- 233
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
NBA coaches are nearly irrelevant anyways. It's like asking which is the prettiest pimple on an elephant's #$!.
Horry: Popovich Is Better Than Jackson
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by e3lal,
- Start date
- 2,631
- 218
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
I'll give the nod to Phil because of the chips but Horry just said Pop had a better style of coaching then Phil. Both of them have won there chips thereway. It just comes down to Horry liking pop's style more then phil's.
I mean with kobe and shaq he took them to 4 finals and got a 3-peat. Would pop done that ? Who knows but im a go with the facts here. Phil > Pop.
I mean with kobe and shaq he took them to 4 finals and got a 3-peat. Would pop done that ? Who knows but im a go with the facts here. Phil > Pop.
- 9,655
- 123
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2002
Horry played for two time champ Rudy T.
Played for Phil.
Played for Pop.
If dude says Pop is the better coach, who are we to argue.
Played for Phil.
Played for Pop.
If dude says Pop is the better coach, who are we to argue.
- 3,995
- 44
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2004
Well, Shaq has said that basically every coach he's played for is the best coach. We don't exactly believe him do we?
trueblack88
Banned
- 707
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
He's allowed to have an opinion, it seems like he was basing it on the fact that Pop taught D more and yelled at the superstars. But with Phil and theBulls, the D was already pretty great, with Jordan and Pippen leading the way. Then, of course, Rodman on board too. So I don't think D was a weakness. Asfar as yelling at the 'top dogs', I remember reading several books and articles about Phil's style being that he can adapt and know how to coachdifferent personalities accordingly. If Pop had Rodman (Was Pop there when Rodman was? I don't remember) he probably wouldn't have been able to adjustand work with him in a way that worked as well as Phil. And if Pop had Kobe and Shaq, I don't think he would have been able to massage those ego's atthe time any more or less than Phil was able to, so who knows. But just my opinion...
- 1,127
- 113
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2001
Alright, I'll weigh in now. And my vote goes to Pop.
Looking at the numbers, the first thing people point to are Phil's nine rings to Pop's four. However, when you consider that Phil's been at italmost a full decade longer than Pop, those rings gain a bit more context. Looking at their career winning percentage, Phil has a slight advantage but not bymuch (.700 to .677). Interestingly enough however, is the fact that if you take away Pop's first season, the 1996-97 ("tank") year in which hefired the old coach and assumed the helm for the last 64 games, and his career winning percentage is actually a hair better than Phil's - .707.
Pop has never finished worse than second in his division, while Phil has two 3rd-place division finishes on his resume. Again, the tank seasonnotwithstanding, Pop's worst season on the bench was 99-00, in which the Spurs went 53-29 and lost in the first round. Comparatively, Phil's had fourseasons of fewer wins (47 in 94-05, 50 in 02-03, 45 in 05-06, and 42 in 06-07). So while Phil's rings may give him a unique mystique and aura, Pop isliterally right there and has had arguably more consistent success throughout his career.
Speaking of mystique and aura, an obvious common knock on Phil is that he's always had amazing talent to work with, and it's a knock that I absolutelythink is a fair one. When he won his six titles with the Bulls, he had arguably not only the greatest basketball player, but the greatest athlete of all time,period, and another top-50 player of all time.
In Los Angeles, he had two more top-50 players, including arguably the most physically dominant player of all time. The years in which he didn't haveboth of those dominant pieces, he didn't win. In fact, he's never been past the second round without bothdominant pieces on the roster.
Phil's teams have always struck me as being just as successful for just having the flat-out better players on the floor than as being well-coached andprepared. Many big games, and indeed many championships, were won because MJ or Kobe hit a huge shot, or Shaq was putting two defenders through the rim with adunk. Those aren't byproducts of great coaching, it's just having the most dominant, most talented player on the floor.
By comparison, while Pop may have what is arguably the top PF to ever play in Tim Duncan, his teams have never really been about Duncan dominating everyone onthe floor and dropping 30+ on someone's head. They've always been cohesive units out there, playing great functional team basketball and greatcollective defense. Even what is probably Phil's greatest x's and o's coaching asset, the triangle offense, actually wasn't his creation butassistant Tex Winter's. Winter, the true maestro of the triangle, not coincidentally was an assistant coach on every single one of Phil's ninechampionship teams.
So yeah, I think I agree with Will Smith on this one. Err, I mean Robert Horry.
Looking at the numbers, the first thing people point to are Phil's nine rings to Pop's four. However, when you consider that Phil's been at italmost a full decade longer than Pop, those rings gain a bit more context. Looking at their career winning percentage, Phil has a slight advantage but not bymuch (.700 to .677). Interestingly enough however, is the fact that if you take away Pop's first season, the 1996-97 ("tank") year in which hefired the old coach and assumed the helm for the last 64 games, and his career winning percentage is actually a hair better than Phil's - .707.
Pop has never finished worse than second in his division, while Phil has two 3rd-place division finishes on his resume. Again, the tank seasonnotwithstanding, Pop's worst season on the bench was 99-00, in which the Spurs went 53-29 and lost in the first round. Comparatively, Phil's had fourseasons of fewer wins (47 in 94-05, 50 in 02-03, 45 in 05-06, and 42 in 06-07). So while Phil's rings may give him a unique mystique and aura, Pop isliterally right there and has had arguably more consistent success throughout his career.
Speaking of mystique and aura, an obvious common knock on Phil is that he's always had amazing talent to work with, and it's a knock that I absolutelythink is a fair one. When he won his six titles with the Bulls, he had arguably not only the greatest basketball player, but the greatest athlete of all time,period, and another top-50 player of all time.
In Los Angeles, he had two more top-50 players, including arguably the most physically dominant player of all time. The years in which he didn't haveboth of those dominant pieces, he didn't win. In fact, he's never been past the second round without bothdominant pieces on the roster.
Phil's teams have always struck me as being just as successful for just having the flat-out better players on the floor than as being well-coached andprepared. Many big games, and indeed many championships, were won because MJ or Kobe hit a huge shot, or Shaq was putting two defenders through the rim with adunk. Those aren't byproducts of great coaching, it's just having the most dominant, most talented player on the floor.
By comparison, while Pop may have what is arguably the top PF to ever play in Tim Duncan, his teams have never really been about Duncan dominating everyone onthe floor and dropping 30+ on someone's head. They've always been cohesive units out there, playing great functional team basketball and greatcollective defense. Even what is probably Phil's greatest x's and o's coaching asset, the triangle offense, actually wasn't his creation butassistant Tex Winter's. Winter, the true maestro of the triangle, not coincidentally was an assistant coach on every single one of Phil's ninechampionship teams.
So yeah, I think I agree with Will Smith on this one. Err, I mean Robert Horry.
- 9,655
- 123
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2002
Shaq's an idiot.
He'll praise everybody when things are going good, and then point the fingers when things are going bad.
And good post eagle.
eaglebball1499 wrote:
Alright, I'll weigh in now. And my vote goes to Pop.
Looking at the numbers, the first thing people point to are Phil's nine rings to Pop's four. However, when you consider that Phil's been at it almost a full decade longer than Pop, those rings gain a bit more context. Looking at their career winning percentage, Phil has a slight advantage but not by much (.700 to .677). Interestingly enough however, is the fact that if you take away Pop's first season, the 1996-97 ("tank") year in which he fired the old coach and assumed the helm for the last 64 games, and his career winning percentage is actually a hair better than Phil's - .707.
Pop has never finished worse than second in his division, while Phil has two 3rd-place division finishes on his resume. Again, the tank season notwithstanding, Pop's worst season on the bench was 99-00, in which the Spurs went 53-29 and lost in the first round. Comparatively, Phil's had four seasons of fewer wins (47 in 94-05, 50 in 02-03, 45 in 05-06, and 42 in 06-07). So while Phil's rings may give him a unique mystique and aura, Pop is literally right there and has had arguably more consistent success throughout his career.
Speaking of mystique and aura, an obvious common knock on Phil is that he's always had amazing talent to work with, and it's a knock that I absolutely think is a fair one. When he won his six titles with the Bulls, he had arguably not only the greatest basketball player, but the greatest athlete of all time, period, and another top-50 player of all time.
In Los Angeles, he had two more top-50 players, including arguably the most physically dominant player of all time. The years in which he didn't have both of those dominant pieces, he didn't win. In fact, he's never been past the second round without both dominant pieces on the roster.
Phil's teams have always struck me as being just as successful for just having the flat-out better players on the floor than as being well-coached and prepared. Many big games, and indeed many championships, were won because MJ or Kobe hit a huge shot, or Shaq was putting two defenders through the rim with a dunk. Those aren't byproducts of great coaching, it's just having the most dominant, most talented player on the floor.
By comparison, while Pop may have what is arguably the top PF to ever play in Tim Duncan, his teams have never really been about Duncan dominating everyone on the floor and dropping 30+ on someone's head. They've always been cohesive units out there, playing great functional team basketball and great collective defense. Even what is probably Phil's greatest x's and o's coaching asset, the triangle offense, actually wasn't his creation but assistant Tex Winter's. Winter, the true maestro of the triangle, not coincidentally was an assistant coach on every single one of Phil's nine championship teams.
So yeah, I think I agree with Will Smith on this one. Err, I mean Robert Horry.
Fair enough Eagle, as I said, 1, 1A doesn't really matter what order, but you also didn't mention that neither Mike, nor Shaq and Kobe won UNTILPhil got there. Not that he deserves all the credit, but there is something to be said for that. And again, to me, the big glaring difference is, whycan't Pop get that back to back?
One feather you could now add to Phils cap is people always said can he build a champ team. Well, he is doing pretty good right now and two years ago it wasjust Kobe and Odom and and some kids. Now, they are a pretty decent team and he deserves a lot of credit for that. People have always said that Phil putsthem in spots to best succeed, ala Paxson, Kerr, B Shaw, who go on to hit clutch shots and make plays that win series and stuff. Well now he is developingkids that look like they too can put their names on that list.
I will be very very interested to see how Pop does when Duncan is gone.
Either way, we are watching two of the best at their craft.
- 1,226
- 138
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
they both have different styles. i dont know who i would pick as the better coach, both are great!
- 137
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
I wouldn't argue with Robert Horry on this one.
Sometimes I question Phil Jackson's "coaching" when I watch Laker games.
Besides, Horry played for both coaches so he has first had experiences playing under both of them so I would think he knows what he's talking about.
Sometimes I question Phil Jackson's "coaching" when I watch Laker games.
Besides, Horry played for both coaches so he has first had experiences playing under both of them so I would think he knows what he's talking about.
- 19,965
- 17,768
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
Bob Horry has never played for PJ...
- 1,058
- 24
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
With this series now, Phil has taken 4 outta 5 vs Pop. And Pop still has yet to get even one back to back, while Phil is now moving onto his 11th finalsappearance. This will be the 4th "nucleus" he has taken to the finals.
MJ + Scott and fill ins for 3
MJ + Scott and different fill ins for 3
Shaq + Kobe and fill ins for 4
Kobe + Pau and fill ins for 1*
Phil is nearing 200 career playoff wins, Pop is at 101. I think now Phil is starting to put a little distance in this argument. But they are still both greatgreat coaches.
* with a solid window for the next 5 years to come.
MJ + Scott and fill ins for 3
MJ + Scott and different fill ins for 3
Shaq + Kobe and fill ins for 4
Kobe + Pau and fill ins for 1*
Phil is nearing 200 career playoff wins, Pop is at 101. I think now Phil is starting to put a little distance in this argument. But they are still both greatgreat coaches.
* with a solid window for the next 5 years to come.
- 231
- 11
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
doug collins > both of them!!!
but in all seriousness.. like earlier mentioned.. the lakers did diddlysquat when they had shaq and kobe.. it took phil to get them to the promised land. thatwasn't a coincidence. phil is the man.
but in all seriousness.. like earlier mentioned.. the lakers did diddlysquat when they had shaq and kobe.. it took phil to get them to the promised land. thatwasn't a coincidence. phil is the man.
- 899
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
phil is overrated pop is a way better coach