artmonkforHOF Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 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. and what, Red took over a championship team when he got to Boston? they sucked before he got there, and sucked for a few more years until he found guys he wanted to replace the guys already on the team. True Red had 9 HoF on his roster, but not once did anyone lead the league in scoring. Those players got to the HoF because Red knew how best to use their abilities. His basketball mind is far better than Phil's. The only HoF on Phil's roster will be guys who could score, Jordan, Pippen, Kobe, Shaq and that's it. Bj Armstrong, Steve Kerr, Craig Hodges, and Derek Fisher will not be in the HoF, but Red got guys like Frank Ramsey and a guy who played little to no offense, Bill Russell into the HoF because he knew how to win. The 8 in row is what sets Red apart, even after having his team change on him with older players retiring, and everyone in the league knowing what the Celtics where going to run (they only had 4 set plays) they still beat the crap out of everybody. He got Russell, who he needed to rebound and control the ball, won Russell's rookie year, next year Russell gets injured during the finals which they loose, then he wins 8 straight. If Phil would have won 1 without Michael, then maybe you could say he is better than Red but he didn't. Red say HoF's like Cousy, Bill Sharman & tom Heinsohn leave his teams, yet he still won. Red played a huge part in 16 NBA championship teams, from the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. If Phil gets 6 more rings as a GM or consultant, then maybe I would consider him a better coach and basketball mind than Red, but until then, Red is the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artmonkforHOF Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 delete, double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 She did just win back to back Nat'l Championships in 2007 and 2008. Seriously? Ok, I admit I wasn't aware of that. Then again, I don't watch womens basketball. That garbage doesn't even classify as sports. Still, she has no business being ranked #11. But to me the biggest omission from this list is Roy Williams. Take it from a guy that can't stand the Heels, this guy clearly deserves to be on this list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 Seriously? Ok, I admit I wasn't aware of that. Then again, I don't watch womens basketball. That garbage doesn't even classify as sports. Still, she has no business being ranked #11. But to me the biggest omission from this list is Roy Williams. Take it from a guy that can't stand the Heels, this guy clearly deserves to be on this list. I dunno I feel #11 is about right. She does have the all-time wins mark for all of college basketball, men's or women's. I'd like to see Roy on the list too, but not sure who you would take off of it. He has had alot of success recently but, while at Kansas he was a really good coach, not great. Now at UNC has he 2 titles in the last 5 years. Give him a few more titles and he'll be on the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I agree with Schula being WAY too high. I know his teams were always, well, just above average - but that doesn't make you a great coach. The fact that he didn't win a Super Bowl over his last 30 years as a coach is a huge albatross in my mind. I can see him making top 25, but no way does he deserve top 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boofMcboof Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I used to think Phil Jackson was overrated until I watched how he operated up close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 haha! take that Tom Landry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 and what, Red took over a championship team when he got to Boston? they sucked before he got there, and sucked for a few more years until he found guys he wanted to replace the guys already on the team.True Red had 9 HoF on his roster, but not once did anyone lead the league in scoring. Those players got to the HoF because Red knew how best to use their abilities. His basketball mind is far better than Phil's. The only HoF on Phil's roster will be guys who could score, Jordan, Pippen, Kobe, Shaq and that's it. Bj Armstrong, Steve Kerr, Craig Hodges, and Derek Fisher will not be in the HoF, but Red got guys like Frank Ramsey and a guy who played little to no offense, Bill Russell into the HoF because he knew how to win. The 8 in row is what sets Red apart, even after having his team change on him with older players retiring, and everyone in the league knowing what the Celtics where going to run (they only had 4 set plays) they still beat the crap out of everybody. He got Russell, who he needed to rebound and control the ball, won Russell's rookie year, next year Russell gets injured during the finals which they loose, then he wins 8 straight. If Phil would have won 1 without Michael, then maybe you could say he is better than Red but he didn't. Red say HoF's like Cousy, Bill Sharman & tom Heinsohn leave his teams, yet he still won. Red played a huge part in 16 NBA championship teams, from the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. If Phil gets 6 more rings as a GM or consultant, then maybe I would consider him a better coach and basketball mind than Red, but until then, Red is the man. Jordan, Pippen, Kobe are three of the best two way players ever. Again, in a far less competitive league than today. The fact is, you can make an argument both ways. I certainly see no reason why Red shouldn't be higher than Phil but don't play down what Phil has done. He's taken teams with talent and has actually finished what he started unlike alot of coaches (cough Andy Reid) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Seriously? Ok, I admit I wasn't aware of that. Then again, I don't watch womens basketball. That garbage doesn't even classify as sports. Still, she has no business being ranked #11. But to me the biggest omission from this list is Roy Williams. Take it from a guy that can't stand the Heels, this guy clearly deserves to be on this list. :laugh::laugh::laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I dunno I feel #11 is about right. She does have the all-time wins mark for all of college basketball, men's or women's. I'd like to see Roy on the list too, but not sure who you would take off of it. He has had alot of success recently but, while at Kansas he was a really good coach, not great. Now at UNC has he 2 titles in the last 5 years. Give him a few more titles and he'll be on the list. He was great at Kanas, too. Just didn't win a title. The man definitely should be on this list. At any rate, when its all said and done he will be on a list like this. As for who you could take off? Hmm...I'll have to investigate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 As much as I love Joe Gibbs and as much as I respect Vince Lombardi, I would have Paul Brown as my top NFL coach of all time, followed by Bill Walsh and then Lombardi and Gibbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I seriously doubt there is a basketball guy alive who would put Phil before Red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I would argue Red Should go up around #2 rather than down at six bellow Don Shulah. Red won 8 NBA championships and is probable the winningest professional coach of all time in any sport. Certainly it's hard to argue with John Wootan at #1. Don Shulah should be on the list, but not in the top 10. He was a great coach, and won championships with Baltimore and Maimi, but his claim to fame for wins was about starting young and going for a long time rather than fielding consistantly great teams like Lambardi, Gibbs, and Walsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 As much as I love Joe Gibbs and as much as I respect Vince Lombardi, I would have Paul Brown as my top NFL coach of all time, followed by Bill Walsh and then Lombardi and Gibbs. It's hard to argue with Lombardi. His carrear wasn't that long, but the guy is the nfl prototype coach. they freaking named the super bowl trophy after the guy. He's got to be #1. As for Walsh, He had more superbowl wins than Gibbs, but I would still put Gibbs ahead of Walsh. Gibbs had a higher winning percentage than Walsh and Gibbs won with a more diverse group of players across his champtionship teams. Walsh is like Jimmy Johnson. He put together, perhaps trained perhaps lucked into, a core group of all time great players, and rode them..... Winning with three or four quarterbacks and different recievers etc like Gibbs did, is what I would consider coaching... Walsh was also GM wasn't he, and he filled a much broader role in the organization than Gibbs did, but that wouldn't go into a pure coaches pole. Walsh should go in there... I'm ok with him being bellow Gibbs. as unbiased as I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 It's hard to argue with Lombardi. His carrear wasn't that long, but the guy is the nfl prototype coach. they freaking named the super bowl trophy after the guy. He's got to be #1.As for Walsh, He had more superbowl wins than Gibbs, but I would still put Gibbs ahead of Walsh. Gibbs had a higher winning percentage than Walsh and Gibbs won with a more diverse group of players across his champtionship teams. Walsh is like Jimmy Johnson. He put together, perhaps trained perhaps lucked into, a core group of all time great players, and rode them..... Winning with three or four quarterbacks and different recievers etc like Gibbs did, is what I would consider coaching... Walsh was also GM wasn't he, and he filled a much broader role in the organization than Gibbs did, but that wouldn't go into a pure coaches pole. Walsh should go in there... I'm ok with him being bellow Gibbs. as unbiased as I am. Walsh was the brains behind the WCO, was he not? He instituted an offense that is a very influential part of the NFL today. I wouldn't have had any problem if he were higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Shula is WAY too high. Bobby Knight should be above Dean Smith. Bill Walsh probably deserves Shula's spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 I would put Bill Parcells higher.....and Chuck Noll lower......the Steelers won all those Super Bowls DESPITE him, not BECAUSE of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.