NBA Discussion

[travis]

Wait a second guys. I thought Kobe was the coach of the Lake show? Isnt he the one with the clip board? : p

Kobe's the asst.

[kurtz]

That's pretty much my arguement. I don't think he was as big a part of why they were good as most people think.

So how about we compromise... I will say that Phil Jackson is the greatest frontrunner coach that the NBA has seen.

Thats a weak backhanded compliment to him. Who was a better coach? He obviously had good players, no team in the history of sports ever won with a great coach and a shitty team.

I don't want to say any coach is better, but there are plenty that I think are on the same level as him. Pat Riley, Larry Brown, Greg Popovich, just to name a couple recent ones.

Phil does one thing. Take an already loaded team and take them to the finals.

Greg Popovich built the Spurs team and then coached them to the championships. Pat Riley did the same with the Heat.

Larry Brown has taken over several losing NBA teams and within a couple years turned them into playoff caliber teams.

Phil Jackson has never walked into a bad or mediocre team and turned it around. We don't know if he can do something like that. So can you really call him a better coach than someone like Larry Brown that took a Pistons team with no superstars and turned it into a championship team? (who I might point out beat down the heavy favorited Jackson coached Laker team)

[jaime]

i think in the finals there actually was a moment during a timeout when kobe had the clipboard in his hand hahah

[danthemjfan23]

Phil does one thing. Take an already loaded team and take them to the finals.

wrong. he took over a Bulls team with a young michael jordan, young scottie pippen and young horace grant. (and before you say how great of a team that makes them, let's not forget that after horace grant left the bulls, he was NOTHING and out of the league 3 years later).

he brought in the coaching staff, he implemented the system that took them to the championships. when michael retired, he STILL took the bulls deep in the playoffs, and when michael came back, obviously they won 3 more championships.

with the lakers, a similar situation. he took shaquille o'neal (who hadn't won a god damn thing in his career at that point) and a young kobe bryant along with a bunch of role players and turned them into a fucking powerhouse. derek fisher was a nobody when he played on other teams/for other coaches. now he's back in LA and playing his role (and arguably won the lakers this series).

Greg Popovich built the Spurs team and then coached them to the championships.

yes he did. 6 more and he's tied with phil. also, if you're arguing that Pop had less talent on his teams overall than Phil, i'd have to argue that you're insane. Tim Duncan, David Robinson and company for the first one in '97. Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobli for the rest. i'd say those are some pretty stacked teams. and, like somebody else mentioned, i defy you to name ONE coach - just one - that won a championship without great talent.

Pat Riley did the same with the Heat.

wrong. first of all, he was their coach all throughout the 90s and didn't even take them to an NBA finals. never even got close. and if you're talking about the team just a few years ago, maybe he brought in some guys because he was in the front office, but the real coach of that team was Stan Van Gundy. just when the Heat were getting ready to make their championship run, Riley fired Van Gundy and took over for him like the snake that he is.

he also had GREAT talent in New York and never won shit. i don't think i need to tell you about the talent he had in LA.

Larry Brown has taken over several losing NBA teams and within a couple years turned them into playoff caliber teams.

so what? he has how many rings on his fingers? one. and that was an incredible team. rasheed, tayshaun, chauncey, rip, and ben wallach is an amazing starting five. by far the most balanced and versitile starting five in the league at that time. and what does it tell you that he's coached NINE different nba teams, along with two different trips back to NCAA teams during his career? it should tell you that he's not all he's cracked up to be.

also, you mentioned that larry brown "turned that team into a championship team" which is wrong. rick carlisle took them to the conference semis two years before larry brown took over, and took them to the conference finals the year before. what a shitty team larry brown "walked into" huh?

[kurtz]

A young Michael Jordan is still Michael Jordan. Using the young excuse doesn't cut it with me. You could say that Greg Popovich won with a young Tim Duncan or Riley won with a young D-Wade. When we're talking about all time great, hall of fame players I don't give quite as much credit to the coaches at the NBA level.

Shaq lead the Magic to the NBA finals. I don't see how you can call that "not winning a damn thing".

re: young Kobe Bryant - see above (although Phil gets a little more credit with this one since Kobe skipped college)

Tony Parker and Manu Ginobli are not near the level that Jordan, Pippen, Kobe and Shaq have been at. And although David Robinson was still a very good player, he was at the end of his career and his stats were not what they once were.

Maybe Riley wasn't the best example. haha.

When I mentioned Larry Brown turning teams around I mostly meant the sixers. Who were 22-60 when Brown took over and he ended up leading them to the finals in only 4 years. That is an impressive feat when the only notable player on the team was AI.

So Dan (and everyone else), what do you think the outcome would have been if any of these coaches coached any of those Bulls or Lakers teams? Do you really think the outcome of the season/playoffs would have been any different? I certainly don't. That is my main point. Not that Phil Jackson sucks or anything like that. Just that with some of the most unguardable players in the history of the league on your team, there are a few good coaches that could have done the same thing.

(now we are officially beating a dead horse)

[travis]

Dan your post might be the best one in this whole thread. I wanted to say most of that but didnt feel like typing it all out! Thanks buddy! haha

[danthemjfan23]

i'm going to skip over the first part because fundamentally you and i just think differently on the subject of what impact a player's experience / a coach has. i'm not going to convince you if i haven't already, and you're not going to convince me. so let's agree to disagree on that stuff.

So Dan (and everyone else), what do you think the outcome would have been if any of these coaches coached any of those Bulls or Lakers teams? Do you really think the outcome of the season/playoffs would have been any different? I certainly don't. That is my main point. Not that Phil Jackson sucks or anything like that. Just that with some of the most unguardable players in the history of the league on your team, there are a few good coaches that could have done the same thing.

to answer this, i think MJ would have won more than one championship with that team, but it would have been nowhere near 6 in my opinion. first of all, without phil, they wouldn't have run the triangle offense, which is arguably what won them the rings. at the NBA level, coaching isn't (normally, or ideally) having to teach players how to play their positions, or teaching them how to dribble with their off-hand.

coaching at the highest level in any sport - ESPECIALLY when you're coaching a team full of superstars - is about managing personalities and egos, and getting everybody to coexist throughout the duration of a season. that is no small feat.

let's look at baseball, for example. people can knock joe torre all they want for winning with the yankees because he had great talent. but he still had to win. and he did. look at what happened with that team after he left. they even had a BETTER team, with a higher payroll, and they can't win it all. and look what torre did when he got to LA. he took a .500 baseball team and turned them into the team with the best record in baseball. you can use the "yeah they added manny" argument, but manny is only one man (who is terrible on defense, mind you) and only bats once every 2-3 innings. not to mention he hasn't played in 50 games and they're still the best team in baseball without him.

people underestimate how hard it actually is to win a championship. it's not about physical skill at that point. it's all about mental toughness. and THAT'S what phil (and joe torre, and bill belichek) bring to the table. once you get down to the final 8 or final 4 teams in any professional league, they all have amazing talent. they all have the physical skill necessary to win it all.

there's a reason why you see lebron james and dwight howard shooting underhand halfcourt shots before a game, and you see kobe bryant shooting jumpers from the elbow with a hand in his face. he knows those shots are going to be the shots he needs to hit when a game is on the line. i understand that dwight is 23 years old, and lebron is young too, but they are NOWHERE near mentally ready to win a championship.

there's a reason why there are so many teams who have one great year and fade into - as mike tyson would say - bolivian. all the pieces fell into place during their dream season, and they didn't have the mental toughness/somebody pushing them the way they needed to be pushed the next season to get back there.

look at the suns. for 5 years they were one of the top 3 teams in the league, and they never even made it to the finals. you could argue that robert horry's hip check of steve nash cost the suns a trip to the finals, but i would counter by telling you that it happened in Game 1 of that series. the suns still had 6 more chances, if necessary, to take down the spurs and they couldn't. "but amare was suspended... but diaw was suspended" blah blah blah. i didn't see any players from the spurs leaving that team's bench. is it because of coaching? maybe, maybe not. but the fact remains, great teams have really good players, and really good coaches who know how to handle them.

the coaches aren't really teaching them anything about how to play the sport, it's all about how to live the life, and how to handle adversity (which will surely come) throughout the course of a long season. that, to me, is what seperates phil jackson from everybody else. he's the best ever at doing that.

[sgoodcore]

On a Phil Jackson team Smush Parker averaged about 11 points a game. Two years without Phil he was out of the league.

[kurtz]

Dan, I agree with everything you said except the first two sentences and the last sentence.

On a Phil Jackson team Smush Parker averaged about 11 points a game. Two years without Phil he was out of the league.

Lots of players fail when they change teams. That's not something that is exclusive to Phil Jackson coached players. Just look at a player like Ben Wallace. He has fallen much farther and harder than Smush has.

[sgoodcore]

Ben Wallace was SO overrated.

[kurtz]

indeed he was.

[sgoodcore]

But the point wasn't players were not as good, in Jackson's case they were out of the NBA. And heck, Jackson made Horace Grant decent again when he came to LA.

[kurtz]

Still, players switch teams and end up out of the NBA all the time. Some players play better in different systems or with different coaches.

Adam Morrison averaged 11.8 pts in his rookie year. Now he's just about out of the league. Of course that doesn't mean that whoever coached him his rookie year is a better coach than Jackson. Just that he was part of the system and got minutes his rookie year.

And I don't get all the Horace Grant talk. He still put up pretty solid numbers when he played for Orlando.

[travis]

Adam Morrison isnt out of the league, hes on the Lakers but didnt dress for the playoffs.

He got those points his rookie year cause he got minutes cause he was on a awful team.

[FullCircleHook]

there's a reason why you see lebron james and dwight howard shooting underhand halfcourt shots before a game, and you see kobe bryant shooting jumpers from the elbow with a hand in his face. he knows those shots are going to be the shots he needs to hit when a game is on the line. i understand that dwight is 23 years old, and lebron is young too, but they are NOWHERE near mentally ready to win a championship.

Come on now. You can make a case against Dwight, but Lebron? Look how far he got that team. Honestly without him, they are at best an average team.

I truly believe that you could have substituted Kobe with Lebron and they still would have won. He showed that he is arguably the best player with Kobe the only one that can compare. Lebron also proved that he can close during these playoffs. It's a toss up between the two.

The Lakers without Kobe still make the playoffs. The Cavs without Lebron are nothing.

Lebron already made it to the Finals. He scored like 23 straight points to beat the Pistons a couple of years back. To say that he is NOWHERE near is laughable. Give him one more key player and he is competing for the championship.

[travis]

Well Im already looking forward to next year. Im hoping for the Lakers to play the Celtics next year in the Finals so we can get our revenge!

Plus having Blake Griffin on the Clippers will give me a reason to actually watch a few Clippers games. That guy is going to be a monster in a few years

[FullCircleHook]

Well Im already looking forward to next year. Im hoping for the Lakers to play the Celtics next year in the Finals so we can get our revenge!

Plus having Blake Griffin on the Clippers will give me a reason to actually watch a few Clippers games. That guy is going to be a monster in a few years

Lakers will have their hands full with Portland/Denver next year and the East will be up for grabs as well. If you think Boston is getting any younger you are kidding yourself.

I just cant understand why nobody in LA goes for the Clip show. : ) (Am I the first person ever to say that?) Wouldn't they be the "punk" team to pull for?

[kurtz]

I truly believe that you could have substituted Kobe with Lebron and they still would have won. He showed that he is arguably the best player with Kobe the only one that can compare. Lebron also proved that he can close during these playoffs. It's a toss up between the two.

The Lakers without Kobe still make the playoffs.

I completely disagree with this.

I've already laid down enough of my unpopular opinions for today though, so I'll just leave it at that.

[travis]

Well Im already looking forward to next year. Im hoping for the Lakers to play the Celtics next year in the Finals so we can get our revenge!

Plus having Blake Griffin on the Clippers will give me a reason to actually watch a few Clippers games. That guy is going to be a monster in a few years

Lakers will have their hands full with Portland/Denver next year and the East will be up for grabs as well. If you think Boston is getting any younger you are kidding yourself.

I just cant understand why nobody in LA goes for the Clip show. : ) (Am I the first person ever to say that?) Wouldn't they be the "punk" team to pull for?

I wasnt saying I thought LA/Boston would be in the Finals. Just hoping for that. WAY too far away to be making any predictions about that.

Definitely wont be an easy road to the Finals for the Lakers next year. I expect Denver to be very good again. Not sure about Portland yet. They have potential.

Boston isnt getting any younger but they are still very good and with a healthy KG they are the best team in the East.

No one goes for the Clippers in LA cause we have the Lakers! The Lakers always have a chance of being good and are fun to watch and win championships and are worth rooting for. The Clippers were eliminated from the 2010 playoffs a few days ago.

[travis]

At least the Clippers have this guy on their side

"Clipper Darrel"

He's on the Kevin & Bean (KROQ morning DJs) Show all the time

And this is his car. Nice car minus the Clipper shit all over it.

[Guest kissthesharks]

I'm going to risk being smited a lot..but Houston might be a contender next season...

[FullCircleHook]

The Clippers were eliminated from the 2010 playoffs a few days ago.

Ha, that's some funny stuff!

[FullCircleHook]

I truly believe that you could have substituted Kobe with Lebron and they still would have won. He showed that he is arguably the best player with Kobe the only one that can compare. Lebron also proved that he can close during these playoffs. It's a toss up between the two.

The Lakers without Kobe still make the playoffs.

I completely disagree with this.

I've already laid down enough of my unpopular opinions for today though, so I'll just leave it at that.

After thinking this over, I wouldn't guarantee that the Lakers would make the playoffs w/o Kobe, because I don't want to underestimate the Western conference.

I'm sticking by the Lebron statement. Watching him play the Magic in the Eastern Conference Finals was all that I needed to be convinced. He was unbelievable.

Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong though! I very well could be.

[FullCircleHook]

I'm going to risk being smited a lot..but Houston might be a contender next season...

I agree. Shit with a healthy Yao they were this past year. Not to mention that they gave the Lakers the stiffest competition. I wonder what you guys are going to do with Tmac. I guess he's on the trading block. I know he's injury prone, but I would like to get him back in Orlando. Just not for a lot of cash!

[kurtz]

I completely disagree with this.

I've already laid down enough of my unpopular opinions for today though, so I'll just leave it at that.

After thinking this over, I wouldn't guarantee that the Lakers would make the playoffs w/o Kobe, because I don't want to underestimate the Western conference.

I'm sticking by the Lebron statement. Watching him play the Magic in the Eastern Conference Finals was all that I needed to be convinced. He was unbelievable.

Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong though! I very well could be.

Here is the knock on Lebron... He has an average at best jump shot. He's amazing at driving to the hoop and finishing or getting fouled. If you take away that part of his game though, he doesn't have much to fall back on. If you watched game 6 against Orlando, the Magic were not letting him get to the rim and the refs were not bailing him out with the superstar calls he usually gets. He ended that game with only 25 points which is clearly not enough considering his team didn't show up the entire series.

Kobe Bryant on the other hand can shoot the lights out while being guarded tightly by some of the best defenders in the league, and he can also get to the rim when he needs to.

I would not be so fast to call Lebron a closer either. Making one catch and shoot buzzer beater does not make you a closer. Big Baby hit a buzzer beater in the playoffs and nobody calls him a closer. That game 2 shot is one of the most overrated shots in the history of the NBA. All it did is kept the Cavs from being swept. But even putting that aside, Lebron is an inconsistent foul shooter. Even though Kobe had that one bad game at the line in the finals, I would still have total confidence in having him take free throws when the game is on the line. I certainly can't say that about Lebron.

So if Lebron was on this Lakers team instead of Kobe, I think that Denver's inside presence would have troubled him the same way that Orlando did, and Denver would have won the west.

If Kobe was on that Cavs team I think the East would have ended up the same. That Cavs team just is not very good.