Thanks for the gif, GS. I thought that image of Pop sitting there with confetti falling was a fantastic camera shot. It was such an honest moment from him sitting on a field of victory and soaking it all in.

Iremember the day Pop fired Bob Hill and took over the coaching position himself. Quite a few people in San Antonio were very upset that Pop made that move. I'm guessing they've changed their mind.

quote:

---

Jackson would only operate in big markets; had loads of talent. Let him go to (insert worst NBA team) and win. Do that, and I'll pick Phil.

---

No coach can take the worst team and win.

Pop took the third worst team and won.

After he acquired the "best PF of all-time".

I think the argument against Phil is that he didn't just coach teams with lots of talent, but that he coached two teams with the best individual talent in the entire league. MJ was by far the best player to ever play the game. When Phil coached the Lakers, Kobe was the best player in the league (maybe not for the first couple of championships). Tim, while a perennial all star, will never be mistaken for having ever been the best player in the league for this stretch of time that he's been winning titles. Let Phil Jackson coach a team with good talent, like the Clippers. If he could get a championship with either of those teams it would be meaningful.

Kobe wasn't even the best player on his team for the first 3 championships.

Right. The Lakers had two players that are top-10 to 15 ever in their prime. That is kind of the point.

A lot easier to win when you have two incredible players that are individually considered one of the greatest to ever play and you have both playing in their prime together. Phil had that twice with Jordan/Pippen and Shaq/Kobe.

quote:

---

Let Phil Jackson coach a team with good talent, like the Clippers. If he could get a championship with either of those teams it would be meaningful.

---

The last two Laker championships fit that category IMO.

Last two Lakers championship teams had a lot more talent than the Clippers do.

Kobe Bryant in his prime.
Pau Gasol averaged 19/12 against Boston.
Derek Fisher
Ron Artest or Trevor Ariza
Lamar Odom
Andrew Bynum

That is a ridiculously talented team. No one - not even DPOY Garnett - could handle the three man post rotation of Odom/Bynum/Gasol. Too versatile and too talented in a league depleted of great big men.

[This message has been edited by Guitarsoup (edited 6/16/2014 11:02a).]

quote:

---

The last two Laker championships fit that category IMO.

---

As Guitarsoup said, that team was effing stacked. You had essentially 3 top 20-25 guys in the league (Bryant, Gasol, Artest), in their primes, with several very talented pieces around them (Odom, Bynum, Ariza).

Based on this thread and others, Junkhead is really hurting over the Spurs winning #5. Might need some counseling.

I didn't say they weren't talented. I just said those teams weren't as stacked as their previous championship teams. They were beatable.

I think some people write-off Phil Jackson as if he just sat on the sideline and watched his teams win.

(I'm not arguing against Pop. He's in consideration for the greatest of all-time. The only knock against him is that he's only done it in one place. Not his fault especially since the reason he's only been in one place is because he's always succeeded)

[This message has been edited by frok (edited 6/16/2014 11:09a).]

Thread tangent: Trade Kobe's teams and Carmelo's teams, could Kobe have ever won a championship?


Kobe hasn't done a whole lot in years when playing without All-NBA type teammates. Or even playing with just Pau.

quote:

---

Based on this thread and others, Junkhead is really hurting over the Spurs winning #5. Might need some counseling.

---

Yea the butt hurt is obvious.

I'm not saying pop is better than Phil, strictly due to the rings, but pop is in the conversation for best coach of all time. He built the spurs from the bottom up and has has continually won with aging veterans.

There is no doubt that if pop chose to coach another team, say the thunder, he could easily win more rings.

Sometimes it's more than just about the rings. It's how you impact the sport and I think pop has had more impact on the sport of basketball, than Phil or red had.

As an aside, I don't consider red to be in the greatest coach of all time mix. It comes down to Phil and pop.

I completely agree with PoppaB's analysis. He makes excellent points.

Some on here may be too young to remember Red Auerbach's Celtic teams. I grew up watching them--Cousy and Sam Jones and KC Jones and Heinsohn and Russell and Havlicek. I remember the Celtics playing Wilt's Philadelphia teams. I loved Wilt and I loved the Celtics, so those games were always win-win for me.

Like Pop, Red got his teams to play selfless, team basketball. Their basketball was an art form, just as the Spurs' is today.

[This message has been edited by OldArmy71 (edited 6/16/2014 11:10a).]

I think Phil Jackson is probably the best ever at managing the SuperStar egos. I am not sure anyone else come close.

Pop was lucky because he came into a situation of having a SuperStar without a SuperStar Ego, then having another fall into his lap. And Duncan has said that having Robinson as a mentor and Pop as a coach really set the tone for his career. If you look at the Spurs the Spurs have picked up - most of their great role players have been guys that were castoffs. Parker and Manu were both passed over by every team in the NBA. Mills was playing in China when the Spurs signed him. Green was cut by the worst team in the league. So was Diaw. Stephen Jackson was cut by the Nets. The free agent guys that Pop has targeted were guys like Jason Kidd that have always been elite team-first guys.

I'm not sure Kobe/Shaq would have taken well to Pop's style, but I am also not sure that Duncan would have if Pop wasn't already there and if Robinson hadn't already accepted it and was the unquestioned leader of the team and franchise. (Quick side note, Robinson gets his 5th ring now, too. Three as an owner.)

I don't think anyone could have come in and lead a team like the Lakers like Phil, but I also don't think Phil could have taken over the Spurs and gotten the most out of so many league castoffs over the years. I don't think Phil could have rebuilt and retooled like Pop did over the years.

Completely different coaches, completely different talents, completely great at what they do.

Butt hurt? I was rooting for the Spurs, you morons. Sorry you can't handle the truth.

GS - totally agree. Phil was great at taking what was there and making it play together. Pop is great at getting more than what is there and making it play together.

With super star egos in the NBA, I think both are equally difficult.

Love Pop. Hard to compare two totally different coaches but Pop is definitely one of the best of all time.

PHL also had one system, Pop has adjusted his style regularly to fit his talent.

And Pop could change his style within the year. In 05, the Spurs beat the Suns by out running them, despite the Spurs being a slow team at the time.

I'd put Jackson before Pop.

Sorry, its not like the Spurs have the Bad News Bears on their roster. Duncan, Parker, and Ginobilli [despite last year's melt down] are all hall of famers.

Give Pop his due, he took his pieces have them play great team basketball, but he sure isn't working with Scrubs.

quote:

---

Give Pop his due, he took his pieces have them play great team basketball, but he sure isn't working with Scrubs.

---

His starting SG was cut by the worst team in the league at the time and washed out of DLeague. Boris was cut by the Bobcats when they were historically bad. Stephen Jackson was cut by the Nets. Parker and Ginobili were passed on by every team in the NBA. Leonard was passed on by half the teams in the NBA. Patty Mills was playing professional ball in China when the Spurs signed him.

He often is working with players that were rejected and unwanted elsewhere and gave them a role to work with in the Spurs offense. Sometimes players are great with the Spurs and suck elsewhere. Sometimes players are great elsewhere and suck with the Spurs.

Mills, Green, Diaw, Splitter were all considered scrubs. Duncan is a shadow of his former self in terms of his ability to dominate a game, and Ginobili is no where where he used to be. I think is one of the most impressive coaching performances in NBA history, right there with Rick Carlisle in 2011.

It is understandable that Spurs fans are caught up in the moment. Pop is great and has run a great system(s). Every winning coach has had some great advantages 'given' to them. In Pop's case he had two of the top 10 big men of all time, plus his current team has at LEAST 3 Hall of Famers. This doesn't diminish what he's done, but you can make the talent argument for/against any winning coach.

My rankings......
Phil
Red
Pop & Riley (EDIT FOR GS Spelling sensibilities - damn spellcheck)
Daly

I don't know enough about Kundla to rank him. Reilly was impressive that he won titles with two teams and brought three to the Finals. Daly only has two titles, but if he was given the right talent I think that he'd be up there with Pop and Reilly.

[This message has been edited by Texas A&M (edited 6/16/2014 1:25p).]

As I said at the bottom of the last page, I think that who would be better depends entirely on the situation. All were great coaches. Pop is kind of Red version 2.0. Feisty competitor that gets people to lay down their individual glory for the good of the team. Whereas Jackson is more of the ego manager that gets them to buy into the 1+1=10 stuff that he feeds them where they can be great even with their egos if they find a way to meld and coexist.

If I was say the Rockets or Clippers, although I would give my left nut for either of the 2(Red's been gone for awhile), I would rather have Jackson knowing that he's going to have to find a way to make Howard and Harden, and possibly Melo now coexist and get more out of them than anybody else. Same goes for the Clippers with CP3 and Griffin Force.

However, if I'm the Pelicans with the Brow looking to build the team with a guy who is still young and doesn't quite have the "I'm the sh*t" attitude yet, I want Pop over Jackson.

Both are very good at what they do and to discount them would be silly. I mean if you think about it, if Phil Jackson wasn't such a great coach, Duncan and Pop probably have 7 or 8 rings at this point instead of 5.

Rick Reilly would be a terrible coach.

I mentioned on the Heat coaching thread that that team kind of shows how difficult coaching stars can be.

Playing against the East, it works. Playing against the West, it doesn't. Jackson was good at managing stars to actually get them to accept coaching. I don't think Spoelstra is. He's not doing nothing. But I don't think he has the full attention of the three stars. Jackson probably would.

Look what happened when Phil lost only one player, on either the Bulls or the Lakers. Barely made the playoffs. The question is, who is the better coach, not who is the better manager. The better coach is Pop.

quote:

---

Junkhead


Butt hurt? I was rooting for the Spurs, you morons. Sorry you can't handle the truth.

---

You sprinted to the computer 10 minutes after the Finals ended to let everyone know that the 1998 Bulls are better. That's not the action of someone who is pleased with the outcome of the series.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/18/jerry-west-ive-never-seen-a-better-coach-than-gregg-popovich/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs

Jerry West: "I've never seen a greater coach than Gregg Popovich."

What happens if David Robinson never gets injured the year before they drafted Tim Duncan? Are we still calling him the greatest coach of all time?

Masterplan, we'll find out in a few years once Duncan retires.

I don't think any coach has ever won a NBA title let alone multiples without an elite player. So you always have the chicken or the egg type argument there. Duncan wasn't the best player on two of Pop's five championships, although he was always the leader.

I can't think of two players that have grown more under a coach than Parker and Leonard. Player development in the NBA is a lost art it seems, so I give more credit to the Spurs and their coaches in that department than most.

I also think it is impressive that we went from a low post dominant, low scoring defensive team, to a wide open spread it out, ball movement and high scoring team. Pop has won championships in multiple styles which is quite uniqe as well.

He might not be the best ever, but he is dang close.

Lets see. The four best coaches:

What if they never had:
Pat Riley: Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Wilkes, McAdoo, Shaq, Wade
Phil Jackson: Jordan, Pippen, Grant, Rodman, Kobe, Shaq, Gasol
Red: Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, Sam Jones, Andy Phillip, Frank Ramsey, Arnie Risen, Bill Russell, Bill Sharman, John Havlicek, KC Jones
Pop: Duncan, Robinson, Parker, Ginobili

One of these is not like the other.