Phil Jackson: Elite Coach

How do you know that these coaches are superior to Jackson?

Brown hardly ever sees his teams through, he just helps them get to the playoffs, and then bails on them after a couple years. I wouldn't trust my franchise with a guy that would quit on me before my team won the finals.

Van Gundy had his team turn against each other after they lost early once again last season with Sprewell bashing everyon. JVG's had quite a few early exits in his playoff career, the one time he made it all the way, it took a miracle shot against the Heat to get him out of the first round.

I've commented on Sloan already, he had one of the greatest duo's in NBA history in Stockton and Malone. He's also had solid roleplayers in Russell, Hornacek, and Anderson.

Riley currently has a pretty talented team with Eddie Jones, Brian Grant, and Alonzo Mourning in his starting 5 yet he has one of the worst teams in the league.

I do believe that these coaches are in the upper echelon of coaches, but their flaws aren't much worse than the "Phil Jackson hasn't rebuilt a team" claim.

I don't see how you could leave Phil Jackson out of this group.

Also Manny, the Grizz have been known as one of the worst organizations in the league. Their lottery picks have turned to **** almost as often as they've turned into decent NBA players. Why would Phil go there instead of coaching at a prestigious gig like the Lakers?

I don't think any sane person would go coach the Grizz instead of the Lakers...

PS: Why doesn't anyone ever say Rick Adelman is a top notch coach? Look what he's done with the Kings, or maybe did the Kings just add a lot of talent? Which also adds to my point that a coach is probably less important than a team's scouts and GM...

 

Uh, Brown has won EVERYWHERE he's been, and that is a lot more places than PJ (UCLA, Kansas, San Antonio, Clippers, Indiana, Philly) . He has taken over team after team after team that was TERRIBLE and they've all improved MASSIVELY. Yes, he does move, and we can talk about each situation if you want to get into it, but I don't hold that against anyone. If you wouldn't trust your franchise with Brown I think your criteria is skewed.

In seven years the Knicks had one four game losing streak. Much of the time with a mixed bag of talent. Van Gundy is acknowleged in NBA circles as being one of the hardest working most prepared coaches in the league. He is well respected by his players and they all say he gets them as prepared as they've ever been from a coach at any level. He's tacticly sound and a tireless worker. He doesn't have the 'building a team' experience so that is one downside.

Well, first of all its Sloan's system that have made Stockton and Malone one the 'greatest duo's' and they did make it to two Finals (with those role players you named) where they lost to everybody's 'greatest' Michael Jordan. Its hardly Sloan's fault that Malone missed FT's or that MJ was allowed to push off. And you are the big 'greatest player wins the ring' advocate, so I don't understand how you can use that against Sloan, unless you really think you can show that either Malone was better than MJ, or Duncan, or Hakeem in their championship years.

Riley, like Brown, has won in multiple places. In LA he proved he could 'manage superstars' like PJ with Kareem, Magic, Worthy and the boys. And those Laker teams faced MUCH better competition than did the Chicago teams. He then went to a non-Championship caliber squad in NY and made them a force, getting to one Finals and being the only squad to take the Bulls to seven with Jordan, and the team that beat PJ and the Bulls when they were without Jordan. THEN he went to a HORRI-BULL Miami team and completely turned around a losing franchise. Sure they haven't won it all, but they went from doormat to contenders under his watch. Jackson just hasn't ever done that.

They have everything PJ has, PLUS. And they've taken over teams that were poor and made them championship caliber (all having taken teams to the Finals where most of us acknowledge the quality of you players wins out). They are motivators, just like PJ, but that's where you stop with PJ's qualities. He's a motivator, yes, but these guys are that and more. So PJ just doesn't make the top echelon cut.

He is one dimensional. What is more basic than that? All those guys have proven they can do what he can do, plus more. Basic math.

I agree that Adelman is a top notch coach. I would put him on par with VG and but maybe even put PJ above those two because of the sheer winning he's done.

 

BGM:

Yes, anybody with a sane mind would choose the Lakers over the Grizzlies in coaching. That would be like choosing between Cindy Crawford and Camryn Manheim (although I'm sure that CM has her strengths over Cindy..they are just not easily noticeable).

My point is that Phil has coached at only 2 places in the NBA, head-coaching wise, in the Bulls and the Lakers. In both instances, he took teams that had already made the playoffs and had players that were immensely talented in Jordan, Shaq, and Kobe & were ready to elevate their game even higher. To me, that is not being some "elite" coach, but being a beneficiary of incredible good luck.

I think that Jackson is a good coach, but I don't think that just because someone has the best player in the game on their team that they are some "elite" coach.

It's as HS said: Larry Brown has won every place he's ever been. Now, I agree with you in that LB never stays in one place, but look at the teams that he took over and where they were. The 76ers hadn't made the playoffs in over 6 years, but Larry took them back to the playoffs. My God...look what he did with the Clippers! That proves to me that the man can coach. All Phil Jackson has proven to me is that he can be smug and be an ******* while his assistants, mainly Tex Winter, do all the coaching and his players, aka Shaq and Kobe, do all the important work.

When the Zen-Meister takes over a franchise like the Grizzlies & does the job that Larry Brown did with the Clippers or the 76ers, then I will say that yes, he is an elite coach. But until then? Fuggetaboutit.

 

I'll pass on going point by point on why Larry Brown's quit his jobs, I like Larry and consider one of the top coaches, but he's still yet to win it all. He also hasn't proven yet that he can win it all in the NBA. (College Coaching is a totally different beast, and I believe this whole discussion is best NBA coach, so I don't think his success in college matters)

A prepared coach doesn't necessarily make him the best coach, it is all about winning afterall. It's nice that he works hard, but who cares if you get eliminated in the first round again. Also I'm sure Phil Jackson is widely respected by players just like Van Gundy.

I was just using the "greatest duo of all time" argument because of the "greatest player of all-time" argument against Phil. If you think Phil is only successful because he coaches the greatest player of all-time, I'll point out that Sloan is only successful because he had the greatest duo of all-time.

I also like Riley, so I hate to argue against him, but he only turned that Miami team around because of the talent increase in Miami. This goes to back to the player talent is more important than coach thing. His only real difficult accomplishment was the job he did with the Knicks with boring ball, but they still ended up firing him from that job. Riley's past might be nice, but he's not doing much right now, and if we're talking current best coaches, then Riley's team is underachieving...

They're all in the same group as far as I'm concerned.

During the season Jordan was out, Phil somehow made Scottie Pippen into an MVP candidate. We all know how difficult it is to get Scottie to grow some balls and be the leader of the team, yet Phil made him play his best.

You gotta give Phil some respect for turning 3 players (Shaq, Jordan, and Pippen) into MVP type players before anyone else...

Well he does have more championship rings than all of those coaches combined. Basic Math

-------------------

Okay Hayes, you've worn me down, I suffer from ADD and cannot handle long point by point posts like some of you master debaters, so I'm going to bail on this thread.

Thanks for not calling me a dumbass...

 

BGM,

Just one thing about your last post since its 6pm here in London and me and the wife are about to go out on the town.

Riley wasn't fired by the Knicks. In fact they were super pissed that he left.

Have a Happy New Year's all...

 

Think this has anything to do with Pippen being a great player, and in his prime? PJ showed me just how much control he had over his players when Pip decided not to re-enter a playoff game.

And once again, he always had the best player on his team. Not a combo of the best players, but the best player.

 

I would say 8 championships in 11 years speaks volumes about basic math. Other coaches had Jordon, Pippen and Grant and didn't win OR Shaq, Kobe and Jones plus good role players and din't win during this period OR Shaq, Penny, and Grant plus good role players and didn't win during this period OR arguably the best PF ever and a HoF PG plus good roll players and didn't win in this perdiod.

Also, doing this period no other WC team could consistently reach even the WC finals, despite one of them having 2nd best player in the league throughout that span (Houston) or a team with 2 HOF and good role players who couldn't even bring home 1 title (again, Utah). How consistent is that even with loaded talent.

If you go by "basic math" it is Jackson by a landslide.

You totally lost me here. VG is a quality coach, but Adelman is a buffoon. The Kings have been awefully loaded and only won a single playoff series in their Sacremento history. But even more so, Adelman had arguably the most complete and talented teams since 88 and managed to not win a title. Those late 80s/early90s Blazers teams were sickly talented, but he could never get them to play greater than their individual skills come deep in the playoffs. That is exactly what Jackson does.


Let me put it this way, if you have a team consisting of 1st or 2nd best player in the league and good talent around it but who can't seem to deliver it all the way home who would you want as a coach? I think most GMs would start with PJ for this. Building competitive teams from scratch is nice, but the rarest and best payed commodity is the one who can take talent and a good product (but not great) and turn into a machine. This is why I say he is the best of the current generation of coaches.

 

I would agree with this.

 

Can anyone tell me who is the best coach then?

Phil doesn't seem to make too many mistakes, which would cause team to lose.

I pray that some dolt doesn't bring up Pat Riley.

Say what you want about the talent that Phil has coached, but then I will say that his teams never really underachieve and get the job done.

There are plenty of "good" coaches who have coached underachieving teams.

The fact that Phil was able to lead Chi to 55 or so wins in 94, without MJ shows that he is quite a good coach.

 

Well, you're just skewing what really happened. Collins had Grant, Pippen, and Jordan for two years (Grant and Pippen were in years 1 and 2 in the league). The Bulls had just been to the Conference Finals when Jackson took over, so its not like he turned the team around. And in fact they didn't progress the next year of Jackson's 'reign.' It was the next year that the Bulls (following historical precedent of teams trying and failing to knock off the best team, and trying and failing to knock off the best team, and then finally beating the best team) finally cashed in and beat a weak Lakers team in the Finals. There really still isn't any argument as to why the Bulls would not have won that first championship without Jackson. Shaq and Kobe had Del Harris and Kurt Rambis when first in LA. I agree that PJ is better than those guys. Congratulations. That doesn't mean anything. Shaq and Penny lost to the best player in the game, Utah lost to the best player in the game. Talk to the 'best player always wins championship' crowd if you don't think that is significant.

First of all after the dismantling of the Bad Boys, the East was incredibly weak throughout the Bulls reign. The WC was deep. Houston did win two titles, and again Utah lost to Jordan, the acknowledged best player in the game. The bottom line is still that any of these other coaches could have done the same thing as PJ in his position. Bulls beat Utah = MJ beat Malone/Stockton not PJ outcoached Sloan.

Hmmm, I believe that Blazer team went to the Finals twice, which ain't chopped liver. Losses to the Bad Boys and Jordan doesn't show how Adleman is a bad coach. And was Sac-Town winning before Adelman got there? Were they winning without their best player this year? However I have already said he is not in PJ, or Riley, or Brown or Sloan's class.

Well, PJ has had GREAT talent on his teams, so I think you're exaggerrating. In comparison, Riley has won with great players (4 titles with the Lakers against MUCH better competition) AND at least advanced to the Finals without the best player in the game, while PJ managed to lose in the Conference Finals once with MJ, and the Semis twice after that. He has NEVER won without THE BEST PLAYER. Does that make him a BAD coach, no way. Does it make him a good coach, with his excellent record? Absolutely. Does it make him the 'best of the current generation of coaches?' No way.

 

Has he really had GREAT talent? He's basically had two superstars and a bunch of role players. With their roster talent, I don't think the Bulls had any business winning 72 and 69 games in the regular season, or the Lakers going 15-1 in last year's playoffs. There is no large gap in talent between the Bulls/Lakers and these other teams, yet they're so incredibly dominant. You can't tell me that a main factor in this is outstanding coaching.

 

Yeah, but look at the superstars. Jordan...enough said. Pippen, who was the best 3 in the game at the time. Grant, Rodman, Kukoc and Harper were not bad. The Bulls also played in the crappy East when they won 72 & 69.

Now he has Shaq in a league where big men suck, and Kobe (who no one can stop 1 on 1 due to Shaq's presence). Rice, Horry, Grant, Fox and Fisher are not bad.

Once again, there is a big difference in having a talented team and having the game's best player. Now the Bulls and Lakers teams aren't that talented when compared to chapmionship teams from the 80's, but the talent on their squads has been up there with the average teams in the 90's and in this decade. The same goes for the Spurs and Rockets when they won. Hakeem and Duncan were better than everyone else.

 

If you go by the best player always wins argument--again, Houston should have at least been in at least 8 finals. Without question Hakeem was the best player in the West most of PJ reign--and some would say overall he was near the player Jordan was (when you consider Hakeems impact on other teams offense), yet we only went to the finals twice.

I don't think Shaq suddenly went from being a good player to be the games best player coincidently when PJ arrived. I don't think Duncan was better than Shaq Tim's first 2 years in the league then all of a sudden Shaq after many years in the league became better than the younger Duncan. Basically, I think the difference in result over the last 3-4 years in those teams has been due to roll players and coaching--the Lakers got the best of the latter. Even before Shaq went to LA he got Orlando to the finals (with some fine players around him) and ECF another year, yet with a loaded Lakers team for 2 years Oneal couldn't make it out of the 2nd round and in fact were swept one of those years.

Sorry, on talent those Blazers teams should have won at least 1 ring. They were not able to duplicate their regular season performance (best performing in the league) with post-season performance. Adelman underachieved with that team IMO. If the Kings don't at least get to the WCF this year he will have underachived again because w/o a doubt he has at least the 2nd most talented team in the league. In sum, I don't remember a single time Adelman got his team to player better than its individual players, I don't see any sign that he is a great coach. As far as I can tell all he does is frown at refs, blame someone not on his team (ref/opponents), and pat his players on the back. I don't see any sign of leadership (e.g., getting his own players to be reflective about their play/skills or get his team more focused) in that guy. Of course thi sis just my 2 cent opinion, I am not in the Kings lockerroom or anything.

 

Exactly. So by the best player argument, Duncan was better than Shaq in '99, and then Shaq surpassed him in 2001? Possibly, but then explain the sudden emergence by O'Neal as the game's dominant player. Is it not fair to say that Phil played a large role in taking Shaq's game to the next level? C'mon, the writing's on the wall.