Which NBA Coach is Greater?

[Texsox]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2088260&num=1

 

Auerbach retired with nine titles, a record tied by Phil Jackson in 2002, which puts these two coaches at the forefront of any debate about the NBA's greatest all-time coach.

[rangercal]

I say phil. Everyone says how phil had mj-scottie then kobe -shaq. Red had Bill russell who was a man among boys. Bob Cousy , sam jones, kc jones were also part of that great Dynast. Plus wasn't there only like 9 teams? You don't think that was a factor in winning so many titles? Phil did it with 27-30 teams in the league.

Dont forget MJ,Scottie,Shaq, Kobe never won without phil. The lakers won with phil his first 3 years with the lakers. They could not even reach the finals without him.

[Texsox]

What would you say to 9 teams concentrates the talent and makes every team tougher?

 

30 team = 150 starters. 10 teams = 120 total roster spots. Imagine contraction right now with 66% of the NBA players out of work. Starters are now 12th men. I think coaching would play a greater roll with fewer teams. No way to "sneak up on a team".

[rangercal]

What would you say to 9 teams concentrates the talent and makes every team tougher?

 

30 team = 150 starters. 10 teams = 120 total roster spots. Imagine contraction right now with 66% of the NBA players out of work. Starters are now 12th men. I think coaching would play a greater roll with fewer teams. No way to "sneak up on a team".

I would make the argument that the 50's had less talent. Someone like Randy brown would have been a starter back then.

 

 

The celtics probably had 3 or 4 of the top 15 players in the league. Russel and cousy were probably 2 of the top 10.

[ZoomSlowik]

There are fewer teams that you have to beat to win the title when there are only a couple of teams. Realistically the Celtics only had to beat the Fighting Chamberlains (Philly was basically Wilt and a bunch of scrubs until late in his career) and the Lakers. There wasn't much in their way. The Celtic teams in that era were LOADED. Russell (11 rings) was at worst the second best center in the league, Cousy (6) was probably the best PG, Tommy Heinsohn (8), Sam Jones (10), Bill Sharman (4) and John Havlicek (8) were multiple time all-stars, plus K.C. Jones (8) would have possibly been one had he played on a team without such stellar talent in the backcourt. Phil definitely had a tougher time winning them. The league had several teams that were a solid threat to knock them off, the Celtics didn't have to face that.

Edited June 19, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[sayitaintso]

Phil because i don't know who the other guy is. Im way to young.

[kev211]

Phil because i don't know who the other guy is. Im way to young.

Same.

[Texsox]

I would make the argument that the 50's had less talent. Someone like Randy brown would have been a starter back then.

The celtics probably had 3 or 4 of the top 15 players in the league. Russel and cousy were probably 2 of the top 10.

 

How does that effect the rankings of coaches? For the sake of debate, let's say that the top 120 players are better today, you still have more parity in ability during Red's time from top to bottom.

[Rowand44]

Phil.

[WilliamTell]

Red's doing pretty good considering this is a Chicago based forum.

[rangercal]

How does that effect the rankings of coaches? For the sake of debate, let's say that the top 120 players are better today, you still have more parity in ability during Red's time from top to bottom.

It makes a big difference though when the celtics had 3, 4 or maybe 5 players who would make it in todays' league when other teams had an entire roster that would not even be the water boy in todays' game.

[ChWRoCk2]

red, ive read stuff on him, incredible coach

[redandwhite]

This isn't even a question...

[Punch and Judy Garland]

I went with Red. I feel that coaches are unfairly penalized for loyalty in staying in one place while guys like Larry Brown and Bill Parcels get extra credit for fleeing and doing well some place else. Phil is obviously a great coach and I hat eto hold Shaq/MJ/Pip/Kobe against him but we'll get to see how good he is if he can win with this Laker team

[rangercal]

This isn't even a question...

why? Your just going to make a comment like that and run off? Back it up. Tex made some good points I debated with him. What can you add?

[rangercal]

I went with Red. I feel that coaches are unfairly penalized for loyalty in staying in one place while guys like Larry Brown and Bill Parcels get extra credit for fleeing and doing well some place else. Phil is obviously a great coach and I hat eto hold Shaq/MJ/Pip/Kobe against him but we'll get to see how good he is if he can win with this Laker team

so red had no stars?

[Texsox]

Defining point:

 

Is a coach more influential to getting a team it's base of wins or putting it over the top and a championship?

 

I believe the players get the team in position and the coach helps finish the deal and puts the team over the top. The coaches biggest influence isn't winning the first game, it's winning the last.

[rangercal]

Defining point:

 

Is a coach more influential to getting a team it's base of wins or putting it over the top and a championship?

 

I believe the players get the team in position and the coach helps finish the deal and puts the team over the top. The coaches biggest influence isn't winning the first game, it's winning the last.

I say the latter. A good coach helps a team win lots of games. A great coach helps a team win lots of important games.

 

 

which can be said for both red and phil

[ZoomSlowik]

Another thing to consider is that Phil did it with two almost (pretty sure Harper and Grant were on the Lakers, not that they matter that much) completely different groups of players on two different teams, and one could argue that the Bulls make up two different groups considering Michael and Scottie were the only ones that were there for all 6. That means he had to come up with at least two different major approaches given the personel on the teams. Red had a certain amount of continuity throughout the entire run. Notice how long several of the Celtics were there, and if you look at the playoff history they played many of the same teams every year. Just think of how many different teams that the Bulls had to play during their run, and then add all of the opponents for the Lakers. That's a lot of different teams to game plan for, as opposed to about 5 or 6 real challenges for the whole Celtic stretch.

Edited June 20, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[rangercal]

Another thing to consider is that Phil did it with two almost (pretty sure Harper and Grant were on the Lakers, not that they matter that much) completely different groups of players on two different teams, and one could argue that the Bulls make up two different groups considering Michael and Scottie were the only ones that were there for all 6. That means he had to come up with at least two different major approaches given the personel on the teams. Red had a certain amount of continuity throughout the entire run. Notice how long several of the Celtics were there, and if you look at the playoff history they played many of the same teams every year. Just think of how many different teams that the Bulls had to play during their run, and then add all of the opponents for the Lakers. That's a lot of different teams to game plan for, as opposed to about 5 or 6 real challenges for the whole Celtic stretch.

great point. You keep the same team intact during an age with no free agency (compared to how it is now ) you will pretty much see the same results year in and year out.

[redandwhite]

QUOTE(rangercal @ Jun 20, 2005 -> 03:58 AM)

why?  Your just going to make a comment like that and run off?  Back it up. Tex made some good points  I debated with him.  What can you add?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact that this is even being discussed is utterly insane. I don't feel like adding anything because it will just enfuriate me more than I already am.

[rangercal]

The fact that this is even being discussed is utterly insane.  I don't feel like adding anything because it will just enfuriate me more than I already am.

So according to you espn is insane for having the article, texsox must be insane for posting the poll and I'm insane (along with 9 other people here who said phil) . Back up your words buddy. Like everyone here. Thats why it's a message board. I guess I could have figured what you would pick since your a sawx fan and probably from bawston .

[redandwhite]

QUOTE(rangercal @ Jun 20, 2005 -> 07:01 AM)

So according to you  espn is insane for having the article, texsox must be insane for posting the poll and I'm insane (along with 9 other people here who said phil) .  Back up your words buddy.  Like everyone here. Thats why it's a message board.  I guess I could have figured what you would pick since your a sawx fan and probably from bawston .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well first of all it was an interview and not an article. ESPN is insane but not for having this interview. Texsox is not insane, he's an awesome poster, and an awesome guy.

 

I repeat: "I don't feel like adding anything because it will just enfuriate me more than I already am."

[qwerty]

Well first of all it was an interview and not an article.  ESPN is insane but not for having this interview.  Texsox is not insane, he's an awesome poster, and an awesome guy.

 

I repeat: "I don't feel like adding anything because it will just enfuriate me more than I already am."

 

So red auerbach>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>jackson?

[rangercal]

you said :

 

The fact that this is even being discussed is utterly insane.

and now you say :

 

 

 

 

Well first of all it was an interview and not an article.  ESPN is insane but not for having this interview.  Texsox is not insane, he's an awesome poster, and an awesome guy.

 

I repeat: "I don't feel like adding anything because it will just enfuriate me more than I already am."

 

You don't have to directly call everyone in this topic insane for discussing this but.... thats exactly what you did.

 

 

Whats sad is I probably know more about Red Auerbach than you do. I only say that just because you have not stated one fact to support him so far.

 

 

note to auerbach supporters: I have no problem debating if you can back up your opinions with facts. Not backing up your opinions with .... more opinions.

Edited June 20, 2005 by rangercal