Re: Sanity

["Cecil Wright" <cecil@hfx.eastlink.ca>]

 >
> >They had some pretty bad teams in those days don't you think?
>
> Collins had Jordan, Pippen, Horace Grant, Bill Cartwright, John Paxson,
> Craig Hodges, Will Perdue - these were the same players that Jackson won a
> string of championships with in the early 90s.

Which may also be attributed to the fact that the team was allowed to stay
together to some extent for several years.  How much experience did Pippen,
Jordan and Grant have during the Collins years as compared to the Jackson
years?  Remember how upset Jordan was when Oakley was traded to the Knicks?
It wasn't all peaches and cream.
>
> >Not all of it.  Surrounding him with complimentary talent was as
important
> >as you feel Jackson's coaching was.
>
> I addressed your point about surrounding Jordan with complimentary talent
> above: there was no such thing under Jackson that wasn't also under
> Collins. Check out the rosters. As far as Jackson's coaching goes, since
> you have so much trouble accepting my claims about his effect on the
> players, perhaps this player account will help:
>
> >From NBA.com
> "The turning point came on December 17, 1988. The Bulls trailed by 14
> points when the combative, high-strung Collins was ejected early in the
> game. With Jackson taking over in what normally is a placeholder role,
> something strange and wonderful happened. He implemented a different
> defensive approach and told his players to just go out and play. Forward
> Horace Grant later told The New York Times, "It was like we were let out
of
> a cage. We won the game because we were so relaxed -- and we knew that
Phil
> should become a head coach." The following spring the Bulls lost to
Detroit
> in the conference finals. Two months later Collins was out and Jackson was
> in."
>

Remember what we said previously about players making positive comments
about coaches?  He implemented a different defensive approach?  Okay.
Telling them to just go out and play?  Hardly a resounding quality of a
professional coach.

> 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>

So he had other players who made a positive contributions, unless Jordan and
Pippen played 2 against 5.  Pressing and playiing pressure defense requires
more than those 2.

> 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.
>

I see.  In an inherently unselfish system, Jordan was still allowed to score
whenever he wanted.  Maybe he meant unselfish sans one.

> 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."
>

How many coaches did Riley ever denigrate?

> >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?
>

No more than the maturation of the Bulls when he took over there.

> >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.
>

Maybe you should be more explicit as it relates to his family.


> >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:
>
Oh.  I must have misread the remarks above.  I could have sworn that it said
Jordan was allowed to score whenever he wanted under the Jackson regime.
Must have been my error.

> [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."
>

Perhaps that goofy Reinsdorf wanted Mike to shoot and dunk knowing that it
put fannies in his seats.

> >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.
>

I won't even touch the previous paragraph.  It's too hypothetical for my
taste.

> >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!
>

So what were your observations of today's losing coach?

Cecil