RealGM

Who's a better coach?

Who would win in a 7 game series if both men were coaching the same exact team?

I believe Phil is a better coach but Greg has better minds/staff around him.

Patterns wrote:I believe Phil is a better coach but Greg has better minds/staff around him.

dont want to say, that wrong, but wasnt it someone else, that invented the triangle-offense?

I think you always have to see, which kind of coaches you have:

there are offenseguys, defenseguys, guys that make weak teams mediocre, guys that make good teams contenders, guys that can deal with crazy characters, guys that can develop young players,........

phills biggest strengh is that he can deal with all kind of players...stars have a lot of respect for him, guys like rodman have been ok with him, young guys look up to him. In therms of X's and O's I think he is mediocre...Like I said, the triangle did not come from him, but I give him props for the defense.

Pop makes sure to have good character players on his team and that makes phills strengh not needed. he is a better X's and O's guy, even while PJ did a lot of that in the last years. IMO his biggest strengh is the european thinking of basketball: team first and defense first...while he always is fair to everyone, earning the respect not only of the stars but also the weaker links.

IMO, I see Pop as the best coach in the nba (homerglasses), then Sloan, Riley, AJ, Phill in this order.

I'll take Phil everyday of the week. If Phil coached the Spurs they would probably have won 7-8 championships in a row, haha. Phil isn't an X's and O's guy but you don't need to be when you play the triangle but that doesn't take anything away from his coaching. There's a reason why no other team in the league plays the triangle, because it's very very complicated yet Phil has had success with it like no other, even more than its creator Tex Winter.

tnayrbrocks wrote:I'll take Phil everyday of the week. If Phil coached the Spurs they would probably have won 7-8 championships in a row, haha. Phil isn't an X's and O's guy but you don't need to be when you play the triangle but that doesn't take anything away from his coaching. There's a reason why no other team in the league plays the triangle, because it's very very complicated yet Phil has had success with it like no other, even more than its creator Tex Winter.

The main reason the Spurs have been contenders for like 100 years is because of their FO and staff that includes Pop.

Pop..he's the best coach in the NBA at adjusting to the other team..

the only argument I've heard against Pop is that he's had Duncan, and now he has Parker and Ginobili, but every coach needs players to win..that argument doesn't apply in this case, because Phil Jackson hasn't gone anywhere without 2 star players, so we'll have to see what happens this year..Pop has won a championship with Duncan and an average supporting cast compared to the usual championship team..

I also see Laker fans complain about Jackson all the time, which is strange considering that so many people consider him to be the best coach ever..

This is a tough one but I think Pop is the best coach in the NBA now as well as the best GM.

Although I can see both coaches winning it all with the other guy's teams.

Phil Jackson is better. He is The Greatest Coach of All Time.

Whats everyones opinion on Riley?

tnayrbrocks wrote:I'll take Phil everyday of the week. If Phil coached the Spurs they would probably have won 7-8 championships in a row, haha. Phil isn't an X's and O's guy but you don't need to be when you play the triangle but that doesn't take anything away from his coaching. There's a reason why no other team in the league plays the triangle, because it's very very complicated yet Phil has had success with it like no other, even more than its creator Tex Winter.

It seems odd that someone would hold it against Popovich for having good players in an argument against Phil Jackson.

I would choose Pop unless I already had a star who was accustomed to doing things his way. I think he would butt heads with a player like that. Not only that, but Pop is a more knowledgable basketball guy. Phil Jackson deserved a lot of credit, but he also recieved praise that Jerry West and Jerry Krause should have gotten. Pop had a huge hand in putting together the Spurs. He was the one who drafted all of their current big 3 and put together 2 of their title teams.

Also, I love it when people talk about the triangle with an obvious lack of understanding.

Phil Jackson. Really hard to argue against him.

Patterns wrote:I believe Phil is a better coach but Greg has better minds/staff around him.

I believe the exact opposite of this, since Phil Jackson relies exclusively on an offense he did not develop.

Phil Jackson is a fine basketball mind and has developed into an excellent Xs and Os coach over the course of his career. He is one of the top three coaches of all time in terms of overall package even if you consider Red Auerbach better than he (which I do not).

But he's always been a filthy-rich man's Rudy Tomjanovich, more a motivator, ego massager and mediator than a technically proficient coach.

Gregg Popovich has rarely had to do any of that sort of manipulation at which Phil so readily excels and is a LOT better at designing his own offense. He's also incomparably superior as a defensive coach. Phil plays games in the regular season with his players with the way he handles timeouts but Pops actually uses them in the traditional manner and there aren't many in the biz who are better at game management as coaches than he. He controls tempo and substitutions very, very well and has adapted to shifting rosters as well as anyone I've seen.

Both have benefited from talent, of course, but that's how you win big, really, especially over long periods of time and so placing a coach's success on the backs of his players is stupid. Not just silly, but stupid.

Realistically, I think these guys are two of the three best coaches presently in the league along with Riley) and they represent the end point of what you can reach with super proficiency in one area of coaching and strong skills in the other. Phil's the best motivator in the league, Pops is the best Xs and Os guy (and IMO, Riles is the best of both worlds).

If they were coaching the same team, I'd be inclined to believe that Pops would be better UNLESS the team was hallmarked by something like the Shaq/Kobe dynamic, where the two big dogs could only barely tolerate one another, in which case I'd take Phil.

It's not a definitive answer but I don't think there is one in this case, since these are two of the best coaches in league history, two of the VERY best.

tha_rock220 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



It seems odd that someone would hold it against Popovich for having good players in an argument against Phil Jackson.

I would choose Pop unless I already had a star who was accustomed to doing things his way. I think he would butt heads with a player like that. Not only that, but Pop is a more knowledgable basketball guy. Phil Jackson deserved a lot of credit, but he also recieved praise that Jerry West and Jerry Krause should have gotten. Pop had a huge hand in putting together the Spurs. He was the one who drafted all of their current big 3 and put together 2 of their title teams.

Good job staying on topic, the thread is about who the better coach is, not the better GM

And based on what did you come to the conclusion that Pop is a more knowledgeable basketball guy? If my understanding is correct he hasn't even played in the NBA.

tha_rock220 wrote:Also, I love it when people talk about the triangle with an obvious lack of understanding.

Yea, me too. If you think the triangle is all about X's and O's you obviously have no understanding of the triangle. The triangle is a read and react offense which is why players have a hard time grasping it

I do not think Pop can have the Lakers playing at the level Phil is taking them now. This Lakers looks more like the Pippen-Season