He always sulks about how the league is out to get him. Yesterday, he even said they won't have him to kick around anymore. He seems like a very "woe is me" kind of guy.

Nothing new at all.

He's always been a real a-hole. It's always his team's lack of execution and never his opponent's play that beat his team. Very rarely will you hear him give credit to an opponent.

He believes his own hype. Let's see him win something without the most loaded team in the NBA.

quote:

---

Very rarely will you hear him give credit to an opponent.

---

I think I heard him say once "they did a good job of making all those free throws that the refs gave them."

quote:

---

He's always been a real a-hole. It's always his team's lack of execution and never his opponent's play that beat his team. Very rarely will you hear him give credit to an opponent.

---

He did give his opponent alot of credit in the 2009 WCSF. I think something along the lines of, "Houston is a good f-ing team"

for the idiots that argue" he has the most loaded teams",

please name me teams that win the championship without being loaded...


when the spurs won, pop had duncan, ginobili, robinson, parker.

when the rockets won, they had hakeem and clyde.

detroit had 4 all stars the year they won the championship.

yet, phil has gone to the finals 13 out of 20 times.

he might be an ******* off the court, but he is probably the greatest coach ever in pro sports.

quote:

---

when the rockets won, they had hakeem and clyde.

---

Rockets also won with Hakeem, Otis Thorpe, Robert Horry and Kenny Smith.

quote:

---

detroit had 4 all stars the year they won the championship.

---

Only Ben Wallace was an All-Star in 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_NBA_All-Star_Game
The Pistons certainly weren't as talented as the Lakers.

I don't think any of the Spurs title teams were the most talented team the year they won. Most talented doesn't alway mean you will win.

I doubt anyone would say the 07 Warriors were more talented than the 07 Mavs, but the 07 Warriors presented really difficult matchups for the Mavs (both player wise and coaching-wise) and were the hottest team at the time.

Sometimes the team that is hot at the right time wins. Sometimes you present matchups that are favorable and can beat a more talented team.

It is basketball. **** like that happens. But I think that the 94 Rockets title or 04 Pistons title are more impressive than any of the Phil Jackson titles.

quote:

---

when the spurs won, pop had duncan, ginobili, robinson, parker

---

Parker and Ginobili were not on the 1999 team.
Robinson wasn't on the team in 05 or 07.

I think the 2001 Lakers were his most impressive. They lost one playoff game TOTAL and you could argue that Robert Horry was their third best player.

The Pistons had Billups, Rip, both Wallaces and Prince played really well that year. The Lakers had an incredible roster that year but were hurt all year long (not to mention Payton and Malone were quite old). I went to a game in January where only 1 of the 4 studs were able to play at the end of the game. Chemistry and youth beat the career star power they had that year.

[This message has been edited by Look Out Below (edited 5/11/2011 1:02p).]

the 99 spurs team had 2 hall of famers - duncan and robison

the 03 team had duncan, robinson, parker

05 and 07 had duncan, parker, manu. 2 out of 3 are sure ahll of famers (duncan, probably manu given his international bball championships)

quote:

---

the 03 team had duncan, robinson, parker

---

Robinson averaged like 8 and 8 that year. Parker was benched in the playoffs for extended periods for Speedy Claxton and Steve Kerr. Parker averaged 15.5 and 5 that year. Not exactly a star.

quote:

---

he might be an ******* off the court, but he is probably the greatest coach ever in pro sports.

---

I'd place Red Auerbach above Jackson. Sure, Jackson has more trophies, but there was a lot more parity in the league during Red's days than there is now.

Red won the NBA title 9 time in 10 years.




[This message has been edited by helgs (edited 5/11/2011 3:49p).]

a lot more parity in the league during Red's days.

i love this ****ing board

I like how all you do is ***** and moan about other posts but don't explain why. You make vague and/or trolling posts. IT must get you off.

i didn't even need justifying. it was that stupid of a response.

but, since i must apparently....

-Red won his first championship in 1957.
-The definition of parity is the quality or state of being equal or equivalent.
-One likelihood of increased parity is by increasing the volume of a given state.
-How many NBA teams were there in 1957? 8.
-How many teams are in the NBA right now? 30.

By definition, there was less parity in the league then, even if that "point" was indicative of Red being more successful than Phil.

QED....you are wrong. And because, ironically, you throw out a post to where i didn't offer a counterpoint to your unsupported point of parity in the league, it caused an emotional reaction in me that reinforced that i ****ing love this board. and claimed as such.

[This message has been edited by Simplebay (edited 5/11/2011 4:04p).]

First of all, thanks for that well thought out post. But you still didn't debunk my post. Just because there are more or less teams doesn't mean one has more parity than the other. Also, there were 12 teams by the end of Red's career, but it doesn't matter.

After the Celtics dynasty of the 50s and 60s, the 70s had 8 different winners with no back to back winners, which is parity, which is where my parity comment came from. Other than the Celtics, the league was pretty even.

Whereas now you have perennial abominations that are the Raptors, Timberwolves, etc.



[This message has been edited by helgs (edited 5/11/2011 4:16p).]

quote:

---

Whereas now you have perennial abominations that are the Raptors, Timberwolves, etc.

---

Take out the T-Wolves... Duncan and Co. used to battle them every post season. I would add in the Clippers.

Difference b/w Spurs and Jackson--

Spurs/Popovich got Ginobili and Parker through their own diligence--scouting and draft selection. Using late picks to get good talent.

Jordan and Pippen were already in place when Jackson took the helm at Chicago (which is fine).

But Jackson was clearly the beneficiary of a rigged game in getting Shaq and Gasol. It was the franchise's reputation, the city's popularity, and mgmt's willingness to spend $$$, not Jackson.

[This message has been edited by jack12345 (edited 5/11/2011 7:44p).]

Phil's always been a jerk.

'But Jackson was clearly the beneficiary of a rigged game in getting Shaq and Gasol.'

The game didn't seem so rigged this year...F Gasol.