WHEW!!! Do you Smell that?!

[Lurker]

Uh...as I see it:

Phil did it with a base of Jordan/Pippen in Chicago, along with a cast of others.

Phil did it with Shaq/Kobe/Fisher/Fox in Los Angeles, along with a cast of others.

Popovich did it with Duncan in San An, along with a cast of others.

Joe,

Watch your arse, Spursies might be gunning for you soon.  You dare name Fox and Fisher for the Lakers while relegating Manu, Bowen and Parker to the "cast of others" catagory?  Fox and Fisher are solid role players as are Bowen and Parker.  Manu is more of a standout amoung that group, only Horry would IMO be an equivalent of Manu.  Actually IMO Horry has been a bigger better piece to the titles of both the Lakers and Spurs than Manu has been for the Spurs.  

Better check the date on the seal you're eating cause it sounds like it went bad.

Well, you can add Horry to all 3 of the Laker titles but he was in SA for only one.  So I guess he was one of those pieces that Pop had to integrate into his system.

[westkoast]

Like I said Phil Jackson is a horirble, pathetic coach.

Now I can save this and in 3-4 years "prove" that Lakers fans (all of them of course) felt this way about Jackson.

 :rofl:

 :rofl:

Hay if Reality can misquote then why cant you!!

[westkoast]

Besides the fact that in all this discussion I have never held Pop up as the standard for comparison.  But I am glad that you Laker fans think so highly of him that he is the ideal that you hope Phil can achieve.  Maybe some day you will believe that Jackson has reached that level.   :up:

You think Pop is a great coach right? (as do I)

You think PJ isnt a good coach because of things you named right?

Well Pop and PJ are very similar in this aspect...so that is why Pop was brought up.  If some of those reasons you gave for PJ not being good apply to Pop then in turn Pop should be discredited just the same right?  That is what we are getting at here.

Im saying both coaches are great coaches.  You are discrediting one because he doesnt coach your team even tho they are in similar situations.  As far as comparisions go Duncan is to the 4 spot what MJ is to the 2 spot would you not agree?

[Joe Vancil]

Actually, I'd argue that Popovich is an AWFUL coach.  I like his defensive schemes, but THAT'S IT.

I'd argue that Jackson is a pretty good motivator, and a good defensive coach.  But I'd argue that Tex Winter was the brains behind that offense.  As a result, I think of Jackson as "overrated."

I'd call Larry Brown a GOOD coach, but with some real nasty baggage.

For GOOD coaches just outright, I'll name Sloan, Karl, Saunders, and Carlisle.  And even each of those guys comes with *SOME* baggage.

 

[Lurker]

Besides the fact that in all this discussion I have never held Pop up as the standard for comparison.  But I am glad that you Laker fans think so highly of him that he is the ideal that you hope Phil can achieve.  Maybe some day you will believe that Jackson has reached that level.   :up:

You think Pop is a great coach right? (as do I)

You think PJ isnt a good coach because of things you named right?

Well Pop and PJ are very similar in this aspect...so that is why Pop was brought up.  If some of those reasons you gave for PJ not being good apply to Pop then in turn Pop should be discredited just the same right?  That is what we are getting at here.

Im saying both coaches are great coaches.  You are discrediting one because he doesnt coach your team even tho they are in similar situations.  As far as comparisions go Duncan is to the 4 spot what MJ is to the 2 spot would you not agree?

Actually no I don't think Pop is a great coach.  I think he is an outstanding defensive coach.  As far as offensive strategies I have started to appreciate his ability to draw up in-bounds plays....especially will little time left on the clock (either game clock or shot clock).  Part of that comes from watching the Spurs regularly convert a higher percentage of these type plays than the average NBA team over the past few years.  But then I also realize the Spurs have more & better offensive weapons than in the past.

Another reason I don't believe Pop is a great coach has to do with the argument that you kept wanting to turn around and point my way....has he won without the most dominant player of the time.  And you need to be realistic here....MJ was during the Bulls runs, Shaq during the Lakers 3 peat and Duncan is now.

On some of the other issues....Pop does a much better job of game time management (matchups, substitutions, time outs) than Jackson does.  Both are very good at making half time adjustments.  I would give Jackson the edge in motivation.  Both are above average at getting the role players to buy into the team concept.  One of the differences between the two...Pop uses his own defensive & offensive strategies; PJ uses Winter's offensive strategy but his own defensive one.

I think this season will go a long way towards determining if PJ is a better than average coach.  He needs to take this Laker team...which after Kobe has a lot of questions IMO....and have them over achieve.  

Unfortunately there really isn't a comparable year to look at Pop's coaching ability.  The closest would be the year he took over and had the top two players on the team (DRob & Elliott) in street clothes for the majority of the season.  Although a team that used the following roster and win over 1/4 of its games could be called over achieving.

wilkins,dominique (his final season before retiring)
maxwell,vernon
delnegro,vinnie
johnson,avery
williams,monty
perdue,will
herrera,carl
alexander,cory
smith,charles
anderson,cadilla
feick,jamie

[Lurker]

One other comparison...Pop does a good job of teaching his system (both on court system & front office system) to both his players and his assistants.  So much so that they are currently in demand around the NBA.  Pop has changed his assistants through the years and keeps winning (although a lot can be attributed to the dominant player theory).  All of which would tend to validate his system as a very successful system.

I can't say the same about PJ.  I could be missing something but there is no evidence that I am.  I haven't seen the turnover in assistant coaches until this year and we won't know until Mar/Apr if he is successful with different coaches.  Or if a lot of his success can be attributed to having a successful group of assistants.  In fact it may take a couple seasons to determine if it is really Jackson's system/style that won or if it was Winters/Hamblin/Cleamons.

[westkoast]

One other comparison...Pop does a good job of teaching his system (both on court system & front office system) to both his players and his assistants.  So much so that they are currently in demand around the NBA.  Pop has changed his assistants through the years and keeps winning (although a lot can be attributed to the dominant player theory).  All of which would tend to validate his system as a very successful system.

I can't say the same about PJ.  I could be missing something but there is no evidence that I am.  I haven't seen the turnover in assistant coaches until this year and we won't know until Mar/Apr if he is successful with different coaches.  Or if a lot of his success can be attributed to having a successful group of assistants.  In fact it may take a couple seasons to determine if it is really Jackson's system/style that won or if it was Winters/Hamblin/Cleamons.

I dont understand how that is a knock to PJ still Lurker.  These assistant coaches stuck with Jackson thru the years and havent gone anywhere else because they went into retirement!  You think no one wants to have Tex Winters or Jim Cleamons on their bench???  They are loyal to PJ and only reason they left is to go into retirement.

Is this Pop's system or a system he learned from being under other coaches?  I'm not saying this in a mocking tone either, I am really asking.  When Pop moved up into the Head Coach spot did the offense completely 180 degrees from what they were doing when he was an assistant?

[Lurker]

Is this Pop's system or a system he learned from being under other coaches?  I'm not saying this in a mocking tone either, I am really asking.  When Pop moved up into the Head Coach spot did the offense completely 180 degrees from what they were doing when he was an assistant?

Larry Brown brought Pop into the NBA.  Pop developed some of his approaches from LB....the "playing the right way" attitude.  I think this is where Pop developed his "teaching methods" for coaching as LB is well known for being a teacher.  Pop also was an assistant under Nellie in Golden State where he learned some more techniques....IMO mostly improving on game time strategy.  He graduated from the Air Force Academy which is where IMO he got his hard work, team oriented, nobody-is-better-than-anyone-else attitude.  He is very much a straight shooter with the players which is something you regularly hear the players comment on when talking about Pop.

However Pop's defensive and offensive schemes are pretty much his own.  It has been reported that Pop has one of the thickest play books in the NBA and that his full offense blends post play with a motion offense.  Obviously he doesn't teach this as well as his defense.  A couple years ago I heard commentators mention that Pop is considered one of the top coaches (among his peers) in designing in-bounds plays.  That made me start paying more attention to those situations in games.  And I would have to say that the Spurs run a large variety of plays and seem to have an above average success rate.

And his defense is his masterpiece.  It is based on proper position, rotation, switching and judicial trapping.  The fastest way to make it to the end of the bench is to miss a defensive assignment.  It is definately a five man team defense.  It is based on funneling the perimeter players towards the sidelines & baselines...where you can find help and reduce the angles towards the basket.  Even when the offense tries to isolate a player you will always see someone "cheating" towards the iso trying to force the offensive player into certain spots on the floor.  Also the defense is designed to try to put the offensive player outside his comfort zone.  Push Shaq a little farther from the basket.  Force Kobe to go with his weaker hand.  Pick Nash up full court so he doesn't hit midcourt with a full clear view.  You never let someone drive middle; it just opens up too many passing lanes and causes the defense to breakdown.
 

[Guest_Randy]

Actually, Lurker, I'm not sure that SA had much success against PJ's offense with Kobe and Shaq healthy.

As for Pop's defense, I'd say that a LOT of that credit is due to TD being the anchor in the middle.  Take TD out of the middle and the Spurs lose a LOT of defensive ability no matter how great Pop's defensive schemes are.  Pop has gone from DRob to having TD in the middle -- when either (or both) player is missing, his defense no longer seems as incredible as before.  That's not even counting players like Bowen, Manu, Barry, Horry and Nazr.  It's a LOT easier for a defense to look great when you have great defensive players!

Personally, I would rather have Brown as a defensive coach over Pop -- Pop has a system and players have to fit into that system.  Brown has the ability to design a system that players fit into -- that's much more impressive, IMO.

Pop doesn't have the ability to react to other teams adjustments.  Of course, not too many coaches do.  I will give Pop credit for adding more motion to his offense -- certainly much better than the isolation only that he used to run.

[Lurker]

Actually, Lurker, I'm not sure that SA had much success against PJ's offense with Kobe and Shaq healthy.

As for Pop's defense, I'd say that a LOT of that credit is due to TD being the anchor in the middle.  Take TD out of the middle and the Spurs lose a LOT of defensive ability no matter how great Pop's defensive schemes are.  Pop has gone from DRob to having TD in the middle -- when either (or both) player is missing, his defense no longer seems as incredible as before.  That's not even counting players like Bowen, Manu, Barry, Horry and Nazr.  It's a LOT easier for a defense to look great when you have great defensive players!

Personally, I would rather have Brown as a defensive coach over Pop -- Pop has a system and players have to fit into that system.  Brown has the ability to design a system that players fit into -- that's much more impressive, IMO.

Pop doesn't have the ability to react to other teams adjustments.  Of course, not too many coaches do.  I will give Pop credit for adding more motion to his offense -- certainly much better than the isolation only that he used to run.

Randy, I saw Brown's defensive schemes when he coached in SA...with Robinson & Elliott.  Pop's are far superior.  It goes far beyond having "Duncan in the middle as an anchor".  Brown's system needs specific players also.  Mostly his defensive improvements is because he takes a team that hasn't focused on defense and makes it the top priority....you know kind of like what Jackson is getting so much credit for doing in LA this preseason.

As far as success against Shaq & Kobe...Pop has more than just about any other coach in the NBA.  Shaq was regularly held below his averages....points, rebs, FG% even FT attempts when playing the Spurs.  Not every single time but over the course of almost every season.  And Kobe has had a few breakout games but also has had a lot of frustrating nights when he didn't score efficiently or forced way too much.  Your Laker bias is showing through in that comment.

But then you are always downplaying anything SA giving all credit to the tanking (with their top 2 players injured) that netted then Duncan.  Who according to you is the entire reason for any and all success the Spurs have had.  Which then should rank Duncan as the greatest superstar to ever play the game by winning 3 titles playing one on five.

[Guest]

Actually, Lurker, I'm not sure that SA had much success against PJ's offense with Kobe and Shaq healthy.

As for Pop's defense, I'd say that a LOT of that credit is due to TD being the anchor in the middle.  Take TD out of the middle and the Spurs lose a LOT of defensive ability no matter how great Pop's defensive schemes are.  Pop has gone from DRob to having TD in the middle -- when either (or both) player is missing, his defense no longer seems as incredible as before.  That's not even counting players like Bowen, Manu, Barry, Horry and Nazr.  It's a LOT easier for a defense to look great when you have great defensive players!

Personally, I would rather have Brown as a defensive coach over Pop -- Pop has a system and players have to fit into that system.  Brown has the ability to design a system that players fit into -- that's much more impressive, IMO.

Pop doesn't have the ability to react to other teams adjustments.  Of course, not too many coaches do.  I will give Pop credit for adding more motion to his offense -- certainly much better than the isolation only that he used to run.

Randy, I saw Brown's defensive schemes when he coached in SA...with Robinson & Elliott.  Pop's are far superior.  It goes far beyond having "Duncan in the middle as an anchor".  Brown's system needs specific players also.  Mostly his defensive improvements is because he takes a team that hasn't focused on defense and makes it the top priority....you know kind of like what Jackson is getting so much credit for doing in LA this preseason.

As far as success against Shaq & Kobe...Pop has more than just about any other coach in the NBA.  Shaq was regularly held below his averages....points, rebs, FG% even FT attempts when playing the Spurs.  Not every single time but over the course of almost every season.  And Kobe has had a few breakout games but also has had a lot of frustrating nights when he didn't score efficiently or forced way too much.  Your Laker bias is showing through in that comment.

But then you are always downplaying anything SA giving all credit to the tanking (with their top 2 players injured) that netted then Duncan.  Who according to you is the entire reason for any and all success the Spurs have had.  Which then should rank Duncan as the greatest superstar to ever play the game by winning 3 titles playing one on five.

Kobe has had a few breakout games but also has had a lot of frustrating nights when he didn't score efficiently or forced way too much.

 :rofl: Whose bias is showing now?  Kobe has owned the Spurs in the past.  Bowen does almost as good a job as anyone but Kobe has killed the Spurs over and over again!  With the exception of the series in which he was hurt, he has killed the Spurs.  But I expect your Spurs bias to keep you in touch with "reality" (at least the one on this board).

Randy, I saw Brown's defensive schemes when he coached in SA...with Robinson & Elliott. Pop's are far superior. It goes far beyond having "Duncan in the middle as an anchor". Brown's system needs specific players also.

Let's see -- Pop has had great defensive schemes in one city with the likes of DRob and Elliott -- then DRob and TD -- now TD, Bowen, Manu, Horry and Barry.  You keep knocking PJ because he had great players to work with -- guess what -- defensively, that knock is HUGE on Pop.  The fact is that you can rant about defensive schemes all you want but the Spurs would struggle without TD in the middle -- oops, they do, don't they?

Brown's system needs specific players -- like Danny Manning?   :rofl:   Any coach that can make Danny Manning look like he even plays defense gets props from me!  Let's see, how many squads has Brown taken to championships again?  Clips, Philly, Detroit!  And you can talk about the fact that Pop's schemes are soooo much better but having the players he has had on the court kind of negates all your claims.  When Pop can win huge games without a premier frontcourt player -- THEN you can talk about how good his defensive schemes are.  

And his defense is his masterpiece. It is based on proper position, rotation, switching and judicial trapping. The fastest way to make it to the end of the bench is to miss a defensive assignment. It is definately a five man team defense. It is based on funneling the perimeter players towards the sidelines & baselines...where you can find help and reduce the angles towards the basket. Even when the offense tries to isolate a player you will always see someone "cheating" towards the iso trying to force the offensive player into certain spots on the floor. Also the defense is designed to try to put the offensive player outside his comfort zone. Push Shaq a little farther from the basket. Force Kobe to go with his weaker hand. Pick Nash up full court so he doesn't hit midcourt with a full clear view. You never let someone drive middle; it just opens up too many passing lanes and causes the defense to breakdown.

Umm, you are talking about the kind of schemes that PJ has run through his defense for YEARS!   :ding: Wait, that means that PJ is a genius too!!!

[Guest_Randy]

:rolleyes:   Sorry, that previous post was mine!

[Laker Fan]

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.




'Poser.

I'll dig up some of your old posts saying what a worthless coach Phil Jackson was.

Get a spine!

By all means Unreality, you feel free to dig up what you want, my quote here speaks for itself. Just remember, "bandwagon 'poser", to add the complete context to whatever you dig up like where I may have said he was worthless (I don't recall I ever did) but be sure to include where I have also said he is the master of surrounding himself with good people, you know, sort of like what I have said in this thread.

BTW, do you have a life beyond this board and your lunatic bandwagon rantings? Or is living in your momma's basement saving every little scrap you can from the internet that might mention you the be all end all of your existance? Methinks the latter is probably more in line with "reality" in your little bandwagon world.

Oh, and I have a spine, it is the result of many things, but where sports are concerned, it is the result of being a follower of a certian team and sticking with them through thick and thin, success and failure, enduring the criticism, barbs, insults that bandwagonners love to toss around when their team of the moment is on top. It comes from noblely acknowledging the success of a team to their real fans and giving real fans their props.

Of course the Mrs. Lubners husbands of the  world (bet you have trouble with that obscure reference   ) of the world such as yourself, fail to understand such things being as you have the luxury of simply juming from team to team as the mood (and the teams success) dictate.

And uh, once more FOR THE RECORD, I have always said Phil Jackson was over-rated, but I still stand by my postition that he is a brilliant tactition, and he has 9 rings to prove it. To me you can be a good perhaps even great coach while being at the same time being over-rated as an X's and O's type guy if you can make every other aspect work, and Phil Jackson is a master of accomplishing that high wire act.


 

[WayOutWest]

However Pop's defensive and offensive schemes are pretty much his own.  It has been reported that Pop has one of the thickest play books in the NBA and that his full offense blends post play with a motion offense.  Obviously he doesn't teach this as well as his defense.  A couple years ago I heard commentators mention that Pop is considered one of the top coaches (among his peers) in designing in-bounds plays.  That made me start paying more attention to those situations in games.  And I would have to say that the Spurs run a large variety of plays and seem to have an above average success rate.

IMO Pop's offense was horrible.  It wasn't until TD went down that you started to see the motion offense.  After TD's extended stint on the bench the motion offense was here to stay.  That blessing in disguise allowed the Spurs to have more playoff success.  Everyone was used to "dump it into TD" crunch time offense but since the Spurs were forced to play without TD they were able to adjust to teams clamping down on TD.  If the spacing is right, which isn't always the case with teams playing with TD and Shaq, then you get wide open looks for your outside shooting plus now that Manu is comming into his own he's able to create his own shot when the offensive set goes into the toilet.  That was something that wasn't available or consistent in years past.  I think that was a very overlooked aspect of the Lakers offense, when Shaq and the triangle were not effective Kobe was able to ad-lib some offense on his own.  I'm starting to see alot more of that from Manu.  Parker seems to fail miserably in that regard, he used to be pretty good a taking some of the pressure shots but he's a non-factor now.

It's hard not to fall into the "dump into the post and just stand and watch" offense with guys like TD and Shaq.

And his defense is his masterpiece.  It is based on proper position, rotation, switching and judicial trapping.  The fastest way to make it to the end of the bench is to miss a defensive assignment.  It is definately a five man team defense.  It is based on funneling the perimeter players towards the sidelines & baselines...where you can find help and reduce the angles towards the basket.

That can be said of pretty much any defensive scheme from the High School level on up.  The Lakers defense was the best in the league for two years and that's pretty much what they did.

Of course that defense REQUIRES a shot blocker, so it's not only about a system, the system requires the right personnel to protect the basket.  It doesn't help to funnel a player if he's just going to shot over your center or PF.  The Lakers had that problem when Shaq would sit on the bench, the Spurs have that problem when TD is not in the game and it doesn't work very well with Nazr in there.  Rasho was very ineffective and the Spurs defense suffered but it's not too bad with Nazr in there, he's very active.  IMO the personnel are just as important as the system when it comes to Pop's, or anyone elses, defense scheme.

[westkoast]

"It's hard not to fall into the "dump into the post and just stand and watch" offense with guys like TD and Shaq."

It really is.  On one hand you have the closer the player, the higher % the shot.  On the other hand you have to worry about bad spacing, bad ball movement, players getting out of rhythm, and throwing the opposing teams defense a bone.  I say throw them a bone because if you are pounding one player in the post each trip then the defense doesnt have to expend much energy or even think very hard.  This was part of the reason  why the Spurs lost those last two times in the playoffs, the defense could focus in on TD.  That and they werent able to get the much needed stops.

As far as how great Pop's defense is or how great the defenders hes been blessed to have on his squads......at the end of the day the Spurs have been a defensive juggernaut (shout out to Wolv  :up: ) for a very long time.  Sure the offense is stagnant at times......but the question is, is the other team going to constantly score?  Id put money on 'No'