Agree or Disagree? Gregg Popovich is the Greatest Coach in NBA History

[1987_Lakers]

If he wins the title this year, I think the answer has to be YES. Phil Jackson was good at controlling egos, but he had the luxury of coaching one of the greatest players in NBA History and he wasn't really known for his Xs & Os and developing players. Red Auerbach was the greatest of his time, but he coached when the league was still developing, coaching overall has improved dramatically since the 60's and the Celtics did win two more titles when he stepped down as coach. Pat Riley is the only one on Popovich's level in my book. He proved he was a great coach after he left LA, pretty much made every team he coached into title contenders, but he did make a huge mistake by not playing Rolando Blackman in the '94 Finals, but I'm nitpicking.

Popovich is the only coach I've ever seen have total control. He is the best at exploiting the other teams' weakness, he makes sure his team executes and he doesn't take any BS from his players. The job he has done this year with SA might be the best coaching job I have ever seen, nobody expecting the Spurs to be title contenders before the season started.

I rank them...

1. Greg Popovich
2. Pat Riley
3. Phil Jackson
4. Red Auerbach

[AngelEyes]

If he wins the title this year, I think the answer has to be YES. Phil Jackson was good at controlling egos, but he had the luxury of coaching one of the greatest players in NBA History and he wasn't really known for his Xs & Os and developing players. Red Auerbach was the greatest of his time, but he coached when the league was still developing, coaching overall has improved dramatically since the 60's and the Celtics did win two more titles when he stepped down as coach. Pat Riley is the only one on Popovich's level in my book. He proved he was a great coach after he left LA, pretty much made every team he coached into title contenders, but he did make a huge mistake by not playing Rolando Blackman in the '94 Finals, but I'm nitpicking.

Popovich is the only coach I've ever seen have total control. He is the best at exploiting the other teams' weakness, he makes sure his team executes and he doesn't take any BS from his players. The job he has done this year with SA might be the best coaching job I have ever seen, nobody expecting the Spurs to be title contenders before the season started.

I rank them...

1. Greg Popovich
2. Pat Riley
3. Phil Jackson
4. Red Auerbach

No way can you put Popovich and Riley ahead of a guy who won 11 championships, no way, just can't be done.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Pop is second behind only Phil in my time watching basketball. I have both above Riley. And both Phil and Pop are close as far as I'm concerned. Riley not only coached the great individual players, but arguably had the most talented team in the league for all of his titles with the Lakers. I'm not sure Phil or Pop ever had the most talented team in the league. Some would argue the '09 and '10 Lakers, though it's debatable to say the least with a hobbled Bynum, and maybe the '01 Lakers, though I'd have to think of it. The mid 00's Spurs were among the top in terms of talent, but I'm unsure as well.

Either way, both won multiple times while clearly not having the most talented team in the league. Riley only did in '06(and that team had more talent than some remember, even outside of Wade/Shaq). Though I will say that was impressive as well as recognizing the Knicks strengths and helping form a successful identity, but the Laker team he had was absolutely loaded and had already won a title with Paul Westhead who barely coached in the NBA(though he did have success in college and the WNBA).

I think Phil recognizing the triangle as the system to get his stars to dominate individually within a system that still had others involved in the offense was brilliant. Even non-scorers who weren't going to shoot much were touching the ball and involved. He's also always been good with defensive schemes and strategy, imo, not to mentioning controlling egos, which does factor into the NBA, and always has with the huge egos around. In fact, that's a big reason why Tex Winter didn't last in his one NBA heading coaching stint with Houston. Elvin Hayes ego was too big to adjust to the triangle and didn't react well to Tex Winter telling him to pass more and play unselfishly.

[iamgine]

If he wins the title this year, I think the answer has to be YES. Phil Jackson was good at controlling egos, but he had the luxury of coaching one of the greatest players in NBA History and he wasn't really known for his Xs & Os and developing players. Red Auerbach was the greatest of his time, but he coached when the league was still developing, coaching overall has improved dramatically since the 60's and the Celtics did win two more titles when he stepped down as coach. Pat Riley is the only one on Popovich's level in my book. He proved he was a great coach after he left LA, pretty much made every team he coached into title contenders, but he did make a huge mistake by not playing Rolando Blackman in the '94 Finals, but I'm nitpicking.

Popovich is the only coach I've ever seen have total control. He is the best at exploiting the other teams' weakness, he makes sure his team executes and he doesn't take any BS from his players. The job he has done this year with SA might be the best coaching job I have ever seen, nobody expecting the Spurs to be title contenders before the season started.

I rank them...

1. Greg Popovich
2. Pat Riley
3. Phil Jackson
4. Red Auerbach
There's no such thing as "best coach". Everyone has their own strength and weaknesses. Give Phil or Pop a young, inexperienced, rebellious team. They might not be able to do as well as, say, Nate Mcmillan could. Give Pop 90's Bulls and he might have not won as much as Phil did. Give either of them 2004 Pistons and they might not do as well as Larry Brown did.

[reppy]

I think where Phil excels is that in addition to having a good technical understanding of basketball, he understands the mental side as well. And is also great at managing egos.

I think Popovich is underrated in terms of managing egos and players, but I give the mental edge to Jackson.

[Pushxx]

It's a bad excuse to say the league was still developing. It was the legendary coaches and players that evolved the league themselves.

Red Auerbach's fundamentals created the game today.

[PHILA]

Coach Hannum was as good as any of the above.



Sports Illustrated - January 02, 1967

He is, of course, a great deal more than that. His colleagues hold his leadership, his philosophy, his technical approach and his general mastery of the art of coaching to be without peer. Nearly everyone in the NBA will start raving about Hannum at the mention of the name. Try Costello: "I've never heard of anyone who didn't like Alex." Walker: " Alex Hannum is the greatest thing that ever happened to us." Chicago Bulls Coach John Kerr: "He's a man's man. If you could pick a father, you'd pick Alex Hannum." Etc.

Last March, San Francisco Owner Franklin Mieuli fired Hannum because he wanted a coach who would devote the full year to working on the franchise; Hannum likes to go home to Los Angeles in the summer and work at his contracting business or play with his custom speed boat (he races in it or behind it on one ski at 60 to 70 miles per hour). The Warrior players were thrown into utter shock at the firing. Eloquently and poignantly, Nate Thurmond explained his feelings. "I cried when I had to leave home for the first time," Thurmond said, "and I cried today when I found out about Alex. I love that man. He was so much a builder of men. He has a way with men. I played a lot of games this year with a lot of pain in my back. I did it for myself, for the Warriors and for my teammates. Mostly I did it for Alex. With the pain, I'm not sure that I could have done it for anybody else."



http://i.imgur.com/Vw3Wu.jpg

[Harison]

Red says hi. Phil joins the greeting club too :cheers:

[Myth]

A case could be made for Pop, Phil, and Red. Riley comes in 4th for me.

Also, I believe Larry Bird could have been one of the best, but he only coached for 3 years. GOAT coach for those who have done it less than 5 years.

[bdreason]

He's in the discussion IMHO.

[flipogb]

I didn't know Pop coached the Bulls and Lakers

[Big#50]

Larry Brown.

[TheBigVeto]

Maybe not the greatest but he's infinitely much better than P Jax, that overrated hippie.

[Big#50]

Coach Hannum was as good as any of the above.



Sports Illustrated - January 02, 1967

He is, of course, a great deal more than that. His colleagues hold his leadership, his philosophy, his technical approach and his general mastery of the art of coaching to be without peer. Nearly everyone in the NBA will start raving about Hannum at the mention of the name. Try Costello: "I've never heard of anyone who didn't like Alex." Walker: " Alex Hannum is the greatest thing that ever happened to us." Chicago Bulls Coach John Kerr: "He's a man's wman. If you could pick a father, you'd pick Alex Hannum." Etc.

Last March, San Francisco Owner Franklin Mieuli fired Hannum because he wanted a coach who would devote the full year to working on the franchise; Hannum likes to go home to Los Angeles in the summer and work at his contracting business or play with his custom speed boat (he races in it or behind it on one ski at 60 to 70 miles per hour). The Warrior players were thrown into utter shock at the firing. Eloquently and poignantly, Nate Thurmond explained his feelings. "I cried when I had to leave home for the first time," Thurmond said, "and I cried today when I found out about Alex. I love that man. He was so much a builder of men. He has a way with men. I played a lot of games this year with a lot of pain in my back. I did it for myself, for the Warriors and for my teammates. Mostly I did it for Alex. With the pain, I'm not sure that I could have done it for anybody else."



http://i.imgur.com/Vw3Wu.jpg
Good read. Thanks.
I always like reading and knowing about stuff like this.

[Story Up]

Phil took Gasol, Odom and Kobe to three straight final appearances. If Pop wins this year, he won't even be at 50% of what Phil achieved. Why not just name James the best while we're at it.

Phil, Red, Pop then Riley possibly Brown

[Odinn]

Clearly top 5 imo alongside with P-Jax, Riley, Auerbach and Daly.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Coach Hannum was as good as any of the above.



Sports Illustrated - January 02, 1967

He is, of course, a great deal more than that. His colleagues hold his leadership, his philosophy, his technical approach and his general mastery of the art of coaching to be without peer. Nearly everyone in the NBA will start raving about Hannum at the mention of the name. Try Costello: "I've never heard of anyone who didn't like Alex." Walker: " Alex Hannum is the greatest thing that ever happened to us." Chicago Bulls Coach John Kerr: "He's a man's man. If you could pick a father, you'd pick Alex Hannum." Etc.

Last March, San Francisco Owner Franklin Mieuli fired Hannum because he wanted a coach who would devote the full year to working on the franchise; Hannum likes to go home to Los Angeles in the summer and work at his contracting business or play with his custom speed boat (he races in it or behind it on one ski at 60 to 70 miles per hour). The Warrior players were thrown into utter shock at the firing. Eloquently and poignantly, Nate Thurmond explained his feelings. "I cried when I had to leave home for the first time," Thurmond said, "and I cried today when I found out about Alex. I love that man. He was so much a builder of men. He has a way with men. I played a lot of games this year with a lot of pain in my back. I did it for myself, for the Warriors and for my teammates. Mostly I did it for Alex. With the pain, I'm not sure that I could have done it for anybody else."



http://i.imgur.com/Vw3Wu.jpg

From the Season Of The 76ers book, it seems like he was a hell of a coach. It's tougher for me to judge Hannum in comparison to Jackson and others considering there's very little game footage so I can't be sure of how their offensive system was, or their defense, strategy, schemes ect.

From what I understand, they ran a precursor to the triangle at times, the center opposite offense invented by USC coach Sam Barry. Some sources claim they ran the triangle, though it seems that more correctly, it was Barry's offense, and from the '67 Sixer/Celtics footage, it doesn't appear that they're a triangle team.

But back on subject a bit, it seems that he had Wilt's respect more than any other coach, and got the best out of him, much in the same way Phil did with Shaq. I'm not sure how much Wilt's leadership had to do with Hannum's presence, but Wilt seemed to be at his best as a leader that year, reminding his team not to celebrate too much after finally beating Boston and that they still had a finals series ahead of them, which turned out to be a pretty tough series vs the Warriors led by one of the most talented, albeit short-lived duos of Nate Thurmond and Rick Barry. Either way, their seemed to be a noticeable difference between Wilt's leadership that season and in '66 under Dolph Schayes.

I wonder if Wilt would've stayed with Philadelphia had Hannum's status with the team for after '68 not been up in the air.

[franchise#3]

You don't win 11 championships by accident. Some people are really underrating Phil. It's like saying Bill Walsh had Jerry and Joe so his SB wins don't matter.

[Shade8780]

1. Phil Jackson
2. Red Auerbach
3. Gregg Popovich
4. Pat Riley

[jlauber]

From the Season Of The 76ers book, it seems like he was a hell of a coach. It's tougher for me to judge Hannum in comparison to Jackson and others considering there's very little game footage so I can't be sure of how their offensive system was, or their defense, strategy, schemes ect.

From what I understand, they ran a precursor to the triangle at times, the center opposite offense invented by USC coach Sam Barry. Some sources claim they ran the triangle, though it seems that more correctly, it was Barry's offense, and from the '67 Sixer/Celtics footage, it doesn't appear that they're a triangle team.

But back on subject a bit, it seems that he had Wilt's respect more than any other coach, and got the best out of him, much in the same way Phil did with Shaq. I'm not sure how much Wilt's leadership had to do with Hannum's presence, but Wilt seemed to be at his best as a leader that year, reminding his team not to celebrate too much after finally beating Boston and that they still had a finals series ahead of them, which turned out to be a pretty tough series vs the Warriors led by one of the most talented, albeit short-lived duos of Nate Thurmond and Rick Barry. Either way, their seemed to be a noticeable difference between Wilt's leadership that season and in '66 under Dolph Schayes.

I wonder if Wilt would've stayed with Philadelphia had Hannum's status with the team for after '68 not been up in the air.

I know this is off topic, but IMHO, had the '67-68 Sixer cast, including Hannum, remained intact, and barring injuries of course, I have long maintained that they would have put up a "mini-dynasty" run of perhaps 4-5 straight titles.

Had Wilt remained with the Sixers, he would have been the anchor of a cast that were all virtually in their primes. Greer, Wali Jones, Jackson, Walker, and Cunningham were at their peaks, or nearing them. And few here probably know anything about Johnny Green, but he was a solid player who would actually go on to lead the NBA in FG% one season.

Keep in mind, too, that the '68 Sixers were just decimated by injuries in that post-season. The team that ran away with the best record in the league, and was only a year removed from dominating the NBA like no other team had in history, was a far cry from the team that lost a game seven to Boston by four points.

I was probably one of the few that was devastated by the Wilt "trade" to LA. I remember at the time, that publications and the media were proclaiming an instant title for the Lakers. Some even hinted that they might go undefeated. I knew at the time, however, that Baylor was well past his peak. And some here blast Wilt for "only" leading LA to a 55-27 record, but the facts were, the Lakers were stripped of all depth before they took the court that season. They went from having the best guards in the league, with West, Clark, and Goodrich, down to just West...who, as always, was injured for much of the season.

And no one knew it at the time, but Van Breda Kolf was quite simply, an incompetent coach. He never liked Wilt from day one, and in fact, went out of his way to reduce his effectiveness. He asked Wilt, the greatest low post player of all-time, to become a high post center, so that an aging Baylor could roam the baselines. He then basically blamed Wilt when his offensive strategies went awry.

I have posted it here before, but it got so bad that SI ran an article claiming that Chamberlain could no longer score. Wilt, going against Van Breda, then put up a 17 game streak of 31 ppg, including games of 35 against Russell (his highest against him since his game five of the '66 ECF's), and two games of 60 and 66...which were the highest in the NBA that season.

Of course, Van Breda Kolf had LA resort to HIS offense in the playoffs, and the result was Chamberlain taking less than 10 FGAs per game in the post-season. Meanwhile, Baylor had the worst post-season of his career, and took the Lakers down in flames, particularly in the Finals, with a 15.4 ppg .385 post-season.

I always found it amusing, too, that WILT was blamed for the Lakers losing the '69 Finals, when Baylor was absolutely AWFUL in them. Baylor was horrible in games three thru five, two of them losses, and then he shot-jacked his way to an 8-22 game seven on top of that.

And all anyone needs to look at, is the footage of the 4th quarter on YouTube. After Russell picked up fifth personal, with about 11 minutes remaining, the Lakers went into Chamberlain, who went right around and over Russell for an easy lay-in. Instead of milking that offense the rest of the game, it was West and Baylor taking all the shots. West did play brilliantly, of course, but while Wilt went 7-8 from the floor, even West only shot 14-29 from the field.

In fact, aside from Chamberlain, the rest of the Lakers collectively shot .360 in that game...which included Mel Counts and his 4-13 performance. Why did I mention Counts? Because Van Breda Kolf believed that LA was better off with Counts in the last five minutes of that game, than with Chamberlain. And Counts had a key turnover, and missed a wild shot late, too.

As for Wilt's overall impact...think about this: Clark and Imhoff, who replaced Wilt in the Sixer's lineup, collectively averaged 36 ppg, 20 rpg, and shot .510 from the floor in the first round of the playoffs in '69. And a 48-34 Boston team still steamrolled them, 4-1. Just a year before, a decimated Sixer squad, missing Cunningham, and with Jackson and Jones reduced to non-factors after being injured in game five...AND, with Wilt NOTICEABLY LIMPING, Boston was able to eke out a game seven, four point win.

It was no surprise that Van Breda was immediately fired after the '69 debacle. And, Wilt's new coach, Joe Mullaney, realized that Baylor was on a severe decline, and asked Wilt to become the focal point of the offense. The result was Chamberlain storming thru the league in his first nine games, with a league-leading 32.2 ppg average on 60% shooting. He was even crushing players like Kareem and Unseld in those nine games.

Unfortunately, as we all know, Chamberlain shredded his knee in that ninth game, and was never the same player, offensively, again.

In any case, in Wilt's five seasons in LA, the Lakers went to four Finals, winning one easily, and losing two other's in game seven's. And in the one year in which they didn't get to the Finals, Chamberlain single-handedly carried them to the WCF's (both Baylor and West missed the post-season), where, by most accounts, he outplayed Kareem.

Meanwhile, the Sixers became progressively worse, and by Wilt's last season, they had become the laughingstock in the league, going 9-73.

Then, after Wilt retired, the Lakers immediately declined, and were wiped out in the first round of the playoffs in '74. And by '75 they went 30-52. Even Kareem couldn't resurrect them. From '74 thru '79, even with talented rosters in a weak NBA, they were generally playoff cannon-fodder. It wasn't until Magic arrived that they returned to where Chamberlain had left them.

Once again, IMHO, had Wilt remained with Philly, I believe that they would have won 4-5 more titles. And, Hannum with 5-6 titles would certainly be viewed a lot differently today, as well.

[Living Being]

I know this is off topic, but IMHO, had the '67-68 Sixer cast, including Hannum, remained intact, and barring injuries of course, I have long maintained that they would have put up a "mini-dynasty" run of perhaps 4-5 straight titles.

Had Wilt remained with the Sixers, he would have been the anchor of a cast that were all virtually in their primes. Greer, Wali Jones, Jackson, Walker, and Cunningham were at their peaks, or nearing them. And few here probably no anything about Johnny Green, but he was a solid player who would actually go on to lead the NBA in FG% one season.

Keep in mind, too, that the '68 Sixers were just decimated by injuries in that post-season. The team that ran away with the best record in the league, and was only a year removed from dominating the NBA like no other team had in history, was a far cry from the team that lost a game seven to Boston by four points.

I was probably one of the few that was devastated by the Wilt "trade" to LA. I remember at the time, that publications and the media were proclaiming an instant title for the Lakers. Some even hinted that they might go undefeated. I knew at the time, however, that Baylor was well past his peak. And some here blast Wilt for "only" leading LA to a 55-27 record, but the facts were, the Lakers were stripped of all depth before they took the court that season. They went from having the best guards in the league, with West, Clark, and Goodrich, down to just West...who, as always, was injured for much of the season.

And no one knew it at the time, but Van Breda Kolf was quite simply, an incompetent coach. He never liked Wilt from day one, and in fact, went out of his way to reduce his effectiveness. He asked Wilt, the greatest low post player of all-time, to become a high post center, so that an aging Baylor could roam the baselines. He then basically blamed Wilt when his offensive strategies went awry.

I have posted it here before, but it got so bad that SI ran an article claiming that Chamberlain could no longer score. Wilt, going against Van Breda, then put up a 17 game streak of 31 ppg, including games of 35 against Russell (his highest against him since his game five of the '66 ECF's), and two games of 60 and 66...which were the highest in the NBA that season.

Of course, Van Breda Kolf had LA resort to HIS offense in the playoffs, and the result was Chamberlain taking less than 10 FGAs per game in the post-season. Meanwhile, Baylor had the worst post-season of his career, and took the Lakers down in flames, particularly in the Finals, with a 15.4 ppg .385 post-season.

I always found it amusing, too, that WILT was blamed for the Lakers losing the '69 Finals, when Baylor was absolutely AWFUL in them. Baylor was horrible in games three thru five, two of them losses, and then he shot-jacked his way to an 8-22 game seven on top of that.

And all anyone needs to look at, is the footage of the 4th quarter on YouTube. After Russell picked up fifth personal, with about 11 minutes remaining, the Lakers went into Chamberlain, who went right around and over Russell for an easy lay-in. Instead of milking that offense the rest of the game, it was West and Baylor taking all the shots. West did play brilliantly, of course, but while Wilt went 7-8 from the floor, even West only shot 14-29 from the field.

In fact, aside from Chamberlain, the rest of the Lakers collectively shot .360 in that game...which included Mel Counts and his 4-13 performance. Why did I mention Counts? Because Van Breda Kolf believed that LA was better off with Counts in the last five minutes of that game, than with Chamberlain. And Counts had a key turnover, and missed a wild shot late, too.

As for Wilt's overall impact...think about this: Clark and Imhoff, who replaced Wilt in the Sixer's lineup, collectively averaged 36 ppg, 20 rpg, and shot .510 from the floor in the first round of the playoffs in '69. And a 48-34 Boston team still steamrolled them, 4-1. Just a year before, a decimated Sixer squad, missing Cunningham, and with Jackson and Jones reduced to non-factors after being injured in game five...AND, with Wilt NOTICEABLY LIMPING, Boston was able to eke out a game seven, four point win.

It was no surprise that Van Breda was immediately fired after the '69 debacle. And, Wilt's new coach, Joe Mullaney, realized that Baylor was on a severe decline, and asked Wilt to become the focal point of the offense. The result was Chamberlain storming thru the league in his first nine games, with a league-leading 32.2 ppg average on 60% shooting. He was even crushing players like Kareem and Unseld in those nine games.

Unfortunately, as we all know, Chamberlain shredded his knee in that ninth game, and was never the same player, offensively, again.

In any case, in Wilt's five seasons in LA, the Lakers went to four Finals, winning one easily, and losing two other's in game seven's. And in the one year in which they didn't get to the Finals, Chamberlain single-handedly carried them to the WCF's (both Baylor and West missed the post-season), where, by most accounts, he outplayed Kareem.

Meanwhile, the Sixers became progressively worse, and by Wilt's last season, they had become the laughingstock in the league, going 9-73.

Then, after Wilt retired, the Lakers immediately declined, and were wiped out in the first round of the playoffs in '74. And by '75 they went 30-52. Even Kareem couldn't resurrect them. From '74 thru '79, even with talented rosters in a weak NBA, they were generally playoff cannon-fodder. It wasn't until Magic arrived that they returned to where Chamberlain had left them.

Once again, IMHO, had Wilt remained with Philly, I believe that they would have won 4-5 more titles. And, Hannum with 5-6 titles would certainly be viewed a lot differently today, as well.
Wow, you didn't jump at the opportunity, did you?

[jlauber]

Wow, you didn't jump at the opportunity, did you?

Well, thanks for reading.

And I'll give you another example, too. Bill Sharman. His coaching job with the 71-72 Lakers has to rank among the greatest ever. He took what had been an aged and injury-riddled team, that had gone 48-34 the year before, to a 69-13 record and a dominating world title.

And he did so by installing a fast-break offense that just blitzed the NBA. Even more remarkably, that offense came with a roster that started three players over 30, and another at age 29.

The '72 Lakers steam-rolled the entire NBA, too. Think about this: Including the playoffs, they went 7-1 against a 57-25 Bulls team. They went 8-2 against the Knicks, who had FIVE HOFers. They went 5-1 against the Warriors (including wins of 129-99 and 162-99.) And they pounded the 63-19, and defending champion Bucks, 8-3 (including a 25 point win in game five of the WCF's, and a come-from behind clinching win in game six in Milwaukee.)

And before that season started, most publications had the Lakers somewhere in the middle of the pack. The Warriors were generally picked to win the Pacific Division, and the Bucks were universally hailed as heavy favorites to repeat.

[Odinn]

Alex Hannum, Bill Sharman, Red Holzman, these coaches are not better than modern all-time great choaches but definetely deserve much more respect and mention than usual imo. They are absouletly top 10 ever.

[jlauber]

Coach Hannum was as good as any of the above.



Sports Illustrated - January 02, 1967

He is, of course, a great deal more than that. His colleagues hold his leadership, his philosophy, his technical approach and his general mastery of the art of coaching to be without peer. Nearly everyone in the NBA will start raving about Hannum at the mention of the name. Try Costello: "I've never heard of anyone who didn't like Alex." Walker: " Alex Hannum is the greatest thing that ever happened to us." Chicago Bulls Coach John Kerr: "He's a man's man. If you could pick a father, you'd pick Alex Hannum." Etc.

Last March, San Francisco Owner Franklin Mieuli fired Hannum because he wanted a coach who would devote the full year to working on the franchise; Hannum likes to go home to Los Angeles in the summer and work at his contracting business or play with his custom speed boat (he races in it or behind it on one ski at 60 to 70 miles per hour). The Warrior players were thrown into utter shock at the firing. Eloquently and poignantly, Nate Thurmond explained his feelings. "I cried when I had to leave home for the first time," Thurmond said, "and I cried today when I found out about Alex. I love that man. He was so much a builder of men. He has a way with men. I played a lot of games this year with a lot of pain in my back. I did it for myself, for the Warriors and for my teammates. Mostly I did it for Alex. With the pain, I'm not sure that I could have done it for anybody else."



http://i.imgur.com/Vw3Wu.jpg

Of course Hannum won a title with the Sixers in '67, but few here are probably aware of the fact that Hannum, at age 35, won a title with the '58 Hawks. Or that he took the Oakland Oaks to a title in the ABA the very next season after he left Philly in '68.

Not only that, but how about the job he did with the 63-64 Warriors? The 62-63 Warriors had gone 31-49, and had arguably, the worst roster in NBA history. How bad were they? Hannum conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, against some draft picks and scrubs, and he was shocked to watch the scrubs beat his team.

He then took that team to a 48-32 record in '64, and past the Hawks in the playoffs, before losing 4-1 to the Celtics, and their EIGHT HOFers, in the Finals. That series was closer than the 4-1 record indicated, though. Two of those losses came in the waning seconds.

Of course, his greatest achievement will always be that '67 Sixer team, which shattered all kinds of records en route to a 68-13 record. Early in the season, they overwhelmed the eight-time defending Celtics, who would go on to a 60-21 record, by a 138-96 margin, which clearly sent a message. Then, in the ECF's, they just pounded Boston. In fact, only a poorly played game four, in which they lost by four points in Boston, prevented a sweep. And, in the clinching game five win, they came from 17 points down in the first period, to a 131-104 lead late (a swing of 44 points) en route to a 140-116 win.

In fact, Hannum was the ONLY coach to beat Russell's Celtics in his 13 seasons, and he did it twice. And had his '68 Sixers been remotely healthy, it would have been three times.

[dunksby]

It's Phil Jackson followed by Riley and Pop, don't see how coaching all time players with supersized egos makes things easier. If someone has been lucky it's Pop who got to work with a gentleman and a mature superstar in Duncan despite being arguably the greatest PF of all time.

[jlauber]

It's Phil Jackson followed by Riley and Pop, don't see how coaching all time players with supersized egos makes things easier. If someone has been lucky it's Pop who got to work with a gentleman and a mature superstar in Duncan despite being arguably the greatest PF of all time.

I have never been a big fan of Phil, but your point is well taken.

I like to use the comparison of John Wooden to Dean Smith as an example. Wooden won ten titles in a span of twelve seasons (and had freshmen been allowed to play, he would surely have won 11.) Smith won two. And Smith may very well have had BETTER players throughout his career.

[IGOTGAME]

Larry Brown.
Overrated

[Punpun]

13 finals trip against four. Points taken.

[Derka]

No one tops Phil on this list. No one.

I'd give Greg 2, Rudy 3, Riley 4 and Red 5.

[Odinn]

No one tops Phil on this list. No one.

I'd give Greg 2, Rudy 3, Riley 4 and Red 5.
:wtf: :wtf: :rolleyes:

[B]

The truly great coaches win back to back titles when their roster reamains relatively unchanged

[leopoldstotch]

I have to say

1. Red
2. Phil
3. Pops

I love Pops, but if Phil is able to handcuff Rodman and Artest aka Metta World Peace's psychological emotions and harness their talents to win championships, you have to give him great props for that.

[Punpun]

Phil has dominated WAY more than Red who played in a 8 team league. :oldlol:

[ProfessorMurder]

Red/Pops >> Phil >> Riley

[ShaqAttack3234]

Keep in mind, too, that the '68 Sixers were just decimated by injuries in that post-season. The team that ran away with the best record in the league, and was only a year removed from dominating the NBA like no other team had in history, was a far cry from the team that lost a game seven to Boston by four points.

True, Cunningham was out, Jackson had a pulled hamstring, and both Chamberlain and Wali Jones had injured knees. Though I'm sure you'll agree that with a 3-1 lead, you still have to close the deal, and that Wilt has to play better than game 6 when Greer gives them 40, and that the Sixer shooters have to shoot much better than game 7.

The team had worse luck for sure, but I think we have to credit the Celtics, and also hold the Sixer plays accountable to some degree.

One apparent difference between the '67 and '68 Sixers is that it seemed like the Sixers were all business and hungry to finally win a title. Not that the '68 Sixers didn't want another, but there were distractions that year such as Hannum's status after the season, and speculation over Wilt's contract and Wilt potentially leaving Philly for the ABA.


I have posted it here before, but it got so bad that SI ran an article claiming that Chamberlain could no longer score. Wilt, going against Van Breda, then put up a 17 game streak of 31 ppg, including games of 35 against Russell (his highest against him since his game five of the '66 ECF's), and two games of 60 and 66...which were the highest in the NBA that season.

And that may be his most impressive scoring feat to me for several reasons, one being that it came on a talented team that wasn't catered to Wilt's scoring, and I also consider the late 60's NBA to be superior and more difficult to score in than the early 60's NBA. Plus, when he had his biggest scoring feats for Frank McGuire's Warriors whose gameplan was basically for Wilt to score as much as possible. While on the '69 Lakers, he was only the 3rd option in Van Breda Kolff's offense. Though if what you say is true and he "went against" the coach, I don't condone that, no matter how impressive the individual feat is. I believe that Butch was stubborn, and deserved to lose his job for putting his ego over the best interests of the team in game 7, but as long as someone is a coaching a team, they have to be the boss, imo, particularly when you're contending for an NBA title.

It seems that '69 may have been his last full prime season, would you agree that the knee injury was the end of Wilt's prime? It can be hard to pinpoint when a player's prime begins or ends, but I think that injury early in the '70 season may be it. Not to take anything away from his '72 season.

It would've been cool to know how he would've fared if he had joined the Knicks in '75-'76. I'd have liked to see him with a great defensive coach like Holzman, or Wilt's passing in Red's offense which was always known for ball movement. I'm not sure how it would've worked out since Wilt did mention wanting to average 30 again, but he could've helped a Knick team that was considered a disappointment after acquiring Spencer Haywood, who Knick fans apparently expected to give them a forward who could replace DeBuscherre, and fell short.

Speaking of Red Holzman...talk about great coaches. From everything I've learned about Red, he belongs in the discussion. He was known as an innovative coach with his team defense, and while he was a simple coach who simply stressed moving the ball and finding the open man while rarely calling a set play, his team responded. Phil Jackson noticed similarities between the 70's Knicks offense and the triangle.

The Knicks became one of the great teams starting in '69 with the the Debuscherre trade and truly ending in '74. But outside of the 2 championships and 3 finals appearances in a 4 year stretch, his team was unlucky with injuries, mainly to Willis Reed which took away opportunities for a potential 4 consecutive titles, though beating the '71 Bucks and '72 Lakers would be no small feat. I believe that the Knicks were confident of a potential Bucks match up if they had Willis, they supposedly matched up well, and Reed always raised his game vs Kareem. Luckily, we do have a game between these 2 teams played from the '70-'71 season, Reed played well vs Kareem(outscored him by 1), and the Knicks won the first of 2 consecutive wins vs Milwaukee in back to back days.

To follow up on Holzman's Knicks team first approach. They had some great players, but didn't win on 1 or 2 player's individual ability. In fact, some of their more talented individual players such as Cazzie Russell had their roles reduced, which according to Phil Jackson made them a better team with Cazzie providing a scoring spark in limited minutes off the bench. And Earl Monroe was also in a really reduced role when he came to the Knicks and won a title.


I always found it amusing, too, that WILT was blamed for the Lakers losing the '69 Finals, when Baylor was absolutely AWFUL in them. Baylor was horrible in games three thru five, two of them losses, and then he shot-jacked his way to an 8-22 game seven on top of that.

I believe that both should get some blame.


Then, after Wilt retired, the Lakers immediately declined, and were wiped out in the first round of the playoffs in '74. And by '75 they went 30-52. Even Kareem couldn't resurrect them. From '74 thru '79, even with talented rosters in a weak NBA, they were generally playoff cannon-fodder. It wasn't until Magic arrived that they returned to where Chamberlain had left them.

Do you have to always find a way to imply Magic "saved" Kareem?

[Apogee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmR7a89wYG8

[Myth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmR7a89wYG8

:bowdown:

[jlauber]

True, Cunningham was out, Jackson had a pulled hamstring, and both Chamberlain and Wali Jones had injured knees. Though I'm sure you'll agree that with a 3-1 lead, you still have to close the deal, and that Wilt has to play better than game 6 when Greer gives them 40, and that the Sixer shooters have to shoot much better than game 7.

The team had worse luck for sure, but I think we have to credit the Celtics, and also hold the Sixer plays accountable to some degree.

One apparent difference between the '67 and '68 Sixers is that it seemed like the Sixers were all business and hungry to finally win a title. Not that the '68 Sixers didn't want another, but there were distractions that year such as Hannum's status after the season, and speculation over Wilt's contract and Wilt potentially leaving Philly for the ABA.



And that may be his most impressive scoring feat to me for several reasons, one being that it came on a talented team that wasn't catered to Wilt's scoring, and I also consider the late 60's NBA to be superior and more difficult to score in than the early 60's NBA. Plus, when he had his biggest scoring feats for Frank McGuire's Warriors whose gameplan was basically for Wilt to score as much as possible. While on the '69 Lakers, he was only the 3rd option in Van Breda Kolff's offense. Though if what you say is true and he "went against" the coach, I don't condone that, no matter how impressive the individual feat is. I believe that Butch was stubborn, and deserved to lose his job for putting his ego over the best interests of the team in game 7, but as long as someone is a coaching a team, they have to be the boss, imo, particularly when you're contending for an NBA title.

It seems that '69 may have been his last full prime season, would you agree that the knee injury was the end of Wilt's prime? It can be hard to pinpoint when a player's prime begins or ends, but I think that injury early in the '70 season may be it. Not to take anything away from his '72 season.

Speaking of Red Holzman...talk about great coaches. From everything I've learned about Red, he belongs in the discussion. He was known as an innovative coach with his team defense, and while he was a simple coach who simply stressed moving the ball and finding the open man while rarely calling a set play, his team responded. Phil Jackson noticed similarities between the 70's Knicks offense and the triangle.

The Knicks became one of the great teams starting in '69 with the the Debuscherre trade and truly ending in '74. But outside of the 2 championships and 3 finals appearances in a 4 year stretch, his team was unlucky with injuries, mainly to Willis Reed which took away opportunities for a potential 4 consecutive titles, though beating the '71 Bucks and '72 Lakers would be no small feat. I believe that the Knicks were confident of a potential Bucks match up if they had Willis, they supposedly matched up well, and Reed always raised his game vs Kareem. Luckily, we do have a game between these 2 teams played from the '70-'71 season, Reed played well vs Kareem(outscored him by 1), and the Knicks won the first of 2 consecutive wins vs Milwaukee in back to back days.

To follow up on Holzman's Knicks team first approach. They had some great players, but didn't win on 1 or 2 player's individual ability. In fact, some of their more talented individual players such as Cazzie Russell had their roles reduced, which according to Phil Jackson made them a better team with Cazzie providing a scoring spark in limited minutes off the bench. And Earl Monroe was also in a really reduced role when he came to the Knicks and won a title.



I believe that both should get some blame.



Do you have to always find a way to imply Magic "saved" Kareem?

Asking the Sixers to "close the deal" with HALF of their starters or key players either injured or out was asking for a miracle. As great as those Sixer's teams were, they were nowhere near as deep as those great Celtic rosters. Boston could almost always go nine to even ten deep (their '67 cast may have been the deepest roster in NBA history, and their '63 squad was a close second.)

Interesting, too, was that Philly led that series 3-1, with Cunningham out, and Chamberlain playing with a torn calf from games three on (and playing 48 mpp in all of them.) Not only that, but they were only down 81-79 late in the third quarter of game five, when they started their collapse.

And while Wilt played poorly in game six, and Greer played well...EVERY Sixer played poorly in game seven...including Greer, who was downright awful. As great a coach as Hannum was, he deserves much of the blame, if any could be made for a team that was reduced dramatically by injuries, for not demanding his players to feed Chamberlain in the second half of that game seven.

As for the '69 Finals, Chamberlain was shackled by his coach, plain-and-simple. And the result was Wilt's worst post-season of his career. And I have mentioned the MANY reasons why that Laker team did not win the Finals that season. The reality was, they were ONE PLAY away from winning that series in a 4-1 romp. Had Johnny Egan, whom LA was forced to sign to fill the huge holes lost by the trade of Clark and the expansion draft loss of Goodrich, been able to hang onto the ball late in game four, LA wins that game, and with their easy win in game five, it would have been a 4-1 series.

Here again, I honestly believe even a mediocre coach would have won a title with the Lakers that season. BUT, here was Van Breda Kolf doing all he could to make Wilt look bad, more than actually trying to coach a team to a title. Leaving Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of a game in which Chamberlain and West had reduced a 17 point deficit down to seven in a span of five minutes, was the worst coaching decision in NBA history. And fittingly, it not only cost Van Breda Kolf his job, but basically ended his career, as well.

As for Baylor...in games three thru five, he scored a TOTAL of 24 points...and two of those games were close losses. And while Wilt shot poorly from the line in that series, no one brings up the fact that Baylor shot 1-6 from the line in that game four, 89-88 loss. Not to mention that Baylor also shot 2-14 from the floor. And in the game three, a 111-105 loss, Baylor shot 4-14. And I already mentioned Baylor's 8-22 effort in that game seven, two-point loss.

And, you put some blame on Chamberlain, and yet, as poorly as he played, he still outplayed Russell. And he BADLY outplayed Russell in that game seven. In fact, just watch the footage of that 4th quarter...Wilt did far more, in his seven minutes, than Russell did in his 12. Chamberlain outrebounded Russell, 7-2 in that quarter, and in fact, in a span of two possessions, on an injured leg, matched Russell's entire total of the quarter. Russell was nowhere to be found in that 4th quarter.

And those points are often overlooked in these discussions of Wilt's post-season career. Some here try to say that Wilt "declined" in his post-season play, (which I have basically blown apart BTW), but they NEVER mention that fact that Wilt was DRAMATICALLY reducing the play of his opposing centers in his post-season career.

I agree that Chamberlain's "prime" was ended with his knee injury...at least his "scoring" prime. While that injury didn't affect his vertical, it did affect his lateral mobility. He remained a rebounding beast (even in his last post-season when he absolutely crushed Boerwinkle, Thurmond, and Reed in his H2H's...en route to a 22.5 rpg average.)

And while Chamberlain was still a force defensively, as evidenced by holding Kareem WAY below his normal FG%'s, his lack of lateral mobility came into play against the quicker centers. I have long maintained that a mid-60's Wilt was almost impossible to score on, no matter what style. His was just abusing the great centers of that era, and in EVERY facet of the game.

Holzman was a very under-rated coach (albeit, he is in the HOF.) And, like Auerbach, he had an eye for talent, and how that talent would fit into his system. He took a big risk when he traded Bellamy away for Dave DeBusschere. And yet, that trade not only gave the Knicks a solid rebounder, defender, and decent scorer, it also allowed Reed to return to his natual center position. I am not sure if Holzman was the reason behind the drafting of Walt Frazier, but if he were, it was a brilliant move.

And that Knick offense was very similar to what we have witnessed in San Antonio that past season. A solid defender in the center position, with good range, solid defensive players, an outstanding PG, and players who could shoot from all over the court.


As for Kareem...I don't want to get into a discussion on him here...but you and I have a much different view of his career, particularly in his post-season. I have long maintained that he had several poor season series, played poorly in some of his biggest games, and was outplayed in a few other's.

And I'll stand behind my stance that Magic made those Laker teams into champions. True, Kareem was an offensive force, but Magic provided those teams with everything else that they needed. He forced the tempo, he was their best rebounder, and he made the clutch plays in their biggest games...including a game in which Kareem did not even play.

IMHO, had Wilt had the good fortune to alongside Magic for ten seasons, that he would easily have won five more rings, and probably considerably more. While Wilt's teammates, even the talented one's, generally fell apart in the post-season, Kareem was fortunate to have Magic playing brilliantly in his.

[haji_d_robertas]

Phil has dominated WAY more than Red who played in a 8 team league. :oldlol:

8 teams of players who were not motivated by huge dollars, but by doing it for the love of fierce competition and the game of Basketball. Tell me, if there were 8 teams in the NBA tomorrow instead of 30, and a talent redistribution draft/lottery, would the talent level of the individual players selected for these teams get better or worse? A yes or no answer will suffice.

[Punpun]

It would not suffice. And I won't answer biased question. Try to NOT be fallacious next time.

[jlauber]

8 teams of players who were not motivated by huge dollars, but by doing it for the love of fierce competition and the game of Basketball. Tell me, if there were 8 teams in the NBA tomorrow instead of 30, and a talent redistribution draft/lottery, would the talent level of the individual players selected for these teams get better or worse? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Excellent points.

Granted Red was not coaching Boston in the 66-67 season, but here is a great example of the talent levels in the NBA that season.

Take a look at the 66-67 Lakers. They had a prime, or near prime West and Baylor, averaging 29 and 27 ppg respectively. They had a decent center in Darrell Imhoff, who averaged a 10-13. They had a young Gail Goodrich, who would go on to a HOF career. They had PF Rudy LaRusso, who would average 22 ppg the very next season. They had Archie Clark, who would be an all-star the very next season. They had Abdul-Rahman, who would average 24 ppg the very next year. And they had two seven-footers.

So, here we had a Laker team, with West and Baylor the equivalent of Lebron and Wade in their era...

going 36-45.

Take a look at the rosters of the rest of the NBA that season. Teams were LOADED with very good, to great players. Teams like the Knicks, with TWO HOFers, in Reed and Bellamy, going 36-45. Or the Royals with Oscar and Lucas, going 39-42 (and look at the rest of their roster.) The Hawks had a plethora of outstanding players...and went 39-42. The Warriors had HOFers Barry and Thurmond (as well as Mullins and Clyde Lee)...and went 44-37.

[jlauber]

True, Cunningham was out, Jackson had a pulled hamstring, and both Chamberlain and Wali Jones had injured knees. Though I'm sure you'll agree that with a 3-1 lead, you still have to close the deal, and that Wilt has to play better than game 6 when Greer gives them 40, and that the Sixer shooters have to shoot much better than game 7.

The team had worse luck for sure, but I think we have to credit the Celtics, and also hold the Sixer plays accountable to some degree.

One apparent difference between the '67 and '68 Sixers is that it seemed like the Sixers were all business and hungry to finally win a title. Not that the '68 Sixers didn't want another, but there were distractions that year such as Hannum's status after the season, and speculation over Wilt's contract and Wilt potentially leaving Philly for the ABA.



And that may be his most impressive scoring feat to me for several reasons, one being that it came on a talented team that wasn't catered to Wilt's scoring, and I also consider the late 60's NBA to be superior and more difficult to score in than the early 60's NBA. Plus, when he had his biggest scoring feats for Frank McGuire's Warriors whose gameplan was basically for Wilt to score as much as possible. While on the '69 Lakers, he was only the 3rd option in Van Breda Kolff's offense. Though if what you say is true and he "went against" the coach, I don't condone that, no matter how impressive the individual feat is. I believe that Butch was stubborn, and deserved to lose his job for putting his ego over the best interests of the team in game 7, but as long as someone is a coaching a team, they have to be the boss, imo, particularly when you're contending for an NBA title.

It seems that '69 may have been his last full prime season, would you agree that the knee injury was the end of Wilt's prime? It can be hard to pinpoint when a player's prime begins or ends, but I think that injury early in the '70 season may be it. Not to take anything away from his '72 season.

It would've been cool to know how he would've fared if he had joined the Knicks in '75-'76. I'd have liked to see him with a great defensive coach like Holzman, or Wilt's passing in Red's offense which was always known for ball movement. I'm not sure how it would've worked out since Wilt did mention wanting to average 30 again, but he could've helped a Knick team that was considered a disappointment after acquiring Spencer Haywood, who Knick fans apparently expected to give them a forward who could replace DeBuscherre, and fell short.

Speaking of Red Holzman...talk about great coaches. From everything I've learned about Red, he belongs in the discussion. He was known as an innovative coach with his team defense, and while he was a simple coach who simply stressed moving the ball and finding the open man while rarely calling a set play, his team responded. Phil Jackson noticed similarities between the 70's Knicks offense and the triangle.

The Knicks became one of the great teams starting in '69 with the the Debuscherre trade and truly ending in '74. But outside of the 2 championships and 3 finals appearances in a 4 year stretch, his team was unlucky with injuries, mainly to Willis Reed which took away opportunities for a potential 4 consecutive titles, though beating the '71 Bucks and '72 Lakers would be no small feat. I believe that the Knicks were confident of a potential Bucks match up if they had Willis, they supposedly matched up well, and Reed always raised his game vs Kareem. Luckily, we do have a game between these 2 teams played from the '70-'71 season, Reed played well vs Kareem(outscored him by 1), and the Knicks won the first of 2 consecutive wins vs Milwaukee in back to back days.

To follow up on Holzman's Knicks team first approach. They had some great players, but didn't win on 1 or 2 player's individual ability. In fact, some of their more talented individual players such as Cazzie Russell had their roles reduced, which according to Phil Jackson made them a better team with Cazzie providing a scoring spark in limited minutes off the bench. And Earl Monroe was also in a really reduced role when he came to the Knicks and won a title.



I believe that both should get some blame.



Do you have to always find a way to imply Magic "saved" Kareem?

BTW, excellent post... as always. I have said it before, but it is worth repeating, I may not always agree with your opinions, but I certainly respect them. It is refreshing to "debate" these topics with one who researches and formulates his opinions.

[haji_d_robertas]

It would not suffice. And I won't answer biased question. Try to NOT be fallacious next time.

You know the answer is "Yes." It's a simple question. Answer it.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Not the GOAT, but one of the greatest of all time. I still have Phil above Pop. Not a knock on Pop though, he's a great coach.

Phil's triangle offense doesn't require a traditional ball dominant point guard, and gets just about everyone on the floor involved, it was just great. He's usually pretty chill, looks like he doesn't care by not calling timeout, but deep down he knows what he is doing. The ZenMaster is just brilliant. Oh yea, and he's great at managing egos as well. I know people who prefer Pop, because they're like "Phil had too much talent, first Jordan, then Shaq, then Kobe". That's no reason to put Phil down because of that, that actually makes Phil's resume look even more impressive. Pop had the core of Timmy, Manu and tony for pretty much all of his career. While Phil was able to win with 2 completely different franchises, with a core of Jordan Pippen, then Shaq/Kobe, Kobe Gasol.

The Zenmaster's still the GOAT.
Pop's right behind him, and Pop's the best coach in the NBA currently.

[The Iron Fist]

No way can you put Popovich and Riley ahead of a guy who won 11 championships, no way, just can't be done.
Jackson is a bit overrated.

[Funnyfuka]

only after jackson, but in front of riley.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Id still place Auerbach and Phil Jackson ahead of him, but in this current league hes by far the best. Look how hes outcoaching the likes of Negro and Scott Brooks.

[SCdac]

"I want some Nasty!"

Pop is the ****ing man :bowdown:

[Pearleojam]

"I want some Nasty!"

Pop is the ****ing man :bowdown:

That! :rockon:

[Finger Roll]

this right here

he wins this year and maybe one more and then goat

[Pushxx]

this right here

he wins this year and maybe one more and then goat

Wow another account MooseJuiceBowen?

Bookmarked...