The Lakers 2 seasons prior to Phil were swept by both the Jazz and Spurs. That Lakers team had plenty of talent to get to the finals, but couldn't win 1 game against the West's best team. A coach that can't handle egos would have failed with Shaq and Kobe. How many coaches know the Triangle offense? Not many.
But I thought if the team gets it done, then that makes the QB great? You say his 1 title was in a postseason he wasn't very good in, yet the team won the Super bowl apparently in spite of him. Why couldn't they do that more often? Peyton has had his struggles in the postseason, but he is far from the only reason the Colts only have 1 Super Bowl win.
Who said it was confusing? I said its stupid. What this list basically states is because you coach a good team , you are a good coach. That is garbage. Some coaches benefit from being in a good situation (Carroll, Fox, Tomlin) others take a mediocre situation and get the most of out their players. That to me is a good coach. Lets say the Lions go out this season and win the Superbowl. Does that mean next year Jim Caldwell is a top 5 head coach?
I will give him a pass for that one as they were both still very young but they never got close again and penny was still great for a few more years. when your best player doesn't play like it then it is hard to win. things broke perfectly for him and that team in 2006. SB success does not make a QB great, Peyton is great w/ or w/o a ring but he's not as high on my list b/c he has had great teams and continuously fails where someone like Marino elevated mediocre teams to the playoffs.
that's not the part of your post I was discussing. I was discussing your obvious confusion of why a coach can rise or fall from one season to the next, which I equated to how good a team is considered from one season to the next, and you wouldn't consider a team to be the best based on how they performed 2 or 3 seasons prior anymore than you would a coach. to your point above, you can only evaluate a coach, or anyone for that matter, based on their accomplishments. sure, some coaches benefit from great players and teams. those are the breaks in life. what you are suggesting is that nobody can ever be truly evaluated honestly in sports because their performance is so dependent on the abilities of others. while they may be philosophically true, is that really the boundary you want to place on discussing sports -- to eliminate all evaluations? that is more stupid than actually evaluating the coaches.
Well in my opinion the only thing that can be ranked in this sport is QB. And year after year, no matter who the Superbowl champ is, the top 5 QB's usually stay the same. Why is that then? They do more for their team then a coach does. How come Rodgers hasnt gone from the number 1 QB in 2010 to the number 8 or 9 QB now? These lists are pointless but they do show the stupidity and overreaction of people. If Pete Carroll coached the Jets last year do we win the AFC East? Do we even get a Wild Card? He's the 2nd best coach in the league right? That +15 differential to Rex has to count for a couple more wins right? Simply put it doesnt mean anything. In most cases a coach is only as good as the team in front of him.
I'm not going to disagree with your position that they are stupid and pointless. all it is isopinion, take it or leave it, backed by some sliver of empirical data that is attempted to justify the correlation between the team's success and the coaches ability.
Rex was the perfect HC for Tanny. Rex is in his element surrounded by Vets and FAs. Jim Leonard, captain of the secondary. Bart Scott, captain of the defense. Santonio Holmes, captain of the offense. Remember when Tanny when into Rex's office and asked Rex about Holmes? Rex went through the roof with excitement. "Just get him". And then Ed Reed last season. Rex couldn't get Antonio Allen off the field fast enough. Enter John Idzik stage left. Idzik is about a young team, draft picks, rookies, etc. I really don't know how well Rex will relate to a young team filled with really young players. Kids now a days speak a different language. It's yet to be seen if Rex can reach them and communicate/motivate them on a level completely different from coaching Vets and FAs. I really don't know how Rex and his staff will be at taking young players and turning them into NFL caliber starters in just a few months. But Idzik's philosophy demands it. If Rex is ever replaced, it should be by a young HC from the college ranks who's built his career on teaching/coaching/communicating with young ppl. Kelly would have been perfect.
That was a great scene. No one questions how much his players love him, and that's a really good sign. The other part is how well his staff can coach up and prepare rookies to make impact plays as starters. And how well Rex can coach a game with young players who don't always do what they're supposed to versus veteran players who have it down cold. I'm not saying Rex ain't the guy. I'm just saying Rex has always seemed to prefer his vets out there on the field, and the scenery and game dynamics will be different now. Personally I think Rex and his coaching staff will be just fine coaching Rookies vs Vets, but the jury is still out.
any coach would prefer vets but he's had success w/ rookies. we have a nice balance of youth and experience.
Again, before Phil Jackson came to the Lakers, Kobe was a guy who came into the NBA straight out of high school, and averaged something like 7 points per game in his first year, and 15 i think in his 2nd year. So at that point, they only had Shaq, and Eddie Jones was starting at shooting guard. It took some time for Kobe to develop into a superstar, and they brought in other pieces as well. I am not saying Jackson doesn't deserve ANY credit for them improving once he came in, but if you don't think the Lakers would've gotten better during those years without Jackson, as Kobe went from a role player to superstar, and Shaq entered his career peak, then I don't know what to say. As for your second point, do you think Jackson is the only coach in the NBA who can handle egos? Or is the Triangle the only successful offensive system in the history of the NBA? Last I checked, most championships were won without it. The bottom line is, talent generally wins out. Look how well Spoelstra did in Miami. Is he the next Phil Jackson? All he has to do is get the Cleveland gig now. He came pretty damn close, all the way to the NBA Finals. If he had stayed in Miami, with Penny (and healthy), they would've most likely won a few championships as those two guys got into their prime. Anybody can lose (as Lakers did with Jackson against the Pistons or Spurs), but in the end, talent tends to win out.
Spoelstra is so overrated it's not even funny. He lost in the finals twice with extremely good talent. Pre-Phil Lakers had a pretty good squad. Eddie Jones and Van Exel were solid options at the 1 and 2. But let's not look at Kobe's rookie year, let's look at his 2nd yr when they were swept by the Spurs. I don't think you can plug in a coach with the Lakers team and all of a sudden they are champions let alone 3 time champs. More than likely the Lakers would have improved over the yrs, but Phil put them over the hump is what I am saying. Look at the Rockets right now with Harden and Dwight. Both 2 top 5 players at their respective positions. McHale will end up getting fired because the talent just isn't enough. I understand where you are coming from, just don't agree with your assessment on Jackson.
So did Jackson. That time they lost to the Pistons when they had Shaq, Kobe, Malone, Payton... Well, I am not saying you can plug in some bum off the street, but I think there are quite a few coaches in the NBA who could've taken those kinds of teams to the title(s). I mean are you convinced Spoelstra couldnt coach Shaq and Kobe to a few titles? That's not a fair comparison though. You can't possibly compare Dwight and Harden to Shaq and Kobe. Dwight Howard cannot do much offensively other than put in lobs, whereas Shaq was one of the great offensive forces in league history, and Harden is a complete non-factor defensively, and offensively gets half his points from flops. He didn't stay in the East for long after that, and 4 games from a title is pretty close. Didn't they mostly lose the Finals because Nick Anderson choked on the free throws anyway?
Anderson missed those FTs in game 1. Shaq also got swept out of the playoffs in 1994, 1996, 1998 and 1999. only 1 time pre Phil did his team even win a game. lost 4-1 in 1997.
