> It's understood that Phil Jackson is a very, very, very good Coach. > But he's been fortunate to coach 3 of the Top 50 Players in NBA History (Jordan, Pippen, Shaq), KB24 is definitely gonna make the All NBA 75th Anniversary Team...so technically it's really 4 of the Top 75 Players in NBA history. If you subtract Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe from the equation...would Phil Jackson still be an eminent cat at the helm? Let's change the current situation a bit, if Phil was coaching the Oklahoma Thunder, would PJ be capable of single handedly turning a shitty team into a .500 ball club? So, my question for debate is basically, if you eliminate all the great players that PJ coached, and twisted the scenario to where Jackson only coached 2nd Tier caliber All-Stars...would he still have won a single championship? Is his success a combination of solid coaching and superior talent or is he just a slightly above average skipper fortunate enough to end up coaching bona fide legends? Let's breath some life in the Laker forums...thus, let the debate begin bishez
I take issue with the implicit assumption that Phil's players' talents had nothing to do with Phil. Good coaches make players better, from the superstar guy (who admittedly probably needs the least help) all the way down to the 12th man scrub. Phil has a history of getting the most out of his players. He tamed Rodman, he made Shaq a winner, he taught Kobe how to play team ball, and even a guy like a Derek Fisher is far more effective under Phil than he was under Nelson or Sloan. So, to answer your hypothetical: Not sure if the Thunder would be .5 under Phil, but I'm willing to bet my life they'd be better than they are now. He's proven too much for me to bet against him.
During the Jordan-Pippen era and the Shaq-Kobe era PJax showed he's a closer and capable of coaching a team to win it all. His current run with the Lakers has shown he can take a lottery team right back to the Championship in less than 5 seasons. The guy can clearly coach under any circumstance. I don't always agree with his mind games, experimenting, and inconsistent decisions, but he's arguably the best coach ever in the NBA.
Phil's current stint with the Lakers, in my opinion, really has showcased him as quite possibly the best coach ever. He inherited a 34 win team from the year before, watched them trade away their 2nd best player that offseason (Caron) for garbage (Kwame), watched them draft a project center that wouldn't really produce for a couple years, had a super-inconsistent 2nd option (Lamar)...and still won 45 games that year, basically doing so on the back of Kobe. To top it off, he pushed the #2 seed Suns to the brink of elimination in the playoffs that year. Phil, with this stint as the Lakers coach, has proven how good of a coach he is.
Smush is not a D League PG. I don't know why everyone hates on him so much. He is a good bench PG. His only problem was his attitude. His offensive skills were on par with Farmar's and his defense was better than Farmar's. So is Farmar a D league caliber PG?
Doesn't that have to do also with how teams perceive him as a person? He was kind of a nuisance to various people, like you for instance. At one point he was better than D-League material.
Thats all part of the package, you just cant exclude that. There are plenty of players that could have the same impact he did in the NBA and they arent idiots.
Talent wise; he is right on par with Farmar. Better defense, same offensive skill set, far worse attitude and work ethic. He doesn't have a job right now because he has one of the worst attitudes imaginable.
Plenty of reasons but Im goin to bed so ill just give you my main reason...Not nearly as smart when playing. Farmar makes much better decisions...okay, on more reason...Parker wasnt better at D. Just because he gambled for steals at the 3pt line an occasionally got one or two a game doesnt negate all the times he was burned/ fouled for trying such a dumb play
I'll take those gambles and being burned than just being flat out burned. Parker tried on defense; Farmar sleeps on defense. He is one of the worst defenders in the NBA. And to make things worse, when he gets burned he turns it into a game of 1-on-1. He'll come right back at his man and fuck something up on the offensive end. And Farmar makes better decisions? Really? I haven't seen Farmar make any decisions. All he does is spot up for three which he usually bricks. Farmar and Smush's games are very identical. I think Farmar is the better player, but he doesn't play to that level.