Exaggerated? LOL http://espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/Auerbach_Red.html Auerbach's areas of expertise were spotting talent and getting the most of his players. He said that his kind of player had the ability to absorb coaching. He wanted a kid "who was great yet never stopped being nice." Examples in his career with the Celtics, as either a coach or in the front office, are Russell, Bob Cousy, Larry Bird, Frank Ramsey, Tommy Heinsohn, Sam Jones, John Havlicek and Dave Cowens. You do realize that Red became the GM of the Celtics after he stepped down as coach at age 48. Those Russell and Heinsohn teams had Red's fingerprints all over them. Red was the GM thru the 80's as well. When Red stepped down as GM of the Celts in the late 70's the team quickly became a joke. Trading for players like Marvin Barnes, Curtis Rowe and Earl Williams, the Celts bacame one of the worst teams in the league. Red was brought back and quickly turned the team back into a winner by drafting Larry Bird. How did Bill Russell do when he was coach of the Seattle Supersonics (1973-1976) or Sacremento Kings (1987)? Sure Cousy fell in his lap, he was lucky to have that happen after he passed him up in the draft. And sure he was alerted to Russell, but he did scout him before drafting him. Red only drafted a certain type of player, winners.
The gripe about Jackson is this: He has never coached a team without somebody like Jordan or Shaq (except the two years when Jordan went to play baseball, which Jackson couldn't win--that might show that maybe he is just like all other NBA coaches). And it has already mentioned that while he was not Jordan's or Shaq's first coach, he was their coach right at the time when they matured into their prime. So either he is very lucky or very good at timing his tenure with his teams (I suspect the former for the Bulls and the latter for the Lakers). No other coach has coached the mature Jordan or Shaq. So to say that other coaches couldn't have won with these players is just bagging the question.
Barkley missed 29 games that year and Drexler 20. I believe their record when the Big 3 were healthy was substantially better than without. Had those two not missed all those games, the Rockets would have had a shot to better the Jazz during the year, thus obtaining the homecourt advantage over them in the playoffs. Who knows what happens in that case. Oh yeah -- why couldn't Phyllis get by the Spurs last year? Surely he should've been able to beat Popovich, Duncan, and a bunch of scrubs, right? After all, he had Shaq and Bryant. Was last year's Spur team just THAT good? Surely the best coach of all-time could have taken them down with Shaq and Bryant at his disposal. What happened?
Exaggerated? Hell yes. I stated the notion that his scouting and drafting made him a great coach was exaggerated. His coaching skills may or may not be on par with the best, but the "built his own teams" rationale used to place him over Jackson is bunk. I do realize he officially became GM after coaching (although he was for all intents the GM while he was coaching too). All the stuff he did after his coaching days is moot to the argument that scouting and drafting skills don't necessarily make him a better coach than Jackson. How did Russell do with Sac and Seattle? He sucked. Yet he happened to win 2 titles as coach of the C's right after Auerbach retired. As I stated, that point doesn't speak too highly of Auerbach's coaching "omnipotence".
So none of Auerbach's teams were ever eliminated from the playoffs? Parker, Bowen, Robinson, and Ginobili are scrubs? I guess if they're scrubs, then they're no better than what Jackson was forced to use in that series (Medvedenko, Pargo, and Madsen). Being that they're all scrubs, you'd just as soon take Med, Pargo and Madsen on your team instead of Parker, Bowen, Rob, and Manu. Fascinating. And you just unwittingly agreed that having Shaq and Bryant at your disposal doesn't guarantee you a title. Hell, you should've learned that from Del Harris. Jackson had the skills Harris lacked to lead those (lesser talented) teams to a 3 peat (one of only 4 teams to ever accomplish that feat).
You just don't get it do you? He just "happened" to win 2 titles with the Celtics and Red had nothing to do with it, right? Do you really think Russell was coaching those teams? Phil Jackson DID NOT draft Jordan, Pippen, Shaq or Kobe. Tell me who Phil Jackson ever drafted. Phil jackson is a good babysitter and thats about it. Let me see him build a team from the ground up, then I will change my mind about him.
That gripe is a fallacy. Would Auerbach or Riley have won titles with the '94 Bulls? Probably not. Funny that Jackson did lead that team (minus Jordan) all the way to Gm7 of the ECFs. Jordan did play in the '95 playoffs so Jackson lost with him, proving that MJ or Shaq/Kobe don't = automatic titles. The "mature" Shaq and Jordan? How do you think they got that way? They were FAR from mature when Jackson took over. Jordan initially fought Jackson's structured offense and was viewed with the same disgust that many fans have for Kobe (arrogant one-man team lacking the Magic/Larry touch). Shaq was universally seen in 1999 as a guy who could never lead a team to a title. After being swept by the Spurs in the lockout year, there was NO apparent upside for the Lakers winning jack UNTIL Jackson signed up, especially after Jones and Van Exel were traded. If Shaq was mature before Jackson, then Yao is a midget.
You're right. Russell wasn't coaching even though he was the coach. How absurd to claim that a coach actually coaches. You're right about Red's eye for talent. On the other hand, Jackson is a terrible GM. Wait a minute. Jackson was never a GM so he's never had the opportunity to build a team. Besides that point, how do Auerbach's personnel decisions make him a better coach than Phil? People sure don't use Jerry West's GM success to argue about how great a coach he was. Why do it for Red?
Why am I forced to take the end of LA's bench over SA's starters? I would say Bryant, Horry, and Fisher compare favorably to the SA guys you mentioned, absolutely. Phyllis had two of the top 5 players in the game and he lost. Period. Popovich had Duncan. That's it. Either Phyllis ain't that great or the players matter more than your coach and Duncan was just that much better. What Harris lacked was a mature Kobe Bryant and a Shaq in his prime. Bryant was still a teenager when Harris coached them. Lesser talented my ass. Harris also won 61 games in his last year in LA, by the way. Not too shabby.
Why do it for Red? Because Red did both. He was probably the best coach in NBA history who the went on to become the best GM in NBA history. As a coach, Red drafted the players he wanted, there was no such thing as a GM. I know it was before your time, so I will tell you, when Red was coaching he was also the GM. He handled all trades, drafting, and signing players to contracts. There is a reason Phil has never been a GM. He is not a good "talent spotter". However he is a good babysitter.
Freak: Sorry, I didn't know there was a distinction between starting scrubs and bench scrubs. You don't think that the 2001 and 2002 Lakers coached by PJ were less talented than the 1997 and 1998 Lakers coached by Harris? Shaq, Jones, Van Exel, Campbell, Kobe, Horry, Fox, Fisher, Blount. Nope, can't agree with you there. Finn: I think I get you now. Being better at something that isn't coaching makes Red a better coach than Jackson.
If being GM and coach were purely distinct, I might agree with you. But coach have varying degrees of input on incoming players. The good ones usually have enormous influence. Rudy T seemed directly responsible for most of our acquisitions. Pat Riley certainly does in Miami. Hence, I think that it's impossible to separate the two things... so, you have to evaluate both together to an extent.
How do you know that? Hmmm, I seem to remember that no one ever thought in the early 90s that Hakeem--who should have been well into his prime--could have led the Rockets to the championship. Maybe some great coach did something right with him?
I think they are distinct qualities because a great GM can be a terrible coach and vice versa. But it's not like Jackson hasn't had any influence on the players that were shipped out and brought in prior to championship seasons in LA...and this is considering the fact that LA has zero flexibility in acquiring players unless they give up millions to move from Milwaukee and Salt Lake City. Harper and Salley had his fingerprints all over them, as did Green (who got tri experience in Dallas). Ruben Patterson was supposedly cut because Jackson felt he didn't fit the tri. Turned out to be a prudent move, coming just before Ruben's personality flaws began to surface. Jackson has just given his approval of Grant joining the Lakers for the 2nd time. There have been a few overlooked decisions during Jackson's stint in LA that have worked out beautifully.
The first part is a hunch. More often than not, superstars win titles in the NBA. I agree fully with your Hakeem statement. He also had a loser tag just like Jordan and Shaq which many fans don't seem to recall. Missing the '92 playoffs by losing to lowly Dallas on the last day of the year was probably his career low (and his probs with the "cowardly" owner happened that year too, right?)
Yeah, Red wasn't a good coach: Coached the Boston Celtics to eight straight NBA championships (1959-66) and nine overall Red was a better coach than Jax will ever be, and Red certainly is a better GM than Jax will ever be, because Jax doesn't know how to be a GM. The proof is there if you would only take off that blindfold. How many Superstars has Jax ever drafted?
You don't make any arguments to counter so what's the diff? You just point out how good of a player evaluator that Red was and try to argue that being a good player evaluator makes one a good coach -- which it does not. Then your stunning analysis of their relative coaching strengths is, "Red was a better coach than Jax will ever be." Earth to Bob: How can Red be a better GM than Jackson when Jackson is not a GM? I'm laughing my ass off that you evidently think he is one. If a superstar was to ever be drafted in the upcoming years, the credit will go to Mitch Kupchak and Jackson will get as much credit as Kupchak gives him for recommending the pick. And another thing, how many superstars were drafted by GMs at the level at which Jackson's teams were picking? Strain to come up with an answer for that. Also, you apparently dispute my assertion that other coaches probably couldn't have won a title with the '94 Bulls. Pray tell, which coach could've taken that team over the champion Rockets that year and why? I'll let you strain to come up with an answer for that too. And you must improve your reading comp because I never said that Red wasn't a good coach. I said that being a good player evaluator or GM doesn't prove anything about his coaching skills relative to Jackson's.
