Is coaching in the NBA over rated?
Was talking to my dad about the NBA couple weekends ago and we got onto a subject about coaching. To cut the story short he's from Chicago and I think he still has a grudge from Phil Jackson going to Los Angeles. So he doesn't really think that Phil is as good as a coach as people say. His arguement is he only has won on teams that's so loaded with talent that anyone could do what he's done. In Chicago he had Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, and in LA he had Kobe, Shaq, Gasol. Made me think that that point is kinda true. I know coaching is everything to kids in middle school, high school and even college but by time someone is picked for the NBA are they already good enough?
I think coaching more talent is harder. You have to deal with ego's because everyone at one point in there careers were the "best" in either college or high school. I don't think just anybody could just coach the teams that Phil Jackson was coaching and win those championships.
You can't just win with great talent. Phil knows how to handle egos which is why Rodman flourished with the Bulls, and is also why they went after Artest. He gets guys to play together.
I wonder how much of getting these guys to gel together to win is more Phil or is it the persuit of the championship. Rodman had his issues but Michael Jordan was the main role model in that. Remember after Jordan left and they were playing the Knicks in the playoffs. Down with time for one last shot, Pippen pulled himself out the game cause the play was designed for Toni Kukoc. If Jackson was the reason the egos were working together then something went array. As far as Artest, I think he has grown up anyway, he's been cool tempered for a while now. Don't remember any problems when he was in Houston but I could be wrong
Guys like Jordan and Kobe are the type of players that don't need a coach. Phil is the perfect guy because of his calming presence and the way he kind of stays out of the way and lets his players play.
Maybe by him not coaching too much is the reason why he is such a great coach, if that makes any sense.
Some guys seem to be able to jump from one team to the next and consistently make improvements within their first couple of seasons --- and you look at a team who runs any kind of system similar to what the warriors are running now and it also leads you to believe, someone needs to provide this group with some sort of direction
... but you can't win without talent either, so I think it goes hand in hand
you need coaching to win just like you need talent to win. no onewins a title without a lot of talent. its just like being a manager. you have to manage
O Phli had Jordan, the greatest to ever play the game then he had Kobe, probably go down in the books as the 2nd greatest SG to ever play the game, if not the 2nd best of all time. Yeah, Phil has had talent but what we don't see as fan is how he prepares his players and calms them down. Phil prepares his team during practice and gets them ready when it's game day. He prepares the team with all the small details and reminds them of what needs to be done. He doesn't have to tell anyone what to do, because they're pros they should know what to do, sometimes they just get side track and as a coach he keeps them focus.
It's the pyschology part of the coaching that makes Phli so good. He can get into his players heads and get them to perform at their best. It's how he plays his mind games against everyone else in the league, he builds up his players confidence and then let them do the rest.
coaching is def important. la had talent before phil got there. how many rings did del harris get them? did doug collins get mj to the promised land before phil? there has to be a balance between talent and good coaching tho. phil isn't wouldn't win with a bum squad like the twolves. and a crappy coach like eddie jordan wouldn't do anything, even with the lakerz