RealGM

#1 Red Auerbach

For number 2, I am sticking with Phil Jackson

I am going with Phil Jackson. It's all about making the most of the talent given to you (it's not greatest GM of all time -- yet) and Phil won multiple titles with two of the most different teams ever to win.

First, he took that Bulls team with no center and good but not great PFs (Ho Grant and Dennis Rodman were terrific role players but not dominant bigs) that had never been able to get over the hump and won 6 titles with it. Yes, MJ and Pippen were terrific players but in the history of the league, no one has ever won with centers as weak as Cartwright/Longley . . . the only teams that are close are the Barry led Warriors team (Cliff Ray and George Johnson), possibly the Sikma led Sonics (very good player but probably won't ever make HOF), last year's Celtics (though Garnett was the dominant big in the league then) and the Pistons (either Bill Laimbeer or Ben Wallace -- both great defenders/rebounders but not stars). SA used Duncan as a center once DRob retired or they would count too.

Second, he took a great center led team, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, and juggled the egos of two of the bigger prima donnas around to multiple titles (not that Jordan and Pippen weren't tough egos to build a team around too in their own prima donna ways).

Auerbach had Russell, and Russell actually was the coach on the most amazing run of the great Celtic dynasty. The next closest dynastic coach might just be Pop.

jeff van gundy

Assuming pro coaches only - Jackson.

I'll go with Phil on this one.

Random, if you are serious and not being a clown . . . can you justify JVG as a pick? If not, once may have been funny, putting it in every thread will soon become really annoying.

Phil

Larry Brown

the Same

Pat Riley

he doesn't have as many rings but you really have to see his great teams in action to be really impressed by what he's done.

we're talking about the greatest motivator ever, the guy who invented the attention to defensive detail we see in today's teams, a great x's and o's guy, and a guy who made weak teams look like title contenders. The 06 heat, the 94s knicks, i don't think these teams' talent were even close to thier level of actual success. If John Starks shoots any better than like 5% in game 7 he'd have won a ring with that team too.

Further, look at some of the good coaches in the league and a lot of them are riley proteges... Stan Van Gundy, Jeff Van Gundy, Eric Spoelstra, Iavaroni.

When I think of Phil Jackson, I think of an after-thought to great talent. Did Riley have that too, in the 80s? Sure. But he became the face of the knicks and heat IMO in the 90s.

Larry Brown, personally I admire elite coaches who achieve more with less.

Phil Jackson 4
Larry Brown 2
Pat Riley 1
Random Selections 1

Pat Riley

Larry Brown

maybe the van gundys are the real coaching talents and Riley's just a fraud? All the coaches mentioned have their weaknesses except for Red.

-Phil hasn't won unless he has 2 super-delux-uber-elite players on his team (this season may prove this statement wrong).
-Larry Brown doesn't play rookies and isn't the the motivator that Riley or Jackson are. Plus his penchant for taking on mediocre teams is sandbagging his wins, making him look worse than he probably is.
-Riley peaked as a coach with the Showtime Lakers and that bait&switch he pulled with Stan Van Gundy was decidedly un-classy.
-Jeff Van Gundy? for starters, his idea of defense is what most adjudicators would deem a class II misdemeanor. oh... and zero rings and his greatest playoff success coming in an epically lousy lockout year.

+1 for Red Auerbach until phil wins. If phil gets that 10th ring then i think it's the end of discussion.

Lets also not forget that Phil even with the suppose "best player in the league" has blown a 3-1 lead in '06. My point with Phil is he's had two of the most dominant players in league history, he's never been a position like Pat---IMO those Knicks he coached were probably one of the best defensive teams ever.

I'm gonna renominate Larry Brown, and to answer penbeast. I don't think you could say that the Knicks, despite all the turmoil, did not improve during Larry Brown's tenure. The proof is in the pudding, all you have to do is look at how they did with Isiah Thomas (a person every one on the knicks loved) after Brown left.

Some voters are considering college coaches so I will be brief in stating my reasons why college coaches should have to face a presumption of inferiority. To begin with the college coaches generally enjoy a significant talent disparity over the opposition. The gap between the worst team in the NBA and the best isn't as large as the talent differences seen in most college games.

Second, the significant talent advantages enjoyed by most college coaches combined with the inferiority of college players allow coaches results in games that do not require as many adjustments adjustments. In college, its not uncommon for teams to run the same basic zone throughout the entire game, because college players aren't as smart as NBA players. In the NBA, coaches have to consistently change defensive strategies because players are capable of making quick adjustments.

Third, its much easier to coach in college than in the NBA because of differences in the power structure. In college the coaches have the power but in the pros it belongs to the players. The average college player if he wants to make the NBA has to get along with his coach to get playing time. In the NBA, with guaranteed contracts, teams will generally fire the coach in the case of player-coaches fights. This means coaches have to have a greater degree of psychological savvy in managing player's egos.

Finally, the norm has been college coaches struggle greatly in the NBA. John Calipari, Tim Floyd, and Jerry Tarkanian are just some of the coaches to have been disasters in the NBA.

My vote for number 2 is Phil Jackson. He has coached arguably the greatest single season teams of all time. Second, his teams have consistently been able to repeat as champions. Third, he has enjoyed success with three different cores of players. Forth contrary to his critics in many season Jackson coach teams did not enjoy any significant talent advantages (93, 98, 02). Fifth, with the exception of 04 his teams never suffer upsets.

sp6r=underrated wrote:Some voters are considering college coaches so I will be brief in stating my reasons why college coaches should have to face a presumption of inferiority. To begin with the college coaches generally enjoy a significant talent disparity over the opposition. The gap between the worst team in the NBA and the best isn't as large as the talent differences seen in most college games.

Second, the significant talent advantages enjoyed by most college coaches combined with the inferiority of college players allow coaches results in games that do not require as many adjustments adjustments. In college, its not uncommon for teams to run the same basic zone throughout the entire game, because college players aren't as smart as NBA players. In the NBA, coaches have to consistently change defensive strategies because players are capable of making quick adjustments.

Third, its much easier to coach in college than in the NBA because of differences in the power structure. In college the coaches have the power but in the pros it belongs to the players. The average college player if he wants to make the NBA has to get along with his coach to get playing time. In the NBA, with guaranteed contracts, teams will generally fire the coach in the case of player-coaches fights. This means coaches have to have a greater degree of psychological savvy in managing player's egos.

Finally, the norm has been college coaches struggle greatly in the NBA. John Calipari, Tim Floyd, and Jerry Tarkanian are just some of the coaches to have been disasters in the NBA.

My vote for number 2 is Phil Jackson. He has coached arguably the greatest single season teams of all time. Second, his teams have consistently been able to repeat as champions. Third, he has enjoyed success with three different cores of players. Forth contrary to his critics in many season Jackson coach teams did not enjoy any significant talent advantages (93, 98, 02). Fifth, with the exception of 04 his teams never suffer upsets.

You don't really need a reason to exclude college coaches. The topic is 20 Greatest NBA coaches of all time.

well i think there's something to be said of consistent collegiate success - most notably Coach K and Bobby Knight. Those guys win year in and year out in tough basketball conferences. There are no off-years even if the starpower is lacking. They've never coached a team like the fab 5, or even UNC's all-pro squad from 4 years ago.

also, like you said the NBA is a players' league whereas in college the coaches are more hands-on. Thus the success is more due to coaches than to talent. The very argument against Phil Jackson is working in favor of Larry Brown and collegiate coaches - that they can win with inferior talent.

if you want to talk about complicated schemes - college has the NBA beat. A zone scheme (when executed properly) is way more complex in terms of rotation than the NBA man-to-man. Offensively, the princeton and hybrid-princetons like G-town's are way more complicated than Jerry Sloan's pick and roll. Even Roy Williams' scripted fast break has more theory behind it than a lot of NBA teams.

However, i will agree with you that the top NBA coaches are better than college coaches. In the NBA, being a coach goes beyond the x's and o's and spills into motivation, managing egos, in-game adjustments (some coaches stick to the game plan even in a blowout), and maintaining it for 100+ games. I think Gary Williams would have a stroke if he had to coach 100 games.

pancakes3 wrote:well i think there's something to be said of consistent collegiate success - most notably Coach K and Bobby Knight.

Most of the elite level NBA coaches also have consistent success.

pancakes3 wrote: Those guys win year in and year out in tough basketball conferences. There are no off-years even if the starpower is lacking. They've never coached a team like the fab 5, or even UNC's all-pro squad from 4 years ago.

Coach K in the early 90s had teams that were easily as good as the FAB 5. In addition, a tough conference still has much larger talent disparities than the NBA does. The draft, imperfectly of course, pushes the young talent to the weakest teams. In college recruiting consistently ensures that NBA caliber players end up concentrated on a few programs.

pancakes3 wrote:also, like you said the NBA is a players' league whereas in college the coaches are more hands-on. Thus the success is more due to coaches than to talent.

You are misunderstanding my argument. I am not arguing that coaches are more hands on in college. I am arguing that the power structure of college hoops allows the coaches to implement their strategies with considerably less feedback from the players. Considering the significant talent advantages enjoyed by college coaches, they deserve less credit for their success compared to NBA coaches.

pancakes3 wrote: The very argument against Phil Jackson is working in favor of Larry Brown and collegiate coaches - that they can win with inferior talent.

Considering the significant talent advantages enjoyed by college coaches, they deserve less credit for their success compared to NBA coaches.

pancakes3 wrote:if you want to talk about complicated schemes - college has the NBA beat. A zone scheme (when executed properly) is way more complex in terms of rotation than the NBA man-to-man.Offensively, the princeton and hybrid-princetons like G-town's are way more complicated than Jerry Sloan's pick and roll. Even Roy Williams' scripted fast break has more theory behind it than a lot of NBA teams.

NBA teams have to consistently change strategies constantly in games. In the playoffs teams have to change strategy between games because of the higher basketball IQ of NBA players. College teams do very little of this.

pancakes3 wrote:However, i will agree with you that the top NBA coaches are better than college coaches. In the NBA, being a coach goes beyond the x's and o's and spills into motivation, managing egos, in-game adjustments (some coaches stick to the game plan even in a blowout), and maintaining it for 100+ games. I think Gary Williams would have a stroke if he had to coach 100 games.

[/quote]

As stated before the average coach in the NBA has a much harder job with regards to x-o's. I think the average college coach would have a stroke if they realized they couldn't run the same zone every play.

Phil Jackson 5
Larry Brown 4
Pat Riley 2
Random Selections 1