Phil Jackson - The Greatest of All-Time

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

Red Auerbach was a symbol of great coaching, but today, I am the greatest of all time.

Phil Jackson is no Ricky Henderson, but the message is the same. Red Auerbach has been the standard for all coaches in the N.B.A. He set the bar high, winning nine championships with the Boston Celtics. He built a franchise in a day where you couldn't buy players through free-agency and you had to get your players through good scouting and strategy in the draft. Red Auerbach did something that no one else will ever do. His accomplishments will always rank among the best in any sport.

If you follow sports, which I assume you do since you're reading this thread, you've heard for years the comparison between Phil Jackson and Red Auerbach. Today, they stood even, nine championship trophies raised each. Tonight, Phil Jackson won his tenth, giving him a ring for every finger. Does that number alone, ten, move Phil Jackson ahead of Red Auerbach as the greatest coach of all time? I say that yes, it does.

It's been said of Phil Jackson whenever this discussion comes about that he's been in the right place and in the right time. He's walked in to Chicago and had Michael Jordan, and in L.A. he's had Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal, three of the greatest to ever play the game. However, I don't see this as a knock against him. He brought in Pippen to compliment Jordan, as well as other role players. Jackson put players like Horry and Fischer around Kobe and Shaq. He's had the core, but he's built around them and put the right pieces in place for a championship team. It wasn't just the stars that did it. After he left L.A. the Lakers failed to make the playoffs. When Jackson returned the following year, he coached the mediocre team, aside from Kobe Bryant, to a seventh-seed playoff berth. He also took Bryant, who he had deemed uncoachable, and made him in to a complete player. He molded Bryant into a passer, a defender, and a hustler, rather than just a scorer.

Phil Jackson has also had the benefit of free-agency, where Red Auerbach didn't have that to take advantage of. However much of a benefit it may have been for Jackson, he also had to worry about holding on to his stars. Jackson lost Shaq and for the longest time, Kobe wanted out of L.A. Red Auerbach never had to worry about losing Bill Russel or his other stars and future Hall-of-Famers Tom Heinsohn and K.C. Jones.

This issue has been analyzed forwards and backwards. I say that Jackson, tonight, became the greatest coach of all time. What do you think?

 

[klunderbunker]

If he's not 1 he's 1-A. This is very close but I'm going to just barely lean towards Auerbach for one reason: Auerbach built the Celtics. He had more talent playing for him than Jackson, but Auerbach put that team together in the first place. he traded for Bill Russell, the centerpiece of the team as well as several others. The obvious knock on Jackson is the talent he inherits which I think is a valid issue. However, it must be noted that Jordan, the greatest of all time, won nothing without Jackson coaching him (or without Pippen to be fair). I think though that winning 8 titles in a row and 9 out of ten is just more impressive than the three three-peats. Think about that. Where were you 8 years ago? Just over 8 years ago, WCW was still in business. Now imagine that no other team won the NBA title in that time. That's just not something that's going to be topped. Jackson is easily second place, but Auerbach still takes it for me by a hair.

 

[X]

Phil Jackson is no Ricky Henderson, but the message is the same. Red Auerbach has been the standard for all coaches in the N.B.A. He set the bar high, winning nine championships with the Boston Celtics. He built a franchise in a day where you couldn't buy players through free-agency and you had to get your players through good scouting and strategy in the draft. Red Auerbach did something that no one else will ever do. His accomplishments will always rank among the best in any sport.

If you follow sports, which I assume you do since you're reading this thread, you've heard for years the comparison between Phil Jackson and Red Auerbach. Today, they stood even, nine championship trophies raised each. Tonight, Phil Jackson won his tenth, giving him a ring for every finger. Does that number alone, ten, move Phil Jackson ahead of Red Auerbach as the greatest coach of all time? I say that yes, it does.

And I say no, no it doesn't. What's odd here though is that a lot of the points I was going to make for Red you have already mentioned in the first paragraph. It is by far easier to be a winning coach now then it was forty years ago.

It's been said of Phil Jackson whenever this discussion comes about that he's been in the right place and in the right time. He's walked in to Chicago and had Michael Jordan, and in L.A. he's had Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal, three of the greatest to ever play the game. However, I don't see this as a knock against him. He brought in Pippen to compliment Jordan, as well as other role players. Jackson put players like Horry and Fischer around Kobe and Shaq. He's had the core, but he's built around them and put the right pieces in place for a championship team. It wasn't just the stars that did it. After he left L.A. the Lakers failed to make the playoffs. When Jackson returned the following year, he coached the mediocre team, aside from Kobe Bryant, to a seventh-seed playoff berth. He also took Bryant, who he had deemed uncoachable, and made him in to a complete player. He molded Bryant into a passer, a defender, and a hustler, rather than just a scorer.

I agree with you that you shouldn't hold the talent he's had against him, that would be a pretty frivolous argument. But, as you yourself mentioned, Red built those winning teams himself. It was monumentally harder to assemble a top notch team in the beginning days of the NBA then it is now.

I'd also like to bring up a pretty important fact that you overlooked.

It took Phil Jackson 22 years to win those 10 titles.

Red Auerbach won his 9 titles in a span of 16 years, all nine of which he won in the same nine year period. That's more then a Dynasty, that's practically a monopoly on basketball.

Don't get me wrong, Phil Jackson is one of the greatest coaches in sports history. But he's not better then Red. The man was a huge reason for why the NBA is still around today, without him and his C's who knows if the NBA would even still be around (maybe we'd all be watching the ABA, lol).

Then again, I'm a Boston boy so take whatever I have to say with a grain of salt .

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

If he's not 1 he's 1-A. This is very close but I'm going to just barely lean towards Auerbach for one reason: Auerbach built the Celtics. He had more talent playing for him than Jackson, but Auerbach put that team together in the first place. he traded for Bill Russell, the centerpiece of the team as well as several others.

To be fair to Jackson, it was much easier to build a team there. Fewer teams meant that the talent wasn't as sparse. Today, every single team has a superstar. Back then, The Celtics had John Havlicek coming off of the bench! To win a title back then was easier than it is now. When you had your pieces in place, which I'll give you was not easy to accomplish, you had the same team for years. Jackson has had the same core, essentially, but he's had to deal with his 3-5 starters and role players leaving and coming all the time.

The obvious knock on Jackson is the talent he inherits which I think is a valid issue. However, it must be noted that Jordan, the greatest of all time, won nothing without Jackson coaching him (or without Pippen to be fair).

Auerbach took over a terrible team and built it into a dynasty. You can't have more of a difference between the two coaches than that. He had a bit of luck though. Auerbach passed on Bob Cousy, who is the first great playmaker in NBA history, but Cousy refused to sign with the team who drafted him. The second team folded, so he ended up with the Celtics.

I think though that winning 8 titles in a row and 9 out of ten is just more impressive than the three three-peats. Think about that. Where were you 8 years ago? Just over 8 years ago, WCW was still in business. Now imagine that no other team won the NBA title in that time. That's just not something that's going to be topped. Jackson is easily second place, but Auerbach still takes it for me by a hair.

Think about it, though. It's really not. When he has those pieces, they are locked in place. Nothing changes. Auerbach had the same team, essentially, for those 9 titles. Once he had such a dominate team, he was on cruise control. Now, he did build the team, but the length of the win streak isn't exactly what it seems. In today's game, as I've repeated a few times now, your team changes every year. You have to be an exceptional coach to win ten titles in an era with free agency and major trades every year. He did it with two different teams, too!

Also, if Jordan hadn't retired after the 3rd championship (comparable to Russel retiring), they probably would've won the next two as well. Jordan was unstoppable. We can only speculate, but if he had played, then you're looking at 8 straight for Jackson as well, on top of the four with LA.

And I say no, no it doesn't. What's odd here though is that a lot of the points I was going to make for Red you have already mentioned in the first paragraph. It is by far easier to be a winning coach now then it was forty years ago.

It's not easier to be a winning coach today. Players can sign for whatever team they want, the talent is spread thinner, there are more teams, a longer schedule... Everything about today's game makes winning harder.

I agree with you that you shouldn't hold the talent he's had against him, that would be a pretty frivolous argument. But, as you yourself mentioned, Red built those winning teams himself. It was monumentally harder to assemble a top notch team in the beginning days of the NBA then it is now.

I agree, but once you've got it, you've got it for 10 years.

I'd also like to bring up a pretty important fact that you overlooked.

It took Phil Jackson 22 years to win those 10 titles.

Red Auerbach won his 9 titles in a span of 16 years, all nine of which he won in the same nine year period. That's more then a Dynasty, that's practically a monopoly on basketball.

It took him 18 years, actually, from 1949-1967. Phil Jackson became the head coach of the Bulls 20 years ago in 1989. He took off the season after the 6th title with the Bulls and after his finals loss to the Pistons with the Lakers. I'm counting 18 years.

Don't get me wrong, Phil Jackson is one of the greatest coaches in sports history. But he's not better then Red. The man was a huge reason for why the NBA is still around today, without him and his C's who knows if the NBA would even still be around (maybe we'd all be watching the ABA, lol).

Then again, I'm a Boston boy so take whatever I have to say with a grain of salt .

We can only speculate.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

A few things I forgot to mention:

• After Red Auerbach gave up his coaching job to Bill Russel, Russel was able to "coach" that team, in his gym shorts mind you, to two more NBA championships. What does that mean? It means that it was the talent more than the coaching that brought in those rings.
• After Michael Jordan left Chicago the first time (just after the third championship), Phil Jackson coached that team, a rather mediocre team, to 55 wins. That is two less than the season before.
• There was no salary cap in Red Auerbach's day.
• I remember saying that there were fewer teams from 1956-1967 where Red Auerbach's Celtics won nine championships, but I didn't know how many. I looked it up. There were nine.

I'd say that Red Auerbach is the greatest general manager of all-time. He knew how to put the pieces in place for success better than anyone, perhaps, ever. Phil Jackson, on the other hand, has taken the talent he's been gifted with and turned them in to complete players, rather than pure scorers and athletes. Phil has taken two different teams to multiple titles. Actually, I'd say three. The Lakers team now is much different than the one with Shaq on it. In this era, what Phil Jackson has done is beyond words.

 

[X]

A few things I forgot to mention:

• After Red Auerbach gave up his coaching job to Bill Russel, Russel was able to "coach" that team, in his gym shorts mind you, to two more NBA championships. What does that mean? It means that it was the talent more than the coaching that brought in those rings.

• 
  
  Who exactly do you think taught Bill Russell how to coach? Red Auerbach. Russell was the coach in name only, Red was still pulling all of the strings. Besides, if you want to talk about talent more then coaching bringing in those rings, not sure how you could possibly support Phil Jackson, who's had two of the greatest players in NBA history on his winning teams in Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant. Not to mention guys like Shaq and Rodman.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

Who exactly do you think taught Bill Russell how to coach? Red Auerbach. Russell was the coach in name only, Red was still pulling all of the strings. Besides, if you want to talk about talent more then coaching bringing in those rings, not sure how you could possibly support Phil Jackson, who's had two of the greatest players in NBA history on his winning teams in Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant. Not to mention guys like Shaq and Rodman.

Thing is, after Michael left, his Bull's team, with mediocre talent, when on to win 55 games due to Phil's coaching. Do you realize how big a deal that is? He lost the greatest player to ever play the game and only lost two games. That speaks volumes. Or what about when Phil Jackson left the Lakers? Oh yes, they missed the playoffs, even though they still had, who I consider to be the second greatest to ever play, Kobe Bryant.

 

[white mamba]

you really cant compair the two coaches cause they played in two different eras of basketball but if I were to pick id say phil is the greatest of all time, his teams with the bulls did have michael jordan and pippen who both are overrated with a bunch of garbage players and did win 6 titles and the only reason he didnt win 8 in a row was cause jordan got kicked out of the leauge for two years. with the lakers he did have shaq and kobe for 3 of them who would have swept any of his bulls teams and his 10th title might just have been his most talented team he has coached.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

First, let me tell you that I am honored that your first post is in my thread and I am glad for your response. Now, let me correct your post.

you really cant compair the two coaches cause they played in two different eras of basketball

I've listed most differences between the eras, comparing them. It's not as straight forward as if we were to compare Larry Brown and Phil Jackson, but it's doable.

but if I were to pick id say phil is the greatest of all time,

Good on you, sir.

his teams with the bulls did have michael jordan and pippen who both are overrated with a bunch of garbage players

Oooo, buddy. His Bulls team weren't consisted of garbage players. For example, they had Dennis Rodman. Now, he may be more known for his hair than his play, but he was constantly one of the best rebounders in the league. Michael and Scottie are no where near overrated. I won't go into detail with Michael, but Pippen was a great defender and a solid scorer. There's a reason he's an All-Time Top 50 Player.

and did win 6 titles and the only reason he didnt win 8 in a row was cause jordan got kicked out of the leauge for two years.

You're right, partially. They likely would have won eight, but Michael's father was murdered and he quit.

with the lakers he did have shaq and kobe for 3 of them who would have swept any of his bulls teams

I don't think so. Scottie would have given Kobe Bryant fits on defense and Michael would have been very hard to stop on offense. The only saving grace the Lakers would have had is Shaquille.

and his 10th title might just have been his most talented team he has coached.

I'll take Kobe and Shaq or Michael and Scottie over Kobe, Pao, and Odom.

 

[The Love Song Writer]

And I say no, no it doesn't. What's odd here though is that a lot of the points I was going to make for Red you have already mentioned in the first paragraph. It is by far easier to be a winning coach now then it was forty years ago.

I disagree completely man given the talent level Red had coupled with the fact he ALWAYS had great players and never had any premadonna's like Pippen, Rodman, Shaq or Kobe I don't agree with your statement

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

I disagree completely man given the talent level Red had coupled with the fact he ALWAYS had great players and never had any premadonna's like Pippen, Rodman, Shaq or Kobe I don't agree with your statement

The argument could go either way. Some would say it is easier to be a winning coach now, because if you can get just two superstars, then you're golden. Back then, every team was loaded with talent. For proof, I'll bring up the point about John Havlicek. He came off the bench in Boston. You had to compete against eight other teams who were very close in ability with your players.

But, I agree with your point here. Phil Jackson, while having been gifted with excellent players, has had to deal with a lot of crap from them. For evidence, look at the Kobe-Shaq-Phil debacle.