For three years straight, we've faced an underrated team in the playoffs

Just repeating what he said.


I wonder though.....Do Nate's career playoff victories add up to 1 year of Phil Jackson's?

 

Let's talk in a week.

 

Why, is Nate going to win more playoff games between now and then?


The answer is no, by the way. Nate has won 14 career playoff games, and Phil Jackson won 16 last year alone

 

A lot of it has to do with the mentality of the team. We do not step up and get really aggressive and try and push the other team around, we kind of let them do it to us. We need to stand up for ourselves chase every loose ball try and make sure that someone always has a hand up in a shooters face ect. Without having a big guy who gets in other peoples face we seem to let ourselves get pushed around a lot.

 

well before the 1st round was best of five so he won 15 a bunch actually lol

 

He has six rings with the Bulls.

Doesn't he have five with the Lakers? Three with Shaq/Kobe and two with Kobe/Pau?

 

In no way can a roster devoid of its #1-pick center and with only a hobbled version of its best player can be characterized as "pretty damn healthy".

 

Phil's teams have won 16 playoff games only twice - the last two championships.

They won 15 games 9 times - all six Bulls championships and the first three with the Lakers.

They also won 14 games in 2007-08 when they lost the finals to the Celtics in six games.

BNM

 

So the answer is yes, eh MM?

Also, Phil's team might only win 4 this year.

 

4 still doubles what Nate did

 

That wasn't your question.

Yes.

 

Phil also coached teams with Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol. Nate, on the other hand, had teams with Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis, Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge.

You're talking about 5 first-ballot HOF'ers versus marginal all-stars at best ... so not exactly comparing apples to apples. At the end of the day, I doubt Phil could've done much better with the rosters (and injuries) that Nate's had to coach.

 

You are taking this out of context. But I'd rather not get into a discussion about it with someone who typed your last sentence

 

Mags, MM may be negative about Nate, but he knows who he says he does.

 

Phil Jackson had some mediocre years after Shaq went to Miami. A couple of first round flameouts with Kobe Bryant in his prime.

Phil Jackson has proven that if he has two All-NBA/Hall of Fame players, with at least one or both of them among the 10 best players of all time (Jordan,Bryant, Shaq), that he can win titles with them. When he doesn't have an all-time great, he can't even make the Finals (Chicago on MJ's sabattical; Lakers post-Shaq/pre-Gasol).

Anyhow, the larger point is that using Phil Jackson as the guage for any coach is a just silly. Every other coach in NBA history will fail in that comparison, regardless of circumstance.

 

He says he knows a "scout". My own scout friend for the Blazers tells me that MM's scout friend isn't very highly regarded in the league.

 

Silly comment.

As for the Phil Jackson statement, someone else brought him and the L*kers up first.