- Aug 2, 2006
- 37,870
- 35,664
Calling out Rudy T.
Is Phil Jackson overrated?
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by poeticjays,
- Start date
- Mar 29, 2008
- 726
- 10
I'm definitely not going to call a 9 time champion overrated, that's absurd.
miamin2
Supporter
- Oct 22, 2004
- 5,583
- 8,134
I'm not saying you can just throw in your old high school coach there and win, but I do think that those titles could have been won withouthim. Phil happens to be in the right place at the right time. He was in there at the peak of those teams.Originally Posted by u ttocs
Phil Jackson was brought in because those other coaches couldn't get the job done with those Chicago and LA teams. That argument is wrong factually.
I'm definitely not going to call a 9 time champion overrated, that's absurd.
Like JapanAir said, he's only coached one season without Kobe or MJ on his team, what's the worst you can do with one of them.
sure del harris and kurt rambis were so successful with with kobe/shaq
...phil brought stability and leadership to that Laker team thats why they won...yehh doug collins (did you know he coached michael?) was so successful with pip/jordan...they has been other coaches who have coached shaq/kobe and jordan/pippen but im pretty damn sure they wouldnt be as dominant and winning the amount of rings they wonplease...
Ofcourse I know that, you dumb ##+$. I bet you think you're so smart and exclusive knowing that he coached MJ. That's probably the deepestyou know about NBA trivia.
Why don't you just stick to being one of those annoying Laker fans that don't know anything about basketbal,and how the hell are you an A's and Dodger fan?
- Feb 6, 2007
- 76,373
- 36,303
In 2004, Tomjanovich took over as the coach of the Los Angeles Lakers, replacing Phil Jackson. After just 41 games, he resigned due to health issues unrelated to his past bout with bladder cancer. Tomjanovich stayed with the Lakers as a consultant.
Really?
Do some research before you call somebody out
Do some research before you call somebody out
Do some research before you call somebody out
Good idea, I'll keep that in mind.
- May 5, 2009
- 12,536
- 39
Ofcourse I know that, you dumb ##+$. I bet you think you're so smart and exclusive knowing that he coached MJ. That's probably the deepest you know about NBA trivia.Originally Posted by miamin2
I'm not saying you can just throw in your old high school coach there and win, but I do think that those titles could have been won without him. Phil happens to be in the right place at the right time. He was in there at the peak of those teams.Originally Posted by u ttocs
Phil Jackson was brought in because those other coaches couldn't get the job done with those Chicago and LA teams. That argument is wrong factually.
I'm definitely not going to call a 9 time champion overrated, that's absurd.
Like JapanAir said, he's only coached one season without Kobe or MJ on his team, what's the worst you can do with one of them.
sure del harris and kurt rambis were so successful with with kobe/shaq...phil brought stability and leadership to that Laker team thats why they won...yehh doug collins (did you know he coached michael?) was so successful with pip/jordan...they has been other coaches who have coached shaq/kobe and jordan/pippen but im pretty damn sure they wouldnt be as dominant and winning the amount of rings they wonplease...
Why don't you just stick to being one of those annoying Laker fans that don't know anything about basketbal, and how the hell are you an A's and Dodger fan?
whoa whoa no need for name calling...calm down its just NT brother...good lord
miamin2 wrote:
I think in Chicago and LA it was mostly about being in the right place at the right time. He's a good coach but if you put other coaches in the same spots I'm sure they would have won too with Shaq/Kobe and Jordan/Pippen leading the squads.
my point is del harris, kurt rambis and doug collins couldnt do it...they were exactly in the same spots as phil was...but couldnt win...look atyou talking about me not knowing basketball then you ask me how am i an a's and dodgers fan?...nice comeback homie
youre just annoyed by me cause you know im right and you just look liked a tool for being wrong buddy...anyways if you wanna know i used to live in LA...which made me a dodgers fanthen moved here in the bay and well i got exposed to the a's...respected them with their farm system and its not like i became a weak giants fan...what i cant have an AL team and an NL team?...does that answer yourquestion?...then again why do i have to explain myself to you or anyone else...i dont know anything about basketball thats why im a dodgers and a's fan
- Mar 31, 2005
- 5,712
- 1,019
This picture speaks for itself
X
- Feb 6, 2007
- 76,373
- 36,303
Yeah, this thread is an epic failure.
X
X
- Sep 21, 2005
- 611
- 10
I think in Chicago and LA it was mostly about being in the right place at the right time. He's a good coach but if you put other coaches in the same spots I'm sure they would have won too with Shaq/Kobe and Jordan/Pippen leading the squads.
If you replaced Red Auerbach with any other coach in his time and gave them starting line ups of hall of famers in a era with no free agencyI'm sure they would have been crazy successful as well. Don't fault Phil because he had Kobe/Shaq & Jordan/Pippen jury is still out on any othersfrom those teams making the hall
Phil for the win!
[h1]
[/h1]
- Sep 17, 2005
- 10,902
- 3,870
How does everyone overlook that there were only 8 teams in the league when Red won his titles?
- Dec 17, 2003
- 9,530
- 91
- Jun 2, 2009
- 2,116
- 10
I wouldn't say so...he's won 10 out of the last 19 championships (as said on T.V), that's crazy.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 762
- 14
- Dec 17, 2003
- 9,530
- 91
not discrediting red at all, but winning the title in a league with 8 teams is harder than now? the nba is very watered down but the odds of winning in a league of 30 is much less than of a league of 8. be serious
You must be out of your mind. Take all of the top talent in today's league and create 8 teams. You're telling me it would be easier to winin that situation, gtfohwtbs
- Sep 1, 2004
- 25,596
- 742
so you never saw any of the bulls teams or the 3peat laker teams?
forgot only started watching bball once bron went to the cavs
(shrugs...)
- Jun 24, 2001
- 1,010
- 11
forgot only started watching bball once bron went to the cavs
(shrugs...)
he actually said that?
- Sep 17, 2005
- 10,902
- 3,870
You must be out of your mind. Take all of the top talent in today's league and create 8 teams. You're telling me it would be easier to win in that situation, gtfohwtbs
It was clear during those years that Boston had all the talent. They were head and shoulders above everyone else. Yes there was a Chamberlain andRussel rivalry but the Celtics were far superior than the other 7/8 teams. During their strong years they won their division by an average of 11 games.It's the equivalent of SC in the Pac-10 since Pete arrived. Superior recruiting, superior talent, superior tradition, and the rest of your conference is
- Aug 29, 2004
- 3,175
- 12
Nah... disagree....
You have to play for a coach you respect and has a winning pedigree... I look at the Laker Squads with an even younger Shaq, Kobe, E Jones, Nick the Quick andthey ran into a wall against Utah... Or Chicago with an explosive Jordan couldnt get over the hump without Jackson. Keep in mind that when MJ retired the firsttime media outlooks predicted the quick demise of the Bulls... what happened? 55-27 and a trip to the conference Finals...
Give Ol Phil his due...
- Oct 25, 2006
- 13,231
- 15,393
smh at people still hating on Phil... as a coach I don't believe you can be at the right place at the right time 10 times to win a championship. Tip yourhat off to one of the greatest coaches of all time. It's different when you're a coach; people act like the Zen Master had Robert Horry luck to winthat many chips.
anygivensunday
Banned
- Oct 15, 2003
- 1,243
- 10
Phil > Red
/thread
/thread
- Feb 12, 2005
- 60,616
- 32,317
Ludicrous. Let's not forget he came really close to taking a Jordan-less Bulls team to the Finals. Phil Jackson is not overrated. He'sunder-appreciated.
- Feb 6, 2007
- 76,373
- 36,303
You must be out of your mind. Take all of the top talent in today's league and create 8 teams. You're telling me it would be easier to win in that situation, gtfohwtbs
Born I think of one of the things you are forgetting is back then with those 8 teams, only 2 of them were any good. Boston and LA. Name some greatplayers/teams from that era. Can't right? It's just those two. All the great players went to either Boston or LA. Hell, Wilt didn't have anyhelp in Philly or he woulda won more.
The point is this, Red won with the same damn team every year for that decade. No trades, no free agent losses, nothin, the same 8-9 guys won between 7 and 11titles with the Celts.
Phil has now won with 4 different squads. MJ and Pip were on both 3 peats, but there were 10 diff role players on the second team.
Kobe/Shaq team that won 3
And now the Kobe/Pau group.
That's 4 complete roster overhauls.
Red ain't seein that. Not even close.
- Feb 12, 2005
- 60,616
- 32,317
Red was PART of a dynasty. Phil MADE himself dynasties. That's how I look at it.
jtwo8ight
Banned
- Sep 19, 2004
- 157
- 10
Nope. Phil is the ultimate winner (coaching wise).
- Jan 12, 2003
- 21,964
- 1,414
