Phil Jackson

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:40 pm

Did anyone else find Phil Jackson's "Brokeback" comment hilarious and think the entire country is waaaay too sensitive if the media so universally found it offensive? I mean, he could have called it the "Porno" defense and nobody would have been offended. I don't think he was making fun of gay people. He was cracking a joke about a movie that implied a lot of... ahem... "penetration" off-screen. Honestly, I don't think I could be more of a Phil Jackson fan for the way that he carries himself, his success in the NBA, his sense of humor, and all of the shit that he has to deal with between the owner, and Big Baby Kobe.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:43 pm

Phil Jax = Overrated

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:51 pm

RedSox wrote:Phil Jax = Overrated

Snore. So tired of hearing people say that. What makes him overrated? His 9 rings? Taking the Bulls deep into the postseason after Jordan retired? Taking one of the best teams in the league (Phoenix) to the brink two seasons ago with Kobe and a bunch of 2nd-stringers? Please. The man knows how to handle the modern NBA player better than any other coach in the game. Knowing what we know now about what an asshole Kobe is, his 3 titles with Shaq and Kobe are even more impressive (and yeah, the supporting cast included Rick Fox and Ron Harper). Sure, the triangle is the brainchild of Tex Winters, but getting guys to learn it, buy into it, and execute it almost to perfection is all Jackson. Also, don't forget that his championship squads typically ranked among the NBA's best defensive teams. Every coach needs superior talent to win an NBA title, but not every coach can win a title (let alone 9) when given that kind of talent.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:00 pm

Jax has always, Always... gone where the stars were. He didn't bring them in, he didn't scout them and draft them... what ticks me off about Jackson is he gets mentioned in anything resembling the same breath as Red Auerbach, which is a complete and total joke. Red was ten times the coach and talent evaluator, that Jackson will ever be.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:04 pm

Nobody ever calls Phil Jackson a great GM or talent evaluator, b/c that's not his job. Red was the best talent evaluator in NBA history (until the Logo stepped into the front office - different eras though). Red had more talent compared to the rest of the league when he was coaching than Jackson has had as a coach, so strictly from a coaching standpoint, you could argue that Jackson's 9 titles in an era with more balance and more teams was harder to do. Auerbach had one or two teams each year who could stack up with his talent-wise, so they'd only really be challenged once or twice in the postseason.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:29 pm

Don't be silly. The NBA turned into much less of a team game, where one or two stars with a couple role players could be dominant. Jackson had one of the top 5 NBA players in history to work with, then a center who was practically a force of nature paired up with arguably the most talented player in the league. Sure Kobe's a petulant brat... but so are most of the other modern NBA stars.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:07 pm

And Bill Russell was not a force of nature? How many hall of famers were on those Celtic teams? I'm gonna go ahead and say the rest of their starting 5 included guys a little better than B.J. Armstrong, Luc Longley, Bill Wennington, the aforementioned Ron Harper. In both Chicago and LA, Jackson had exactly 2 HOF/All-Star caliber players, and often the rest of the roster was even below average. The difference between Kobe and other petulant brats is that 1. they're not usually one of the best 3 or 4 players in the league, so you can trade them, or cut them, or shut them up without ruining your team (and often getting rid of them improves your team) 2. It's not frequent that your best player clearly wants to break up a formula that has won multiple championships. That's a little tougher to deal with than say, Stephon Marbury mouthing off, or Latrell Sprewell choking his coach. Auerbach was a great coach and GM in his era. However, back then there were fewer teams, and barely any game tape or college statistics to analyze, so the Celtics (to Red's credit) were able to assemble a roster far more talented than any other in the league. With all the info available, and all the millions poured into scouting, etc., great players don't fly under the radar and allow the team with the best talent evaluator to amass obscene amounts of talent like Boston did. You also could keep your stars, b/c free agency wasn't a real factor. Different game for sure, but it's harder to win multiple championships in ANY sport today than it was 40 or 50 years ago (as a coach or GM), so when Jackson wins 9 rings today as a coach, it's at least as impressive as Red's 9 rings 40 years ago.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:43 pm

It's impressive when you hop from one team to another looking for the right star to hang your hat on? As opposed to building that roster yourself, scouting the talent and hanging with the same organization regardless?

If Phil was really that great with today's stars, he'd have been able to keep Kobe and Shaq together.

Great coach? Sure. but he's not the genius he's been hailed as, unless you count opportunism as part of that genius.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:54 pm

Once again. Phil Jackson is NOT A GM. He's a coach. He never has, never will, and never claimed to "build rosters," or "scout talent." It's also a wonder he kept Shaq and Kobe together and on the same page to win one or two titles, let alone 3. Not sure about the whole "hop from one team to another" thing. He's coached exactly 2 teams. So some of the championships don't count if you win them with different organizations? He's coaching a shitty team to play above it's ability now, isn't he (as he has been for the last few years)? He didn't leave the Bulls when Jordan retired the first time either.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:56 pm

Marlins wrote: ... great players don't fly under the radar and allow the team with the best talent evaluator to amass obscene amounts of talent like Boston did. You also could keep your stars, b/c free agency wasn't a real factor ...

Hell - I thought you describing JB of the IBC again ...

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:05 pm

Mets wrote:
Marlins wrote: ... great players don't fly under the radar and allow the team with the best talent evaluator to amass obscene amounts of talent like Boston did. You also could keep your stars, b/c free agency wasn't a real factor ...
Hell - I thought you describing JB of the IBC again ...

Are you calling JB the Red Auerbach of the IBC? Good grief.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:20 pm

Marlins wrote:
Mets wrote:
Marlins wrote: ... great players don't fly under the radar and allow the team with the best talent evaluator to amass obscene amounts of talent like Boston did. You also could keep your stars, b/c free agency wasn't a real factor ...
Hell - I thought you describing JB of the IBC again ...
Are you calling JB the Red Auerbach of the IBC? Good grief.

Naw - I was teasing 'cause of the chatter bordering on - in some cases - whining about JB.

In regards to this thread I believe both men, Auerbach and Jackson, are the best at what they do in their respective eras and it is near impossible to objectively compare them because the pro basketball game, as well as their respective level and scope of responsibilities within the game, is soooo different.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:32 pm

Which is part why the idea of anyone comparing Jackson to Auerbach is infuriating.

JB does a great job, he's a very good GM. I just can't understand why GM's seem to insist on making his job even easier.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:53 pm

RedSox wrote:JB does a great job, he's a very good GM. I just can't understand why GM's seem to insist on making his job even easier.

The following is not directed towards any particular trade - rather it is a truism. In an article that Alan Schwarz wrote for ESPN entitled, Allowing the trading of draft picks makes sense, he quoted one former GM as saying, "When we give baseball clubs the opportunity to act foolishly, somebody will. That's a given ..."

Actually the whole article was well written and presents both sides of this issue. Ironically it also references Red Auerbach: http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/schwarz_ ... 83197.html

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:16 pm

I've waited - and my thoughts are simple - in the history of professional basketball coaches, Auerbach and Jackson are simply head and shoulders above the rest.

Auerbach gets the nod because he assembled the teams he coached - so he gets the nod.

Anyone who says Jackson just "lucks" into situations is just be dumb - he is a master motivator, he gets more out of all the teams he coaches, he understands player dynamics better then anyone else, and he's incredibly savvy with the media (that comment was HILARIOUS).

People don't realize is that Jackson has won everywhere he's been - CBA, NBA, etc. Tough to single him out just cuz he's coaching good players - a lot of other coaches coach great players and don't win anything.

The supporting cast around Pippen and Jordan for many of those championships makes the cast for the current Celts look like the '92 Dream Team.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:26 pm

Indeed. Didn't Luc Longley start on a couple of those teams? For those of you new to the league I hope you enjoyed another classic example of the Bren Dillon school of debate, where you latch on to a point that isn't even relevant (that he didn't assemble any talent even though that wasn't his job) and hold on to it without adding anything new.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:50 pm

Hey, someone's gotta keep the fires stoked...

I didn't say Jackson lucked into those situations either. He chose the situations where he could succeed and left ones where he couldn't. That's not a bad stance to take, just inferior, IMO, to sticking with an organization and making the situation work. P-jax isn't a GM, but he has the cache to influence what the GM does.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:28 pm

He was also responsible for building those situations. To win a title you need to have a superstar unless you want to be the Pistons and ugly it up to the point that basketball becomes unwatchable. Jackson went to teams that had superstars, that's only smart, but he also created the situations that were so successful by motivating inferior players (do we really need to go through the list of guys who played center on the Bulls after Cartwright retired? And I think Jud Beuchler once started a playoff game IIRC) to play above their heads and managing the egos of his superstars successfully to get them working together as long as possible. Imagine if Flip Saunders could have done that with Marbury/Garnett, or Mike Dunleavy with the old Jail Blazers, or whoever was the coach of the Sonics when Payton and Kemp were there. The primary role of a basketball coach is to keep his players happy and playing hard, who does that better than Phil Jackson?

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:31 am

I thought that his response to complaints about the initial comment was hilarious.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:33 am

Tigers wrote:I thought that his response to complaints about the initial comment was hilarious.

Yeah, me too. Especially b/c they were at Houston, and he was apologizing on ESPN to "any cowboys... or horses, who may have been offended."

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:05 pm

Marlins wrote:
Tigers wrote:I thought that his response to complaints about the initial comment was hilarious.
Yeah, me too. Especially b/c they were at Houston, and he was apologizing on ESPN to "any cowboys... or horses, who may have been offended."

i also like how he said he was using alliteration, which he was not. he may have been making a literary reference, but there was no alliteration involved.