Scott Pollard: Phil Jackson 'One Of The Most Overrated Coaches Of Our Time'

What is sad about it - I think Pollard might be right if you think of a coach as an x and o guy, developer of talent. But there are a lot of guys like that that have been chewed up and spit out in today's NBA.
What makes Jackson great is his ability to get players to play for him and keep them engaged without "losing" the team. You think back to coaches who have won titles in the last 30 years and being able to get players to play for them has to be the thing that sets them apart - Jackson, Riley, Daly, Poppavich. Even those guys didn't always have a ring to give them credibility with players.

 

My rule is that I stop reading a Bissinger piece the moment he mentions a work of his, whether it's Friday Night Lights or some other book he's desperate to pimp for street cred.

The end came quickly this time.

 

His native state is Montana. He went to a high school in North Dakota but lived just across the border in Montana the whole time.

 

Since the premise is Jackson only one with super talent...are there examples of teams that didn't win with superior talent? Detroit in the 1970s had Dave Bing and Bob Lanier, both legitimate HOFers and they were pretty bad, however, I am not sure what the rest of the team looked like.

The knock in the 1960s was West and Baylor couldn't get past the Celtics (who were more loaded). I always felt the early 1980s Sixers should have won more titles with Erving, Malone, Jones, Cheeks and Toney. Again, you can point to the Celtics at that time as well.

 

Derek Fisher has 5 rings...so by the Phil-o-meter, he must be one of the all-time greatest guards.

 

Norm Stewart's lack of a single Final Four makes him a shit coach.

Come on, now.

 

I wouldn't say shit, but it keeps him out of the "all-time greats" conversation.

I think Scot Pollard is awesome and I get what he's saying to a degree, but I can't really agree. Great coaches are great when they put themselves in the right situation. Phil Jackson is great at coaching teams with players like Michael Jordan, Kobe, etc. I don't know if, say, Adolph Rupp would have been, but they are both great coaches.

If I was looking for a guy to make a losing team a playoff team, I'd probably take Larry Brown over Phil Jackson. If I've got three hall-of-famers I'd go the other way around.

 

It's a superstar league and there have been a lot of coaches who proved they can't handle superstars. I don't know how much psychology it took, but getting two titles after the Kobe-Shaq feud went nuclear, and then steering the team to the finals during Kobe's year in the court system, was some legit coaching.

I guess Red Auerbach is everyone's definition of greatest coach ever, he is before my time but isn't he more like greatest personnel man ever? I don't know who could have lost with the teams he put together.

 

Thanks, Piotr. I will now adopt the Bissinger Rule, too.

 

KU guys still driving Scot's cars?

 

Actually the Pistons were quite good in 1972-73 when Bing and Lanier were both healthy -- they went 52-30 and pushed the Walker-Love-Van Lier Bulls to 7 games in a playoff series which represented the franchise's high point in Detroit prior to the Bad Boys era.

Kareem was still in Milwaukee at that time so finishing third in the division was about the best they could hope for.

But they backslid to 42-40 the next season, Bing was about done, and the Pistons never got good again until Isiah arrived.

 

I guess this particular bitter former member of the 2001-02 Sacramento Kings (and roster player on Cleveland's 2007 Finals team and Boston's 2008 champions, though he saw time in a total of three playoff games between the two, all for Cleveland):

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/pollasc01.html

Didn't take into account the idea that perhaps, just perhaps, Jackson might have played a part in Jordan, Shaq and Kobe becoming JORDAN, SHAQ and KOBE.

Do the NCAA Tournament chokes during Pollard's career make Roy Williams "overrated"?