Sporting News: 50 Greatest Coaches of All-Time

[deejaydana]

Wooden FTW! I hope the Wizard makes it to 100 years old ! I don't know if anyone on that entire list could match not only his record but his humility and class. The guy is one of a kind and a true inspiration. (Well, Gibbs is no slouch either).

I was just looking up Wooden's record on Wikipedia and he had 4! undefeated (30-0) seasons during his career. Yikes!

[Larry]

I'm sure a little something like the only totally undefeated NFL team had something to do with it.

Although I also recall somebody pointing out that, that year, the Phish defeated two teams with winning records.

But yeah, I agree with the folks saying he's top 10. Just maybe not top 5.

I'd like Gibbs and Landry both higher, but offhand, it's tough to pick out who I'd cut to make room for them.

[Larry]

And it's funny because everyone likes to look at these iconic coaches like Shula, Landry, Walsh, Parcells, ect. yet Gibbs is almost ALWAYS left out of the discussion.

I suspect that a good chunk of that is longevity.

Those other coaches coached for decades. Gibbs I lasted, what, 11 years? Shula coached for over 30.

[No_Pressure]

Walsh should be much higher than that. He should at least be on the same level as Chuck Noll if not higher than him.

[Busch1724]

I would disagree with Phil Jackson a little. I know he won a lot of championships but that guy had more talent on his teams than anyone.

All of these coaches have had great players. Phil might have had less of them than anyone on that list.

I would put Knoll ahead of Shula though.

[Bubble Screen]

This list is a joke. Pat Summit is rated way too high, for starters. And I can't stand the Tar Heels. But how is Roy Williams not in the top 50? Seriously?

[ixcuincle]

It could be argued that Pete Carroll is the best college coach in the game today. Although he's only been coaching ball since 2000ish his dominant record at USC should have him somewhere in this list

[Sticksboi05]

I would disagree with Phil Jackson a little. I know he won a lot of championships but that guy had more talent on his teams than anyone.

That is such BS. Auerbach had plenty of talent. Every great coach has talent. Look at Walsh, Bowman, Smith, Lombardi. Besides, with the egos he has lead to championships...he deserves his rankings.

[Bubble Screen]

It could be argued that Pete Carroll is the best college coach in the game today. Although he's only been coaching ball since 2000ish his dominant record at USC should have him somewhere in this list

Nah, dude. He hasn't coached near long enough to be put on a list like this.

[Seabee1973]

Pretty impressive list.

I think Bill Walsh should be a lot higher on that list, Pat Riley could go up a few slots also. Shula was a great coach, but top five ever? He needs to drop down lower in the top ten. Somewhere below Pat Summitt, who belongs in the top ten.

I think Riley should be in front of Jackson

[MVille_Skins]

It could be argued that Pete Carroll is the best college coach in the game today. Although he's only been coaching ball since 2000ish his dominant record at USC should have him somewhere in this list

Pete Carroll SHOULD NOT be on this list. I will list a few reason:

1. Look at the conference he plays in. The Pac-10 is a joke of a conference.

2. Some how they manage to screw up every season (this past year losing to Oregon State) With the talent that Pete Carroll gets year in and year out HIS TEAMS SHOULD BE GOING UNDEFEATED

3. They have only been sole national champs once in his tenure. He should have won at least 3 with the amount of talent he has, and the weak schedule they have year in and year ou.

4. He has had very mediocre nfl career. His career coaching record in the nfl is 33-31. And he is 1-2 in his playoff career.

[DieselPwr44]

Red coached 9 players that are in the basketball HoF. Its not like he was coaching a bunch of bums. The only players Phil has coached that will be in are Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe.

Red was GM and the only scout for the Celtics.

He built his team and worked the contracts with his players plus coached them to eight championships in a row.

Let's see Phil do that.

[LaxBuddy21]

Glad to see Gibbs ahead of Tom Landry. :dallasuck

Ha that was my first thought too

[MattFancy]

Red was GM and the only scout for the Celtics.

He built his team and worked the contracts with his players plus coached them to eight championships in a row.

Let's see Phil do that.

Those were different times when GMs weren't as influential as they are now. I'm not trying to say Red wasn't a great coach because he was and still could be considered the greatest. I just don't like when people say well Phil has only coached great players. Phil just happened to coach 2 of the greatest players of the last 20 years. But Red also had some great players on his teams.

[MEANDWARF]

This list is a joke. Pat Summit is rated way too high, for starters. And I can't stand the Tar Heels. But how is Roy Williams not in the top 50? Seriously?

Winningest coach in her sport/sex, how is that being rated too high?

[artmonkforHOF]

Phil Jackson at #4

Red Auerbach at #6

the list fails right there. true Phil has more rings as a coach, but he never built those teams like Red did. Red also changed over key players in his run and still won 9 titles in 10 years. Red also never had a true offensive superstar, so everyone had to play together. While Wilt was going off for 50pts a night, the Celtics where happy to have 4 guys get 15 to 21 points each.

Phil, didn't even create his own offensive system, the triangle, he has Tex Winters for that. There is no way in hell Phil Jackson even gets to sniff a ring if he didnt have guys named Jordan, Kobe and Shaq on his team. Red evaluated what he needed based on what he had and won championships, Phil lucked into the Chicago job and then used his name to land the Laker job.

Red's first book, Basketball for the Player, the Fan and Coach, has been translated into seven languages and is the best-selling basketball book in print. Phil wrote a gossip book about how whinny Kobe is. But Phil is a better coach since he has sat on a bench for 10 rings.

[Sticksboi05]

Phil Jackson at #4

Red Auerbach at #6

the list fails right there. true Phil has more rings as a coach, but he never built those teams like Red did. Red also changed over key players in his run and still won 9 titles in 10 years. Red also never had a true offensive superstar, so everyone had to play together. While Wilt was going off for 50pts a night, the Celtics where happy to have 4 guys get 15 to 21 points each.

Phil, didn't even create his own offensive system, the triangle, he has Tex Winters for that. There is no way in hell Phil Jackson even gets to sniff a ring if he didnt have guys named Jordan, Kobe and Shaq on his team. Red evaluated what he needed based on what he had and won championships, Phil lucked into the Chicago job and then used his name to land the Laker job.

Red's first book, Basketball for the Player, the Fan and Coach, has been translated into seven languages and is the best-selling basketball book in print. Phil wrote a gossip book about how whinny Kobe is. But Phil is a better coach since he has sat on a bench for 10 rings.

Phil Jackson has taken four of the biggest egos in NBA history and allowed them to mesh. Just because you have talent doesn't mean you can bring out the best in it. Look at the early 90's Bills...4 straight Superbowl losses. Talent doesn't = championships, it equals potential, and nobody brings potential out like Phil. Besides, the league has far more competition now than back then but you could certainly make an argument for either one being above each other. But don't use the same tired "he had talent" argument.

[aREDSKIN]

Joe Gibbs in in some very very accomplished company. Those that were privileged to see him and be part of the first run should consider themselves to be lucky. I know I am.

[MattFancy]

Phil Jackson has taken four of the biggest egos in NBA history and allowed them to mesh. Just because you have talent doesn't mean you can bring out the best in it. Look at the early 90's Bills...4 straight Superbowl losses. Talent doesn't = championships, it equals potential, and nobody brings potential out like Phil. Besides, the league has far more competition now than back then but you could certainly make an argument for either one being above each other. But don't use the same tired "he had talent" argument.

Tha'ts how I feel. Yeah you can make an arguement for either one being the best basketball of all-time, but don't act like Auerbach was coaching a bunch of scrubs. Red coached 9 players who are currently in the Basketball HoF. And we all know how great of a player Bill Russell was.

The case of Phil's talent, did Jordan win anything before Phil? What about Kobe or Shaq? Shaq is the only one to win anything without Phil and he won with DWade and Pat Riley.

[artmonkforHOF]

Phil Jackson has taken four of the biggest egos in NBA history and allowed them to mesh. Just because you have talent doesn't mean you can bring out the best in it. Look at the early 90's Bills...4 straight Superbowl losses. Talent doesn't = championships, it equals potential, and nobody brings potential out like Phil. Besides, the league has far more competition now than back then but you could certainly make an argument for either one being above each other. But don't use the same tired "he had talent" argument.

that was only 1 part of my argument.

the others are Phil does not run his own offense. without Tex Winter, Phil would have been a nobody coach, run out of the league after his first contract in coaching. If you are going to put Phil Jackson on a list of greatest coaches, you better have Tex Winters name right next to it.

Phil has never scouted a player or had to built a team. Red knew exactly what he had and knew what he needed to get in order to get better.

Red changed his coaching style based on the players he had on his team. Phil has not won a championship without a dominant offensive player in a triangle offense, and he never could. If Phil wins one playing a different style of ball, then maybe i would put him ahead of Red.

Phil won ten, but Red won 8 IN A ROW. red could have won more, but he was tired of doing too much; coach, GM, promoter and basically anything involving the business of the Celtics. Red could have won more as a coach if he was only coaching. He still stayed on as GM for a few more titles with the team that he built and then built other great teams that won over a long period of time. Now Phil wants to only coach home games, because apparently sitting on the end of a bench for 3 hours a night is too tiring.

Red's book about coaching basketball is a Bible, still used today since it covers so many of the fundamentals. Phil can't write a book about coaching basketball since he is barely a coach, motivator, yes but coach is a job title only to Mr. Jackson.

Put both in a room today(theoretically) with 100 basketball players, let each coach pick 10 guys, and Red's team would kick the crap out of any team Phil could put together. That is why Red is the better coach.

Phil might be a better motivator, but Red is the better basketball mind, and hence a better basketball coach. both Red an Phil had talent, the difference is that Red found his own talent, Phil walked into it.

[Sticksboi05]

that was only 1 part of my argument.

the others are Phil does not run his own offense. without Tex Winter, Phil would have been a nobody coach, run out of the league after his first contract in coaching. If you are going to put Phil Jackson on a list of greatest coaches, you better have Tex Winters name right next to it.

Phil has never scouted a player or had to built a team. Red knew exactly what he had and knew what he needed to get in order to get better.

Red changed his coaching style based on the players he had on his team. Phil has not won a championship without a dominant offensive player in a triangle offense, and he never could. If Phil wins one playing a different style of ball, then maybe i would put him ahead of Red.

Phil won ten, but Red won 8 IN A ROW. red could have won more, but he was tired of doing too much; coach, GM, promoter and basically anything involving the business of the Celtics. Red could have won more as a coach if he was only coaching. He still stayed on as GM for a few more titles with the team that he built and then built other great teams that won over a long period of time. Now Phil wants to only coach home games, because apparently sitting on the end of a bench for 3 hours a night is too tiring.

Red's book about coaching basketball is a Bible, still used today since it covers so many of the fundamentals. Phil can't write a book about coaching basketball since he is barely a coach, motivator, yes but coach is a job title only to Mr. Jackson.

Put both in a room today(theoretically) with 100 basketball players, let each coach pick 10 guys, and Red's team would kick the crap out of any team Phil could put together. That is why Red is the better coach.

Phil might be a better motivator, but Red is the better basketball mind, and hence a better basketball coach. both Red an Phil had talent, the difference is that Red found his own talent, Phil walked into it.

Phil woud've won 8 in a row had Michael Jordan's father not been murdered.

But Phil walked into talent that couldn't exercise its potential and took them to unimaginable heights. He took guys who punched out teammates in practice, sat out out the final play of a game because he wasn't the #1 option, two guys that had to be the GUY in L.A. and won rings, consecutively.

[Iced Coffee]

if anything you could argue that red coached in a league with only a handful of teams:hysterical:

phil jackson > red

besides this last championship team phil took from bottom to the top so the whole argument that he always had things handed to him is pointless.

and phil took teams that had not won rings before him to multiple titles.

simple as that.

[Bubble Screen]

I think Riley should be in front of Jackson

You can't be serious. That's ridiculous.

Winningest coach in her sport/sex, how is that being rated too high?

Uh, ahead of Paul Brown? Paterno? George Halas? I think not. And again, in her earlier coaching days she only beat up on a handful of teams. There were no UConn's to challenge her. Once the competition got better, she wasn't near as successful. Same reason Coach K isn't higher on the list.

I would put her somewhere in the 15-20 range, tops.

[MattFancy]

Uh, ahead of Paul Brown? Paterno? George Halas? I think not. And again, in her earlier coaching days she only beat up on a handful of teams. There were no UConn's to challenge her. Once the competition got better, she wasn't near as successful. Same reason Coach K isn't higher on the list.

I would put her somewhere in the 15-20 range, tops.

She did just win back to back Nat'l Championships in 2007 and 2008.

[endzone_dave]

Phil woud've won 8 in a row had Michael Jordan's father not been murdered.

But Phil walked into talent that couldn't exercise its potential and took them to unimaginable heights. He took guys who punched out teammates in practice, sat out out the final play of a game because he wasn't the #1 option, two guys that had to be the GUY in L.A. and won rings, consecutively.

Did Phil ever win a championship when he didn't have the most talented team in the league?