Phil Jackson vs Red Auerbach

Isiah Thomas is better than both

 

Since your new, the smilie faces are over there on the left. I know no one could make this statement with a straight face.

 

I think you're giving Jordan a little too much credit.

Phil is a good coach who happens to coach great players.

 

If Red says it, I believe it.

Auerbach built the Celtics from scratch and didn't inherit the likes of MJ, Shaq & Kobe.

Competition? Auerbach's Celtics took on the likes of Wilt Chamberlain (arguably one of the best centers and certainly worthy of being mentioned in the same breath with Shaq) and routinely defeated him.

Auerbach's championship teams usually did not have one player in the Top 10 in scoring. Now that is coaching.

Perhaps you should do a little boning up on your NBA history. You appear to be sorely lacking in the lessons historical perspective provides. As outspoken as Charles Barley is, you have never heard him ever remotely insult the importance of the NBA's past history. Barkley has nothing but reverance for those who came before him. And you should as well.

 

From what I understand Auerbach was the one who came out and made the comments first, which is in my opinion complete BS. It wreaks of jealousy to me. Why would he be jealous? I don't know. Why else would he feel the need to make those comments? I mean its okay for fans and sportswriters to argue about stuff like that that but for a well-respected coach to basically come out and state "Phil Jackson is not as good of a coach as me" is pretty pathetic and causes me to lose some of my respect for him. And I'm not about to compare different eras of basketball to try and determine which coach was better...that's just not possible. I don't give a flip which coach is better. I just think Red should have kept his mouth shut.

 

"If guys like Larry Brown or Pat Riley or Lenny Wilkens had this record, they'd deserve a lot more credit because they helped put their teams together," Auerbach told Bloomberg News in a telephone interview from his Washington-area home on Sunday. "Those guys have to worry about drafting and signing players. It seems to me that Jackson is divorced from all that. He just gets a ready-made ballclub. That should take away from some of his greatness. Jerry got Shaq and Kobe. He's the guy who should get all the credit."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/sports/bk/bkn/923484

Seems I've read this criticism somewhere before..... oh, yea, here at Clutch City. Auerbach isn't the first to notice (or comment) that Jackson inherited his teams.

If Auerbach and Jackson both took jobs as GM & Coach of two new expansion teams next season, Auerbach would get to the Finals 1st. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it .

 

Evol, I think you may want to take some time to re-evaluate your priorities. While you don't seem to spend nearly as much time as some do on this BBS (which is to your credit), you do appear to have a somewhat unhealthy attitude toward Michael Jordan. While he may suffer from some delusions of grandeur, he is not God.

Besides all that, what does Jordan's retirement have to do with Jackson's ability as a coach. If Jordan had retired and Jackson won anyway, that would indicate something about the man's abilities. The fact that he lost isn't much of a credit to him. Coouldn't you have just as easily said that if Rudy T. had Jordan on his roster instead of Scottie Brooks he'd have won a lot more than 2 titles? By this logic it'd be pretty plain that Rudy is actually a much better coach than Jackson. And the assumption -- that replacing Brooks with Jordan would mean more titles -- is probably a surer one than the assumption that the status quo in Chicago would have meant more titles.

 

I agree with what he said about Phil Jackson inheriting teams. How could anyone not agree? But I don't agree that he, as a fellow well-respected coach, should have publicly stated some of those things. That's just not cool and it sounds like there's some jealousy due to the fact that Phil will most likely end up passing Auerbach or at least tying him. What right does he have to publicly berate another coach's accomplishments? That's just wrong.

 

"GOD" played during the second championship. The Magic beat him, and the Rockets swept the Magic. End of story.

 

But couldn't the same arguement be made for Rudy after the 2 championships? Did he not have a team with what most called "a mini-dream team"? We had Barkley, Drexler, Olajuwon. How much more do you need?? And then we had Olajuwon, Barkley, Pippen.....still nothing?? Before Phil came along, LA always lost in the first or second round. It was always Utah vs. someone else for the western confrence finals. I don't exactly remember who was LA's coach before Phil but I do remember he sucked. But, for a little while they went to Kurt Rambis and he took up a good ways up in the playoffs only to lose. Then Phil stepped in and......badda bing...1 championship.....2 championship.....and now on their way too their 3rd finals. Same thing with the Bulls. They sucked for about 2 years with Jordan and his numerous problems with his coaches. Doug Collins and others couldn't coach Jordan because they had differences and would put limits on Jordan. But then stepped in Phil, took over the team, and went on to win 3 straight championships. Then of course Jordan retired and you all want to make the arguement that what did Phil do after Jordan? How come he didn't win then?? How would it be for any team who just lost their main scorer and now has to reconfigure the whole offense to be more of a team than a player and the team?? Like if the Nets lost J.Kidd, Lakers lost Shaq, Rockets lost Olajuwon. Would they still be the same teams next year? Obviously not.

 

Nobody was going to beat Drexler/Hakeem in 95' - Jordan was not that rusty I believe he threw in the most points in a game that season against the knicks 50+. No Rodman doing the dirty work that was the difference. Red's speaking his mind and he's got a point- Jackson's a great coach no doubt- but it would be nice to see him build a new team -but who would stay in Chicago and deal with Jerry K?

 

I am not going to debate this with you, but I do have a couple of quick questions.

1) Since you think there is a code of conduct which coaches should adhere to - does this apply to players as well?

2) Are you a big fan of Charels Barkley?

 

We need to get Robert, Sam, Mario and Kenny back, to find
a young strong PF like Pollard. That is all. Do we need three
superstars? No.

 

>>><b>"If guys like Larry Brown or Pat Riley or Lenny Wilkens had this record, they'd deserve a lot more credit because they helped put their teams together," Auerbach told Bloomberg News in a telephone interview from his Washington-area home on Sunday. </b>

Riley had most of his fame from the Laker years when he inherited the team from Paul Westhead, I think its Paul... Then he inherited the Knicks with Ewing and brought in some toughness with Mase and Oakley. Grunfeld was GM at the time. Riley only built his Heat team from ground up, and if Zo didn't have that kidney ailment, things could've been different. So for the most part, Pat has inherited a good team core before implementing his good coaching to win games. Something akin to what Phil has been doing. Though I seriously doubt Phil doing a Miami Heat and building a team from ground up, Phil should deserve some credit for Jordan's championships when all he was was an assistant coach who originally came from the CBA.

Larry Brown is a better coach than Phil, but Phil's players don't tune him out after the fourth year...

 

Wow! Lots of things to discuss!

First of all, Michael Jordan is not a god. I don't even think he's the best player ever. Anyway, even if Jordan wasn't 'in full form,' that isn't why the Bulls lost in 1995. It was because they had no dominant rebounder big-man. Period. Without Grant/Rodman, Jordan doesn't go anywhere. It's a lot like Elgin Baylor: he was 6'5" and played in the 60's, and he had Jordan-like skills. One season he averaged 35 points and 20 rebounds (serious hops). But he never won anything. Why? 1. He didn't have a dominant big man (Chamberlain) until the end, and 2. He had to beat the Celtics, coached by Auerbach and led by Russell.

This is an entirely subjective opinion. I don't think anyone on this board has seen a whole lot of games from 'back then.' Also, here's one thing to consider: today there are 29 teams, 12 guys a team (15 if you count the Reserves); 348/435 players. 'Back then' there were 8 teams, 10 players team; 80 players. Don't you think that would make them more skilled overall? Can you imagine the NBA today with only 8 teams and 80 players? Think of the skill level! Perhaps those old players weren't taught as much, but it has been said by some people that "some of the players today wouldn't get a second look back in the 60's."
On the other hand, you could argue that there was no compettion during the Jackson/Jordan/Bulls era. Think about it: most of the powerhouses were gone. The Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, and Pistons were all faded away when Jordan arrived. Orlando, Houston, Utah, New York? These teams were good, but do not approach the level of '89 Pistons, '87 Lakers, '86 Celtics, '83 Sixers, '72 Lakers, '67 Sixers, '63 Celtics, etc., etc., etc.

Exactly. Auerbach was one of the greatest GMs ever. He TRADED for Russell's draft rights, and aquired all his great players, like Cousy, Sharman, Havlicek, Ramsey, the Joneses, etc. After the 11 championships in 13 years, Auerbach constructed another team that included Cowens, Havlicek, and Jo Jo White that won two championships. Then he helped put together the Bird/McHale/Parish/Ainge/Johnson teams. The Celtics may have kept on winning if Len Bias hadn't died. On the other hand, all Phil ever did was come into a good situation and polish up the front-runner. As Auerbach said "Jerry (West) got Shaq and Kobe."

If you want to imagine Chamberlain, think Shaq, except 20 pounds lighter (in his prime), has a fadeaway out to 15 feet, can jump more than 4 feet off the ground, is faster, more athletic, and stronger, and you have Wilt Chamberlain.

I would remind you that Jordan has said that he is the 'best player ever.' Unless you're willing to concede that Jordan's comment 'wreaks of jealousy,' you should leave Auerbach alone. Auerbach's opinion is no more offensive than Jordan's.

Yes. Again, the Bulls had no dominant big man, so they were screwed from the start. Hakeem would have killed their front line. There's only one team I know of that won a championship without a dominant big man: '75 Warriors. Rick Barry simply willed them to win.

And why is it that people say that Jordan had 'court rust' in '95, and use that as an excuse? Let me tell you something: in (1973?) Chamberlain got injured early in the season. He rehabilitated hard, and played only the last 2 games of the regular season. Then he led them to the 7th game of the Finals. Why is it that Chamberlain 'choked' and Jordan 'had court rust?' Seems like a double standard to me.

That's another thing. Do you recall that the Lakers fired Del Harris and got Kurt Rambis to replace him for a year? And then they improved? Now, who thinks Rambis is a better coach than Del Harris? 'Nuff said.

In the end, Jackson and Auerbach are both very good coaches. But I believe that many coaches could have done what Jackson did, had they been in the same position. You could say that many coaches could have won with Auerbach's teams; however, as was said before, Auerbach built his teams, Jackson didn't.

Does Jackson deserve to be in the Hall of Fame? Hell yes. Is Jackson as good as Auerbach? Ummm... NO. Personally, I would put the late Alex Hannum up for best coach ever. You know how the Celtics won 11 in 13 years? Hannum won the other 2, WITH DIFFERENT TEAMS. Now THAT'S a COACH.

 

Drexlerfan22 -

From the only poster at CC to have watched Wilt and the old Celtics in real time on black and white television, I am deeply impressed and I salute you.

Didn't Hannum coach the St. Louis Hawks with Bob Petit and Clyde (not so glyde) Lovelette? Am too lazy to look it up so I'm doing this from memory.

By the way, your description of Wilt was right on the money. An incredible athlete who was also an NCAA high jump champion at Kansas. Wilt had once talked loosely about returning to the game when he was like 43 or 44 (as I recall). I would not have bet against him.

My respect for Wilt is only surpassed by my amazement of how Russell and the Celtics were able to keep him in check.

 

Thanks GATER.

Hannum coached the Hawks in '56-'57 and '57-'58, but then stopped coaching for a few years. Lovellette joined the team in '58-'59 (the year after they won the title). Of course, Hannum also won with the 66-67 Sixers, where he won a then record 68 games (81 game season) even though his starting PG (Larry Costello) got injured in the middle of the season and never returned. At that point their record was 38-4. He forced Wilt into his system, where he averaged 24 points (15 lower than his career average at that point. This was also the first year he didn't lead the league in scoring), 24 rebounds, 8 assists, and shot 68%. Hannum made them an all-around team, with six guys averaging double-figures in scoring (not an easy task with Chamberlain, Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, and Chet Walker, all of whom averaged 20 points at some time in their careers. They could have easily become a Portaland-like team).

Funny thing is, Clyde was averaging 20 points & 10 rebounds in 35 minutes for most of his career (6 out of his first 9 seasons), and then he got traded to Boston, where he averaged 6 points & 3 rebounds in 9 minutes. That's how deep that damn team was. How can you use a 20 and 10 guy as a mere enforcer (he was the only guy Wilt ever punched)?

Clyde Lovellette(From my trusty NBA Encyclopedia):
61-62 (St. Louis): 20.9 pts, 8.8 rebs, 30 min
62-63 (Boston) : 6.5 pts, 2.9 rebs, 9 min

And shotput, and sprinting. He tried to qualify for more events (and succeeded), but athletes were only allowed to compete in 3 events (wouldn't Marion Jones be in hell). He could run a sub 10-second 100-meter dash and jump 55 inches (I've tried to convince people on this board of that fact, but no one believes me).

 

Apparently, people don't know the difference between being a great GM and a great coach.

I don't know how good of a coach Auerbach really was, but he seemed to be a better GM.

Auerbach had the best talent in the league hands down. He also coached in a 12-team league or something. Auerbach never had to build his team with the worry of a salary cap or luxury tax. Did Auerbach even have to deal with free agency?

Coaching a team back then was much easier than coaching a team now. With all the the inflated egos that are in the NBA now, I don't know if Auerbach would be able to succeed in today's game. I'd really like to see how Auerbach would have handled a Dennis Rodman. Or how he would have handled a Kobe-Shaq feud.

What makes me more pissed off than anything, is the fact that old man Auerbach has to slight Jackson, just because he's mad that his record will be shared, and eventually broken.

Phil did the unthinkable by winning with Shaq. Remember all those critics who said that Shaq would NEVER WIN A TITLE? Or how about, all those people who said that Kobe and Shaq would never be able to co-exist?

What obstacles did Auerbach face when he was head coach? A shortage of Cuban cigars?

 

"Phil did the unthinkable by winning with Shaq."




ummmm....? lmao