U say this but I bet deep down there in your heart U would have loved to RR ranked #1 & Bellycheat to be ranked in RR present position
Are we to give no credence at all to the consensus of the professionals who predict W/Ls for a season then compare that to what the team manages to actually accomplish?
Yeah, that has been my assessment of Lewis as well. They have a very talented roster there, and not much to show for it.
Good job, people. You have successfully hijacked a Rex Ryan thread into Phil Jackson thread. [That includes myself; KUDOS TO ME.]
And yet he keeps coming back. Hard to figure. I don't think he's an awful HC. But not mid pack, either.
First of all, being swept in no way indicates that the losing team wasn't competitive. You could lose all 3-4 games by one bucket, and each game could be very close and competitive. I don't remember all of those series, but I do remember at least some of them were pretty close, like the one against Utah, where Lakers had a chance to win at the end, but instead of deferring to more experienced players, young Kobe chose to clang a bunch of clutch-time shots. Second, a lot of those series you mention happened when Shaq was in his first few years in the NBA, and Penny was even younger, and/or obviously Kobe was in his teens. Holding losing in the playoffs against Shaq during those times seems strange, as it seems to me he should get credit for just getting those teams to playoffs and sometimes deep into playoffs. You are talking about very young players taking on rugged veterans like Reggie Miller, Olajuwon, Malone and Stockton, etc. Third, those WERE great teams in many cases. Saying Rockets dont win if Jordan is playing, is like saying Joe Frazier wasnt great because he lost to Ali. Olajuwon outplayed many of the greatest NBA centers of all time during that stretch, and combined with Drexler, Cassell, and Horry, come on. Mediocre Knicks team? That team went to the NBA Finals 2 years before and had a chance to win. Obviously the Bulls team with 72 wins. If Jordan is not playing, that Utah team might have 2 championships. All of these teams had really good veterans playing on them, while Shaq was only coming into his prime by late 90s, and Kobe was transitioning from being a role player to superstar. Finally, you put too much emphasis on "being swept". It doesn't really mean that much. Winning or losing matters, being swept depends on the context. A couple of clutch shots bounce out, suddenly you are down 2-0 despite being right there for 2 games. Then maybe your young players lose heart, and it snowballs, and a close series ends up 3-0 or 4-0. You also have to keep in mind Shaq's playstyle. He couldn't shoot free throws, so he couldn't really dominate in the clutch. So if his team didn't dominate the other team, putting the game out of reach by the end, the other team would have a huge advantage toward the end of games, at least until Kobe developed in LA.
it does mean you are not competitive, competing in a game is one thing, in a series is something different. losing 4 games by one bucket means you had no chance to win the series. had chances to win a single game but not the series. shouldn't shaq have asserted himself instead of allowing young Kobe to try to take over? you don't think Shaq was bricking FTs late in those games? those series happened his first 7 years in the league(he did get swept later too) then Phil took over. the Rockets were a 6 seed that year, they got hot, they won the title but they were not great. That is like calling the '07/'11 Giants great. the 96 Knicks were not the 94 knicks who wouldn't have made the finals if Jordan was still playing- barely beat Chi w/o Jordan.
Phil Jackson would not be a good example , imo, if only for the fact that he's had such a successful run of winning seasons, especially when he first started coaching. He simply got lucky with the franchises he chose to coach for. Let's do this with a different sport, namely baseball...namely Joe Torre. Torre had a very mediocre win/loss record....until he came to the Yankees....and at the right time no less. No need to go into the details of accomplishments with them. We all know what they are. The bottom line is, your only as good a coach as the players that surround you.
Completely disagree with the bolded part. Being competitive simply means that games are close. If you lost 4 games by one bucket, you definitely had a chance to win the series. If one bucket a game goes in or doesnt go in, you could've won the series. As far as Shaq asserting himself late in games, he couldn't do that because of his career-long poor free throw shooting (which was probably the result of his really large hands). Everyone knows that free throw shooting was always his Achilles Heel, and because of that he needed a closer on his teams, Kobe, Wade, etc. But during those early years, Kobe has not developed yet and wasn't doing his part. In Orlando, there might not have been a closer period, as I don't recall Penny being particularly clutch. Yeah, did Jordan even make the playoffs in his first 7 years in the league? So it kinda depends how you look at it. Rockets WERE a great team in 1995, their seeding doesn't really matter because they had older stars by that point (Olajuwon/Drexler), who weren't going to go all out during regular season. But if you actually watched them back then, you'd know Olajuwon put on a clinic and played some of the best center basketball ever, Drexler was still a premier shooting guard, Horry was clutch, and a young Cassell was playing very good basketball. And btw, although 07/11 Giants didnt have anyone as great as Olajuwon historically, they WERE a great team during those 2 years. Just because they can't sustain it over a period of time, doesnt take away the fact that they outplayed some really good teams during those 2 years including a potential greatest of all time (Pats).
we an disagree, losing 4-0 in 4 close games is not being competitive. losing 4-2 or 4-3 is being competitive. yes he did make it each of his first 7 seasons and was a champion by his 7th season. how is a great team a 6 seed? Olajuwon is an all time great but that doesn't make Houston a great team. NYG '07/'11 were decent teams that had everything break perfect for them and got hot at the right time. Those teams were not great, great teams aren't 9-7 or 6 seeds.
- Those coaches haven't achieved more, you may believe they are better at Xs and Os which is fine, but they aren't the better all-around HC. At the end of the day trophies are the ultimate achievements and no other coach in this era has won more then PJ. - Pistons were a good defensive squad, but again - it doesn't discount the fact that Phil won 9 titles. Call it a blemish on the greatest coach of all time's record. - The Orlando Magic also had a motivated young center that had a defensive impact all over the court. Stan had a great scheme to surround Dwight with 3 point shooters, but he couldn't win the big one because he couldn't develop Dwight's offensive game. Phil's teams have beaten some great teams, teams that if Phil didn't coach they may not win that series in my opinion (like a Larry Brown). - 92 Blazers - 93 Suns - 96 Sonics - 98 Pacers - 02 Kings Those are just examples, a very impressive track record against those teams. If Phil doesn't coach the eventual winner - not many coaches are beating those teams.
Being competitive simply means the games are close and both teams have a chance to win. It doesn't matter what the final result is. Well, if you look at Jordan's playoff record: http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/teams/Chicago-Bulls/4/Playoff_History he got swept in the first round of the playoffs in his 2nd and 3rd year, and almost swept (lost 1-3) in 1st and 4th. So? This doesn't really mean anything. Being a 6th seed has nothing to do with being great or not. There is no definition of great that says you have to have great regular seasons. For many reasons teams could be so so during the regular season, but then really turn it on in the playoffs (e.g. injuries, veteran players conserving themselves, team coming together late, etc). As someone who has watched that Rockets team kick the shit out of other really good, loaded teams (Knicks, Magic, Spurs, Jazz, Suns) when it counted, I can tell you that they were great. And I am sorry, things didn't just break perfectly for the Giants. They got some breaks, sure, as any team that wins a Superbowl tends to do, but overall, they had a really dominant pass rush during both of those years that ravaged opposing quarterbacks, and Eli outplayed every single elite quarterback they faced. To me, that's greatness, even if it's a different kind of greatness from the "consistent" type guys like Peyton and Brady display. No other coach had the tools that PJ had, so I do believe many others have done more with less. I mean whenever Jackson did NOT have the most loaded squad in the league (which wasn't often, due to his shrewd spot picking), what was he able to do? He took a talented Bulls squad minus Jordan to conference finals, but couldnt take them all the way, and that one year before the Lakers reloaded with Gason and Bynum, he got bounced in the first round by the Suns, while still having a Kobe in his prime, and Odom and Butler. No one could or can develop Dwight's offensive game. Certain things cannot be taught. Again, gotta disagree. Larry Brown coached a Pistons squad without a single franchise player against a Lakers team more talented than any of those teams you listed, by far, and won. Larry Brown's Sixers with Iverson and a bunch of cast-offs won game 1 in the Finals against another loaded Lakers team. I think Larry Brown, and most other coaches I mentioned earlier, would have had an excellent chance to win with any of those Jackson teams. Also, as far as 02 Kings, Isaiah Thomas could ve coached you and I against those Kings and won, if the refs were calling it like they did that year for the Lakers.
he was the best player on the floor in that '86 Bos sweep, he did everything he could against an all time great team. was he ever swept again? nipe, never even lost a 1st rd series after that, only lost 1 series in the next rd too. Let's look at the seeding for wach champ since 1980: 1980 LAL 1 1981 Bos 1 1982 LAL 1 1983 Phi 1 1984 Bos 1 1985 LAL 1 1986 Bos 1 1987 LAL 1 1988 LAL 1 1989 Det 1 1990 Det 1 1991 Chi 1 1992 Chi 1 1993 Chi 2 1994 Hou 2 1995 Hou 6 1996 Chi 1 1997 Chi 1 1998 Chi 1 1999 SA 1 2000 LAL 1 2001 LAL 2 2002 LAL 3 2003 SA 1 2004 Det 3 2005 SA 2 2006 Mia 2 2007 SA 3 2008 Bos 1 2009 LAL 1 2010 LAL 1 2011 Dal 3 2012 Mia 2 2013 Mia 1 2014 SA 1 35 seasons 1 seed 30 2 seed 4 3 seed 4 6 seed 1 no team besides that Hou team was below a 3 seed. The Giants played really well but everything broke perfectly for them. those were not even close to great teams. they were good teams that got hot.
So? Shaq was probably the best player on the floor in a bunch of those sweeps as well, it's not like he played badly in any of them. I am just showing you that sweeps can happen to anyone, Shaq, Jordan, LeBron, it's got nothing to do with that player, it's just relative strengths of the two teams, and the circumstances. The way you say it, it's like you are implying that the Rockets were just a crappy team that got lucky/hot whatever, but having watched that team play for those 2 years, and watch them dominate other excellent teams, I know for a fact that they weren't. The west and the NBA at that time were loaded, it wasn't like now where you have 2-3 teams every year with a realistic chance to win it all. Back then, you had so many outstanding teams like the Suns, Jazz, Sonics, Magic, Pacers, Knicks, Spurs. And the Rockets went through all of them, with no ref help or some other helping hand, and beat them all. That is a great team.
