No Subject

Btw, does Collins sound like anyone we know in the Celtics organization?

>And why did he suddenly
>> mature under Jackson? Just a coincidence, right?
>
>After 5-6 years, he became a much more heady and mature player.  What's so
>hard to understand?  Jackson came along at the right time.

Well, some may disagree:

[from NBA.com]
"Jackson unleashed Jordan and previously underutilized forward Scottie
Pippen ("the Dobermans") on opposing teams through relentless presses,
traps and double-teams. Then Jackson moved away from the popular
isolation-style game to a highly patterned offensive approach. 
<cut>
The system's inherent unselfishness harkened back to Jackson's days with
the Knicks and was reflective of his own personal and professional ideals.
The challenge, of course, was incorporating Jordan's open-court wizardry
into such a system. With a combination of tact, diplomacy, intelligence,
and, when necessary, some friendly orders, Jackson pulled it off. "I'm not
a controller," Jackson once told HOOP magazine, "but I'm strict." Jordan,
of course, was still allowed to score pretty much whenever he wanted. But
other players were expected to do more; when they did, Jordan became even
more deadly and the Bulls became virtually unbeatable. 

Knicks Coach Pat Riley, who oversaw a dynasty of his own while with the Los
Angeles Lakers, said of Jackson in a 1991 Sports Illustrated interview: "A
man with a great perspective, a great base of reference, a lot of
dimensions. These days, coaches have to offer more. You've got to bring
more to the table. And Phil Jackson brings more to the table than most
coaches I can think of." 

>After 5-6 years, Shaq has become a much more heady and mature player.
>What's so hard to understand?  In addition, I think you have excluded the
>importance of the play of their bench, which has been superb, not to mention
>the play of KB.

It's amazing how all of them suddenly matured and started playing a lot
better by pure coincidence right after Jackson's arrival, isn't it?

>Doesn't sound like much of a comliment since Shaq supposedly didn't grow up
>with a father and has little, if any, contact with the man.

You're misinformed. Shaq is referring to his stepfather, whom he calls
"father", army sergeant Harrison. And it IS a great compliment, because
Shaq has stated on many occasions how much he loves and respects the man he
calls his father. 

>Why do former players, who have nothing to fear, proclaim Jackson
>> and Riley great coaches? Jordan, who surely had nothing to fear from the
>> management, being able to de facto fire the coaches he didn't like,
>> *refused* to play for anyone but Jackson after having been coached by him.
>
>It doesn't take a genius to say "clearout for #23."  Perhaps Mikey liked
>being coddled by Jackson.

Once again, the evidence is that it was Collins, not Jackson (see above)
who emploeyd the said strategy:

[from NBA.com]
"Jordan had just won his first of seven straight scoring titles in 1986-87,
but under Doug Collins the Bulls had gone 40-42. Collins' essential
philosophy was, "Give the ball to Michael and get out of the way." Jordan
averaged 35.0 points in 1987-88, but Jackson knew that was no way to win an
NBA title."

>So did Chuck Daly.  Didn't Rodman marry himself while he was employed by da
>Bulls?

Chuck too, was a good coach, although, IMO, not as good as Jackson. 
 
>Lots of coaches have been
>> surrounded by talent - Del Harris &  Kurt Rambis were coaching the same
>> Laker cast, lest you forget - but haven't gotten much out of the same
>talent.
>>
>
>It takes time for the maturation process to take place.

I don't think anyone can disagree with this statement. However, some
coaches somehow accelerate that process, while others retard it. 

>Sorry.  I mistook you for someone who appreciates a team that, though young,
>still plays hard.  

I do, but I don't understand what it had to do with the rest of your
statement. 

>I am attempting to do no such thing.  Just replying to your message.  You
>said  yourself that there are no sure answers, so why verbalize what you
>think would be the criteria for the next Celtic coach?  The variance is too
>great.

You're confusing "sure answers" [logically or mathematically deduced
inevitabilities] with probabilistic "good answers". My point is that, given
certain qualities in a potential coach, you can guess with a good chance of
being right that he or she will be a good coach. It does NOT mean that this
person WILL inevitably be a good coach for your team. It just means that
the odds are in your favor. 
 
>It is because he has had less than a full season as head coach.  I like Doc
>and hope he proves to be a great coach.  But rushing to judgement about the
>characteristics of a coach who is so inexperienced, does not make much sense
>to me.  Using your rationale, he fails in 2 outta 3 categories.

Of course, he's much less of a lock to be a great coach than Jackson or
Riley, who've done a good job wherever they've been. Perhaps it is rushing
to judgment, but I believe the indications are there - the fact that
Orlando is not a doormat despite its unimpressive roster, and that he's
already liked and respected league-wide. Anyway, off to watch him coach
against us!