Phil Jackson is very underrated....

[williams22]

Jackson is a very good coach. I firmly believe that. However, to hear people call him the greatest coach of all time or a genius with his use of his triangle offense is just not right. As I stated before in this thread, Jackson had nothing to do with the creation and implementation of the triangle offense.

Jordan takes two seasons off and the Bulls are eliminated in Round 2 both seasons.
Shaq is traded, and when Jackson comes back the following year the Lakers are eliminated in the first round of the playoffs both seasons.

We aren't talking about having the best players of the season. Jackson is fortunate enough to have had two of the best ever players suit up for him.

Jackson is very good. However, for myself, who watches probably 50+ Lakers games a year, I am not that impressed with his in-game adjustments. Nor am I impressed at all with his in-series adjustments (as I stated in an earlier post).

Jackson is not a Mike Brown (not many are that bad), but I just think he is overrated. But, he's still very good. He has had some excellent assistant coaches with him for many years. This is similar to the Boston Celtic situation with Doc Rivers. If you think Boston's defense is so good because of Rivers, you are dead wrong. Tom Thibodeau created that Celtic defense, not Rivers.

Amen. Phil is the most overrated 10-ring coach in history. Obviously he is good, but most people who only have a casual understanding of the NBA vastly overrate him. He has never proven that he can build a great team and has never succeeded without at least 2 superstars on his team. Also, anyone who mentions the genius of the triangle offense and tried to credit it to Phil clearly does not know basketball.

[seaborneq]

in nba basketball the best team almost always wins a championship because of the best of seven format. college basketball, nfl these are not good examples because of the one and done. if college hoops was best of seven, coach k would have maybe 7 or 8 titles!

Let's just go back 20 years.
Portland trailblazers didn't win one 90/92/00, New York Knicks didn't win one93/94, Utah Jazz97/98, Indiana Pacers94/98/00, Denver Nuggets09, Phoenix Suns 93/94/07, Pistons 05, Lakers 04, SuperSonics 96, Sactown 01, Spurs03. These teams did not win championships, but if you look at these team closely you are talking about a small margin of error as to why these teams were not Finals champions. All I have to do is give a word or two about the team and you know exactly who I am talking about.

Blazers 4th quarter collapse
Knicks Charles Smith layup, missed Ewing layup
Jazz MJ steal and seal the deal jumper
Pacers Bulls home cooking game 7
Nuggets couldn't inbound the damn ball....twice
Suns Paxson jumper, horry hip check, mario Elie 3 pointer
Pistons R Wallace brain fart double team to leave Horry open
Lakers Mailman knee injury
Sonics 72 game winning Bulls
Kings Horry 3 on a Webber tip
Spurs Fisher .4 seconds

all of these things changed the history of who is considered champions. Just a little something, not a lot of the other team being better. It is very little difference between being the champ and runner up that Phil Jackson has to be credited with something other than coaching great players. So no, the best team does not usually win the championship. Any of the above scenarios could have led to a different champion. The Butterfly Effect, one little something caused something bigger to happen.

[hoopster42]

Let's just go back 20 years.
Portland trailblazers didn't win one 90/92/00, New York Knicks didn't win one93/94, Utah Jazz97/98, Indiana Pacers94/98/00, Denver Nuggets09, Phoenix Suns 93/94/07, Pistons 05, Lakers 04, SuperSonics 96, Sactown 01, Spurs03. These teams did not win championships, but if you look at these team closely you are talking about a small margin of error as to why these teams were not Finals champions. All I have to do is give a word or two about the team and you know exactly who I am talking about.

Blazers 4th quarter collapse
Knicks Charles Smith layup, missed Ewing layup
Jazz MJ steal and seal the deal jumper
Pacers Bulls home cooking game 7
Nuggets couldn't inbound the damn ball....twice
Suns Paxson jumper, horry hip check, mario Elie 3 pointer
Pistons R Wallace brain fart double team to leave Horry open
Lakers Mailman knee injury
Sonics 72 game winning Bulls
Kings Horry 3 on a Webber tip
Spurs Fisher .4 seconds

all of these things changed the history of who is considered champions. Just a little something, not a lot of the other team being better. It is very little difference between being the champ and runner up that Phil Jackson has to be credited with something other than coaching great players. So no, the best team does not usually win the championship. Any of the above scenarios could have led to a different champion. The Butterfly Effect, one little something caused something bigger to happen.

youre focusing on just a few plays which stand out. in a basketball game where each team has 70-80 possessions, one play does not make the difference. you don't fluke your way to winning 4 games in a 7 game series dude. barring major injury, i cannot remember ever seeing an nba series where the better team did not win 4 of the 7 games

[hoopster42]

Let's just go back 20 years.
Portland trailblazers didn't win one 90/92/00, New York Knicks didn't win one93/94, Utah Jazz97/98, Indiana Pacers94/98/00, Denver Nuggets09, Phoenix Suns 93/94/07, Pistons 05, Lakers 04, SuperSonics 96, Sactown 01, Spurs03. These teams did not win championships, but if you look at these team closely you are talking about a small margin of error as to why these teams were not Finals champions. .

spurs 03 did win the title dude. none of the other teams you mentioned were the best team in the finals, thats why they lost. the last time i saw the better team not win was 89 lakers versus pistons because magic got hurt in game one, other than that, the champions from 1990 to 2009, all 20 of them, were the best overall TEAM (combined offense, defense, coaching). you do NOT FLUKE yourself to win a best of seven series. sorry, it does not happen.

[hoopster42]

portland was not better than detroit in 90, not better than not chicago 92 (who was 91 champ defending), and not better than lakers 00 who were just starting a three-peat

i'm not going to waste my time picking all those teams apart because to me it's clear they were not the best team in their respective playoff years

[Wojo]

Good points by hoopster42. Jackson has not won a ring or even gotten deep in the playoffs without mulitple GREAT players. Not good, or very good, but GREAT players. The more I watched Jackson over the past few years, the more I realized he was not a great coach. Be realistic, Oklahoma City and Phoenix could have won or at least taken the series to seven games. However, who in the media is going to say Jackson is not a great coach? Jackson had a great team in 2008. Why didn't he win the championship then? I'll wait for everybody's response.

[seaborneq]

youre focusing on just a few plays which stand out. in a basketball game where each team has 70-80 possessions, one play does not make the difference. you don't fluke your way to winning 4 games in a 7 game series dude. barring major injury, i cannot remember ever seeing an nba series where the better team did not win 4 of the 7 games

Even matchups that could have gone either way the last 20 years. Bulls/Knicks 93, Bulls/Suns 93, Spurs/Pistons 05, Mavs/Heat 06, Nuggets/Lakers 09, Lakers/Kings 01, Lakers/Blazers 00, Bulls/Pacers 98, Bulls/Jazz 98, Rockets/Jazz 97, Suns/Rockets 95, Suns/Spurs 07, Lakers/Spurs 04, Lakers/Pistons 05.

Any of these series could have gone either way. All of them went at least 6 games, and the home team didn't win each time. Personally, I thought the 93 Knicks were the best team all season long and they had a 2-0 lead on those Bulls and probably came the closest to beating a prime MJ Bulls. Mavs had home court and 2.75-0 lead on Heat, Blazers had a 15 point 4th quarter lead, Kings go up 3-1 versus 2-2 with Horry 3. Pistons don't have to win 2 games in SA if Rasheed doesn't brain fart on the Horry 3. If the better team wins all the time then Phil has to get credit for doing that more than anybody else. I just don't think the 4 out of 7 always gives you the best team.

[UntilTheNDofTimE]

Why does everyone seem to be focused around the fact that phil jackson had multiple great players to coach? Yes its a point but you also need great players to win.

I would assume none of you would doubt the excellence of Greg Popovich as a coach. If popovich won 10 championships in 20 years coaching MJ and Kobe would you assume the same thing. That he's overatted?

You make the point that Jackson didnt invent the triangle offense. Point taken but he implements it on every player that has joined the team and hes been successful.

Greg Popovich didnt invent the 2-3 zone but hes implemented it amongst his players. I dont see you hating on him.

My point here isnt to hate on Popovich hes my favorite coach as i am a spurs fan. My point isnt to state jackson is overatted. But to sit here and say hes overatted because he coached 2 of the best players of all time is a ignorant fact. Might as well point out that the rim is 10 feet high.

So Jackson didnt win it when he came back, so what? Did Pat riley and other great coaches Make it to the finals every single year? The lakers lost in 08. So this proves Jackson is overatted?give me a break Utah was a Very GREAT team and lost to the bulls twice. I suppose this means sloan is a bad coach.

Fact is hes won 10 titles in 20 years. He is a great coach. The best? Well thats up to question but to say hes overatted is just a simple minded opinion.

The only fact any of you have proven is that he dosent make great in game adjustments. Besides this none of you have even came close to making a lehlgitimate argument as to why hes overated.

[Goat Milk]

Amen. Phil is the most overrated 10-ring coach in history. Obviously he is good, but most people who only have a casual understanding of the NBA vastly overrate him. He has never proven that he can build a great team and has never succeeded without at least 2 superstars on his team. Also, anyone who mentions the genius of the triangle offense and tried to credit it to Phil clearly does not know basketball.

Let's get this straight. Phil could be the best coach ever, but he is still also the most overrated coach ever. You can use whatever definition you want, Phil is far, far, far from a genius.

Phil knows how to motivate his guys obviously, and a great coach, but he is no genius. If I can do you what Phil is going to do before games how does that make him a genius? Does that make me a genius for being able to read Phil's mind?

Get a clue. Phil is a simple minded coach and I know exactly how he thinks and I know his strategies, tactics, and exactly what he is going to do. There are other coaches that are way harder to figure out in my opinion such as someone like Pop.

[letitburn]

Phil Jackson

[Rixsaw]

He is one of the best coach ever.

[sideline36]

Agreed!

[beanbag]

best coach of all time! no question

[INVEGA MAN]

10 rings tells me all i want to know. HE STINKS.

[samdapatriotsfan]

auerbach, riley, those guy never had bad teams either, they had superstars
phil jackson = great coach
next subject please

[jboy4]

Every coach in the NBA could have done that. Right place right time. Bottom line.

[bbar86]

No way he is underrated. I dont know why this is up for debate, any championship winning team has an all-time-great HOF player, Jackson has just been able to maintain that chemistry and drive to repeat so many times

[KiDBaZkiT]

God I wish this guy would stop with these posts. The Stockton/Nash then the Kobe/MJ. Guy doesn't have a clue.

[unusialsusp5]

basketball coach? do they teach them how to play? they just sit there and don't really do much. players coach themselves for the most part.

[chiliv5]

Phil is good with media, refs, and getting guys to know their role- That is a huge part of coaching. However, when MJ/Kobe can make shots fading away out of bounds with 2 players in their face in the clutch coaching goes out the window. He is smart enough to know what he has and what he needs. I think a lot of coaches would have screwed LA up by now. Or, should I say, Kobe would have run off by now....

[HCBoone]

He's not underrated at all. Everybody know how good he is. Not overrated or underrated. He's a legend fo sure.

[hoopster42]

basketball coach? do they teach them how to play? they just sit there and don't really do much. players coach themselves for the most part.

teachers teach, coaches coach. coaching is not just teaching, its way more than teaching. and if you think coaches coach themselves, then why didnt jordan and kobe win championships without phil jackson there?