phil jackson to the knicks? (game, records, NBA, professional)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you serious? So you are going on assumptions? How about Red Auerbach is a good point... .. How about John Wooden...he got the best players year after year after year. We gonna asterisk them too? Come on.. use your head, so silly.
Coaches are there to keep teams playing at a high level. Its not Jacksons fault he had great players...geez. Granted he had a big advantage over the rest , but they are COACHES ..not players.
yup, not sold on wooden either, these guys didnt "coach" a team per se, they more "pointed the greatest players in a direction". now does this mean they didnt do anything, not at all it more means their jobs where made ridiculously easy.
i see * all the time in the case of players, "bill russell cant be the GOAT because look when he played" or "wilt never had to play against the players like shaq", sure those are true, and wooden coached in a time when colleges where not really regulated like they are today, they played lesser teams in a sport that was not as highly developed as it is now.
as for PJ, he walked into a perfect situation with jordan who was only 4 years in, pipen and grant who where 1 year in. he was not the one who put the pieces together, and he didnt invent the triangle so pretty much he showed the some of the best players out there how to use someone elses schemes and they won. his lack of coaching (again IMO) shows with his "i dont call time outs i let them figure it out on their own" style. thats not coaching, thats watching. i do the same thing, i NEVER call time outs, i let the players figure it out on their own, the difference, im not getting paid to do it and im not sleeping with the bosses daughter.
yup, not sold on wooden either, these guys didnt "coach" a team per se, they more "pointed the greatest players in a direction". now does this mean they didnt do anything, not at all it more means their jobs where made ridiculously easy.
i see * all the time in the case of players, "bill russell cant be the GOAT because look when he played" or "wilt never had to play against the players like shaq", sure those are true, and wooden coached in a time when colleges where not really regulated like they are today, they played lesser teams in a sport that was not as highly developed as it is now.
as for PJ, he walked into a perfect situation with jordan who was only 4 years in, pipen and grant who where 1 year in. he was not the one who put the pieces together, and he didnt invent the triangle so pretty much he showed the some of the best players out there how to use someone elses schemes and they won. his lack of coaching (again IMO) shows with his "i dont call time outs i let them figure it out on their own" style. thats not coaching, thats watching. i do the same thing, i NEVER call time outs, i let the players figure it out on their own, the difference, im not getting paid to do it and im not sleeping with the bosses daughter.
Ok thats fine, but we KNOW some coaches are blessed with good players...can you imagine having to go through every coach who ever won anything and judge whether they had great players or not??????? This is nuts.
Hey wait maybe the Yankee teams of the 40's and 50's should get an asterick too...or the great Montreal Canadien teams...I mean they got all the good players right? This can go on and on and on............
Ok thats fine, but we KNOW some coaches are blessed with good players...can you imagine having to go through every coach who ever won anything and judge whether they had great players or not??????? This is nuts.
this has little to nothing to do with the point. it makes no sense, why would you go through and "check out" every coach. you can look at the bottom feeders if you like, but the only coaches who should (if one where to actually desire to do so) be "checked out" are the ones with the most success. to be honest, not a lot of coaches have been able to win without TOP talent but some have come close. jeff van gundy took an inferior knicks team to the finals as an example. now this is not to say that all winning coaches are so blessed or lucky or even so great. some coaches have had a mix of both. both pop and doc have been blessed with both IMO. thibideau in chicago has been blessed with a bit of both to date BUT the jury is still out as he is such a new coach. eric s down in miami, IF they win this years ring, has to thank everyone from lebron and bosh to pat to the owners to the fans but i dont think he has ever been accused of being a great coach or hell not even a good controller of egos. those players police themselves, the 90's bulls did the same. the spurs police themselves but i think its more to avoid the wrath of pop then anything. one coach i think has made good with minimums, showing he is a very good to great coach is rick adelmann. i think with one or 2 player tweaks and he could have taken more then one different teams to rings.
this has little to nothing to do with the point. it makes no sense, why would you go through and "check out" every coach. you can look at the bottom feeders if you like, but the only coaches who should (if one where to actually desire to do so) be "checked out" are the ones with the most success. to be honest, not a lot of coaches have been able to win without TOP talent but some have come close. jeff van gundy took an inferior knicks team to the finals as an example. now this is not to say that all winning coaches are so blessed or lucky or even so great. some coaches have had a mix of both. both pop and doc have been blessed with both IMO. thibideau in chicago has been blessed with a bit of both to date BUT the jury is still out as he is such a new coach. eric s down in miami, IF they win this years ring, has to thank everyone from lebron and bosh to pat to the owners to the fans but i dont think he has ever been accused of being a great coach or hell not even a good controller of egos. those players police themselves, the 90's bulls did the same. the spurs police themselves but i think its more to avoid the wrath of pop then anything. one coach i think has made good with minimums, showing he is a very good to great coach is rick adelmann. i think with one or 2 player tweaks and he could have taken more then one different teams to rings.
See and I thought that Knicks team had PLENTY of talent to win and didnt come through....all perspective...
Are you serious? So you are going on assumptions? How about Red Auerbach is a good point... .. How about John Wooden...he got the best players year after year after year. We gonna asterisk them too? Come on.. use your head, so silly.
Coaches are there to keep teams playing at a high level. Its not Jacksons fault he had great players...geez. Granted he had a big advantage over the rest , but they are COACHES ..not players.
Hell yeah you can asterisk John Wooden, because he had two different eras. One was the pre Sam Gilbert era, and the Sam Gilbert era. Wooden became a "great" coach when Sam showed up with his bag of tricks, if you know what I mean. That's when he began winning a hella lot, because he had Sam as a sugar daddy. It's not a fluke that the Bruins haven't been anywhere close to being as good as when Sam Gilbert was one of the major backdoor benefactors. He was the most important figure in UCLA basketball history...look at Wooden's initial record to see just how important Sam was to that school's bball program.
Jesus spare me about how great Phil Jackson is as a coach. Have that guy coach Milwaulkee or Toronto and establish a winning record before we start talking about his great coaching. The guy imo is pure hype, just like that Zen/Buddha bull**** that he pushes. Look if the guy really believed all that, then he wouldn't be a bball coach. If he was a true believer, he wouldn't care about winning or losing games, he wouldn't care about money, he wouldn't care about sports, because in the bigger scheme of things, he would know that it was all meaningless. The guy is just as craven and materialistic as anyone else in the game. It's a testament to just how overwhelming the PR/media management business is in this country that we can turn PJ into some kind of icon. Have him go to Sacramento and see what the hell he can do there before we start talking just how great a coach he has been...
Not that I agreed with everything he said but still a good read.
For the haters out there saying Phil wasn't that great I would suggest at least thinking about this line of thought. A true measure of a coach in the professional level is: to not mess things up and maximizing the value of your players. No one is saying he made MJ, MJ or made Kobe, Kobe, Shaq, Shaq etc. But he sure as hell didn't F up his oppurtunities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
