WHEW!!! Do you Smell that?!

[westkoast]

With MJ, and a weak league, Phil didn't need to do a whole lot of tinkering, simply replace the old role players with new ones.  Pippen was always overated, which is why he was a failure once he left Chcago.

 

Come on Rick.  You are much too smart when it comes to basketball to even believe this statement.  You are making it sound like its nothing more than tieing your shoe.  He (Phil) may or may not have chose to bring in certain players but finding a role that fits a player AND getting them to stay in that role each and every game is not an easy task.  In fact Larry Brown did this well with YOUR Sixers.  Which is why after he left the Sixers did not continue to play the same ball.  Knowing how and when to use players is a gut instinct on the coaches part.  Some have it and some dont.  Call it luck, call it knowledge of the game or players, call it what you like.

Phil does more than just balance egos.  He is one of the best in the business in knowing how to use players.  He is good at finding roles that fit those players and in what situations he should use those players.  To say he doesnt coach and only is there to do that (juggle egos) is you insulting your own basketball intelligence.  There is much more to it and you know that.

[rickortreat]

Well, I'll agree that not everyone has it in them to be a basketball coach, and Phil has ceratainly persuaded a lot of people that he is one.

And, having seen a good coach in Larry Brown operate, and seeing a bad one, that people thought was a good one in Dick Motta, I think I can discern the difference between style and substance.

Larry certainly got more out of the group in Philly than anyone else could have.  But they didn't deteriorate before he left.  They were already in decline when he decided to jump ship and go to the Pistons, who WERE ready to get to the finals.  The truth is Larry didn't build a team to last, a couple of the pieces were allready gone and the rest besides Iverson were balking at the changes.  IMO, Larry left rather than trying to rebuild the Sixers.  He knew they were going down and left.  Phil does the opposite, sees a team that's ripe and steps on in, after the players tune out the old coach who really did all the grunt work!

Figuring out who should play and in what capacity and how much is the responsibility of a coach.  But it's difficult to know what the true potential of a team is.  I allways thought that Dick Motta was a step slow in figuring out changes.  He make moves about 6 months after I talked about them with my friends in the stands.

Larry Brown doesn't play rookies.  This is stupid of him.  This is not college, and young players don't learn as much sitting as they do playing.  But Larry treats young players like freshmen in college.  Other than that, he's a great coach with a solid defensive philosphy, but is weak on offense.

Phil just employs an offensive philosophy, that isn't even his own.  The triangle has been around for years, and it's only good when you have the right players to run it.  The Lakers don't have those players now, and it ain't going to work.  Phil hasn't proven to me that he's a good coach.  If this Laker team gets into the playoffs this year, that will prove it to me..!

I don't think he's as good at figuring out roles for players as you do.  I think he's good at hitching a ride with a talented bunch of players, and getting them to buy his b.s.  But he's a flim-flam man, not a great coach.  Who has he developed into a great player who wasn't already great?  That's the sign of a great coach- he works with his GM to find the pieces that will fit and make the rest of the team go.

I think its easier than you make it out to be.  You need two guys up front that can outrebound and outscore the other teams.  You need a swing man that disrupts the defense by driving the lane.  You need a spot up shooter on the outside to keep defenses from collapsing, and you need a guy to distibute the ball and make a couple of shots himself.

On defense, you need these same guys to hustle, to work together so that some can press the ball, while others clog the lane to prevent easy baskets.

C'mon Westcoast the game is simple.  It's finding enough players who have the skills to play that matters.  Why hasn't Riley gotten back to the finals after he left LA?  It's because he needed West in the front office!  Crap, the only reason anyone's talking about Miami is because they have Shaq now.  Instant respectability!  And Riley didn't do anything other than grab the opportunity.  Now his job is easy, any player that's a free agent wants to go to Miami and get a ring.  I could coach the Heat and get into the finals no problem!  But building a team like the Lakers from where they are now? No way.  

[westkoast]

"C'mon Westcoast the game is simple. It's finding enough players who have the skills to play that matters. Why hasn't Riley gotten back to the finals after he left LA? It's because he needed West in the front office! Crap, the only reason anyone's talking about Miami is because they have Shaq now. Instant respectability! And Riley didn't do anything other than grab the opportunity. Now his job is easy, any player that's a free agent wants to go to Miami and get a ring. I could coach the Heat and get into the finals no problem! But building a team like the Lakers from where they are now? No way"

The game isnt simple.  If the game was simple they would call it Tennis and not Basketball     There is alot more to it than just finding guys to play.  Portland found plenty of talented guys to play for them but did that equal anything?  Nope!  They got a close but no cigar (no knock zig)  Not only do you have to find quality players...you have to find ones who work well with the existing players, you have to find them a role that they can thrive and be happy in, and you have to keep the whole unit on the same page.  What Phil did in Chicago was a little bit more than grab the guys in a huddle and say 'Pass Mike the ball'.  Lets not forget the head coaches job is to keep his own coaching working together to bring their ideas and approaches to situation to the players and then onto the court.  He put together the coaching staff that helped make his teams successfull.  He also kept them all working together well.   Phil knows how to use people the right way.   That goes from players to his own coaching staff.

You are making it sound like you just find good players, sign them, and then all is good.  The game is not as simple as you are trying to make it.  Not saying its rocket science either...but it certainly isnt easy.  If the game was easy and being a head coach was easy why are there so little great head coaches in this league's history?  Why hasnt Riley been great since leaving the Lakers?  I dunno you tell me, you seem to think its easy to put together a good team and coach it well.

I don't think he's as good at figuring out roles for players as you do. I think he's good at hitching a ride with a talented bunch of players, and getting them to buy his b.s. But he's a flim-flam man, not a great coach. Who has he developed into a great player who wasn't already great? That's the sign of a great coach- he works with his GM to find the pieces that will fit and make the rest of the team go

Steve Kerr, John Paxton, BJ Armstrong, Derek Fisher, Ron Harper, Luc Longley, Bill Cartwright, and Robert Horry will all disagree with you.  Only you would say hes not a great coach.  Even people who hate the Lakers and Bulls can admit he is a great coach.  I wonder what you would say if he was a Sixers coach?  Im sure he would be the greatest head coach in all of American pro sports  :rolleyes:  The thing is that you are assuming you know what PJ does within the organization.  

If it was all about hitching a ride with good players then why were the Lakers not a championship caliber team before he got there?  They had almost the same lineup for a few years before he showed up.  He did something.

Who did he develop into a great player that wasnt already great...Uhh Kobe Bryant? That was an easy one.   What coaches turn average players into great players?  Name a few for me.  EVERYONE starts with something.  There isnt a coach in the league who took an average player and turned them into a great player.

[Guest_Randy]

Rick,

Come on, do YOU even believe the stuff you are typing?

I think its easier than you make it out to be. You need two guys up front that can outrebound and outscore the other teams. You need a swing man that disrupts the defense by driving the lane. You need a spot up shooter on the outside to keep defenses from collapsing, and you need a guy to distibute the ball and make a couple of shots himself.

On defense, you need these same guys to hustle, to work together so that some can press the ball, while others clog the lane to prevent easy baskets.

Look at THIS team, Rick:
  PG - Nick Van Exel (Fisher is a backup)
  SG - Eddie Jones (Kobe is a backup)
  SF - Rick Fox
  PF - Elden Campbell (Horry backs up)
  C  - Shaq

Now TELL me how that isn't a loaded team?  And there weren't the personality issues that developed later -- Del Harris couldn't find a way to ADJUST to great coaching!  Both Pop and Sloan sent the Lakers (and this VERY talented squad) packing -- ZERO answers.  It wasn't until PJ arrived that the Lakers began playing great basketball (with a more watered down team than they had previously).  

Your words just don't hold up to the facts!  Sure, there have been some teams that didn't need a lot of coaching (Celts, Lakers in the 80's come to mind) but there have been a TON of exceptions about great coaching -- and it ISN'T because of talented players.  

Look at the Nuggets a year ago -- they are playing horrible ball (far below their potential) and Karl comes in and begins to help them play above their potential.  

It's hard to fathom that you believe what you wrote!

[rickortreat]

Who did he develop into a great player that wasnt already great...Uhh Kobe Bryant? That was an easy one. What coaches turn average players into great players? Name a few for me. EVERYONE starts with something. There isnt a coach in the league who took an average player and turned them into a great player.

You HAVE TO BE KIDDING!  Kobe was a great player BEFORE Phil got to him.  Every team that passed on him before he was picked reveals why there are so few great coaches.  THEY'RE IDIOTS!  Well, maybe NOT idiots, but not smart enough to recognize talent early on.

It's not just the number of talented players, but the postions they play.  You need a point guard, a shooting guard, a small forward, and two big guys.  You also need 2-3 backups that can fill in for the starters and cover the inevitable injuries. That's why the Spurs won, they have the closest thing to a real team.

It's not easy to assemble a great team, particularly with the salary cap and the draft.  You have to be better than the other teams in assessing talent, and you have to be good about managing the cap to keep enough of them together for long enough to become a good team.

Once you get your first ring, it's easier to keep players, as they want to keep winning almost as much as they want the money.  There will always be a few who's ego or will makes them go elsewhere, like Jim Johnson leaving the Suns.

Shaq is a player magnet, for anyone who wants a ring.  I swear I could get them to the finals.  I think a couple of people on this board are smart enough to figure out how to use those players and be successful.  Easy, no.  Rocket Science, no way.

Obviously, Phil was better than the coach he replaced, so he does have some ability.  But my opinion is that most coaches don't realize their teams potential.  About the only ones who have done that consistently are Brown and Auerbach.

It's a pretty simple game when you break it down.  To win your team needs to score more than the other team.   It helps if your guys shoot a higher percentage, and if your good at grabbing the loose ones by rebounding and stealing the ball.  If you can get easy baskets before the other team can get set up on defence, that's a plus.  So, you need guys who are quick at running up and down the floor and smart enough to know when to fight for the rebounds.

All the strategies developed are all about achiving these fundamental goals.  It isn't that hard at all, as long as you keep your eye on accomplishing those things.

These people are entertainers, and they make a lot of money for playing a game, but don't confuse them with smart people.  Shaq is a dope.  AI is not the sharpest tack in the box either.  Phil is a reasonably smart guy, but if he tried to do something real for a living, he wouldn't be so hot.  Larry is a very smart guy, but he's still an ass, and in a real business environment he proabably would have a tough time succeeding.  Why do all these guys hang around basketball courts instead of doing something more challenging?  It's easy money if you can get in.  

[westkoast]

You HAVE TO BE KIDDING!  Kobe was a great player BEFORE Phil got to him.  Every team that passed on him before he was picked reveals why there are so few great coaches.  THEY'RE IDIOTS!  Well, maybe NOT idiots, but not smart enough to recognize talent early on.

It's not just the number of talented players, but the postions

I'll reply to the rest when I get a chance but Uhh....Rick I think you are suffering from Lurker syndrome.  That memory of yours is failing for ya!  Kobe was not a great player before PJ got there.  He was a kid with a hell of alot of atheltic ability but was far from a great pro basketball player.  Do you remember why the Jazz were able to crush the Lakers that year in the playoffs?  Its because Kobe had the school yard mentality.  He thought his atletic ability and talent was enough.  KOBE WASNT EVEN A PLAY MAKER THEN!!  He was a younger Harold Minor.  A far cry from the basketball player he is now.  Even Kobe can tell you that.  His game developed quite a bit under PJ.  Take it from a big fan of his who has watched him since the day he suited up to present....ive seen hundreds and hundreds of games Kobe has played.  Alot more than most because obviously I am in an area that plays every single Laker game.  He really improved his game under Phil.  He went from a kid with all the athletic ability in the world to a bonafide play maker in this league.

Why were the GMs/Coaches stupid who passed on him?  How many players play great in high school then become exposed when they play with men?  I have one on my favorite team right now!!!!  :rofl:

The game is not simple.  No matter how much you want to make it out to be, it is not.  

[rickortreat]

You won't find anyone here who will say that Kobe wouldn't have become an all-star playing anywhere else.  It was obvious when he was in High School that he was going to be a great player.

It's true that Kobe wasn't so great when he joined the Lakers, but that was inexperience.  He's great individualy, but even now he's still not a great team player, which is pretty much the only thing that's keeping him from MJ status.  That and his boffing a dumb bimbo in Colorado.

Face it, if Phil was a great coach, he would have found a way to get Kobe and Shaq to get along, and get Kobe to work on ways to make his teamates better.  I can't say anyone else could do a better job, since I don't know how much of an ass Kobe is.  But Phil said it in his book.  Ego can be a killer of talent.

Look at THIS team, Rick:
PG - Nick Van Exel (Fisher is a backup)
SG - Eddie Jones (Kobe is a backup)
SF - Rick Fox
PF - Elden Campbell (Horry backs up)
C - Shaq

Now TELL me how that isn't a loaded team? And there weren't the personality issues that developed later -- Del Harris couldn't find a way to ADJUST to great coaching! Both Pop and Sloan sent the Lakers (and this VERY talented squad) packing -- ZERO answers. It wasn't until PJ arrived that the Lakers began playing great basketball (with a more watered down team than they had previously).

That is not a loaded team.  Van Excel was never that good a guard.  Eddie was a fair player but not all star callibur.  Fox was just a pretty face.  Campbell never did anything for anyone, not a stiff, but not much better.  Only Shaq was a bona-fide star.  

Besides, loaded is relative to the other teams in the NBA.  You needed two stars at that time to win a championship, and Kobe wasn't ready.  The teams that beat them had more talent.  That's usually the way it works, which is why I'm not so impressed with what coaches do.

Now it looks like the NBA has moved up a notch, since it takes three stars, or two and some very very good role players to win a championship.

Look at the teams that we expect to win it this year. The Spurs have Duncan and Ginobli and Parker.  Miami has Shaq, Wade and Walker.  

Philly has one in AI, two if Webber can really still play, and a third that probably isn't ready in Igoudala. If Dalembert can get it together, the Sixers have a shot, to do something, but are probably still at least a year away.  Cleveland had Lebron, Hughes and Ilgauskas.  They need a great PF and they have a shot.  Indiana is loaded and will give Miami a run.  I think Detroit is done.  They'll have a good record, but watch what happens in the playoffs now that Brown is gone.

Injuries will be the only thing that stops Miami and SA from meeting in the finals.  

[Lurker]

Injuries will be the only thing that stops Miami and SA from meeting in the finals.

Well, I would say you are partially right.  Miami has to count on injuries to make it to the finals....otherwise the Pacers will beat them.

[rickortreat]

Everyone's been waiting for Indiana to break out. but until they do it, they're just a loaded team that's underperforming.

Last year was a rip-off since they were penalized severly.  The year before injuries hurt them.

They look snake-bit to me, and O'Neil is no match for Shaq.

But they could be the team, they certainly have what appears to be the pieces....

[Laker Fan]

Rick, Rick, Rick, too many flaws with just about every one of your assertions to begin to address, suffice to say, your "great coach" Larry Brown has how many championships? He has coached how many loaded teams? Seems to me the "opportunist" here is Mr. Brown, he saw a championship calibre team in Detroit and ran like a jack rabbit to coat-tail them to the parade, but couldn't put his other teams over the top.

Everyone on this board knows I am no fan of the very over-rated Phil Jackson, but to say he isn't a great coach, or at least a very good one, is to admit you don't know very much about basketball. Coaching involves all the things WK mentioned, managing teams, ego's, x', o's, (or surrounding yourself with talented assistants who CAN manage x's and o's), and getting the most out your players, like him or hate him, Phil Jackson does all these things as good or better than just about anyone, your vaunted 1 ring Larry Brown included.

Are there coaches better at individual aspects of coaching? You bet, Brown and Popovich are both defensive wizards, but your claim that the Lakers had no defense under Jackson is laughable, they were consistantly one of the top defenses in the league under Jackson. I still say no one gets more from less than Sloan, and no one demanded and got 110% from his players, making them leave it all on the floor every night than Pat Riley, but all you Laker haters out there were always decrying the Lakers 3-peat as "2 superstars surrounded by bench fodder role players", so it sounds like Jackson got quite a bit out of his 2 superstars surrounded by scrubs Lakers to me. No one manages set plays better than a Jerry Sloan, but Jackson put some of the best basketball minds in the business at his side and let them do their job, to me that is smarter than Larry Brown. When it comes to managing ego's, their is no one in Phil Jacksons league, because their is no one, and I mean NO ONE, who could have held the Lakers soap opera together for 3 straight titles, as they were disintegrating internally, he still got that 3rd title out them.

Rick, your delusions are, shall we say, expected, no offense, but your off the cuff posts amuse and surprise me regularly, and I ususally assume you're merely pulling a good old fashioned Reality type baiting stunt. Are you sure your name isn't Lee?

Lurker, I thought you were more to the right side of reasonable than this.

[rickortreat]

You're obviously not reading my posts or you would have seen that I called Larry Brown an opportunist.  But that doesn't change the fact that he built a number of teams up to respectability from nowhere, including the Clippers and the Nets, both of which I thought were terminal.

But Phil has never done that, never taken a team from oblivion back to respectability.  If he does, I'll shut up, but until then, my honest opinion is he's a fraud.

I was the one who predicted the "loaded Lakers" would fall to the Pistons.  I said they were done, and no-one else agreed with me.  I don't care.  I was RIGHT.

OK, some of the coaches in the NBA are pretty decent.  I like Rick Carlisle, and Mike D'Antonio.  Poppovich has some good skills, but the Spurs would be better off with the first two I mentioned.  Brown is very good, but for the flaws I mentioned earlier.  Even so, no-one else could have gotten that Sixers team to the finals, and definitely not Phil Jackson.

You say Jackson is a good coach, and I say he's gone to teams that were ripe for a run at the title.  One of us is mistaken, and I say it's you.

He's a successful coach, but that's not the same thing.  If he's as good as you say the Lakers will make the playoffs this year, RIGHT?  

 :rofl:  

[Guest_Randy]

Rick, Rick, Rick . . .

I was the one who predicted the "loaded Lakers" would fall to the Pistons. I said they were done, and no-one else agreed with me. I don't care. I was RIGHT.

So because you were right about this, then you are always right?  Hmm, what did you say about the Sixers when they faced the Lakers in the NBA Finals?  I know you weren't right then!!!  :rofl:  

[rickortreat]

All I said was the Sixers had a shot, a small shot, but one nonetheless.

It's a real shame they didn't meet with a healthy Theo Ratliff at center, then it would have been very entertaining.  But the Lakers still would have won.  Shaq and Kobe were too much for that team, as they were for everyone for the next two years.

I'm not right all the time.  I'm not clairvoyant.  But I am a visionary.  

 :eek2:  

[Lurker]

Lurker, I thought you were more to the right side of reasonable than this.

I won't deny in the past that PJ surrounded himself with a solid coaching staff...and much like Bird in INdiana it was the coaching staff that produced the winners.  So PJ is a great motivator and a smart CEO.  But in game time coaching, he sucks.  I have said that for years.

And now he has surrounded himself by who as his coaching staff....a bunch of ex all-stars that have proved what as coaches?  Jackson's teams have always been above average defensive teams....but was that because of a superior defensive philosphy or superior defensive players?

I'll stand by my opinion until proven wrong....Jackson will be exposed this year as an ordinary coach.  And if he gets these Lakers to overacheive then I will be here to congratulate him.

[WayOutWest]

Rick,

I don't have the time to pick apart your erroneous posts.  It's amazing how far off you are on your b-ball opinions.  You've contradicted yourself in your posts as well.

One thing I would like to point out in your posts is you claim Red was a great coach.  Red is the BIGGEST fraud in coaching if you follow Rick's logic.  All Red did was BUY all the best talent and put it on the floor.  The Celtics were able to do what the Yankees do in baseball.  Pay for the best players and then just put 5 hall of famers on the floor and win titles.  Red is the MOST over rated and least deserving coach in basketball history.  The proof is that when Red left Bill Russell went on to coach the Cetls to a title.  Red was nothing more than a glorified towel boy who rode the coat tails of a hall of fame starting 5.  I hope Red at least drove the team bus, that would probably be his biggest contribution to the Celtics dynasty if you follow Ricks logic.

Let me know when some of you stop drinking the stupid koolaide.