[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Celtics Mailbag: Mike Gorman Answers more questions

You're missing the point. How good would Grant, Armstrong, Fisher, or George have been if they didn't have Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe drawing double and sometime triple teams? Most NBA players can hit an open jump shot the majority of the time. Not all, but most. Put Devon George on the Celts right now in place of anyone besides Paul. There is no way he plays as well or gets the same numbers because he would get a lot more attention.

You're an opposing coach and you can either double team Shaq and Kobe and leave George open... or you can single coverage everyone. What do you think most coaches do?

Until Phil Jackson goes to a mediocre team and gets the most out of those players, and gets that team to win, my opinion of him will not change. For all of our differing opinions of Obie on this list, most people agree that he is a good motivator and gets the guys to play for him. But the record is still mediocre because he doesn't have the horses. Same would be true of Jackson.


From: Josh Rice <joshr@xxxxxxx>
To: celtics@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Celtics Mailbag: Mike Gorman Answers more questions
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:29:55 -0800

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

_________________________________________________________________
Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx