Phil Jackson isn't a great coach because he rides the coattails of his superstars. Shaquille is just big and has no real skills. Kobe Bryant is totally overrated because he plays along with Shaq. Well...even with all that the Lakers seem to be playing incredible ball...My guess is that the refs are winning it for them. Hi Cat. =) [This message has been edited by napster (edited May 28, 2001).]
Hi Cat. =) Nice to see I get singled out for things that I didn't say, or for things that about 50 other posters on this BBS besides myself said. I never said the bit about Shaquille. Never said Kobe was overrated because he played with Shaq. I said his defense is, but that's completely true. The part about Phil? Might want to see the Phil Jackson thread where just about every other poster agreed that he hasn't proven himself as a great coach. And you know what? I complained about the officiating for the Lakers in two games out of eleven in the playoffs this year. That's hardly saying the refs have gotten them this far. In the future, please refrain from singling me out for things I didn't say, and for things that practically the whole BBS said along with me. ------------------ President of the Mo Taylor and Jason Collier fan club! Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more!
My mistake Cat. I just wanted to include you after I read many messages which seem to point to you being an ardent Laker-Hater (actually, I'm sure there are many here, just you being a very vocal one, as well as on, IMHO, that is often especially noted here as being one). However, those ideas HAVE BEEN thrown around here..and I just think it's foolish. ------------------
My mistake Cat. I just wanted to include you after I read many messages which seem to point to you being an ardent Laker-Hater (actually, I'm sure there are many here, just you being a very vocal one, as well as on, IMHO, that is often especially noted here as being one). No problem... I admit, I overestimated both the Spurs and their heart. I wouldn't say any of those things you said with the exception of the bit about Phil Jackson-- I'd like to see him win and go into a situation without the best player in the league or two of the top 5 and then succeed before I call him great. Imho, you must do something besides walk into a team loaded with talent and MVP quality players to be a great coach in my opinion. He had that chance with the Nets earlier in the summer of '99, but he wasn't man enough to tackle a job that would've required a lot of coaching and moves to make the team great. I'll admit that any comments about the refs winning it for them, or Shaq being good only because he is big, etc. are foolish and out of line, but, while you don't have to agree with it, there is a strong case to say Phil Jackson isn't a great coach. ------------------ President of the Mo Taylor and Jason Collier fan club! Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more!
Kubiac, I would have to put Rudy T. in both categories. That's something I give him a lot of credit for. Sure early on he took teams with a lot of talent. But the past few years he has taken a team in total rebuilding mode. Much like Larry Brown, or Doug Collins. I think Rudy can fit into either category. ------------------
Cat even Phil says he isnt a great coach as far as X and Os, but he is a different type of coach, a motivator and yes that is just as an effective coach as one who makes plays. By your definition Lakers should have won years ago but they didnt...why?? There was no leadership, no directon for the team. The bulls were actually the same way in the Collins era. There are many types of coaches. On who takes a lottery team and build them into a playoff team. I.E. Larry Brown, Don Nelson, and Doug Collins. Then there are the coachs who take those same teams that the first type of coach could quite get over the hump and make them contenders. I.E. Phil Jackson, Pat Reily, and Rudy Tomjonivich. Both Types of coaches are great in their own right but the latter never really gets any props. as much as the last 3 have accomplished most think that the first 3 are better coaches, why??? The Object is winning isnt it? If you had to choice between coaching the Nets and coaching the Lakers who would you choose? I think you know the answer to that. ------------------
