Horry ranks Pop ahead of Jackson

[Lurker]

Thought this might send Reality scrambling for some of his Pop-a-cement juice...

Historic perspective: Since no player in NBA history has more playoff experience than Robert Horry, his opinion counts for plenty.

In Horry's opinion, Popovich ranks at the very top among the coaches who worked during the 16 years Horry has played in the NBA.

Though three of Horry's seven championship rings were earned under Lakers coach Phil Jackson, who has won nine titles as head coach of the Michael Jordan-era Bulls and the Shaquille O'Neal-era Lakers, he gives Popovich the nod over Jackson.

?Phil wouldn't yell at the top dogs,? Horry said. ?Pop will yell at the top dogs, just like he yells at the bottom dogs. That's the biggest key. And Pop preaches defense a little more than Phil.

?If you'd have given Pop all the talent Phil had, I think he'd have more rings than Phil.?

[westkoast]

That's weird because they just spoke to Brian Shaw about Phil Jackson's relationship with Kobe the other day and he said that Phil would always yell at Shaq, Shaw, etc but would never yell at Kobe.  When Brian finnally confronted PJ about it he was told that Kobe plays hard every single minute of the game and is always focused.  So what Horry said is somewhat true and somewhat untrue.  He would yell at Shaq and Pippen but not Jordan and Kobe.

A no brainer at this point that Popavich is one of the best coaches of all time.

[WayOutWest]

A no brainer at this point that Popavich is one of the best coaches of all time.

"no brainer"?  Ah hah!  I think you found the problem with the Pophater!

[Lurker]

A no brainer at this point that Popavich is one of the best coaches of all time.

"no brainer"?  Ah hah!  I think you found the problem with the Pophater!

ROTFLMAO!

[westkoast]

Do you guys think if Pop had Shaq and Kobe that he would have won 4-5 rings with them?  I personally don't.  Pop doesn't strike me as the type to deal with egos and when you have a lot of talent, like Horry pointed out, that is a pretty important side of being a pro coach.

[Lurker]

Do you guys think if Pop had Shaq and Kobe that he would have won 4-5 rings with them?  I personally don't.  Pop doesn't strike me as the type to deal with egos and when you have a lot of talent, like Horry pointed out, that is a pretty important side of being a pro coach.

I'm not sure.  Pop tends to look for players that can put the idea of team play ahead of their individual egos.  IMO this is one area that Kobe struggles in (I think it showed in the last game during OT) but has improved since Shaq left.  And Shaq is absolutely no where close to the type of player who will check his own ego for the good of the team.

IMO Jackson and Pops are basically even.  They both, through their styles, get players to win.  Pop might be more fair in treatment of stars/role players but PJ is a better motivator.  Pop is the better defensive caoch and I would say that PJ is the better offensive coach (thanks in part to Tex).  If you were to switch their coaching careers I don't know if the teams involved would have won any more than they did.

[Randy]

Do you guys think if Pop had Shaq and Kobe that he would have won 4-5 rings with them?  I personally don't.  Pop doesn't strike me as the type to deal with egos and when you have a lot of talent, like Horry pointed out, that is a pretty important side of being a pro coach.

I'm not sure.  Pop tends to look for players that can put the idea of team play ahead of their individual egos.  IMO this is one area that Kobe struggles in (I think it showed in the last game during OT) but has improved since Shaq left.  And Shaq is absolutely no where close to the type of player who will check his own ego for the good of the team.

IMO Jackson and Pops are basically even.  They both, through their styles, get players to win.  Pop might be more fair in treatment of stars/role players but PJ is a better motivator.  Pop is the better defensive caoch and I would say that PJ is the better offensive coach (thanks in part to Tex).  If you were to switch their coaching careers I don't know if the teams involved would have won any more than they did.

Wow an objective post from Lurkerville?  Next thing you know, the planets are all going to align, politicians will begin to do what is truly best for our country, people around the world are going to lay down their weapons and embrace peace, love and harmony and the Lakers will win another NBA Championship.  Wow, paradise could be realized in our lifetimes!

[Lurker]

Do you guys think if Pop had Shaq and Kobe that he would have won 4-5 rings with them?  I personally don't.  Pop doesn't strike me as the type to deal with egos and when you have a lot of talent, like Horry pointed out, that is a pretty important side of being a pro coach.

I'm not sure.  Pop tends to look for players that can put the idea of team play ahead of their individual egos.  IMO this is one area that Kobe struggles in (I think it showed in the last game during OT) but has improved since Shaq left.  And Shaq is absolutely no where close to the type of player who will check his own ego for the good of the team.

IMO Jackson and Pops are basically even.  They both, through their styles, get players to win.  Pop might be more fair in treatment of stars/role players but PJ is a better motivator.  Pop is the better defensive caoch and I would say that PJ is the better offensive coach (thanks in part to Tex).  If you were to switch their coaching careers I don't know if the teams involved would have won any more than they did.

Wow an objective post from Lurkerville?  Next thing you know, the planets are all going to align, politicians will begin to do what is truly best for our country, people around the world are going to lay down their weapons and embrace peace, love and harmony and the Lakers will win another NBA Championship.  Wow, paradise could be realized in our lifetimes!

Of course if Pop got the same love from the refs that Jackson's teams do then he would have had more rings than Red.

[Randy]

One other point:

"If you'd have given Pop all the talent Phil had, I think he'd have more rings than Phil."

Okay, I give -- Pop hasn't had the talent that Phil has had?  You mean MJ?  How well would Pop do with MJ -- coaching MJ was like trying to get a player to buy into your system as your equal -- is that how Pop coaches?  

Okay, he had Shaq and Kobe -- Pop could get in Kobe's face and challenge him -- Shaq would cry a river.  

Last, I don't buy that Pop hasn't had the talent that Phil had -- I don't think either has had better or worse talent in the past.  Pop has had TD, Robinson, Elliott, Parker, Manu and a host of very good role players -- PJ has had MJ, Pip, Grant/Rodman and a host of very good role players -- then he had Shaq, Kobe, and a host of very good role players -- now he has Kobe, Gasol, Odom and a host of very good role players.  I don't see a whole ton of difference in the talent base.  

Last, someone needs to ask Horry this comment AFTER he retires -- not when he currently plays for the coach he mentions.  I'm not saying that his answer would change but it's like asking someone "which job do you like best -- the one you used to have or the one you currently have?"  

I really think these are two of the best coaches the NBA has had (there are others as good, however) -- I think they have also worked to get players who help fit their own systems (i.e. Bowen, Fisher, etc.) -- I think they both have earned the respect and accolades that they have gotten.

[Randy]

Do you guys think if Pop had Shaq and Kobe that he would have won 4-5 rings with them?  I personally don't.  Pop doesn't strike me as the type to deal with egos and when you have a lot of talent, like Horry pointed out, that is a pretty important side of being a pro coach.

I'm not sure.  Pop tends to look for players that can put the idea of team play ahead of their individual egos.  IMO this is one area that Kobe struggles in (I think it showed in the last game during OT) but has improved since Shaq left.  And Shaq is absolutely no where close to the type of player who will check his own ego for the good of the team.

IMO Jackson and Pops are basically even.  They both, through their styles, get players to win.  Pop might be more fair in treatment of stars/role players but PJ is a better motivator.  Pop is the better defensive caoch and I would say that PJ is the better offensive coach (thanks in part to Tex).  If you were to switch their coaching careers I don't know if the teams involved would have won any more than they did.

Wow an objective post from Lurkerville?  Next thing you know, the planets are all going to align, politicians will begin to do what is truly best for our country, people around the world are going to lay down their weapons and embrace peace, love and harmony and the Lakers will win another NBA Championship.  Wow, paradise could be realized in our lifetimes!

Of course if Pop got the same love from the refs that Jackson's teams do then he would have had more rings than Red.

I KNEW it had to be a fluke -- once again chaos reigns supreme -- Bush is still president, the congress is filled with idiots from both parties, Iraq is still a disasters, the economy is still in shambles because democrats want to save everyone from suffering the natural consequences of their own actions, Bruce Bowen is still a cheap (relatively speaking in NBA terms) thug and the SA Spurs still get the silver spoon from the league.  Only the Lakers winning another Championship can help bring us closer to eutopia!

[Laker Fan]

IMO they're too different to compare, I have never seen evidence of ego or prima donna's in San Antonio, just good hardworking team players who all know their roles and stay within the confines of a proven, (albeit boring) system, that teaches fundamental defense and teamwork. Credit the excellent front office for signing suchlike players and knowing what players will work within the system, credit Pop for meshing them like a well oiled machine. That said, Greg Popavich would have been an ABSOLUTE DISASTER coaching a team like the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, with all the ego's, drama, and divergent personalities, the players unwilling or unable to work within a proven system would have overwhelmed someone like him. Pop needs players that are essentially yes men, and that's OK, their great success proves there is nothing wrong with that, and they seem to enjoy playing together. Phil would have been successful there, but not like Pop, his style is too hands off, too mental, and the only real thinkers that I can see out there for SA is Manu and to a lesser extent Parker, great at creativity and adapting to a given situation, Duncan is the pentultimate post player waiting for the play to develop around him. Not a knock on him either, he's the best in the world at what he does.

The Jordan led Bulls were perfect for Phil's style because not only did he not have to get to involved in the game time fit and finish of the individual players and their roles within the scope of the game, he didn't even have to interact in the locker room. The reason? Michael Jordan was in ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL CONTROL of those players and they all knew it. Even though his ego was bigger than Shaq and Kobe's combined, he commanded respect and submission like no other player before or since. Consequently, if Phil said this is the way it will be, and because Jordan totally bought into that system, (and rightly so) it was Jordan who made sure everyone cooperated or else. Can you imagine Pippen disrespecting Phil like he did in the series against Indiana if Jordan was still in the lineup? Not hardly, Jordan's absense allowed ego's other than his own to assert themselves. Phil ran into a completely different animal in LA, Shaq and Kobe's massive ego's, the lack of respect they had for each other, the lack of respect they commanded or earned from their teammates, the disfunction that is LA, all combined to show us how good Phil is at one thing, managing ego's, and he did it in ways we never saw in Chicago, despite his reputation for exactly that. I do not believe ANYONE, not even my favorite coach of all time, Pat Riley, could have coaxed 3 championships out of that crazy group like Phil Jackson did. Phil is a master of surrounding himself with talent, both on the floor and in the coaching staff, we all know Tex Winter is primarily responsible for the X's and O's success of Phil's teams. Pop is good at X's, O's, and good old hard work.

So while Pop is IMO a great coach, Phil is a great manager, far too different in style to be compared.

[JoMal]

It is not really necessary to compare the two. Since their styles are so different, what you really need to focus on is the type of players they seem to accummulate. Phil needs a bonafide superstar on his team and he works very hard at developing that player and the role players around him. When he had two of them, his failure was, I guess, NOT getting his hands on both of them at an earlier age so he could have made them mesh together sooner and for longer, without the prima donna news bites.

As for Popovich, I disagree that he could not have handled either Shaq or Kobe or both together. This is one of the most focused coaches out there and one of the most determined. He would have made it work. I also feel he would have made Shaq a better conditioned player as well, especially if he had worked with him at the start of his career. As for Kobe, I can not see Pop treating him differently from any other player; but likely he would have less reason to, just like Jackson had no reason to.

Coaches teach habits. Jackson was good at it with Jordan and Kobe and once they learned, his job was keeping players productive around these guys. Popovich keeps every player he has on message - never wavering - never letting the players waver. And he has clear vision on the type of player he requires. My guess is he figures out if the player would fit his system long before the player actually gets into it.

Jackson will waver on message if it suits him. Popovich never does regardless of who he coaches.   

[Skandery]

This is a touchy subject for me.  Mostly because I don't care for either coach all that much.  Of course they remain two of the most successful coaches the league has seen and the motivation each place in their players to consistently compete at the highest level is laudable.  The rings are undeniable, so I begrudgingly admit that indeed both are very good at what they do.  

Phil has really become the prototype NBA coach.  All the zen foolishness aside, the man has a deep understanding of the motivations behind common era players.  More than any coach, some of whom I respect their basketball knowledge immensely more than Phil, Jackson understands his limitations and ultimately his mandate as a coach.  Figure head-den mother.  Provided you have the necessary ingredients in place, the system is fool-proof.  You have one or two guys that basically run the show.  Usually starting from a huge talent base and preferably an inner desire (whether bourne of arrogance or otherwise), Phil molds them into game controllers.  From their you bring in role players around them and are given simple, easy to understand roles.  While the much vaunted Triangle system is a staple of Jackson teams, it really only applies to the role players.  After all no matter how inept you may be offensively, you are given something to do.  This plays into the psyche of the NBA player, while Kobe, Jordan, Pippen, etc. have free reign to deviate from the system and "create".  Role players will find themselves sitting and watching should they make a habit of deviating from the system.  Being a great coach, he gets every player to buy into the idea of defending.  Their is no glory in defending, a coach must instill every player the value of defending.  All things being equal--you will almost never receive a rookie prospect on your roster that comes in with the attitude, "I'm going to be a defensive stopper."  This facet of coaching is what holds some coaches back (i.e. D'Antoni, Adelman, Nelson--Milwaukee being an enigma, Karl).  The twist with Phil is the utilization of an enforcer, not necessarily the biggest player but one that gets under a team's skin.  A thorn in someone's side--a core rotation player than can foment anger or retaliation (the paragon of this type of player is of course--Dennis Rodman).  

My harsh attitude towards Popovich stems from the fact that I thought firing Bob Hill the year David Robinson missed most of the season after two very successful seasons showed a lack of class.  One lucky bounce of the ping pong ball and Popovich has had Duncan ever since.  That aside you have to give credit where its due.  Popovich not only instills the value of defense in all his players, they each come to enjoy that facet of the game as their identity.  To a much lesser degree than Phil, Popovich will utilize agitators such as Fabricio Oberto or Bruce Bowen-this often goes hand in hand with the pride they have in their identity.  His no-nonsense style and consistent approach to superstar and bench-warmer alike is easy to respect.  Offensively he is a true throwback to early 80s Laker half-court offense (Jabbar and 4 three point shooters) later adopted by Rudy T in Houston (with Olajuwon) and of course now with Manu and Parker, many more pick-and-rolls.  Bread and butter stuff, the Spurs run no more than 5 plays to perfection.  Once again you must have "creators" and you must specifically dilineate a role to every player in the rotation.  

Where Phil trumps Popovich is the sly comments in the media, the working of the refs (both inside of the game and outside of the game), the nuanced motivation of Player 1 and 2.

Are these two modes a testament to the whimsical aesthetics of basketball people hold dear.  Is it genius innovation and implementation of X's and O's.  No on both accounts.  Is the success undeniable--Yes!  So I conclude that both of these coaches would achieve similar success to what they've had thus far given different opportunties or switched circumstances.            

[WayOutWest]

I do not think Pop is as good as PJ nor do I think he would have had as much success with the same talent.  The Shaq/Kobe Lakers were able to take on all commers durring their 3-peat run.  First the Blazers, then the Spurs and finally the Kings.  Pop has not been able to win back to back titles and dominate the league the way PJ's teams have done.

IMO Pop would not have been able to handle the "drama" of Shaq/Kobe.  Not because he was not capable but because Shaq/Kobe would have been the ones to bail on him.  Just look at Shaq and Riley, Riley tends to "demand" of players the way Pop does and Shaq did not last long.  Kobe would have hated Sloan's system and played outside it to the extend it would have caused the system to collapse and Kobe to be traded.

Pop tends to work well with "soldiers" while PJ thrives with "artists". 

[Lurker]

I do not think Pop is as good as PJ nor do I think he would have had as much success with the same talent.  The Shaq/Kobe Lakers were able to take on all commers durring their 3-peat run.  First the Blazers, then the Spurs and finally the Kings.  Pop has not been able to win back to back titles and dominate the league the way PJ's teams have done.

IMO Pop would not have been able to handle the "drama" of Shaq/Kobe.  Not because he was not capable but because Shaq/Kobe would have been the ones to bail on him.  Just look at Shaq and Riley, Riley tends to "demand" of players the way Pop does and Shaq did not last long.  Kobe would have hated Sloan's system and played outside it to the extend it would have caused the system to collapse and Kobe to be traded.

Pop tends to work well with "soldiers" while PJ thrives with "artists". 

But would PJ have had the same success with "soldiers" instead of "artists"?  To say Pop is less than PJ based on assessing Pop's handling of the Shaq/Kobe Lakers without addressing PJ's success with the Duncan-led Spurs is only looking at the question from one side.

Also what makes you (meaning all posters in this thread - not just WOW) think Pop couldn't handle the drama?