Spaceman Spiff Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Watching some of the NBA playoffs lately, I've seen some people claim that Phil Jackson is one of the best, if not the best NBA coaches ever. This led me to thinking, how much does a coach/manager really have to do? Phil Jackson had MJ, Pippen, HoGrant and Rodman in his time with the Bulls. Later in LA he had Shaq and Kobe. The thing is, Phil didn't even create the vaunted triangle offense, his assistant did. He's had the privlege of working with 4 of the most talented basketball players of all time. Hell, Jordan was practically the coach on the floor during the games. On the flip side, there are a lot of strong personalities and large ego's that he's had to deal with. And perhaps getting guys like Jordan and Kobe to put aside their egos and buy into the team concept is a harder job than I'm thinking. Probably is. Also, Joe Torre? He was a mediocre manager with Atlanta (yes, he managed the Braves BEFORE they were good) a good manager with the Cardinals...but now he's a Hall of Fame manager with the Yankees? Come on, anyone who knows a bit about baseball can fill out that lineup card and bring Rivera on in the 9th. Then I started to wonder...well perhaps basketball and football rely more on coaching and playcalling than baseball does. Baseball only really does for maybe two or three batters per game and thats only if the game is late and close. Dunno, random stream of thought, but feel free to opine. To what point do coaches/managers have their influence felt in a game? At what point does someone like Phil Jackson or Joe Torre enter the level of greatness despite the fact that they have more talent to work with than anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gchwood Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 I good coach/manager gets great talent to work together. Look at the Houston Rockets, they have all the talent they should need to win a Championship but they can't because Jeff Van gundy sucks. Great Talent will only carry a team so far by it self Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Its really a circle - teams that win championships have the players who will then be considered the 'best'. Makes sense. Then, for some reason, some people make the argument that coaches aren't that good because the best players play for their team. Funny though - this only happens to some coaches. Never hear anybody make that argument about Bill Walsh even though he had Rice, Montana, Young, Lott, Craig, Clark, etc. etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 the coach/ player relationship is symbiotic. players make coaches look good, and vice versa. i would venture to say that coaches need players more than players need coaches.....brian billick won a super bowl for cryin' out loud.!! :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.