Nik Green wrote
an enlightening editorial detailing his reasoning why Phil Jackson was
not what he was perceived to be. While most of his views are his views,
several issues he raised I beg to differ.
1. "Anybody
and their dog could have coached the Jordan/Pippen-lead Bulls to multiple
championships." Mr. Green why didn't Doug Collins win with basically the
same players?
2. "And not
only that he has always had a duo or even trio of superstars to make his
job even easier." I can think of the Utah Jazz and the KJ, Barkley led
Suns teams as examples of two teams with two or more superstars and those
teams didn't win jack.
Phil Jackson
cannot "walk on water", at the same time I wish Mr. Green would give credit
where credit is due. Is the mark of a good coach one who takes over a bad
team and makes them good? Yes of course. How about a coach who takes over
an underachieving, miss-directed Del Harris team and leads them to a championship.
That too is the mark of a good coach.
WILT AND
RUSSELL
By Joe Boyle
Many people
feel that Wilt Chaimberlin was a selfish player who only did what was best
for him. But, they don't realize that Wilt not only led centers in assists,
he led the entire league in assists. Wilt could have done whatever he wanted
and done it as well as anyone. Take the year he won the Finals with the
Sixers. That was a very great team. Wilt was the centerpiece but he didn't
have to do everything like he did in the past. The Sixers had the luxury
of bringing a Hall of Famer off the bench. I don't know of any other team
in the history off the NBA that did that. If he had been on Russel's Celtics
the Celtics might have even won more titles. Not to take anything away
from Russel but Wilt was the single most dominant player in the history
of the NBA. He was a mithic at what he could do by himself.
Russel had
a great team he played on. All he had to do was block shots and rebound(which
he was unbelievable at). They didn't count on him to score because of Cousy,
and Heinsohn, and Ramsey, and Sherman, and Havlicek. Russell didn't have
to score. He was the best and what he did. Get the tough rebounds, block
a ton of shots and be the heart and soul of the Celtic dynasty.
When the two
played each other it would be a battle. The headlines in the paper the
next day would be: RUSSEL V.S. CHAIMBERLIN. Rusell would push push Wilt
farther and farther away from the basket and that is also how Chaimberlin
developed his famous fade-away shot. The Warriors/76ers/Lakers won some
of those games but the Celtic would win most games because they had so
many other great players.
