*NBA THREAD* Abe will be missed (1 Viewer)

[Prince Myshkin]

how many offensive rebounds do the spurs have this quarter??? this game could have gotten very interesting if okc had cleaned up on the boards.

 

[Britney Spears]

GINOBILI!!!

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

"...if it's a basketball game, they're going to lose."

You got that right.

 

[timschochet]

20 wins in a row. 10 playoff wins in a row.

 

[saintfool]

i agree with kerr here. this is a good loss for OKC. they have found something that works for them on both ends of the floor. it's not pretty but it's effective. if nothing else, it forces Pop to go back to the drawing board. if i am OKC, i am confident coming back to my home court.

 

[timschochet]

i agree with kerr here. this is a good loss for OKC. they have found something that works for them on both ends of the floor. it's not pretty but it's effective. if nothing else, it forces Pop to go back to the drawing board. if i am OKC, i am confident coming back to my home court.

I dunno. You hear that from announcers all the time, trying to keep up interest in the series. We'll see what happens.

 

[Raider Nation]

120-111??? Jesus. How many points did George Gervin have?

 

[saintfool]

i agree with kerr here. this is a good loss for OKC. they have found something that works for them on both ends of the floor. it's not pretty but it's effective. if nothing else, it forces Pop to go back to the drawing board. if i am OKC, i am confident coming back to my home court.

I dunno. You hear that from announcers all the time, trying to keep up interest in the series. We'll see what happens.

well, sure, but they did find a way to match up against the spurs for more than a quarter of basketball. can that work for 4 quarters though? SA got a little sloppy, settled for jump shots rather than punish the matchups when they presented themselves.

 

[Mister CIA]

i agree with kerr here. this is a good loss for OKC. they have found something that works for them on both ends of the floor. it's not pretty but it's effective. if nothing else, it forces Pop to go back to the drawing board. if i am OKC, i am confident coming back to my home court.

Yep. Huge Spurs fan, but this is far from over. Fully expect OKC to win game 3, and the series will all but be decided by the results of game 4.

 

[Abraham]

Thunder will win the next one then lose in 5. Going to have to shoot better at the stripe if they are going to keep up with the spurs.

 

[TxBuckeye]

Has there ever been a non-OT game that went 2:45? Man, once the hack a Splitter thing happened, the game slowed to a crawl. Glad the Spurs won, but dang...

 

[Mile High]

LOL at Harden. Our guards did a great job on Parker.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Interesting fan as they just panned around

 

[Dought Man]

Craig Sager reports Derek Fisher is still on the court taking ill advised jump shots and is mumbling something about 2004.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

A lot of folks will dismiss it because it didn't happen during a "real" season, much like SAS's spectacular run to close out the lockout-shortened 1999 season.

I think that's a pretty bad argument those folks would be making. This season should have been tougher on a team with older stars than anyone. As you pointed out, they essentially gave games away to rest them and still ended up the #1 seed.

 

[timschochet]

I'm hoping some lovers of basketball here (like Ferris and others) will come in and comment about what we're watching here. I don't know enough to comment intelligently myself, except to say I get this is really special.

I try not to get too crazy about the home team winning Games 1 and 2 of a playoff series. It's not good for OKC that they've lost both games, but in the context of the series, SAS has just held serve and the real work starts on Thursday night.The historic thing happening right now is SAS has won 20 in a row and 31 of their last 33. SAS won 11 in a row in the regular season twice, and snapped both streaks pretty much on purpose: 2nd game of a back-to-back played on the road without dressing Duncan, Parker, or Ginobili.A lot of folks will dismiss it because it didn't happen during a "real" season, much like SAS's spectacular run to close out the lockout-shortened 1999 season.

When I wrote that I wasn't referring specifically to the fact that the Spurs were winning tonight, or to their winning streak (though that's a remarkable thing in itself.)It's the way they're playing. So much more unselfish than every other team we've seen in a long while. That's what I meant when I wrote that it seems special to me.

 

[saintfool]

A lot of folks will dismiss it because it didn't happen during a "real" season, much like SAS's spectacular run to close out the lockout-shortened 1999 season.

I think that's a pretty bad argument those folks would be making. This season should have been tougher on a team with older stars than anyone. As you pointed out, they essentially gave games away to rest them and still ended up the #1 seed.

I remember Phil Jackson commenting about how that championship should have had an "*" next to it for some reason. Phil is kind of a tool.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

The Spurs' 3rd quarter last night was a thing of beauty. Wow. Exactly the way ball should be played.

 

[saintfool]

The Spurs' 3rd quarter last night was a thing of beauty. Wow. Exactly the way ball should be played.

they still need to tighten up on defense. yes, they won but Pop cannot be happy with 111 points given up. there were lots of reasons, of course, but the Spurs actually could have played a better game.

 

[culdeus]

A lot of folks will dismiss it because it didn't happen during a "real" season, much like SAS's spectacular run to close out the lockout-shortened 1999 season.

I think that's a pretty bad argument those folks would be making. This season should have been tougher on a team with older stars than anyone. As you pointed out, they essentially gave games away to rest them and still ended up the #1 seed.

SA also benefited, as it was, from getting sent home very early in the prior season's playoffs. This should be a factor when they see the Heat in a week or so. At most they will have played what 13 games to get there.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

The Spurs' 3rd quarter last night was a thing of beauty. Wow. Exactly the way ball should be played.

they still need to tighten up on defense. yes, they won but Pop cannot be happy with 111 points given up. there were lots of reasons, of course, but the Spurs actually could have played a better game.

I think the 111 is a little misleading. OKC only shot 42%. The game was played at a very fast pace which increases possessions and therefore total points. Yes, they could definitely play a little better on defense. They gave up a lot of fast break points which will need to be corrected but I believe a lot of those came in the 4th while they were up by 20. That is just nit-picking IMO.

 

[Gr00vus]

Brooks needs to tighten up his rotation and adjust his substitution patterns. First off, they don't have enough firepower in the supporting cast to afford sitting two of their big 3 at the same time - they need 2 of those guys on the floor at all times, all 3 in crunch time. Second, and somewhat related, they're not going to win anything giving Fisher that much burn. Why he was in there instead of Sefolosha is beyond me - at least Sefolosha could give you something on D. If Fisher is getting more than 5 minutes a game you're probably fuxxored. He has stayed at the party way too long. It's sad and pathetic witnessing another example of a guy clinging to the game well past when he should have bowed out gracefully, and trying to pass himself off as a leader of a team he's been with for 2 months on top of it. Slide over to the assistant coach's chair Fish. Please.

Also, Perkins and Ibaka need to dunk when they're in hailing distance of the rim - those missed pattycake/Mychal Thompson specials were miserable.

 

[Ghost Rider]

A lot of folks will dismiss it because it didn't happen during a "real" season, much like SAS's spectacular run to close out the lockout-shortened 1999 season.

I think that's a pretty bad argument those folks would be making. This season should have been tougher on a team with older stars than anyone. As you pointed out, they essentially gave games away to rest them and still ended up the #1 seed.

I remember Phil Jackson commenting about how that championship should have had an "*" next to it for some reason. Phil is kind of a tool.

Kind of a tool? Considering at least three of his championships came as the result of officiating at crucial moments going heavily in his team's favor (the Jordan push-off vs Utah, Game 6 vs Sacramento, and the Celtics having 177 fouls called against them in the 4th quarter of Game 7 in 2010), he should never talk about any other team getting an asterisk.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

cant wait for LeBron and Wade to lose another finals

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

I am an infrequent visitor to this thread, so apologies if this has been posted before. Jimmy Goldstein is a friggin pimp.

Goldstein GQ blog part 1

Goldstein GQ blog part 2

 

[TobiasFunke]

A lot of folks will dismiss it because it didn't happen during a "real" season, much like SAS's spectacular run to close out the lockout-shortened 1999 season.

I think that's a pretty bad argument those folks would be making. This season should have been tougher on a team with older stars than anyone. As you pointed out, they essentially gave games away to rest them and still ended up the #1 seed.

I remember Phil Jackson commenting about how that championship should have had an "*" next to it for some reason. Phil is kind of a tool.

Kind of a tool? Considering at least three of his championships came as the result of officiating at crucial moments going heavily in his team's favor (the Jordan push-off vs Utah, Game 6 vs Sacramento, and the Celtics having 177 fouls called against them in the 4th quarter of Game 7 in 2010), he should never talk about any other team getting an asterisk.

Bulls led the series 3-2 at that point and the two Jazz wins were by the slimmest of margins- one by 3 in OT, one by 2. Bulls had one 96-54 beatdown, one comfortable 8 point road win, and one 4 point win under their belts. Even if an offensive foul had been called against Jordan (on a play where you rarely see a call go against anyone regardless of stature) and the Jazz had converted on the line and also prevented the Bulls from hitting a 3 on the final possession to tie the game, the Bulls would have been favored in Game 7. They were clearly the better team in that series.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Bulls led the series 3-2 at that point and the two Jazz wins were by the slimmest of margins- one by 3 in OT, one by 2. Bulls had one 96-54 beatdown, one comfortable 8 point road win, and one 4 point win under their belts. Even if an offensive foul had been called against Jordan (on a play where you rarely see a call go against anyone regardless of stature) and the Jazz had converted on the line and also prevented the Bulls from hitting a 3 on the final possession to tie the game, the Bulls would have been favored in Game 7. They were clearly the better team in that series.

Three of the Bulls four wins were narrow wins as well. I am not saying the Bulls weren't the better team, but Jordan's Bulls almost always get the benefit of the doubt when it came to crucial foul calls (or non-calls). But that is the NBA for ya, as superstars usually get the superstar treatment. And Jackson has never coached an NBA team that didn't have a superstar that was one of the top five players in the league (except for the Bulls teams when Jordan had briefly retired).

 

[TobiasFunke]

Bulls led the series 3-2 at that point and the two Jazz wins were by the slimmest of margins- one by 3 in OT, one by 2. Bulls had one 96-54 beatdown, one comfortable 8 point road win, and one 4 point win under their belts. Even if an offensive foul had been called against Jordan (on a play where you rarely see a call go against anyone regardless of stature) and the Jazz had converted on the line and also prevented the Bulls from hitting a 3 on the final possession to tie the game, the Bulls would have been favored in Game 7. They were clearly the better team in that series.

Three of the Bulls four wins were narrow wins as well. I am not saying the Bulls weren't the better team, but Jordan's Bulls almost always get the benefit of the doubt when it came to crucial foul calls (or non-calls). But that is the NBA for ya, as superstars usually get the superstar treatment. And Jackson has never coached an NBA team that didn't have a superstar that was one of the top five players in the league (except for the Bulls teams when Jordan had briefly retired).

Agree on Jackson- he manages egos well, but the defining characteristic of his career is coaching teams where the personnel is already in place. I don't understand how people can compare his accomplishments to the likes of Auerbach and Popovich and other coaches who actually play a role in shaping the roster.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Bulls led the series 3-2 at that point and the two Jazz wins were by the slimmest of margins- one by 3 in OT, one by 2. Bulls had one 96-54 beatdown, one comfortable 8 point road win, and one 4 point win under their belts. Even if an offensive foul had been called against Jordan (on a play where you rarely see a call go against anyone regardless of stature) and the Jazz had converted on the line and also prevented the Bulls from hitting a 3 on the final possession to tie the game, the Bulls would have been favored in Game 7. They were clearly the better team in that series.

Three of the Bulls four wins were narrow wins as well. I am not saying the Bulls weren't the better team, but Jordan's Bulls almost always get the benefit of the doubt when it came to crucial foul calls (or non-calls). But that is the NBA for ya, as superstars usually get the superstar treatment. And Jackson has never coached an NBA team that didn't have a superstar that was one of the top five players in the league (except for the Bulls teams when Jordan had briefly retired).

Agree on Jackson- he manages egos well, but the defining characteristic of his career is coaching teams where the personnel is already in place. I don't understand how people can compare his accomplishments to the likes of Auerbach and Popovich and other coaches who actually play a role in shaping the roster.

Agreed.

 

[No. 16]

I am an infrequent visitor to this thread, so apologies if this has been posted before. Jimmy Goldstein is a friggin pimp.

Goldstein GQ blog part 1

Goldstein GQ blog part 2

Never realized he was a non-Laker fan. Haha. He's right behind Hugh Hefner as a role model for me.

 

[No. 16]

Bulls led the series 3-2 at that point and the two Jazz wins were by the slimmest of margins- one by 3 in OT, one by 2. Bulls had one 96-54 beatdown, one comfortable 8 point road win, and one 4 point win under their belts. Even if an offensive foul had been called against Jordan (on a play where you rarely see a call go against anyone regardless of stature) and the Jazz had converted on the line and also prevented the Bulls from hitting a 3 on the final possession to tie the game, the Bulls would have been favored in Game 7. They were clearly the better team in that series.

Three of the Bulls four wins were narrow wins as well. I am not saying the Bulls weren't the better team, but Jordan's Bulls almost always get the benefit of the doubt when it came to crucial foul calls (or non-calls). But that is the NBA for ya, as superstars usually get the superstar treatment. And Jackson has never coached an NBA team that didn't have a superstar that was one of the top five players in the league (except for the Bulls teams when Jordan had briefly retired).

Agree on Jackson- he manages egos well, but the defining characteristic of his career is coaching teams where the personnel is already in place. I don't understand how people can compare his accomplishments to the likes of Auerbach and Popovich and other coaches who actually play a role in shaping the roster.

Agreed.

Double agree.Larry Brown, Pop, and Red should all be easily above Phil.

 

[Yo Mama]

So supposedly Deron Williams said he still wouldn't resign with the Nets if they win the #1 pick tonight. He'll only stay if they get Howard.

Do Nets trade Davis for Howard if they get #1?

 

[Dought Man]

I'm hoping some lovers of basketball here (like Ferris and others) will come in and comment about what we're watching here. I don't know enough to comment intelligently myself, except to say I get this is really special.

I try not to get too crazy about the home team winning Games 1 and 2 of a playoff series. It's not good for OKC that they've lost both games, but in the context of the series, SAS has just held serve and the real work starts on Thursday night.

Yeah, but do you trust that OKC can win 4 of the next 5 against the SAS? I don't think many would take that bet.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Bulls led the series 3-2 at that point and the two Jazz wins were by the slimmest of margins- one by 3 in OT, one by 2. Bulls had one 96-54 beatdown, one comfortable 8 point road win, and one 4 point win under their belts. Even if an offensive foul had been called against Jordan (on a play where you rarely see a call go against anyone regardless of stature) and the Jazz had converted on the line and also prevented the Bulls from hitting a 3 on the final possession to tie the game, the Bulls would have been favored in Game 7. They were clearly the better team in that series.

Three of the Bulls four wins were narrow wins as well. I am not saying the Bulls weren't the better team, but Jordan's Bulls almost always get the benefit of the doubt when it came to crucial foul calls (or non-calls). But that is the NBA for ya, as superstars usually get the superstar treatment. And Jackson has never coached an NBA team that didn't have a superstar that was one of the top five players in the league (except for the Bulls teams when Jordan had briefly retired).

Agree on Jackson- he manages egos well, but the defining characteristic of his career is coaching teams where the personnel is already in place. I don't understand how people can compare his accomplishments to the likes of Auerbach and Popovich and other coaches who actually play a role in shaping the roster.

Agreed.

Double agree.Larry Brown, Pop, and Red should all be easily above Phil.

Chuck Daly was phenomenal as well.

 

[Premier]

So supposedly Deron Williams said he still wouldn't resign with the Nets if they win the #1 pick tonight. He'll only stay if they get Howard.Do Nets trade Davis for Howard if they get #1?

I am sure both sides would love to make that deal.

 

[saintfool]

Double agree.Larry Brown, Pop, and Red should all be easily above Phil.

It's not like the cupboard was bare when Pop took it over from Bob Hill. He had some players, mostly established vets (Robinson was a top 10 player in the league, I know), to lean on. Getting Timmy changed everything though. In the Duncan era, he and RC Buford have been able to build the team on their terms. they have eschewed convention time and again over the years with their personnel choices. he's adapted his coaching and system to suit his players too.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So supposedly Deron Williams said he still wouldn't resign with the Nets if they win the #1 pick tonight. He'll only stay if they get Howard.Do Nets trade Davis for Howard if they get #1?

If they get an extension from Howard, definitely.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

So supposedly Deron Williams said he still wouldn't resign with the Nets if they win the #1 pick tonight. He'll only stay if they get Howard.Do Nets trade Davis for Howard if they get #1?

If they get an extension from Howard, definitely.

Definitely? I might have trouble pulling the trigger to trade a guy with Davis' potential for a head case that can't hit free throws even if he is clearly the best power player in the league. Not that it matters since Nick Gilbert is going to deliver Davis to Cleveland.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So supposedly Deron Williams said he still wouldn't resign with the Nets if they win the #1 pick tonight. He'll only stay if they get Howard.Do Nets trade Davis for Howard if they get #1?

If they get an extension from Howard, definitely.

Definitely? I might have trouble pulling the trigger to trade a guy with Davis' potential for a head case that can't hit free throws even if he is clearly the best power player in the league. Not that it matters since Nick Gilbert is going to deliver Davis to Cleveland.

Is Davis' upside higher than Howard's current level? I'll admit to not knowing that much about him (don't follow college ball that closely). Athletic freak. Great defender. Great rebounder. Limited offensively. Weak post/shooting skills. Doesn't that describe both of them? I'll take the guy who has a proven track record and still has some great years to come if I'm NJ. Pair Howard with Williams and you're only a few good role players away from contending. I don't make that trade if I'm Charlotte. A young, cheap, controllable stud would be much better for them as they aren't winning anytime soon.

 

[the moops]

So supposedly Deron Williams said he still wouldn't resign with the Nets if they win the #1 pick tonight. He'll only stay if they get Howard.Do Nets trade Davis for Howard if they get #1?

If they get an extension from Howard, definitely.

Definitely?

Yes.It isn't just Howard or Davis.It appears it is Howard and a resigned Williams or Davis.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Is Davis' upside higher than Howard's current level? I'll admit to not knowing that much about him (don't follow college ball that closely). Athletic freak. Great defender. Great rebounder. Limited offensively. Weak post/shooting skills. Doesn't that describe both of them? I'll take the guy who has a proven track record and still has some great years to come if I'm NJ. Pair Howard with Williams and you're only a few good role players away from contending. I don't make that trade if I'm Charlotte. A young, cheap, controllable stud would be much better for them as they aren't winning anytime soon.

It isn't just Howard or Davis.It appears it is Howard and a resigned Williams or Davis.

Davis' offensive game is way ahead of where Howard was coming in. However you both make great points about why it would make sense for Brooklyn even if Davis does live up to his hype, so I'll concede that they should do it. On the other side I would think that would be better for Orlando than almost any other deal I've heard proposed.

 

[Kenny Powers]

So supposedly Deron Williams said he still wouldn't resign with the Nets if they win the #1 pick tonight. He'll only stay if they get Howard.Do Nets trade Davis for Howard if they get #1?

If they get an extension from Howard, definitely.

Definitely? I might have trouble pulling the trigger to trade a guy with Davis' potential for a head case that can't hit free throws even if he is clearly the best power player in the league. Not that it matters since Nick Gilbert is going to deliver Davis to Cleveland.

Is Davis' upside higher than Howard's current level? I'll admit to not knowing that much about him (don't follow college ball that closely). Athletic freak. Great defender. Great rebounder. Limited offensively. Weak post/shooting skills. Doesn't that describe both of them? I'll take the guy who has a proven track record and still has some great years to come if I'm NJ. Pair Howard with Williams and you're only a few good role players away from contending. I don't make that trade if I'm Charlotte. A young, cheap, controllable stud would be much better for them as they aren't winning anytime soon.

Hard to say how good Davis will be offensively as a rookie and how he progresses, but he has the ability to be more than a post up player and is a great free throw shooter for a C/PF. Yeah, I think it makes sense for NJ to do that trade to get Howard now to pair with Williams, who probably has 5 good years left, but if it were just straight up Id rather have a 19yr old Davis than a 27yr old Howard for the rest of their careers.

 

[timschochet]

Agree on Jackson- he manages egos well, but the defining characteristic of his career is coaching teams where the personnel is already in place. I don't understand how people can compare his accomplishments to the likes of Auerbach and Popovich and other coaches who actually play a role in shaping the roster.

Phil Jackson is one of the greatest coaches of all time. So is Auerbach. So is Popovich. You're talking about the elites here. If forced to rank, I would probably rank the Zen Master slightly below the two others for the reasons you mentioned, but that doesn't disparage Jackson- it compliments Auerbach and Popovich. I've never understood why people feel the need to rip one guy in order to praise another. Kobe Bryant is one of the greatest basketball players ever. I can say that without ripping LeBron James. I can say that Jordan was a better player than Kobe without ripping Kobe. All of these guys are on such a high level that the differences between them aren't all that significant.

 

[Mile High]

Agree on Jackson- he manages egos well, but the defining characteristic of his career is coaching teams where the personnel is already in place. I don't understand how people can compare his accomplishments to the likes of Auerbach and Popovich and other coaches who actually play a role in shaping the roster.

Phil Jackson is one of the greatest coaches of all time. So is Auerbach. So is Popovich. You're talking about the elites here. If forced to rank, I would probably rank the Zen Master slightly below the two others for the reasons you mentioned, but that doesn't disparage Jackson- it compliments Auerbach and Popovich. I've never understood why people feel the need to rip one guy in order to praise another. Kobe Bryant is one of the greatest basketball players ever. I can say that without ripping LeBron James. I can say that Jordan was a better player than Kobe without ripping Kobe. All of these guys are on such a high level that the differences between them aren't all that significant.

I agree Tim. Even if some thinks this player or that player isn't top 10 all time, but in the top 20 all time, top 20 is still pretty damm good.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Agree on Jackson- he manages egos well, but the defining characteristic of his career is coaching teams where the personnel is already in place. I don't understand how people can compare his accomplishments to the likes of Auerbach and Popovich and other coaches who actually play a role in shaping the roster.

Phil Jackson is one of the greatest coaches of all time. So is Auerbach. So is Popovich. You're talking about the elites here. If forced to rank, I would probably rank the Zen Master slightly below the two others for the reasons you mentioned, but that doesn't disparage Jackson- it compliments Auerbach and Popovich. I've never understood why people feel the need to rip one guy in order to praise another. Kobe Bryant is one of the greatest basketball players ever. I can say that without ripping LeBron James. I can say that Jordan was a better player than Kobe without ripping Kobe. All of these guys are on such a high level that the differences between them aren't all that significant.

I don't mean to rank them. Like I said in the thread on Duncan, I don't like "rankings" of players (or in this case coaches) across eras and whatnot. I hate that stuffWhat I'm saying is that what Jackson did is so fundamentally different from what guys who actually play a role in their team's personnel did that historically they shouldn't even be a part of the same conversation. They held the same title at varying points in their careers, but that's where the similarities end.

Now personally, I think shaping a team's personnel from the ground up and then coaching that personnel is more impressive than inheriting a team already jam packed with all-NBA level talent and convincing them to be slightly lesser dooshbags. So I would personally say that what guys like Pop do is way "better" than what Phil Jackson did. But that's just a matter of personal preference. You can give whatever credit to Phil Jackson you like.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Bulls led the series 3-2 at that point and the two Jazz wins were by the slimmest of margins- one by 3 in OT, one by 2. Bulls had one 96-54 beatdown, one comfortable 8 point road win, and one 4 point win under their belts. Even if an offensive foul had been called against Jordan (on a play where you rarely see a call go against anyone regardless of stature) and the Jazz had converted on the line and also prevented the Bulls from hitting a 3 on the final possession to tie the game, the Bulls would have been favored in Game 7. They were clearly the better team in that series.

Three of the Bulls four wins were narrow wins as well. I am not saying the Bulls weren't the better team, but Jordan's Bulls almost always get the benefit of the doubt when it came to crucial foul calls (or non-calls). But that is the NBA for ya, as superstars usually get the superstar treatment. And Jackson has never coached an NBA team that didn't have a superstar that was one of the top five players in the league (except for the Bulls teams when Jordan had briefly retired).

Agree on Jackson- he manages egos well, but the defining characteristic of his career is coaching teams where the personnel is already in place. I don't understand how people can compare his accomplishments to the likes of Auerbach and Popovich and other coaches who actually play a role in shaping the roster.

I used to think that way as well. However, the personnel he took over with the Lakers his first go round was essentially the same as the previous couple of years where the team had failed to win a championship. Jackson took over and the team won three in a row. For whatever reason he was the difference. And when you look back you notice the same thing happened in Chicago. Good team under Doug Collins, but championship team under Phil Jackson. He's got to be doing something right.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Bulls led the series 3-2 at that point and the two Jazz wins were by the slimmest of margins- one by 3 in OT, one by 2. Bulls had one 96-54 beatdown, one comfortable 8 point road win, and one 4 point win under their belts. Even if an offensive foul had been called against Jordan (on a play where you rarely see a call go against anyone regardless of stature) and the Jazz had converted on the line and also prevented the Bulls from hitting a 3 on the final possession to tie the game, the Bulls would have been favored in Game 7. They were clearly the better team in that series.

Three of the Bulls four wins were narrow wins as well. I am not saying the Bulls weren't the better team, but Jordan's Bulls almost always get the benefit of the doubt when it came to crucial foul calls (or non-calls). But that is the NBA for ya, as superstars usually get the superstar treatment. And Jackson has never coached an NBA team that didn't have a superstar that was one of the top five players in the league (except for the Bulls teams when Jordan had briefly retired).

Agree on Jackson- he manages egos well, but the defining characteristic of his career is coaching teams where the personnel is already in place. I don't understand how people can compare his accomplishments to the likes of Auerbach and Popovich and other coaches who actually play a role in shaping the roster.

I used to think that way as well. However, the personnel he took over with the Lakers his first go round was essentially the same as the previous couple of years where the team had failed to win a championship. Jackson took over and the team won three in a row. For whatever reason he was the difference. And when you look back you notice the same thing happened in Chicago. Good team under Doug Collins, but championship team under Phil Jackson. He's got to be doing something right.

I don't question that, although timing/maturity of the star players certainly played a role as well. Plenty of teams take a while to gel. But he's definitely got a great formula for managing talented teams and getting them through the NBA playoffs.I'm just saying that what he did is totally different from what guys who actually play a role in building teams that aren't immediate contenders have done. It's like comparing a GM to some random scout and saying which is the best front office guy. The scout might be really good at what he does, but the level of responsibility and degree of difficulty is so different that you really can't even have the conversation.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So supposedly Deron Williams said he still wouldn't resign with the Nets if they win the #1 pick tonight. He'll only stay if they get Howard.Do Nets trade Davis for Howard if they get #1?

Deron's crazy. If they can land Davis, you'd think another max-type guy could be persuaded to join them, and Davis' relatively cheap salary for the first few years would enable the Nets to add several complimentary pieces as well.DWill, EGordon, GWallace, Davis, and BLopez is a damn good starting 5. And assuming they bring back Green, they'll have a lot of firepower off the bench with him, Brooks, and Farmar. Morrow is a nice piece to have as well.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Bulls led the series 3-2 at that point and the two Jazz wins were by the slimmest of margins- one by 3 in OT, one by 2. Bulls had one 96-54 beatdown, one comfortable 8 point road win, and one 4 point win under their belts. Even if an offensive foul had been called against Jordan (on a play where you rarely see a call go against anyone regardless of stature) and the Jazz had converted on the line and also prevented the Bulls from hitting a 3 on the final possession to tie the game, the Bulls would have been favored in Game 7. They were clearly the better team in that series.

Three of the Bulls four wins were narrow wins as well. I am not saying the Bulls weren't the better team, but Jordan's Bulls almost always get the benefit of the doubt when it came to crucial foul calls (or non-calls). But that is the NBA for ya, as superstars usually get the superstar treatment. And Jackson has never coached an NBA team that didn't have a superstar that was one of the top five players in the league (except for the Bulls teams when Jordan had briefly retired).

Agree on Jackson- he manages egos well, but the defining characteristic of his career is coaching teams where the personnel is already in place. I don't understand how people can compare his accomplishments to the likes of Auerbach and Popovich and other coaches who actually play a role in shaping the roster.

I used to think that way as well. However, the personnel he took over with the Lakers his first go round was essentially the same as the previous couple of years where the team had failed to win a championship. Jackson took over and the team won three in a row. For whatever reason he was the difference. And when you look back you notice the same thing happened in Chicago. Good team under Doug Collins, but championship team under Phil Jackson. He's got to be doing something right.

Very true. Jackson was excellent at taking a team from very good to great, but other historically great coaches have taken teams from okay or bad to great, which is something Jackson never did. Also, those Bulls teams in the late 80s probably were championship-caliber under Collins, but couldn't get past the juggernaut that were the Pistons. They only finally got past the Pistons in '91 when the team started getting older and Isiah Thomas was not close to 100%. Keep in mind that under Jackson, the Bulls did win 55 games in 1989-1990, but couldn't get to the Finals because the Pistons were still at full strength and the best team in the NBA.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Very true. Jackson was excellent at taking a team from very good to great, but other historically great coaches have taken teams from okay or bad to great, which is something Jackson never did. Also, those Bulls teams in the late 80s probably were championship-caliber under Collins, but couldn't get past the juggernaut that were the Pistons. They only finally got past the Pistons in '91 when the team started getting older and Isiah Thomas was not close to 100%. Keep in mind that under Jackson, the Bulls did win 55 games in 1989-1990, but couldn't get to the Finals because the Pistons were still at full strength and the best team in the NBA.

There are always variables and, if you want to look for them, you can probably find reasons to discount just about any coach except maybe Pop, Larry Brown, and Red. As a Laker fan trust me I was cognizant of the possibility that Jackson just got lucky in Chicago with Jordan and company falling in his lap. However, over time I came to the opinion that he is actually a great coach. Here are my reasons:1) Jackson paid his dues as a coach. It's not like he was handed an NBA job like a lot of retired players. He worked his way up through lesser leagues.2) Jackson won a championship in the CBA. 3) I don't believe you can win a championship just by managing egos. It's certainly a part of the job, especially in today's NBA, but you gotta know how to coach as well.4) It's not Jackson's fault that he never had to coach lesser players. It's not like he turned down a bunch of jobs before the Bulls hired him just to wait for that perfect opportunity. 5) Jackson won 55 games the year after Jordan retired the first time and was one win away from the ECF. Let's be honest. Those Bulls teams weren't THAT stacked with talent. Doing that well with Pippen as your only true star is pretty damn good.At the end of the day I just don't think you look at a guy with 10 championships and say it was mainly due to his handling of personalities. Pat Riley had the same stigma associated with him when he left the Lakers. In his case he was able to remove any doubt about his coaching/GM abilities during his stints in NY and Miami. Phil Jackson will never have that chance.