Lakers Coach Byron Scott

[trojanfan12]

I agree with Trojan on Scott, and I agree with WildTurkey on Phil.

And Jimmy, I just realized you was a Chargers fan. No wonder, you seem to not know what you are talling about.

Wait to sit on the fence!!

Truth is, it doesn't matter at this point. Byron is the coach and if he is successful, he'll be around as long as he wants. If he's not, he won't.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

With D'antoni this team would be lucky to win 30 games, but knowing Byron Scott, I think they can get between 40 and 50 wins - they just have to beat the worst teams consistently and they will do it. The only thing is if they had or would have a first round draft pick coming in 2015, they might be better off losing another season and getting another first round draft pick - then they would have two good players by the time Kobe retires. The next two years are really going to be wasted with all of the money they threw at Kobe

 

[wildturkey]

Uh, hate to break it to you, but Phil walked into situations where his coaching skills were largely unnecessary. But his ability to manage ego's was. He took over teams that were favored to win. When he has had teams that weren't favored to win, those teams didn't win. He has never had a team that performed better than expected, but has had at least 2 that didn't perform as well as expected. That speaks to him not being a great coach.

You probably think Robert Horry is better than MJ. After all, Horry has 7 rings and MJ only has 6. Also, the roster Scott took over was not the same roster as the season before. So yes, this years Lakers team is the closest he's come to a "ready to win" situation. Nice try.

"May" absolutely is not an assumption. "May" simply acknowledges a possibility. An assumption would have been if I had said that Pop definitely would have done better than Byron. I never assumed that Pop would have performed better than Scott, I acknowledged that possibility. It's clear that it wasn't you intentionally changing what I said, you just didn't grasp it.

I don't think I've ever once denied that Phil had great teams. But it takes more than managing egos to win 11 championships. You just refuse to accept this.

Scott's roster wasn't different than the year before. The core from the previous season that won 41 games was still Baron Davis, David West, PJ Brown and Jamal Magloire when he took over. It's not a try, its a fact.

And may is an assumption. Because we're talking hypotheticals. Everything has to be assumed. But let's say you're right those semantics. That Pop doing better may be a possibility. But based on what? He never went through a rebuild either. You just have to assume through his track record as a great coach that he could do better. So if you can acknowledge that possibility with Pop, why can't I do that with Phil? Which is my point. You were saying I couldn't do it with Phil because he never had a roster in rebuild mode. Neither did Pop. So how's that work? It's safe to use one's career accomplishments to hypothesize about a situation and say they could do better but not the other. So I guess it just boils down to you think Pops is a great coach and Phil isn't as much so (he just manages egos). Which brings us all the way back to the start

His record was over .500 before coaching in Cleveland. Phil's record would be under .500 if he had to coach that Cavs team that Byron had for the last 3 seasons.

Why even bother to bring up Phil in that situation if he's nothing more than a guy great at managing egos? If that's all he were, then there would be no reason to make a statement like that. Everyone would just know, "Yep. Bad roster. Can't win". The comparison would defeat the purpose its trying to make. But that's not what that statement is. You picked out a great coach to try to show that what happened to Bryon in Cleveland wasn't really that bad. But you can't be a great coach if all you do is manage egos. And great coaches, with that same roster, could do better. Great coaches can get more out of teams. Averages coaches can't. And I'll leave it at that.

 

[jayviabay]

It does take more than managing egos to win 11 championships but that does not mean that Phil has done more than that. How much credit goes to the players? How much goes to Tex Winters??

When you look at Pop and his coaching tree compared to Phils, it says a lot about how great you are as a complete coach.

Wild, I think you refuse to be open-minded to the idea, Jacksons success could have weighed heavily on the shoulders of great players more than his coaching ability.

 

[trojanfan12]

It does take more than managing egos to win 11 championships but that does not mean that Phil has done more than that. How much credit goes to the players? How much goes to Tex Winters??

When you look at Pop and his coaching tree compared to Phils, it says a lot about how great you are as a complete coach.

Wild, I think you refuse to be open-minded to the idea, Jacksons success could have weighed heavily on the shoulders of great players more than his coaching ability.

This is what I've been saying. As a Lakers fan, I appreciate the 5 titles that the Lakers won with Phil as coach, but I also see his flaws and don't just assume that he is a great coach simply because he was able to take over great situations and not screw them up.

People have a tendency to look at a coach with championships vs. a coach without them and assume that the coach with championships is a better coach, without considering the circumstances that each coach walked in to.

How many titles might coaches like Rick Adelman, George Karl or Larry Brown have if they walked in to the situations that Phil did? Heck, Spoelstra just took the Heat to 4 straight finals and won back to back championships, yet even Heat fans don't seem to consider him a great coach.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

This is what I've been saying. As a Lakers fan, I appreciate the 5 titles that the Lakers won with Phil as coach, but I also see his flaws and don't just assume that he is a great coach simply because he was able to take over great situations and not screw them up.

People have a tendency to look at a coach with championships vs. a coach without them and assume that the coach with championships is a better coach, without considering the circumstances that each coach walked in to.

How many titles might coaches like Rick Adelman, George Karl or Larry Brown have if they walked in to the situations that Phil did? Heck, Spoelstra just took the Heat to 4 straight finals and won back to back championships, yet even Heat fans don't seem to consider him a great coach.

None - because even in the first championship run, before the Lakers got past Portland, I heard Phil Jackson telling the players that they were faced with the same situation in Chicago and then told them how to play it and the Lakers played it like Phil said to and they moved forward. If the team is considerably better than the other, coaching might not be a factor, but if it's close coaching is a factor and there is a reason Phil has 11 to none for George, one for Larry and two for Spoelstra.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Spoelstra is not that great of a coach - the Heat would have been atleast 3-1 in the finals with a better coach.

 

[trojanfan12]

None - because even in the first championship run, before the Lakers got past Portland, I heard Phil Jackson telling the players that they were faced with the same situation in Chicago and then told them how to play it and the Lakers played it like Phil said to and they moved forward. If the team is considerably better than the other, coaching might not be a factor, but if it's close coaching is a factor and there is a reason Phil has 11 to none for George, one for Larry and two for Spoelstra.

I don't think you understood the point. What if Adelman or Brown is coaching the Shaq/Kobe Lakers or the MJ/Pippen Bulls instead of Phil?

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

I don't think you understood the point. What if Adelman or Brown is coaching the Shaq/Kobe Lakers or the MJ/Pippen Bulls instead of Phil?

Those teams were destined for championships no matter who coached them. Any coach in the NBA today would have gotten multiple rings on the 90s Bulls/2000-02 Lakers

 

[Wamu]

Those teams were destined for championships no matter who coached them. Any coach in the NBA today would have gotten multiple rings on the 90s Bulls/2000-02 Lakers

Even Mike D'Antoni?

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Even Mike D'Antoni?

He's not a current NBA coach but i'm willing to go as far as to say he'd get ONE ring from the Jordan/Pippen era because of how good they were. But without D there would be no chance for a back-to-back.

 

[Inimical]

Mike Brown would have found a way to fuck those teams in the ass.

 

[Retroram52]

LOL!! Inimical, even though what you stated is true, I had to laugh!

 

[LALakersboy24.7]

Mike Brown would have found a way to fuck those teams in the ass.

What else is new?

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Mike Brown would have found a way to fuck those teams in the ass.

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

Mike Brown would have found a way to fuck those teams in the ass.

With no vaseline!

 

[True Lakers Fan]

I don't think you understood the point. What if Adelman or Brown is coaching the Shaq/Kobe Lakers or the MJ/Pippen Bulls instead of Phil?

I don't think the Lakers would have won any championships with Adelman or Brown. That is how little I respect their talents as head coaches. Sorry

 

[True Lakers Fan]

With no vaseline!

Man that's brutal, but I have to agree, neither were great coaches

 

[Black Adam]

Mike Brown would have found a way to fuck those teams in the ass.

no doubt. potato head BLOWS...

 

[Black Adam]

With no vaseline!

Ice Cube - No Vaseline (N.W.A Diss) - YouTube