RealGM

Having watched some ESPN Classic and NBA TV over the past few weeks, and seeing some of the greatest coaches this league and the success they've been able to garner, along with the players they've been able to coach/work with; is there a definite reasoning as to their success?

Is it the players/team who are responsible for the success of the coach, or lack of it? Or, is it the coach who, in one way or another, are the sole reason the players/team are as successful as they are? Or, is it combination of both?

If I had to argue, I'd argue that it has to be balanced combination of both. -- You have to have a good coach and good players to be able to win; as you can have a great coach, but w/o the proper players at his disposal, he isn't taking his team anywhere. But, you have some who argue against that claim.

Thoughts? Opinions?

i def think it's both.

sometimes it takes certain coaches to deal with certain personalities....especially if you're talking about a title contender which will have multiple big personalities to put together. a perfect example from just this past year is doc rivers. those 3 together are pretty unstoppable...but if doc doesnt get them to believe in not just each other but the entire team concept as well as bring all of the role players to a higher level in their own mind...boston doesnt win a title (similar to pat in miami their title year)

same can be said for pat riley in LA, or Phil in both LA and Chicago...it took those coaches to deal with those egos and hold them together...

at the same time, you have a coach like Mike Brown who i dont find particularly good, nor terrible...but he's got lebron james so he's also got an NBA finals appearance on his resume now

and i also think having a good/great coach can make teams better as well. i honestly believe that scott skiles got my team, the chicago bulls, to overachieve the seasons they went to the playoffs. not to say they werent a playoff caliber team without him, but they played with a lot of heart, surprised many people, and even stole a series from a much more talented heat team

you get the perfect balance of all 3 (i think that would have been larry brown had he of stayed with det) and you're lookin at a possible dynasty

The answer is clearly and unarguably both.