RE: Celtics Mailbag: Mike Gorman Answers more questions

[Kim <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with your general point about being fair to Jackson, but not the specific. IMO his greatest skill shows more with the big ego players than the role players. He doesn't get the most out of the role players per se so much as manage overall egos so that they can have the role they're capable of.  He's the one who got MJ to accept that basketball is a team game and that he was never gong to win anything until he stopped trying to do it all himself. And despite all the rumblings that make it in the press about Shaq and Kobe not getting along, from what I've heard about what that relationship is REALLY like, he's actually created an amazing degree of relative harmony while he's been there.
Kim

-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Rice <joshr@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Dec 30, 2003 8:29 PM
To: celtics@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Celtics Mailbag: Mike Gorman Answers more questions

Shawn said:

>Phil Jackson, who just goes to whatever team has the best player in the
>league, does nothing, and then takes claims to be a better caoch than Red.

I don't want to get into "who's better", but this isn't fair to Jackson. His
greatest skill is getting the most out of his role players. BJ Armstrong,
Horace Grant, Derek Fisher, Devean George, there's a long list of guys who
made big contributions to championships with borderline skills. Very few
coaches could have done what he did.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-celtics@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-celtics@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Shawn Niles
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 6:19 AM
To: jahill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; celtics@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Celtics Mailbag: Mike Gorman Answers more questions


I would argue though, that many of them were as good as they were because
Red taught them how to play the right way. I keep going back to Belichick
and the Pats. The Pats have many players playing great right now who have
not done well on other teams in recent years. Doesn't the coach get a lot of
credit there?

Same with the C's in my opinion. I don't think a lot of the guys Red had
would have been nearly as good in other places. I think it was because Red
knew how to motivate them and how to coach them. My original point was not
that the Celts never had good players. It was that Red got the most out of
what he had, no matter how good or bad the player was. That's opposite of
Phil Jackson, who just goes to whatever team has the best player in the
league, does nothing, and then takes claims to be a better caoch than Red.


>From: "Jim Hill" <jahill199@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: <jahill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "Celtics" <celtics@xxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Celtics Mailbag: Mike Gorman Answers more questions
>Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:59:47 -0500
>
><Also, when you look at Red's teams, he often didn't have 'superstar'
>players. >
>
>Not to quibble, but how many of the top fifty to ever play the game were on
>the teams Red coached?  He had some pretty darn good players himself.
>
>Good points though.
>
><Jim
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

_________________________________________________________________
Expand your wine savvy  and get some great new recipes  at MSN Wine.
http://wine.msn.com