I used to think he was lucky to always have the 2 best players in the league on his team...but I think it's amazing what he's doing with the Lakers this year. They have Kobe, Odom, a bunch of scrubs, and they're actually staying well above .500.

He also got a Bulls team with Pippen and a bunch of scrubs to win 55 and a playoff series in 93-94. That is exceptional IMO.

Discuss.

Probably Carlisle.

BY FAR!!!

I think he's one of the greatest based on his accomplishments alone. You can bring up the fact that most of his teams had a retarded amount of talent(maybe in just 2 or 3 players) but his teams seem to do pretty well regardless. You can't argue with his rings and win %.

Where's FREEfro?

Oh, yeah.

It depends on how we are to measure coaching ability. I would say Phil is in the top 2 or 3 if Championship are the key component. I would not include the likes of LB because he leaves before he can truly become great. I think Pop is up in the tier with Daly, Kundla, Jackson and Auerbach.

My Top 3 Coaches of all time would be Auerbach, Daly, and Jackson. I put Daly ahead of Phil because he introduced a new breed of basketball and showed it could work. It was the NBA commishoner and officals who probably stopped Daly from winning more than 2 championships. Auerbach believed in Russell when other coaches didn't want him on their team because he was black. I give Red credit for taking risks and changing the way people thought. Perhaps Phil is given too much credit for the bulls but as we all have learned it was no small task controlling guys like Brian Williams, Rodman the battles of Shaq and Kobe so history will look kinder on Phil than we do now.

Yes.

heres a more useful question. how many people think that any of phil's title team lakers could beat our 2003-04 team?

i think none of em could. maybe thee first 2 could have took us 6 games. but none were better IMO as teams. just an opinion. i welcome any others.

03-04?

A young mobile Shaq and Kobe without an ego along with the veteran leadership of Shaw, Fisher, Fox and Horace Grant would have beaten the Pistons.

i disagree, but respectable opinion. the angle is possible. but i just dont feel that it was the kobe and shaq drama that got the lakers beat. and shaq was never all that mobile. the main reason he dominated the sixers was because he would swing his elbows at mutumbo's face and almost knocked him out one game. he did nothing agile IMO.

but i guess the real debate would be in the value of the role players from previous laker years vs our role players.

Those Lakers would have done away with the Pistons in 5, we would have been just like Sheed's trailblazers.

The 03-04 Lakers took us for granted, and by the time they realized we were for real, it was too late, we could do no wrong our confidence was so high.

Those Lakers would have done away with the Pistons in 5, we would have been just like Sheed's trailblazers.

The 03-04 Lakers took us for granted, and by the time they realized we were for real, it was too late, we could do no wrong our confidence was so high.
sheed's trailblazers kicked the lakers ass until their hot heads imploded them as a young team. i cant equate to the 03-04 pistons team at all. and the lakers took all of their opponents for granted except indiana IMO. thats hot the sixers stole the first game. if new jersey wasnt so weak on the frontline they could've caught them off guard too.

the lakers neer really felt a reason to take any east team besides the pacers seriously before they ran across us.

nevertheless, your point of view is within the realm of possibility too.though i dont think this laker team took us for anymore granted than the one that lost a game to a depleted philly squad did.

also i just wanna thank darkobetterthanmelo and gotcrotty? for giving full answers as opposed to one liners.