Thread: Phil Jackson
View Single Post
  #70  
Old 06-27-17, 06:20 AM
Taco MacArthur Taco MacArthur is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 03-14-17
Posts: 1,974
Taco MacArthur has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabezadecaballo View Post
Sorry, d-bag. You don't get to define "great talent". Great stat-humping, though. Right on cue.

This one actually was my argument, if you recall. Since you're too arrogantly stupid to ask what I meant by one of the few statements that I actually made, I'll provide you with the proper information. This below is "great talent" -


from here - http://www.nba.com/history/features/nba-at-50-players/

I think it's fair to **substitute^^ Kobe Bryant for Paul Arizin.** You won't argue that, right ?

Both of Phil's championship teams have two top 50's contemporary to the eras of the coaches I noted. That's huge.

This below was your response to my - "Has Phil ever had a great coaching performance without great talent ? Can you think of a season ?", which also began this particular tangent.



That one year w/o Jordan that you wanted to swing on Phil's for still had a top 50 in Pippen sort of originating the "point forward" and causing unusual defensive match-ups, Horace Grant averaging 15 at 52% and 11 reb, and BJ Armstrong averaging 15 and adding 5 assists to Pippen's. That's talent of at least the same level as you tag 4 coaches for up there.

Add a capable rotation of rim protectors and outside shooters that don't provide thrills for a stat-humper like you to an efficient offensive mindset, and you get the NBA's 6 overall scoring defense and #2 in defensive rebound %. That can get you a great regular season with those solid players and a top 50 all time leading them.

The per 36 numbers on the line-up of scrubs that Krause allowed Phil to rotate were pretty sweet, huh ?

Decent try on you're part up there, though.

Sadly, you're still an idiot. Your answer for Phil's ever having a great season by your own standard you just set in your most recent post has to be "nope" now.

Good job of swallowing the NBA hype up to the short and curlies, though Phil was a great coach. I never said he wasn't. They all need great talent to prove it, and he's no exception.
So I can't define great talent but you can? Nah, that's not really how this works. Using that moronic logic, another 2-4 guys on that list would no longer be considered a "great talent" because LeBron and Durant (and arguments can be made for a handful of other guys) would remove them. Nope, sorry. Everyone I listed was All NBA during their time in those "successful" seasons and many went on the the HOF for their basketball play. Utterly moronic to not consider those guys "great talent." But then again, I guess I forgot who I was talking to for a second. But I'll have to remember that for a later use, no one, including Kyrie, in the Cavs history can be considered great.

BJ Armstrong, when including defense, was slightly worse than league average that year. Horce was the only other player on the Bulls to be noticeably better than league average that year. But either way, it doesn't change the fact Phil Jackson won 2 less games and went nearly just as far in the playoffs without the greatest player of all time. Other than A few of Wilkins early coaching years in Milwaukee, which I've already conceded to being successful without great talent, every team listed had better 2nd and 3rd options. So no, those are not similar talents to what the other coaches had.

You're correct. 1993-94, Phil had a great talent. Still doesn't change the fact it's one of the most impressive coaching seasons in NBA history.

Old man struggling to comprehend what he's reading. The standard wasn't set to determine if they had successful coaching seasons. Phil still had an incredibly successful season. Try figuring out what it is you're arguing and then come back.
Reply With Quote