Phil Jackson: Worst Coach with Most Success

Anjali Nambissan, Jun 13,2009 at 03:14

Great point!!! i do believe that this is something that is there in all sports. Captains in great teams or coaches even, get away with lesser work because the team tends to hide their inabilities or drawbacks with their excellent performances.

The problem is, at the end of the career, fans are blinded by the wins and reporters, media and other parties are blinded by the glint on the rings. So that just leaves a few players, experts and commentators and just a handful of people who realise that well... the coach had an empty gun... If his teammates weren't sharpshooters, they would have hit the dirt first.

Aditi Verma, Jun 13,2009 at 06:25

Well, in all sports, there are separate assistant coaches who are the real specialists in each area. You have offensive and defensive coaches in American football. Even in the conventional football, otherwise known by the name soccer in countries that look to be different for the heck of it, we have a specialist goalkeeping coach, a defense coordinator, midfield and forwards coach as well as one for the reserves and so on. The head coach, therefore, is known mainly as the manager who needs to keep all these people on the same page and ensure that the team works as one towards the final goal. So i wouldn't really undermine his job. also, every coach has to take care of the business side of the team as well. So let's not solely take a coach on the performance of the team.

Kavita Nambissan, Jun 13,2009 at 06:47

Well, whatever it is, he must have done something right to be in the job for so long. Whether it is on the financial side of the business or the playing side, there is no doubt that if he were such a big idiot, then he wouldn't be there.

The fact is that every great coach doesn't become great because s/he knows everything there is to know about the game. S/he becomes big because they know their strengths and weaknesses and allow people who are strong in their weak departments, to take over under their supervision. So while they know that what is being done is good, they should be knowledgeable enough to know that what is being taught is not detrimental to the team.

so what I am basically trying to say is that although the asst. coach may have come up with the play, Jackson had to know that it wont harm more than help. And that is something that cannot and should not be taken away from him. Also, an asst. coach has half the responsibilities and therefore has more time to think on on-court matters because the coach has to handle the business side of coaching the team as well.

Hoops88 (visitor), Jul 11,2009 at 07:34

He's a great coach. Yes he had great players. I know his style and philosophy. He's just an excellent coach. Is he the best? I think so.
The only criticism I have of him is that pure point guards don't fit in his system. Gary Payton had tremendous problems in it. Mediocre PG's like Ron Harper, Derek Fisher,and Jon Paxson are much better suited for his system.

Daniel (visitor), Jul 12,2009 at 17:47

Another bias article. I laughed when I read that Phil is not even in the top 10. That only proves that this is just another subjective article. I continued reading, though.

Did you know that Phil guided a Jordan-less Bulls team to 55 games? They were elimanated in the semifinals due to a controversial call in game 5. The 2005 Lakers won just 34 games. That same team, minus Caron Butler, won 45 games when Jackson returned, making the 7th seed a very competitive western conference. They were eliminated in seven games by a much talented Suns team.

The Lakers made the 1st seed in 2008 in a very competitive western conference (every playoff team in the western conference won at least 50 games). Yeah, they were defeated by Boston, but that Celtics team was the best defensive team and had three all-stars and the defensive player of the year; defense wins championships. Oh, the Lakers didn't have their starting center and their SF, Ariza, wasn't the player we saw in 2009.

I love the fact that you contradict yourself stating, and I quote you, "Anybody can win with hall of fame players against mediocre competition. In the 1990's the Bulls did not have any real competition to make them worry or play harder. Same thing with the Lakers in the early 2000's.", and at the same time placing coaches like Red, Riley, Popovich ahead of Phil. Did you know Red's team at one time had SEVEN future hall of famers? And that he never had less than FIVE in his team? What about Riley? He had Kareem, Magic and Worthy in the Lakers. In NY he had Ewing. In Miami he had Wade and Shaq. Rudy? He had Drexler and Hakeem. Poppovich? He had Duncan and Robinson. Oh, this Spurs team won their titles in the same decade Phil's Lakers won also, and since you said that there isn't competition, it's a contradiction.

Mediocre competition? in the '90s, the Bulls faced teams in the playoffs that had great players like: Isiah, Magic, Drexler, Barkley, Ewing, Reggie, Payton, Kemp, Alonzo, Penny, Shaq, Stockton, Malone. And the Lakers? They faced tough western teams in the playoffs like Portland, San Antonio, Sacramento. The NY team was coached by Riley, the Jazz by Sloan, and the Spurs by Popovich, three coaches you put ahead of Phil, but to you there is no competition at all, yet another contradiction.

Phil's 10th championship team featured just ONE future hall of famer. Did Red won with just one? Riley? Sloan had two and couldn't even won one.