enigmaax;428082 wrote:Here's a subtopic I'm interested in. I've seen people say that Phil Jackson and Pat Riley, as examples, aren't really that great of coaches because they had so much talent. Some people obviously feel that Mike Brown is just that bad of a coach. There's room for discussion on how an NBA coach can really be great or horrible, based on how much real influence on the team they have.
So, throw your opinions out there - is Jackson great and Brown horrible? Does either get unfair praise or criticism? Does it really matter who is on the sideline? What determines if someone is great or horrible at that level?
Interesting discussion. First off, I think it's hard to discredit what Jackson has done with all the rings he has. Sure he might have went ring chasing, but the fact remains, he gets it done. I think when you talk about the all time greats, he has to be up there.
As for Mike Brown, I don't think he's a great coach, but I don't think he's bad either. I actually think the Cavs overachieved most years when he was at the helm and I give him credit for that. Also, it's hard to motivate a bunch of millionaires over the course of a season so I think that is something that you have to give Mike Brown credit for.
As for how much of a difference a coach makes, I think they are more valuable than the casual fan tends to think. Look at a guy like Doc Rivers, he makes GREAT in game adjustments and after every single timeout he gets his team a good look.