RealGM

See above. I listed the guys who reached level of being at least good in at least 2 of 3 main NBA roles (so I'm sorry: no Phil or Nelson): as players/coaches/GMs. (Top-10 or Top-50 classifications from the poll are of course arguable: I tried to go by general consensus/official NBA rankings - though e.g. to me Sharman is real Top-10 coach over Nelson).

Who of them had the most illustrious basketball career and why? Or maybe you consider another candidate?

Explanation of ? next to the name of Lenny Wilkens - hasn't been GM long enough to judge him.

Another explanation: I didn't put Russell in since I consider him very overrated coach. He won 2 rings as a player-coach mainly due to Auerbach's system, Auerbach's players and Auerbach's guidance (it would be similar if Phil resigned before 2001 playoffs and handed the reigns over to Ron Harper: LAL would've win anyway, but it wouldn't make Ron a great coach). Yet later, with different franchises, Russ failed completely with his coaching. But of course you may argue for him anyway.

Kareem.

Greatest high school player.

Greatest college player.

Top 3 professional player.

Regardless of the fact that some guys could give Kareem a run for his money (Oscar or LBJ in HS, Oscar or Walton in college), these are some arguments for his GOAT candidacy, but I meant guys who excelled on at least 2 out of 3 fields: playing/GM-ing/coaching. Jabbar did not - unless you count his mentoring Bynum as Lakers assistant coach.

If you put it THAT way, then Red a hair before West. Auerbach won 16 rings in 29 years, that is SICK. Red is the flesh and blood of the most successful franchise in NBA history and a significant part of the entire NBA. Also, the guys he coached (KC Jones, Don Nelson, Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn) are some of the greatest coaches of all time. Apart from playing, you can't get better than that!

OK, I'll state the case for my No 1 and the whole ranking after more people vote.

didn't Red holtzman make the hall as both a player and GM

penbeast0 wrote:didn't Red holtzman make the hall as both a player and GM

No, though his HoF profile says he's one of few guys who won a ring as both player and coach. Though was only a role player, so doesn't fulfil criteria of the poll.

you can't have a list like this without having Bill Russell's name on it.

Two-time NCAA champion
Olympic Gold Medal winner as captain of US Basketball team
5-time MVP of NBA
11-times NBA champion. Most ever championships for pro sports in NA.(tied with NHL's Richard)

and 2-time coach of NBA champion

Please read last paragraph of my initial post. But OK, you vote for Russell.

if youve got riley on there, id say you need to include phil jackson as well

Russell's no GM, but he deserves mention!

You must be good in at least 2 out of 3 categories, guys, regardless whether you consider someone GOAT player/best coach ever or not: I wrote about it in the OP.

By the Criteria in question RED easy. Followed by West hands down.

Russell didn't "fail completely" as a coach/GM post-Celtics, WTF are you talking about. The Sonics won 10 more games in his first year coaching, and they made the playoffs two years in a row, making the conference semifinals both years. He got fired after a 40-42 record, and his replacement the next year started 5-17. He also built half the roster that made two consecutive Finals appearances the year after he left.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ ... /index.htm

Russell, he won a ring as a player/coach!

Also, I think it's an insult to Russell that you're giving him practically zero credit for coaching the Celtics after Auerbach retired. He coached the team. He was the coach of those down-to-the-wire games. Those Game 7's. He coached. I mean, what kind of "system" are you talking about? Auerbach had, like, 3 plays that he called. His strategy was basically "run". Russell was one of the smartest players of all time. You're absolutely bonkers to exclude him from the candidates, and your Auerbach:Russell::Jackson:Harper is (Please Use More Appropriate Word). You also should have included Heinsohn. (Heinsohn was also the national #1 color commentator during the 80's, when he was far less clownish and way more professional.) I'm assuming you didn't because of the same bogus Auerbach logic. Heinsohn coached those mid 70's championship teams. He deserves the credit. (I mean, christ, why even bother giving Phil Jackson credit when he wouldn't have won **** if it weren't for Tex Winters?).

Don't get your panties in a bunch, wiggle. If Russ was so great coach: a) what exactly he changed in Celtics play compared to Red's era=how big credit he deserves for their 2 rings?; b) why Seattle stopped hovering around .500 only after he left and was replaced by Wilkens?; c) why also his affair with the Kings turned out to be complete disaster (17-41) and nobody wanted to hire him as a coach anymore?

It's simple: the number of options in the poll is limited and I included players who were UNDOUBTEDLY good in at least 2 roles, unlike Russell. Heinsohn is good candidate, but again: there were better ones. Wilkens is universally considered better than him as both player and coach. Also Dumars was better player and at least as good a GM as Heinsohn was a coach. And I hope I don't have to explain more about West or Auerbach?

You're simply looking through your homer Celtics glasses. Even though I gave you Boston candidates in Red and Bird (also partially Sharman), apparently you'd like to see the poll including exclusively Celtics guys (I'm amazed you didn't mention KC Jones yet). If I thought that way, I'd put there Phil over Dumars. But not: instead I preferred to give the balanced set of candidates for you all to decide.

Myth_Breaker wrote:Don't get your panties in a bunch, wiggle. If Russ was so great coach: a) what exactly he changed in Celtics play compared to Red's era=how big credit he deserves for their 2 rings?; b) why Seattle stopped hovering around .500 only after he left and was replaced by Wilkens?; c) why also his affair with the Kings turned out to be complete disaster (17-41) and nobody wanted to hire him as a coach anymore?

It's simple: the number of options in the poll is limited and I included players who were UNDOUBTEDLY good in at least 2 roles, unlike Russell. Heinsohn is good candidate, but again: there were better ones. Wilkens is universally considered better than him as both player and coach. Also Dumars was better player and at least as good a GM as Heinsohn was a coach. And I hope I don't have to explain more about West or Auerbach?

You're simply looking through your homer Celtics glasses. Even though I gave you Boston candidates in Red and Bird (also partially Sharman), apparently you'd like to see the poll including exclusively Celtics guys (I'm amazed you didn't mention KC Jones yet). If I thought that way, I'd put there Phil over Dumars. But not: instead I preferred to give the balanced set of candidates for you all to decide.

Who cares about balance. Be accurate, dude.

"Homer"? Why in the **** is Bird there????? He's been a mediocre GM, and was a good but not great coach. Is it just that he's one of the few to truly do all three jobs?

Why did Russell have to change a damn thing?????? He'd have been an idiot to change much of anything, since whatever it was had worked. But there wasn't even much of anything to change, dude! Seriously, the glory days Celtics ran about three drawn-up plays, max. The rest of the time, they were just running and playing defense and sharing the ball, executing a general philosophy of how to play than a "system". Russell deserves as much credit for coaching his two championships as Auerbach does for coaching his. As for Seattle, I suggest you take a closer (or perhaps first ever) look at the franchise's history.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/

They were crap before Russell. One good year out of their first six. In '73 they went 26-56. The next year they hired Russell and they went 36-46. And then they went 43-39 and made it into the second round of the playoffs (losing to eventual champion GS). And the next year they did the same thing, 43-39 and the second round of the playoffs (via a bye -- then losing to the Suns who played in that classic Finals). Russell got fired after barely finishing below .500, and like I said the next year his successor started off 5-17 before also getting fired. As their GM, he was responsible for acquiring some of the players who went onto appear in two consecutive Finals beginning the year after Russell left. Sorry, but you can't paint that as a mediocre record. That's success. The Kings business was a sour footnote to that. But it's still just a footnote. Come on, man, it was the Kings of the late 80's...they sucked. No coach could've made them successful, and no coach did -- they were a colossal suckfest for every coach they had.

As for Wilkens, come on, he was a nice coach, but one championship (and only one other Finals appearance) in 32 years? 1 for 32? Ironically, for the exact same team that had been coached and partly constructed by Russell the year before? Other than that, a very respectable coach. But he's in the HOF for being prolific, for accumulating. Quality-wise, both Russell and Heinsohn kick Wilkens's ass. Heinsohn went 2 for 9. Russell went 2 for 8. As for KC Jones, he was pretty good as a coach, but his teams hardly needed a coach, and his playing career isn't quite up to par with Russell's or Heinsohn's.

Jerry West, hands down. You really have to have had some sort of good playing career to make this list.

Sam Cassell