R.E.S.P.E.C.T. S.L.O.A.N.

[BarneyGumble]

My point was to illustrate that the argument is bull. Obviously Stockton's greatness isn't in question. If anything, I like him too much; there's a framed photo of him on my wall.

I never thought I'd ever say this....but you forgot the green font.

[S2Minem]

It amazes me that the best players that have ever played for SLoan and his peer coaches always give Sloan the credit he is due but some of the so-called arm-chair experts on these boards don't.

Well, then it doesn't take a lot to amaze you, because, in case you didn't notice, most of the players who praise Sloan (Stock, Malone, Horny, Bell, Harp, etc.) were already self-motivated in the first place. Players like Greg Ostertag have nice things to say about Sloan, too, but Sloan never got him to play well on a consistent basis, so how much "credit" should Sloan get for that? You don't see players whom Sloan benched with no explanation speaking up, do you?

Coaches give Sloan credit because most of them would covet his win-loss record (some of which is due to his supposed insistence on effort, even though he hasn't enforced it; and the "system" that he put in place). All of them covet the blind loyalty that the Jazz organization has given him--and the blind ignorance to the poor substitutions and in-game strategy and the iffy player development.

Why don't you realize that there is a direct correlation between how great Stockton and Malone were and the coaching system they played under?

Because there isn't necessarily that direct correlation. Stockton clearly did better in a passing offense, but that's not all that unique to the Jazz. Malone actually played on another team, and his scoring went down (partly b/c he wasn't the #1 option anymore and because he was pushing 40) but his rebounding and FG% stayed the same or better. Malone would've been a great player anywhere, and he might've gotten a title in another situation where the team or coach was able to acquire/develop a third option (with two good knees) to put them over the top.

Deron would be great any where he would have played but has experienced most of his success here once he bought into the system and that is why he is now often considered the best PG in the league.

You're walking into the argument. He would've been great anywhere. Sloan just delayed it by a few months.

There are only two other coaches in the league right now that you can argue are better than SLoan and neither would come to Utah. So why down grade?

I can argue that lots of coaches might have been equal to or better than Sloan. Any coach with decent X's and O's and/or an enforcement of playing defense could've matched or exceeded what Sloan did during most of his career. There are many coaches in the NBA that have been clearly inferior to J-Slo--Mike Brown comes to mind-- but I would've liked to see Rick Carlisle (if sober), Rick Adelman, a healthy Rudy Tomjanovich, or Doogie Howser (formerly of the Nets) could've done with the Jazz. (I assume that Pat Riley, Phil Jackson, and Gregg Popovich were never available.) Again, what Sloan benefitted from was longevity, which was engendered by the organization's loyalty.

It will be very interesting to see what Tom Thibodeau will do with the Bulls, because he has been available for years and came from the tutelage of Popovich, who I imagine is one of the better active coaches of whom you speak. If not, he should be.