WHEW!!! Do you Smell that?!

[Guest_Randy]

If Jackson is going to get knocked for Jordan than shouldn't Pop be knocked for Duncan?  The one constant is the center piece of the team.  Not just Pop.  Take that into mind.

Whoa whoa whoa koast...you can't apply the same Laker standards and arguments to the Spurs, it doesn't work that way with their fans.  Pop would win titles with any average center, just look at what he did with hall of famer David Robinson.  That's all the proof of Pop's greatness you need right there.

 

And at this point I guess it would be futile to remind you of how many times it was pointed out by Laker fans that DRob was washed up at the end.

But then at least you don't contradict yourselves in the same thread as you accuse others of doing.   :rolleyes:

Wrong again, he was washed up when his back problems became and issue AFTER, I repeat AFTER, they got TD.

I'm talking about all the titles Pop won with DRob before TD.

Self contradiction is not one of my strong suits.

Although skirting the relavent points seems to be one of yours, either that or my posts are being cut off on your screen.

Please do not confuse Spurs fans with the facts -- it's not like they would be able to recognize them anyway!

[rickortreat]

Wrong, other teams didn't have the money to compete with the Celtics. The Celtics simply out bid other teams for talent.

Where do you get off saying that?  If the other teams were too cheap that was their problem. If they weren't as good businessman, that was also their problem!  Besides, the NBA had a draft.  The fact is, Red was a better appraiser of talent than anyone else.

QUOTE (rickortreat @ Oct 6 2005, 04:24 PM)
Your proof about Russel coaching the team is absurd and fauly logic.  The team was Red's team, the same players, including Russel on the floor running Red's system.  This is merely proof of your lack of intelligence!


Actually my "fauly" logic is based on your comments. Since the team was able to win without Red, just on talent alone like you say about PJ, then by YOUR logic that makes Red less of a coach.

Let me know if this is too fast for you.

You're too fast for your own good.  RED'S SYSTEM, RED'S PERSONNEL ALL IN PLACE!!!  The same guys who already knew their roles and how to execute.

Are you really this dense, WOW?

Exactly Ricko. With all that talent I could coach the team to a title, just like anyone could coach Shaq/Kobe or MJ/Pippen to a title.

Do you even realize what's going on here? Is it too subtle for you to comprehend? I'm being as subtle as a bomb at this point Rick.

Well, maybe YOU couldn't, but I could!  The point is a winning team takes great players.  A great coach can't win or make anything happen without the talent on the floor.  If you do have the players and can't make it happen, that proves you're a bad coach.  If you overachieve with a group of limited players, you're a great coach.

So as far as the Lakers go this year, IMO they don't have sufficient talent to compete.  It will take a miracle for them to make the playoffs.  If Phil does that, he will have proven me wrong.  Considering that more than half the teams in the league make the playoffs, that's not too much to ask is it? :huh:

Let me see Phil build a team from ground up like Red did, and I'll shut up.  IMO he can't do it and he's a fraud!  He's got the rings, and that means something, but he's never built a team and he's never overachieved with limited talent.  Why isn't that a reasonable way to evaluate a coach?    :huh:  

[WayOutWest]

You're too fast for your own good.  RED'S SYSTEM, RED'S PERSONNEL ALL IN PLACE!!!  The same guys who already knew their roles and how to execute.

Are you really this dense, WOW?
 

Exactly Rick, that makes the Celtic owners good buisness men, Red a good/great GM but says NOTHING about his coaching ability if you apply YOUR logic to the situation like you do with Phil.  

Is it sinking in yet?

[Lurker]

This is great....let's use circular logic to deflect the thread to be about Pop instead of PJ because we can't think of good arguments to refute what a Spurs fan says about our beloved coach.



Well,  :crazy:  :bs: makes me  :rofl: .

[rickortreat]

Exactly Rick, that makes the Celtic owners good buisness men, Red a good/great GM but says NOTHING about his coaching ability if you apply YOUR logic to the situation like you do with Phil.

Is it sinking in yet?

That's true enough far as it goes.  But I saw Red coach, deliberately match up players to exploit other teams weakness.  I saw him call strategic timeouts.  And, I saw him defeat a couple of Sixers teams in 7 game series where it really wasn't clear which team had the edge in talent.

For years the Sixers had great teams and the Boston Celtics were allways in the way.  Teams that were championship worthy but for that smirking bastard with a cigar in his mouth.  I hated the Celtics as a kid,  Red was the Darth Vader for Philly fans.  But I respect him for what he accomplished.  Havlicek being in the right place to steal the ball, Russel being prepared to deal with a bigger stronger Wilt.  Great players for sure, but Red knew where to put them to make it happen.

You have to understand that the level of play in those days was much, much higher than now.  All the players were drilled in the fundamentals and knew how to play. There were fewer teams in the league and talent wasn't dilluted.  The difference in talent wasn't so great- every team had at least one All-Star.  

Coaches made a bigger difference in that time with their strategies, when to press and trap, when to run and when to walk it up.  They didn't just play one way all the time.

Now, I also watched Phil coach, and I didn't observe near the same level of strategy that Red did.  And I will also say that the officials didn't give Red and his Celtics the breaks that the Bulls got either.  Anyone breathed on Jordan and the whistle blew.  Maybe I should give Phil the credit for that, but IMO, the credit goes to Stern and his desire to promote individual players.

Which teams did Phil's Bulls or Lakers play against that had comparable talent- evenly matched teams?  Who was capable of pushing them to seven games in a series?  That's where you find out who the good coaches are.  Has Phil ever been tested that way, where it came down to his strategy in a game to get the winning bucket, or to call a time out to disrupt the other teams streak?  I think not.  

[westkoast]

This is great....let's use circular logic to deflect the thread to be about Pop instead of PJ because we can't think of good arguments to refute what a Spurs fan says about our beloved coach.



Well,  :crazy:  :bs: makes me  :rofl: .

Ya because Pop and PJ are not similar in anyway, shape, or form so why even bother to use him as an example to refute assumptions and "points" youve made right?  Funny that your "points" seem to also apply to Greg Popavich which is why he was brought up in the first place.

Youve been dancing around this one like Reality himself...If Phil Jackson is going to take the heat of riding the coat tails of great players to have success then wouldnt this same Lurker-Logic apply to Pop as he's been lucky enough to have on of the greatest players in the game to be the corner stone of his team?

[Lurker]

Ya because Pop and PJ are not similar in anyway, shape, or form
 

Right, one has developed a system that is being emulated throughout the NBA and develops coaches/front office personnel that other teams constantly want to hire.

I'll let you try to figure out which one.

Pop as he's been lucky enough to have on of the greatest players in the game to be the corner stone of his team?

But Pop was winning games before Duncan arrived.  He didn't "show up" once all the pieces were already assembled.

[westkoast]

Ya because Pop and PJ are not similar in anyway, shape, or form
 

Right, one has developed a system that is being emulated throughout the NBA and develops coaches/front office personnel that other teams constantly want to hire.

I'll let you try to figure out which one.

Pop as he's been lucky enough to have on of the greatest players in the game to be the corner stone of his team?

But Pop was winning games before Duncan arrived.  He didn't "show up" once all the pieces were already assembled.

Ya Pop was winning games...he also had A HALL OF FAME CENTER and one of the top 5 players in the league.  Are you serious Lurker?     Correct me if I am wrong but I believe David Robinson was on the list of Top 50 players OF ALL TIME.

"Right, one has developed a system that is being emulated throughout the NBA and develops coaches/front office personnel that other teams constantly want to hire."

This is funny.  A certain coach and his staff has also been emulated.  People like to copy what is successfull.  As far as Pop and his staff vs. Phil and his staff...we know who has had more success.   You dont think teams dont want some of Phil's staff?  Gimmie a break!  So Pop gets props because his guys leave and Phil gets crapped on because his staff wants to stick together.   Again though, your the king of assumptions in this thread.  That or you have alot of inside info that you havent been sharing with your kind e-basketball buddies.

Lurker honestly though...how many times are you going to dance around my question.  Straight answer please.  If Phil Jackson is going to take heat for having Jordan and Shaq.....is Pop going to get the same heat for Tim Duncan?

You can dump a puzzle out on the ground and have all the pieces but does that mean you have the whole picture?  You actually have to get the pieces to work together and fit for the picture to be there dont you?  Or do they magically fit themselves together?

[Guest_Randy]

Lurker honestly though...how many times are you going to dance around my question. Straight answer please. If Phil Jackson is going to take heat for having Jordan and Shaq.....is Pop going to get the same heat for Tim Duncan?

Come on, wk, what's WRONG with you?  You KNOW you can't ask Lurker to apply the same standards to the Pop and the Spurs that he applies to PJ and the Lakers!  Come on, that's like asking Reality to think!

[Laker Fan]

Where do you get off saying that?  If the other teams were too cheap that was their problem. If they weren't as good businessman, that was also their problem!  Besides, the NBA had a draft.  The fact is, Red was a better appraiser of talent than anyone else.

Actually my "fauly" logic is based on your comments. Since the team was able to win without Red, just on talent alone like you say about PJ, then by YOUR logic that makes Red less of a coach.

So as far as the Lakers go this year, IMO they don't have sufficient talent to compete.  It will take a miracle for them to make the playoffs.  If Phil does that, he will have proven me wrong.  Considering that more than half the teams in the league make the playoffs, that's not too much to ask is it? :huh:

Let me see Phil build a team from ground up like Red did, and I'll shut up.  IMO he can't do it and he's a fraud!  He's got the rings, and that means something, but he's never built a team and he's never overachieved with limited talent.  Why isn't that a reasonable way to evaluate a coach?    :huh:

My my Rick, your "logic" simply defies imagination! Red was a better appraiser of talent huh? Seems to me Phil Jackson must be a pretty good appraiser of talent as well, by your "logic", being as he spotted the talented teams and latched on to them. Let me ask you a question, provided of course your "logic" allows you the ability to think through the simple conclusions of us mere mortals, just exactly what kind of brilliant mind did it take to see the pure, raw, explosive talent of a Bill Rusell? A Havlicek? A Duncan? A Robinson? A Shaq? A Kobe? A Magic? A Bird? A Cousy? And on, and on, and on. Tell me, if you could coach a talented squad already assembled to the promised land, why don't you? Perchance is it because YOU CAN'T?!?!?!?!?

By your "logic", the Blazers should have had 4-5 rings through the last 10 years and Dunleavy would be coach of the century! Except  that by your "logic" he really would only be merely overated because my goodness, my Aunt Fanny could have coached that absolutely LOADED squad to victory! Circular "logic" taken to the extreme! Touche'!!!

Really Rick, I think you have set some kind of record for talking out both sides of your neck and contradicting yourself in one post, hmmmm, does that make you a great poster, or merely overrated?

I wonder, in your mind is a coach who is capable of developing a team, getting them to be strong contenders, and falling short year after year the criteria whereby a coaches greatness is measured? If so, than you are so correct, Larry Brown is the greates coach who ever lived, followed closely by Mike Dunleavy, Greg Popovich (he had Robinson and Elliot for YEARS and didn't win SQUAT), Rick Adelman, Rick Carlisle, Jerry Sloan, etc. But then, by your criteria, if they DO win anything, they immediately fall to mediocre or fraud status because after all, ANYONE could coach a team with that much talent to victory, but then, hmmm, Brown rode some coat-tails of talent over the Lakers to victory, no wait, he is simply a brilliant assessor of talent and simply KNEW Detroit only needed a "great" coach, oh wait, no, anyone could have coached that team to victory, no wait, he put that team together himself, from the ground up, no wait, he......

I'm getting a headache, this line of reasoning is too much for me, I ask you again Rick, are you sure your name isn't Lee? Not even Reality is this nebulous.

[rickortreat]

Why don't you answer my questions when you post?  Can't you stay on the subject?

In appraising talent, the idea is to do so before others realize the players potential, so you can get to him first.  I'm not a scout in the NBA, I can simply see who has the goods when I get to see him.  I never saw Russell or any of the other greats when they were in College.  But then again, neither did Phil, MJ was ALREADY in Chicago, and Shaq was ALREADY in the nba.  He knew what he was getting into in both situations.  Same with Brown going to Detroit.

Who said the Blazers had sufficient talent to get to the Finals?  I didn't.  Yes, they had a competitive squad, but not good enough to overcome Shaq and Kobe.  In a different time, maybe they were good enough, but we'll never know.  If they had a better coach, could they have beaten the Lakers?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  No one could stop Shaq, and having an automatic score in crunch time is the classic way to win a championship.  Which explains why the Spurs were good enough.

The Sixers squad that finally won in 83 contended for years, ever since Julius was there and they fell short every year.  They weren't good enough with Darryl Dawkins.  They needed Moses Malone and then they became good enough.  That didn't mean Billy Cunningham was a bad coach, simply that he didn't have enough pieces against the competition to win.

I'm sorry your brain is stretched to it's limits.  That's ok, it's good for you to try to overcome these limitations from time to time.  Stay on the subject.  Address the questions I posed earlier.  If you can manage it, that is.




 

[Lurker]

This is funny.  A certain coach and his staff has also been emulated.  People like to copy what is successfull.  As far as Pop and his staff vs. Phil and his staff...we know who has had more success.   You dont think teams dont want some of Phil's staff?  Gimmie a break!  So Pop gets props because his guys leave and Phil gets crapped on because his staff wants to stick together.   Again though, your the king of assumptions in this thread.  That or you have alot of inside info that you havent been sharing with your kind e-basketball buddies.

Lurker honestly though...how many times are you going to dance around my question.  Straight answer please.  If Phil Jackson is going to take heat for having Jordan and Shaq.....is Pop going to get the same heat for Tim Duncan?

You can dump a puzzle out on the ground and have all the pieces but does that mean you have the whole picture?  You actually have to get the pieces to work together and fit for the picture to be there dont you?  Or do they magically fit themselves together?

koast - you are doing as much if not more dancing than you (and Randy) are accusing me of.

To answer your point....my contention is that PJ has had no success without his entire coaching team.  There has been no turnover.  None of his staff have been promoted to head coaching vacancies (except Hamblin last year and that lasted less than a season).  I haven't read....even in the Bulls heydays....of other teams using Jackson's defensive schemes or emulating the Bulls style.  If anything you could say that Pop has taken Larry Brown's style (actually Dean Smith's style) and using better athletes had more success than Brown.  And it is amazing that Indiana's defense improved when one of Pop's assistants moved there to become Carlisle's lead assistant (without a drop in SA's defense).  Or that the one year Avery Johnson played for Dallas (and was a defacto assistant) their defense improved.  Show me an example of where one of PJ's assistants went on to have success elsewhere...or even help another team.

And as far as answering the question about giving Pop the same heat as PJ...why should I?  That is just deflecting the discussion away from PJ.  And IMO a last desparate attempt to move away from defending Jackson by proving that his system...not the players in it...are superior.

Then there is the issue of getting the pieces of the puzzle to work together.  I have readily admitted that this Jackson's strength.  However I contend that he has done this with the equivalent of a 50 piece puzzle as opposed to a 500 piece puzzle.  It is much easier to make the pieces fit when 2 or 3 pieces make up the majority of the picture.  

Or back to basketball....it is it easier to win when your team stays basically the same 3 years running or when you are constantly changing the pieces around the one core player.  On each of Phil's 3 peats he had basically the same starting 5 for each run.  For the Spurs 3 titles the team has been drastically different (except for the PF) each time.  The only other player to win multiple titles with his supporting cast changing regularly was some guy named Russell.  But then most would consider it blasphemy to rank Duncan in the same league as him.

[Guest_Randy]

Or back to basketball....it is it easier to win when your team stays basically the same 3 years running or when you are constantly changing the pieces around the one core player. On each of Phil's 3 peats he had basically the same starting 5 for each run. For the Spurs 3 titles the team has been drastically different (except for the PF) each time. The only other player to win multiple titles with his supporting cast changing regularly was some guy named Russell. But then most would consider it blasphemy to rank Duncan in the same league as him.

Lurker,

You weren't doing too badly with your posts until you got to this point but you need to step back and relook at the Bulls roster -- who were the starters in the first year?  With the exception of MJ and Pip, there were no other starters in the final championship year!  Cartwright, Grant, Paxson, Hodges, Armstrong, etc. were changed out over the years for Longley, Rodman, Wennington, Kerr, Kukoc, etc.  Your claim is INCREDIBLY weak since the roster turned upside down from the first three-peat to the last three-peat (and what were they 2 years apart?).  You want to prop Pop for doing that (even though you REFUSE to stop and look at the fact that TD came into the league to give the Spurs one of the top frontcourt duos in the league - DRob started heading downhill after TD's first 2/3 years in the league but when they came in, it was a pretty amazing combo, right?).  

You need to step back and look at your arguments side-by-side -- it's laughable, Lurker.  PJ completely redid the roster and you want to prop Pop for doing the same thing!  It's quite funny!

[Lurker]

No Randy look at what I said.  Each 3-peat stands on its own.  The Bulls first 3 titles were with the same basic team.  Then they changed parts for the second 3-peat.  But each 3-peat was with the same core group...of course with MJ & Pippen being the constant between the two.

[Guest_Randy]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know what you said -- and it STILL doesn't make any sense.  Pop gets credit for winning with different rosters -- but you don't give PJ credit for winning with different rosters.  PJ built the team around MJ and Pip -- and he changed almost the entire starting squad AND the bench during the course of the six titles he won -- what Pop has done is no better.  

Same with the Lakers -- the entire line-up, with the exception of Kobe and Shaq was changed by the time the Lakers went to their last NBA finals.  The Lakers had a bit more cohesion than the Bulls had in their 7/8 years they won 6 titles.

Pop won his second title by adding TD to an already very good team.  You fail to note that (big surprise, huh?).  

Now look at the similarities between #2 and #3 titles:
  Duncan, Bowen, Parker, Manu -- that's four out of the starting 5 (okay, Manu didn't start in the first championship).  Not quite the "entire roster change-up" that you want to exaggerate about.  You Texans -- always trying to turn ant-hills into mountains.  Although, exaggeration is a good thing for Texans -- it makes your IQ sound average!