<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (valo35 @ Dec 12 2006, 09:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That team that Carlisle had was different than the team Brown had, and was a big reason for why he won and Brown did not win. Prine was a second year player when Carlisle got there, and not a rookie, and as you know that leap between their rookie season and their sophmore season is usually a big one, and the player gets much better. They got Lindsey Hunter towards the end of the season, they got Mike James towards the end of the season, and they brought in Elden Campbell to be another big bruiser down low for the team. Also factor in that Rasheed Wallace was traded to the team later that season, this was a different team the year Brown got there compared to the year before while Carlisle was there.</div>I think Larry brown was one of the main reasons why they went after sheed, sheed respects larry Brown because of their ties with UNC, Coach brown probaly handled sheed the best out of anyone.
Rasheed was just on the trading block that year, that's why he was getting traded around. No matter who Rasheed went to, he is the type of player to play his hardest every game and give you max effort. I really don't think he would have a problem playing for Rick Carlisle if he was traded the year before.
Haven't read any of the opinions, so I'm going to make a neutral post.A lot of a coach's success has to do with luck about what they have to work with. But with that being said, it still takes a lot of work to form any team, good or bad. At the NBA level there is a lot less pressure on the coach but at the same time a lot of pressure. An NBA coach has almost perfection (basketball-wise) to work with. Plays can be much more easily utilized with NBA players, whereas high school kids can be very hard to make them do certain things (positioning, reading plays, etc.) But on the other hand an NBA coach has a lot of pressure no doubt with what's at stake and their competition. Making last-second plays and defensive plays are not easy.So depending on the talent of the players and the coach, the importance changes. Although it's still hard for NBA coaches, the players are more important. They both make things happen, but I still believe the players are more important. They make things actually happen.That's my take.
You need good coaching to win a championship, there?s no way around it. When you reach the NBA Finals, it?s all about exploiting match-ups, adjustments (in-game & between game) and execution. It?s a chess game out there, both teams will have great players on the floor so difference might be who out coached who. Let?s look at the Lakers, they had Bryant and Shaq since 96 but didn?t even come close in reaching the Finals. Del Harris had the talent. . . . . . . . . .the Lakers will give you 50+ wins during the regular season and then what. They got dominated by the Jazz and the Spurs in the Playoffs. We were out coached so badly that it wasn?t even close. What did PJ have that Harris didn?t ??? Another good example is the Mavs. Nellie has better talent but how come Avery got them further in the playoffs. In 04 Nellie has Dirk, Nash, Jamison, Walker and Finley, result; they got bounced in the 1st round. . . . . . . . . .compare that to what Avery had last season. Don?t get me wrong it?s the players who wins the game but coaching IMHO plays big part if you want a championship.
Coaches have an impact, but not a total impact. They call the plays, they motivate players, but in the end, even if they call a play that results in a wide-open shot, the player still has to make it. Definitely, however, they are not useless, or even near to useless. As I said, they call plays, at least after timeouts, which means they call a lot plays in the end-game. They have a psychological effect as well, on the players. A coach has to know each player personally, what gets his engine started, and so on. Also, a coach has to know how to play, when, and who they have to guard. Perhaps of all the things that go unnoticed, it's the complexity of deciding who to play when. They have to think of all the possible matchups that could happen, factor in how tired the players on the court are, who's feeling it in the game and in the past few games, and then try to make it so that your best players will be able fresh for the end of a close game...Needless to say, it takes a lot of work and research.Yes, if you take a good coach and put him on a team with great players, he'll look great. But then if you put a player on a great team, won't he also look great? Really, it's all relative.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lakersfoelyfe @ Dec 13 2006, 01:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You need good coaching to win a championship, there?s no way around it. When you reach the NBA Finals, it?s all about exploiting match-ups, adjustments (in-game & between game) and execution. It?s a chess game out there, both teams will have great players on the floor so difference might be who out coached who. Let?s look at the Lakers, they had Bryant and Shaq since 96 but didn?t even come close in reaching the Finals. Del Harris had the talent. . . . . . . . . .the Lakers will give you 50+ wins during the regular season and then what. They got dominated by the Jazz and the Spurs in the Playoffs. We were out coached so badly that it wasn?t even close. What did PJ have that Harris didn?t ??? Another good example is the Mavs. Nellie has better talent but how come Avery got them further in the playoffs. In 04 Nellie has Dirk, Nash, Jamison, Walker and Finley, result; they got bounced in the 1st round. . . . . . . . . .compare that to what Avery had last season. Don?t get me wrong it?s the players who wins the game but coaching IMHO plays big part if you want a championship.</div>By the time Phil Jackson had gotten to L.A, Kobe Bryant was a fourth year player and had finally been able to come out in the league. That is a big leap between your third and fourth seasons, and lots of people improve alot, just look at how much better Carmelo Anthony is this year in his fourth season compared to last year. That is a big reason for the team getting better, and getting better in the playoffs. Also, the arrival of Ron Harper for veteran leadership as someone that had been to the finals and won them showed up big also. As for that Don Nelson thing you showed, another thing I have noticed is a constant, is every team Nash has been on so far has done the same thing. Awesome during the regular season, make the playoffs, but never make the finals. The Suns have done it the past two years also, so maybe Nash had as much to do with that as Don Nelson did. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hang Eleven @ Dec 13 2006, 04:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Coaches have an impact, but not a total impact. They call the plays, they motivate players, but in the end, even if they call a play that results in a wide-open shot, the player still has to make it. Definitely, however, they are not useless, or even near to useless. As I said, they call plays, at least after timeouts, which means they call a lot plays in the end-game. They have a psychological effect as well, on the players. A coach has to know each player personally, what gets his engine started, and so on. Also, a coach has to know how to play, when, and who they have to guard. Perhaps of all the things that go unnoticed, it's the complexity of deciding who to play when. They have to think of all the possible matchups that could happen, factor in how tired the players on the court are, who's feeling it in the game and in the past few games, and then try to make it so that your best players will be able fresh for the end of a close game...Needless to say, it takes a lot of work and research.Yes, if you take a good coach and put him on a team with great players, he'll look great. But then if you put a player on a great team, won't he also look great? Really, it's all relative.</div>Not if the player is the reason for the team being great, for example, Shaq was the reason for the Lakers being great, Tim Duncan was the reason for the Spurs looking great in those finals. Those are areas where the player has made the team great, without them, it doesn't matter how good your coaching is your still going to loose alot more games than you would win without them. Shaq has taken three different teams to the finals, and won two championships with two different teams. I'm failing to see where that last point really proved anything.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (valo35 @ Dec 13 2006, 06:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>By the time Phil Jackson had gotten to L.A, Kobe Bryant was a fourth year player and had finally been able to come out in the league. That is a big leap between your third and fourth seasons, and lots of people improve alot, just look at how much better Carmelo Anthony is this year in his fourth season compared to last year. That is a big reason for the team getting better, and getting better in the playoffs. Also, the arrival of Ron Harper for veteran leadership as someone that had been to the finals and won them showed up big also. As for that Don Nelson thing you showed, another thing I have noticed is a constant, is every team Nash has been on so far has done the same thing. Awesome during the regular season, make the playoffs, but never make the finals. The Suns have done it the past two years also, so maybe Nash had as much to do with that as Don Nelson did. Not if the player is the reason for the team being great, for example, Shaq was the reason for the Lakers being great, Tim Duncan was the reason for the Spurs looking great in those finals. Those are areas where the player has made the team great, without them, it doesn't matter how good your coaching is your still going to loose alot more games than you would win without them. Shaq has taken three different teams to the finals, and won two championships with two different teams. I'm failing to see where that last point really proved anything.</div>Fourth Year ?? that?s your reason ?? because he?s in his 4th year ?? LOL. Kobe had his coming out party in his third year (?99) not fourth. That was the year when they traded E.Jones for Glen Rice to give Kobe more minutes and it?s also the year he became a starter. Phil just took him to another level in 2000. So you think Dallas who became a better half-court team and defensive team with Avery got nothing to do with it ??? No credit to Avery at all ??? You think Nash was the problem in Dallas, meaning the Suns will never win a title as long as Nash is playing for them ???I?m not here to change your mind so if you think coaches don?t make a difference it?s fine with me. If you think Sam Mitchell and Phil Jackson has the same impact on a team, that?s fine too. I based my opinion on experience and from what I?ve seen in the NBA. Coaches do a lot of things that?s not obvious to ordinary fans. It?s one of the reasons why people don?t appreciate coaches as much, they do their work behind the scene while players do theirs in public. After everything Phil has done especially last year and he still get no respect. . IMHO coaching is very important especially in the Playoffs (NBA Finals). . . . . . . . . . .I respect your opinion but I disagree.
The one example that I look at that really shows me how important coaches are is in LA about 5 years ago. When Kurt Rambis was the head coach of the lakers, they got eliminated by the Spurs 4-0 in the playoffs. The next three years, they win the championships under Phil Jackson. I think the coach that you have makes a very big difference. Having a good coach gets respect out of your players which will ultimatley make the team play harder...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Dec 13 2006, 05:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The one example that I look at that really shows me how important coaches are is in LA about 5 years ago. When Kurt Rambis was the head coach of the lakers, they got eliminated by the Spurs 4-0 in the playoffs. The next three years, they win the championships under Phil Jackson. I think the coach that you have makes a very big difference. Having a good coach gets respect out of your players which will ultimatley make the team play harder...</div>Kurt Rambis wasn't even in charge of the team to begin the season that year, he took over about 12 games into the season or so, plus it was a lock out year, so Kurt Rambis didn't have a fair amount of time to teach his offense and game compared to what Phil had the next year. Phil had all of training camp, plus the rest of the season to tinker with things. Furthermore, Kurt Rambis had to deal with his team changing a few games after he took over because then they traded Eddie Jones for Glen Rice a few games. Meanwhile the Spurs had the same team all throughout the season, and had the same coach, from training camp all the way till the time they played the Lakers. So the Spurs had a team with much more chemistry, and understanding of their roles than the Lakers had that year. Also factor in that Phil Jackson got Ron Harper to come to the Lakers his year, a veteran presence on the floor that knew what it was like to be in the finals and win in the finals. He had alot of advantages on Kurt Rambis, that I think had he had all season, things might have been different. I honostly tihnk that a floor leader like Ron Harper, someone that has had success in the playoffs and was playing on a potential filled team is more important than the head coach. Lakasfolyfe, that might have been the year that Kobe Bryant started shaping into a star, but his fourth year it got even bigger. His rebounding got better, his passing got better, his scoring got slightly better in his fourth year. Plus he got to be more comfortable as the second option every game, and got to develop chemistry in that role for an entire season.As for the Sam Mitchell and Phil Jackson comparison you came up with, look at who has had what players. Phil Jackson had got to coach Lamr Odom, and Kobe Bryant last year. Sam Mitchell as a 2nd year coach had Mike James and Chris Bosh as his best players to work with, a team with hardly any defensive players on there, and no low post players. He had to coach a terrible assortment of players, I doubt Phil Jackson could get that team to a playoff win.
I agree, Kobe became a better player and that?s because of Phil Jackson. To say that Harper is more important than Phil. . . . . . . . . . . .wow I?m speechless. :shok: You can replace a Ron Harper but not a Phil Jackson. In 2002 the Lakers manage to win the championship without Ron Harper. You really have no idea of how important coaching is don?t you. You know what I?m done with this topic, stop looking for reasons/excuses valo35. Like I said it?s your opinion and I respect it. Let?s move on. :winkglasses:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (valo35 @ Dec 13 2006, 06:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Kurt Rambis wasn't even in charge of the team to begin the season that year, he took over about 12 games into the season or so, plus it was a lock out year, so Kurt Rambis didn't have a fair amount of time to teach his offense and game compared to what Phil had the next year. Phil had all of training camp, plus the rest of the season to tinker with things. Furthermore, Kurt Rambis had to deal with his team changing a few games after he took over because then they traded Eddie Jones for Glen Rice a few games. Meanwhile the Spurs had the same team all throughout the season, and had the same coach, from training camp all the way till the time they played the Lakers. So the Spurs had a team with much more chemistry, and understanding of their roles than the Lakers had that year. Also factor in that Phil Jackson got Ron Harper to come to the Lakers his year, a veteran presence on the floor that knew what it was like to be in the finals and win in the finals. He had alot of advantages on Kurt Rambis, that I think had he had all season, things might have been different. I honostly tihnk that a floor leader like Ron Harper, someone that has had success in the playoffs and was playing on a potential filled team is more important than the head coach.</div>In a 50 game season that year, if Kurt Rambis came in at game 12 or whatever you said, the team would have enough time to prepare for a Spurs team in the playoffs. The fact of the matter is, they got swept one year, and then totally dominated the next. The Lakers roster wasnt that much different than the year before, yet the ended up being a hell of a lot better. Another thing, since Kurt Rambis was already in the organization as an assistant coach I do believe, how do you know he didnt stick with the same exact offense? Why would he even change the offense that they were running 12 games in to the season? I highly doubt that they did. The team didnt have to adjust to that much what so ever. Also, wouldnt you say that the Spurs would have just as much chemistry the next season when the Lakers swept them in the playoffs? I certainly would think that they would. All of what you are saying is irrelevant. The Lakers had Ron Harper in 99 when the Spurs won the championship so I dont know where you are going with this.....I just find it ironic that a team would make that drastic of a change to the next season when the only major difference on their team is their coach.
Coaches are very important these days. They keep order amongst all of these smug, cocky and pampered prima-donnas we call players.However, I think the only thing Jeff Van Gundy is good at is using all of his timeouts in the last 4 seconds of a game. That dude can make the last 2 minutes of a game last 2 hours. Am I the only one annoyed by that?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lakersfoelyfe @ Dec 13 2006, 07:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I agree, Kobe became a better player and that?s because of Phil Jackson. To say that Harper is more important than Phil. . . . . . . . . . . .wow I?m speechless. :shok: You can replace a Ron Harper but not a Phil Jackson. In 2002 the Lakers manage to win the championship without Ron Harper. You really have no idea of how important coaching is don?t you. You know what I?m done with this topic, stop looking for reasons/excuses valo35. Like I said it?s your opinion and I respect it. Let?s move on. :winkglasses:</div><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Dec 13 2006, 07:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>In a 50 game season that year, if Kurt Rambis came in at game 12 or whatever you said, the team would have enough time to prepare for a Spurs team in the playoffs. The fact of the matter is, they got swept one year, and then totally dominated the next. The Lakers roster wasnt that much different than the year before, yet the ended up being a hell of a lot better. Another thing, since Kurt Rambis was already in the organization as an assistant coach I do believe, how do you know he didnt stick with the same exact offense? Why would he even change the offense that they were running 12 games in to the season? I highly doubt that they did. The team didnt have to adjust to that much what so ever. Also, wouldnt you say that the Spurs would have just as much chemistry the next season when the Lakers swept them in the playoffs? I certainly would think that they would. All of what you are saying is irrelevant. The Lakers had Ron Harper in 99 when the Spurs won the championship so I dont know where you are going with this.....I just find it ironic that a team would make that drastic of a change to the next season when the only major difference on their team is their coach.</div>First off, in that 99 season, Ron Harper was playing with the Bulls he came to the Lakers the very next year. Another thing, that Spurs team that swept them the year before didn't play the Lakers that next year, and was completely different from the year before. If you will remember Tim Duncan was hurt in the playoffs, and didn't play any minutes of that Phoenix series that the Spurs got swept in. Sean Elliot had only got to play with the team for 19 games prior to that series, so he was still trying to fit back in with the team. Your not even bringing up correct facts right now, and saying that what I'm saying is irrelevant? Rambis might have been with the team, but it's a big difference having to step into the head coaching roll after being an assistant coach all of his career. That was his first head coaching job ever, don't you think that would take a bit to get used to? They won their first playoff series against the Rockets, and lost in the next series, that seems pretty successful for a first year coach to me. lakersfolyfe, In all honosty though, I do have to tell you, you have had some good arguments. I just think instead of pointing out years that things changed with the coach, you could go into the actual game part of things to explain why coaches are so important, a little more. Go into subbing patterns, an example you could use is in Boston Doc Rivers tires his starters out, plays them to many minutes without break, especially in the second half, and they grow tired by the end of the game many times. If Phil Jackson was there, you would not see the starters playing so much and being so tired by the end of the game. You could show how Phil Jackson took advantage of certain matchups, compared to how other coaches don't. Doc Rivers I use again, he has matchup problems all over his lineup, but keeps wanting to use small ball and stuff even when everyone is healthy. That's just some of the stuff you could use. You can go into why the big time players like Scottie Pippen, Lamar Odom, and Kobe Bryant put up career years and had the best years of their careers with him as coach. You could have already blown my argument out of the water.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The one example that I look at that really shows me how important coaches are is in LA about 5 years ago. When Kurt Rambis was the head coach of the lakers, they got eliminated by the Spurs4-0 in the playoffs. The next three years, they win the championships under Phil Jackson. I think the coach that you have makes a very big difference. Having a good coach gets respect out of your players which will ultimatley make the team play harder...</div>I find it interesting that Kobe/Shaq and Jordan/Pippen never won a title until Phil Jackson became the head coach.
I think a good example of how a coach can affect a team is Don Nelson this year. Look at what he's done with that franchise in less than a season. Sure, they probably won't win a championship, but they are undeniably a better team.
