Anger General Greatest NBA Coaches of All-Time #6

[dwcmwa]

The results are in and Larry Brown was voted as the 5th Greatest NBA Coach of All-Time.





Greatest NBA Head Coaches of All Time list:
____________________________________

1. Phil Jackson = viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32214

2. Red Auerbach = viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32363

3. Greg Popovich = viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32506

4. Pat Riley = viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32831

5. Larry Brown = http://www.angergeneral.com/forum/viewt ... =2&t=33109" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;





Vote for your #6 coach of all time posting the said coach's name from the list of candidates below:


Chuck Daly = 7 votes

Jerry Sloan

Red Holzman

Lenny Wilkens

John Kundla = 3 votes

Don Nelson

Billy Cunningham

Dick Motta


Total Votes = 11 votes

[PhutureDynasty]

Chuck Daly.

[dwcmwa]

Daly is my choice, 3 finals appearances in a row, 2 titles. Created the infamous "Jordan Rules". Coach of the 1992 Dream Team.

[americaninfidel]

Chuck Daly easily here. Not only the rings with the Bad Boys, but he was selected to coach the Dream Team.

[Odogg]

John Kundla

5 Ringz

[americaninfidel]

If you're taking nominations, it seems like Dr. Jack ought to be on the board by now.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Daly.

[Shill Jackson]

John Kundla

[manchild98]

Chuck Daly

[AlaskaHawks]

D Fish.

[dwcmwa]

It should be very interesting who rounds out the Top 10.

[Kevin]

Chuck Daly

[Y2K]

Chuck Daly. And Dr. Jack should be on the next round as a candidate for sure.

[Y2K]

If you're taking nominations, it seems like Dr. Jack ought to be on the board by now.

Yes indeed!

[Havlicekstealsit]

I get the championships, but Daly won fewer than 50 games seven times in the 12 full seasons he coached. Kundla should eek in on the championships alone. We can "weak era" talk all we want, but if that's the case then every coach from 1947-67 should get scrutinized as such. He's got the same number of championships as Pops in 8 fewer seasons, tied with Pops & Riley for 3rd most. But some of you want Daly in ahead of him, who has the same # of championships as Spolestra in twice the time? My vote here is for Kundla.

[Bush4Ever]

That is sort of why I find the "rings = skill" argument to be particularly weak for coaches as metric. Even more so than for players, because you are at the mercy of a lot of things beyond your control.

That's why Riley can roll to 63 wins and a title in one season *and* win 15 games in a different season.

That's why I always try to consider coaching success as the amount the coach better his team's performance, given the constraints, compared to what a typical coach would have been likely to produce.

The greater the difference, the better the coach.

IMO

[AbeVigodaLive]

Chuck Daly. And Dr. Jack should be on the next round as a candidate for sure.

Agreed. With both.

Dr. Jack Ramsay is a goddamn saint.

[Y2K]

That is sort of why I find the "rings = skill" argument to be particularly weak for coaches as metric. Even more so than for players, because you are at the mercy of a lot of things beyond your control.

That's why Riley can roll to 63 wins and a title in one season *and* win 15 games in a different season.

That's why I always try to consider coaching success as the amount the coach better his team's performance, given the constraints, compared to what a typical coach would have been likely to produce.

The greater the difference, the better the coach.

IMO

There it is!!!!!! Grizz has hinted a little bit on this in a previous round, something about Pat Riley's Lakers having favorable conditions for success in the 80s.

Basically, just looking at a coach's resume and seeing the rings isn't the best measurement of a coach's success. With coaches, I mainly take into account:

-the overall level of success of the team relative of the circumstances involved

-impact that the coaching philosophy has on team success

-impact that the coaching philosophy has on the NBA game

-longevity of coaching success

I'm not saying that rings should be treated as though they are totally secondary but rather coaching from the sidelines isn't nearly as impactful as actual production on the court.

[Y2K]

So what do we know about John Kundla? It's time to begin discussing him in this project.

[AbeVigodaLive]

That is sort of why I find the "rings = skill" argument to be particularly weak for coaches as metric. Even more so than for players, because you are at the mercy of a lot of things beyond your control.

That's why Riley can roll to 63 wins and a title in one season *and* win 15 games in a different season.

That's why I always try to consider coaching success as the amount the coach better his team's performance, given the constraints, compared to what a typical coach would have been likely to produce.

The greater the difference, the better the coach.

IMO

There it is!!!!!! Grizz has hinted a little bit on this in a previous round, something about Pat Riley's Lakers having favorable conditions for success in the 80s.

Basically, just looking at a coach's resume and seeing the rings isn't the best measurement of a coach's success. With coaches, I mainly take into account:

-the overall level of success of the team relative of the circumstances involved

-impact that the coaching philosophy has on team success

-impact that the coaching philosophy has on the NBA game

-longevity of coaching success

I'm not saying that rings should be treated as though they are totally secondary but rather coaching from the sidelines isn't nearly as impactful as actual production on the court.

I think I've disliked every team Riley has coached. But the way he completely changed his coaching style from the Showtime Lakers to the thugball Knicks was incredible.

He knew he didn't have the personnel to win as is. So, he changed everything. Heck, he helped change the league at the time (for the worse).