Quote Originally Posted by sportjames23
LOL how is Pop greater than Phil, Red, or Pat? Each of them lead their teams to repeats in stronger eras.
Hard to compare with Red so I left him out.

I don't understand why repeats are considered such a make-or-break thing to have on the resume. The mid-2000s Spurs were quite possibly a dumb Manu foul away from being a part of a three-peat. Then came within an inch of a chip in '13 before winning in '14.

Why is he better than Phil? He's had unbelievable success and didn't need the stacked, hand-picked groups that Phil did to pull it off. Pop was/is a bigger part of the growth, acquisition and development of so many of his key players, while Jackson (while certainly no slouch in this area) to an extent built on foundations that were already in place before his arrival. Pop's uninterrupted and sustained excellence in one spot across eras is just more impressive to me than turning gold into a championship.

I hate these hypotheticals, but if you give Pop what Phil had, I do think he would achieve as much or more. I honestly think Riley is the better comparison for him.