami expansion franchise, again something that Jackson has never done. AND I believe Riley's Knicks beat the MJ-less Jackson led Bulls did they not? AND Riley coached 'superstar personalities' in LA and won multiple titles did he not? It is true that Jackson influenced MJ's career. Yes? AND? That does not prove that any other coach would not have done the same thing at that stage in Jordan's career. Look, what is it that everyone talks about with Iverson for example, or with Kobe and Shaq (pre-titles), or with any of the players who have been in the league for a few years, and who tear it up, but haven't won titles? They say "Oh, now they are finally learning that they have to play a team game to win." They said the same about MJ and I think he is a smart enough guy that he would have changed in that way (they call it court maturity) regardless of Jackson's presence. Yes, Jackson was there and so he gets the credit but you also need to reign in going overboard on how much was Jackson and how much was MJ getting more experienced. I'm giving you detailed explanations WHY I make these conclusions and you are talking about how much you liked the pictures in Phil's book. Historically everything I am writing is verifiable. The progression of great players, the record of other coaches, the specific character traits of MJ, Phil's lack of a grasp of the X's and O's of coaching, Phil's record without the best player in the game at the time, and on and on...You're blowing hot air as do most of the Jackson supporters who think they should win the argument as soon as they talk about his rings. I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanence, is that close enough? Nope, just accurate. Put that guy on a team without the VERY BEST PLAYER in the game at that time, and his team will not be an elite team. Show me where I'm wrong. Go ahead, jerky. You can't. Part of that is circumstance and part of it is by Jackson's design. I don't think he's a bad coach, but he is not on par with the guys that bring the full package.
Phil aint that good, he always has superstars, Mike,Shaq,Kobe, Phil left right after Mj because he knew he couldn't win, a good coach is someone like jim Obrien in Boston who took a terrible team and turned them into a top notch franchise
OK, just let me know when you find some arguments that make sense, or the ability to convey them, or someone to write them down for you.
Phil is best at taking a team with superstars and being able to blend the egos, make them into a cohesive team and put them over the top. That's his specialty, making sure a team with championship-calibre talent wins the championship. Jerry Sloan hasn't been able to do it for years, and Mike Dunleavy sure as hell wasn't able to do it. People can argue that Phil hasn't tried to transform a team of losers into winners. Well, that's not his specialty. Does that exclude him from being an elite coach? Of course not. And Hayes Street, yes you the smartass prick who likes throwing the personal jabs (guess that's a last resort when you have nothing to argue), you continue to ignore the fact that Jordan, Shaq etc. can proclaimed Phil as an elite coach, the guy that put them over the top. These are the guys playing for him buddy, the guys on the basketball court, with first-hand experience of how Phil operates and how it affected their games.
Once again people, there is a difference between coaching a team with superstars (like Malone, Stockton, Walker, Pierce, etc...) and coaching a team with the best player in the game (like Jordan, Shaq or Hakeem). For some reason, the Jackson supporters keep overlooking this point when comparing him to other coaches.
Overlooking how? Sorry, but usually the team that wins it all has THE best player that year. Go look back and you'll see that every champion has a top 3 player in the league. To hate on a coach because he has the best player in the league is stupid... Also I love how when people talk about Kobe, they always say "Well he has the benefit of Shaq, make him the primary player on another team, and they wouldn't be guaranteed the playoffs." YET, he's suddenly a top 3 player when we discuss Phil Jackson...whatever...
Well, as BGM (an apparent Jackson supporter) has pointed out, the team that has won the title most consistenly has had the best player in the game. So that would remove any chance a Sloan or Dunleavy (who mentioned him in this thread???) would have for a fair comparison on this point. And how do you assess he's 'the best' at this? Who else has had the chance with similar talent? Kurt Rambis? OK, you got me toughguy, I conceed that Phil Jackson is better than KRambis. Congratulations. The point is that if you ranked the coaches in the NBA, you could take the top HALF of those coaches and they would more than likely achieve the same success as Jackson. Being in the 50 percentile does not make you an elite coach. Hmmmm....did I insult you somewhere? If not, I'll make up for lost time since you apparently want to be included. First, if you've READ this thread you'd see I have articulated MANY specific reasons why Jackson is not an elite coach. Second, the personal jabs are merely for sport. Although in your case its really comparable to shooting fish in a barrel. I'll be more than happy to abuse you as long as you say "thank you, sir, can I have another." Third, Jordan and Shaq have also said that Jackson is the only coach they'd play for, and MJ's already proven that its not true. If you think Shaq would quit if Jackson retired you could play the co-lead in Dumb & Dumber. Finally, there isn't really a good argument why a player would be able to step back and evaluate their coach objectively. They have a relationship with the coach (in both these cases) and both Shaq and MJ like the fact that Jackson basically stays the f*** out of their way and concentrates on getting the role players to follow the leader. Even the plays are drawn up by assistants. So while Phil may pass out books they never read, they don't worry about him pestering them about basketball. I won't waste my time rehashing all my previous arguments. If you'd like to go back and pull a specific argument in this thread I've made (there certainly have been a few) that you think you can show is wrong, please do and I'll be sure to respond. ***Edit - Oh I see, you've emerged from your cave, still without a clue...hear him ROAR, lol.
If the team with the best player always wins then Houston should have won the WC most of the years Jordan's teams won the title (I'll leave aside the argument of whether the Rockets who have beat the Bulls). Rudy's consistency with Hakeem even in the WC is no where near as consistent as Jackson's in winning the whole thing--there is no reasonably way you can conclude Rudy is a better coach than PJ. I agree with many that managing MJ is easy. But managing Rodman, Pippen, and getting many garbage players to not play like garbage players within the team concept is not easy. Personally, I think PJ did a good job with MJ even if it was getting out of his way (many coaches might not do this), but what made PJ a great coach is keeping some quality athletes who are head cases to be effective in the team setting and getting quality guys who are garbage athletically to be effective for the team as well. What PJ got the Bull and Lakers to do they didn't fully do before he got there was get them all comitted to play great defense and getting guys filling their rolls well. Shaq and MJ were just about as dominant before PJ got there, but until the rest of the team got better it wasn't going to be enough no matter what they individually did. I certainly was very tired of the Bulls and now of the Lakers, but man, by any objective person PJ has been the best NBA coach the last 12 years hands down. I am not saying best ever, maybe not even better than Daly, who had no player the quality of Jordan, Hakeem, Bird, Magic or Oneal (Isiah was a great player, but could never carry a team like those guys) yet won 2 rings. But since then, it is no contest who is the best. It takes awefully twisted logic to conclude otherwise (e.g., that making crap into a playoff losing team is more impressive than making a playoff losing team into the consistent title winner). Any guy with half a brain takes the best situation among his options (best BB talent not fully used, best industrial product inefficently produced, or best innovation not adequately marketed), but what he is judged by is the ultimate performance of what he joins.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I said the team with the best player usually wins. I believe that there's 3 or 4 players in the league that could easily step up their games and be THE best player that year. It's not a given that Shaq is the best player in the game...there are a few players in the league that are capable of being better than Shaq. Phil Jackson just helped push Shaq and Jordan to that next level, just like Larry Brown pushed Allen Iverson to that next level...
I was going to get into this with you again, punchy, but I realized your head is stuck so far up your own ass that you're beyond help so I'll just say this then let you spout off again so you can make yourself feel worthy. Bottom line, Phil Jackson helped make Jordan the legend he is today even if you're too blind or stupid to see it. He's also shown Shaq and Kobe what it takes to be champions. Phil is a great coach that knows how to get 110% out of his players. Beyond that there really isn't anything more to say because you obviously think you know what Phil's coaching philosophies and strategies are and you are so wrapped up with throwing out insults that there really is no point in carrying on this debate with someone as closeminded as you.
Band Geek Mobster: You are overlooking my point because the coaches that you are comparing him with DID NOT have the game's best player on his squad (Sloan, Larry Brown, etc.). The few coaches that did win with the game's best player like Phil (Rudy and Riley for example) have proven that they can be successful in rebuilding a team...starting from scratch....not just hopping on squads with the best players. Therefore, you can say Phil is an elite coach, but you can't assume he's better than the coaches that have proven that they can be successful in rebuilding teams (like Rudy, Riley, Brown, etc..). No one is hating on Phil for having the best player on his squad. However, if you are going to claim he is the best, then this is a point that can't be overlooked, especially considering he had chances to go to teams that didn't have the best players on it. It's not a given that Shaq is the best player in the game I hope you're joking. Desert Scar: Rudy has shown me that he can ride the best player to the mountaintop just like Phil has. However, Rudy has shown me he can survive without that "elite player" on his team....so I conclude that he's better. I agree with many that managing MJ is easy. But managing Rodman, Pippen, and getting many garbage players to not play like garbage players within the team concept is not easy. You think managing Vernon Maxwell was a walk in the park? What about Barkley? Hakeem could be an ass when he wanted as well. Rudy didn't get Smith, Elie, Horry, Scotty Brooks, Herrera, Thorpe, etc to play within the team concept? what made PJ a great coach is keeping some quality athletes who are head cases to be effective in the team setting and getting quality guys who are garbage athletically to be effective for the team as well. What top notch coach dosen't do this? And you don't think Isiah could carry a squad?
It makes me laugh how biased these Phil bashers are. They are the ones who hated the Bulls and the Lakers because they were/are so good and have their way with the rest of the league. Don't let that blind you from the reality that Phil is a good coach. By no means is he an X's and O's genius. Basketball isn't all X's and O's, as Phil has proven. Phil is a mastermind at getting his team prepped to win games they must win, as well as being able to avoid distractions. There are many teams who would have been too overconfident after winning 1 or 2 titles. He has the ability to keep a fire under his team.
Karl Malone was probably in the top 2 whenever Sloan went to the NBA finals, which goes with what I'm saying. Allen Iverson was also in the top 2 of players last year. Was Shaq the best player in the NBA the year before Phil showed up? If he was the best player, then why didn't he win it all? And I'm not joking about Shaq not neccesarily being the best player, I think Tim Duncan could easily pass Shaq as being the best player in the league. This rebuilding claim of yours doesn't really hold water in my opinion, what exactly has Rudy done in his "rebuilding"? He's managed to trade for Steve Francis and Eddie Griffin, and also managed to draft Cuttino Mobley in the 2nd round, just looks like he acquired talent to me. I think if you put any competent coach on the Rockets, he'll find a way to do what Rudy's doing right now. Every top team in the league has a star that could become a potential superstar. An example would be Rasheed Wallace. For years people have said that if he worked harder and didn't take games off or get ejected from games, he could be an awesome PF. If some coach showed up on the Blazers and managed to win a title with them, all of the haters would say "of course it was easy to win, look at all of the talent," the point is they were unable to win and work as a team before the new coach showed up. The Lakers before Phil Jackson were very talented, yet they couldn't win and play as a team, but now that they've won, people act as if it wasn't that hard to do. Tell that to Del Harris and Kurt Rambis... The best coaches are the ones that help the stars reach superstar level, Allen Iverson is a superstar and is in the top 3 of players in the NBA. Karl Malone was the same way when his team made it to the finals. They both had the potential to be THE best player in the league... Facts are facts, Shaq and Jordan didn't win anything until Phil Jackson came into their lives, just like Allen Iverson never got close to what he is now before Larry Brown, and just like Hakeem never reached his potential before Rudy... But now you say the difference is that Larry Brown and Rudy have rebuilt programs... Saying Rudy rebuilt the Rockets is not accurate, Carroll Dawson and the Rockets scouting staff rebuilt the Rockets, Rudy's just letting players like Cuttino Mobley and Moochie Norris do whatever the hell they want to on the court... Obviously you missed the war room footage of Rudy wandering around the room asking everyone else, "Is that good?" whenever someone would get drafted by another team... Phil's never "rebuilt" a team. Larry's never won an nba title. Rudy's never won without one of the greatest centers of all time. Jerry Sloan's never won without one of the greatest duo's in league history. George Karl's never won an NBA title either. Pat Riley's never won a title without Showtime. Every coach has a flaw somewhere... In conclusion, just like I've said earlier, it's impossible to name the best coach, but it makes more sense to just name a group of elite coaches, and Phil Jackson belongs in that group...
I assure you that you're posts have nothing to do with my self worth. They are mildly amusing, occasionally. Bottom line is that any DECENT coach could have gotten the same out of Jordan. As I've previously written, the natural progression of players (historically) in the NBA makes it PROBABLE that MJ would have started to share the ball without PJ. Same with Shaq and Kobe. West/Krause would have obtained the same players regardless of PJ. The only direct comparision we've got is PJ to Kurt Rambis, and while I agree that PJ IS better than Rambis, that alone doesn't make him an ELITE coach. As per PJ's rings, I'll say this: Chuck Nevitt has rings. Mitch Kupchak has rings. Jerry ****stick has rings. Bill Wennington, Luc Longley, Will Purdue, Earl Cureton, and others have multiple rings. Does that make them elite players? No it doesn't. PJ is a GOOD coach, as I'll agree he is good at meshing talent. But he's not an ELITE coach because that's all he does in comparison to other coaches who do THAT as well as actually coaching the team. PJ is a good coach, ok. But he's not a Riley, a Van Gundy, a Chuck Daly, a Larry Brown, or even a Jerry Sloan. You're not responding to my arguments, just spewing the same crap over and over again. I'm not closeminded, you're just wrong. It happens, sport.
Why is it 'bias' to say he's overrated. Its an opinion, that's true, and we all have our own biases, but that hardly disqualifies our opinion anymore than YOUR pro-PJ bias disqualifies yours. I agree with ALL of these statements. He is a 'good' coach. BBall is not ALL x's and O's (although having SOME ability in that arena is probably desirable). He can keep a team focused. YES YES YES. All of those are true. None of those makes him an 'elite' coach. Mastermind might be a little strong. I think maybe we are all just defining 'elite' differently. To me you cannot be an elite coach if you only excel in one dimension of coaching.
I'm not making any claims about Rudy, so whoever made those claims can handle that. All I'm saying is this, if I owned an NBA team and I needed a coach, and I DID NOT have the best player (in my estimation) in the game, and a good supporting cast, PJ would not be the coach I'd hire. I don't think he'd Pitino it, and totally suck, because he is a smart guy, and he can get people to play (as he did in the CBA). BUT, he is not comparable to other coaches who combine motivational skills similar in quality, with superior tactical and educational skills (ala Brown/Riley/Sloan/Van Gundy maybe). Really there aren't even that many coaches I'd put above PJ, but I think there are enough that he's not close to what some of you are claiming, and that's enough to keep him off my 'elite' list.
You forgot one important thing, HS. Phil Jackson wouldn't even give your team a chance to coach it, since you don't have the best player in the game. After all, if he wouldn't go to the Grizzlies, what makes you think that he would go to a team run by you?
