Phil Jackson isn't well liked because of the mind-games he plays with opposing teams. (not to mention that his Bulls teams generally got the better of us)
I'm a believer that you need to try to understand the enemy before making a judgment about them. I've read his first book and have followed his interviews and articles about him over the years.
Phil Jackson's coaching philosophy is very sound--- a lot of it is based on what he learned as a "specialty" bench guy on the Knicks. The Knicks championship teams never had the absolute top players on those teams--- just a college of very good players who played SMART team basketball.
Doesn't he have 11 rings as a player and coach? (not sure if he got one for the 69 season-- he was injured)
http://www.nba.com/coachfile/phil_jackson/
Anyway, I believe that he's one of those coaches that truly makes his teams better.
Sure, the Lakers had Kobe and Shaq... but many of the other 10 players they sported couldn't crack any other teams' rotations.
Posted by Panos:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Panos:
Posted by RonRon:
[clip...]
And about phil jackson, I dont think this team quite fits the triangle. Phil jackson is a great coach but he also needs dominating players in his system and the PG is probably the weakest position in it. With that said, what would we do for marbary.
Why Phil Jackson? What makes him so great? What has he done
without 2 of the 5 best players in the league on his team?
He's even managed to lose a couple of championships with
Shaq and Kobe on the team.
A championship ring on every finger takes a good coach even if you have one or two great players
We're not just talking great players. We're talking he had the most dominant player in the league at the time when he won each of those rings, and another player that was easily top 5.
What will he have on the Knicks? Nothing even close.