Sporting News All Sports top 50 coaches BB 20

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Phil Jackson>Bill Belichick. It's not even close. Sorry, you can have all the talent in the world, but it doesn't guarantee you a championship. You still have to be able to coach. The Lakers had a talented squad but couldn't do squat in the mid to late 90's until Phil came around.

However, if BB wins two to three more championships, he will easily be considered the best NFL coach of all time. Unfortunately, if he wants Phil Jackson status, he needs at least 10.

 

[Rob0729]

Phil Jackson>Bill Belichick. It's not even close. Sorry, you can have all the talent in the world, but it doesn't guarantee you a championship. You still have to be able to coach. The Lakers had a talented squad but couldn't do squat in the mid to late 90's until Phil came around.

The Lakers didn't have Kobe and Shaq before Jackson. You can't really compare the sports and coaching IMHO. The NBA is a talent driven league more so than football (look at the Celtics for evidence). The NFL is stacked against teams to build dynasties. Coaches and their schemes/playcalling play a far bigger roll in the success and failure of a team than in basketball. The salary cap and free agency system makes it harder to keep a team in tact.

You can make a case for Jackson over Belichick, but I don't think it is as clear cut as you make it. Besides, I would put Red over Phil in the NBA category anyway. Nine championships in his 11 years as a head coach for the Celtics is more impressive in my opinion.

 

[Rob0729]

Also, I don't know if I would have Shula as the second best NFL coach. He does only have two Super Bowl rings. I would put Paul Brown over him since he has seven championships (3 NFL and 4 AAFC titles).

 

[Schmo]

As both a Lakers and Pats fan, it's a tough call between the two. Belichick is obviously smarter, but Jackson is more charismatic with his players and has 7 more championships as a HC. The smarts behind Jackson's coaching came mostly from Tex Winter, inventor of the triangle-O. Belichick controls his entire team to a T, while Jackson teaches his team how to control itself. Totally different coaches, and I don't think I can say one is better than the other.

Jackson knows how to make great players into champions, which contrary to some belief is a very hard thing to do. If I were to choose a coach to start a franchise with though, it's easily Belichick.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

The Lakers didn't have Kobe and Shaq before Jackson. You can't really compare the sports and coaching IMHO.

Yes they did. I've been a Lakers fan since I was a kid, so here's a free history lesson for you. The Lakers signed Shaq in 1996 and traded Vlade Divac for Kobe Bryant on draft day of the same year. Del Harris was their coach since 1994 but he was fired during the 1998 season where Kurt Rambis took over as interim head coach. Since the Lakers signed Shaq, the team underachieved and were owned by Utah. Finally the Lakers were embarrassed in 1998 against the San Antonio Spurs in the conference semi finals. In 1999 Phil Jackson was the Lakers head coach and won a championship in his first season.

The NBA is a talent driven league more so than football (look at the Celtics for evidence). The NFL is stacked against teams to build dynasties. Coaches and their schemes/playcalling play a far bigger roll in the success and failure of a team than in basketball. The salary cap and free agency system makes it harder to keep a team in tact.

The only reason why I compared the two is because other people on this thread have done the same. I agree that football coaches shouldn't be compared with basketball coaches or baseball coaches. Each sport is run in their own unique way.

 

[PYPER]

Phil Jackson has won more titles than any coach in sports history or at least top 3 definately,Why should'nt he be above Belichick,because he had Kobe and Jordan?? ..Come on now...

I don't see the list ,but in Baseball Torre should be on there

I've been a huge Bulls fan (and therefore Phil Jackson fan) since the mid-80's so I can definitely appreciate what Jackson brings to the table. If a coach can earn the respect of Jordan (and ultimately Shaq and Kobe) then he deserves everyone's respect. Having said that, there is no comparison between Jackson and Belichick. Football is a coaches driven league. Basketball is not. Both coaches impact the seasons of their respective teams but Belichick impact can be traced back to each individual play in each individual game. There is just simply no comparison.

If you're evaluating their achievements, or resumes, then Jackson's # of titles is hard to argue against. But if we're evaluating on actual coaching/teaching ability, there is nobody better than Belichick. And I don't limit that last statement to only current coaches.

But keep in mind, Belichick isn't done yet. A few more titles and he'll shoot rapidly up that list. You can't really evaluate a guy's career until its complete.

 

[eagle eye]

Phil Jackson>Bill Belichick. It's not even close. Sorry, you can have all the talent in the world, but it doesn't guarantee you a championship. You still have to be able to coach. The Lakers had a talented squad but couldn't do squat in the mid to late 90's until Phil came around.

However, if BB wins two to three more championships, he will easily be considered the best NFL coach of all time. Unfortunately, if he wants Phil Jackson status, he needs at least 10.

Are you saying then that the Bulls would not have won their last 3 titles without Phil Jackson?
Or that Shaq, Kobe, Rick Fox, Samaki Walker and Derek Fisher as a starting five would not have won those titles without Phil Jackson?

Rick Patino would have won with that group of players, never mind any respected NBA head coach.

 

[upstater1]

Phil Jackson has won more titles than any coach in sports history or at least top 3 definately,Why should'nt he be above Belichick,because he had Kobe and Jordan?? ..Come on now...

I don't see the list ,but in Baseball Torre should be on there

Probably because basketball is a joke when it comes to forming a team. Everyone wants to play for LA. Yeah, there's a salary cap, but look at the multitude of ways you can circumvent it. This is why basketball has more repeat champions than any other sport.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Are you saying then that the Bulls would not have won their last 3 titles without Phil Jackson?

Probably not. Jordan couldn't get over the hump until Phil Jackson came along.

Or that Shaq, Kobe, Rick Fox, Samaki Walker and Derek Fisher as a starting five would not have won those titles without Phil Jackson?

No they wouldn't. In fact, they had even more talent before Jackson was their coach but couldn't do jack. That lineup you gave me is when their team was on the decline and their front office had a hard time improving the roster. Rick Fox was in and out of the lineup and eventually lost his starting job to Devan George. Also, Samaki Walker was just garbage. However, his only highlight is when he made a shot from half court against the Kings in the playoffs which ended up being the difference in that game. Finally, their bench was one of the worst in the NBA.

Rick Patino would have won with that group of players, never mind any respected NBA head coach.

I highly doubt that.

 

[GroganCountry]

you are truly cluless.

If you're going to insult someone's intelligence, it looks a lot better when you spell your insult correctly. It's "clueless". You're welcome.

 

[GroganCountry]

Phil Jackson is the most overrated coach of all-time...and I live in L.A. It's not that he isn't a great coach, he is. It's just that basketball coaches do less to determine the outcome of the game compared to football. I'd say the same thing about Red too. He was actually a better GM than he was a coach for that reason. The team with the best "talent" wins more often than not in basketball, that's not the case in football. A football coach can "coach" a team up a hell of a lot more than a basketball coach can.

 

[eagle eye]

Probably not. Jordan couldn't get over the hump until Phil Jackson came along.

I said last three, not the first three. Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, Longley, Rodman, Harper, Kerr et al. That team was unstoppable.

And that Lakers team with Kobe and Shaq was unstoppable too. Either of them teams could have won it with decent coach in charge.

I like Phil Jackson and I respect him for what he has done in his career, the first three with the Bulls was an impressive achievement and he can take a huge amount of credit for his latest win too.

 

[dhamz]

The whole "he only won so much because he had great players" argument ignores 2 facts:

1 - Not a single coach on that list achieved his success without having great players. It simply is impossible for a coach to achieve that level of success without great players - always has been, always will be.

2 - The list of coaches who never won a thing despite having great teams is incredibly long.

 

[WelshPat]

Don't have a clue about NBA or MLB, but Lombardi and Gibbs are too high BB and Bill Walsh are too low.

Gotta love the double standard, people rip Parcells for the job he did in Dallas, but noone cares that Gibbs did a really average job with the redskins his last time there.

Lombardi has the mystique but if your gonna say Phill Jackson is overrated look at those Packer teams he coached, most of the players he had are HOF'ers.

 

[WelshPat]

"1 - Not a single coach on that list achieved his success without having great players. It simply is impossible for a coach to achieve that level of success without great players - always has been, always will be."

Of course but some had more great players than others

 

[dhamz]

Lombardi has the mystique but if your gonna say Phill Jackson is overrated look at those Packer teams he coached, most of the players he had are HOF'ers.

But are all those guys Hall of Famers if they didn't play for Lombardi's Packers? There are definitely some who don't make it if they didn't win all those championships which they wouldn't have done if they played somewhere else.

The same thing goes for Red's Celtics teams. Everyone points to the number of hall of famers as evidence that he coached overwhelming talent but does anyone think KC Jones 7.4 career points per game gets him in the hall if he played somewhere else?

 

[FFDan]

If you ask me, he took great 50 coaches from the 4 major pro sports, and a couple college coaches, ranked his top five or ten, and threw the rest up there arbitrarily. Frankly, I doubt I will cite this article for any major research I will be conducting anytime soon.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

That's a good list. I'll stay out of the discussion of coaches from other sports, but will say that it's hard to argue with John Wooden at the top of the list.

As for the NFL coaches, the list should note that BB isn't "finished" yet.

That said, there can be no argument with Brown, Halas, Landry, Lombardi, and Noll being ahead of him today (with the emphasis on "today'). Brown, Halas and Lombardi at their times transformed the game. Noll won four SB's in six seasons. There's nothing to say. Landry "only" won two SB's, but he was a giant of the game for decades, won 250 games and took his teams to five SB's.

Some have argued about Shula's place on the list. I don't like Don Shula and I like the Colts and Dolphins even less, but he did take two different NFL teams to seven SB/NFLCG games. He "only" won three, but two of his losses in those games were to the Landry/Staubach Cowboys and the Walsh/Montana 49'ers; that's pretty good company. He also posted a career regular season record in 490 games of 328-158-6 (.678). Landry comes in a distant second in the win department with 250. The only HOF coaches to post better W-L percentages were Lombardi at .706 over a total of 136 regular season games, George Allen at .690 over 168 games and John Madden at .763 over only 142 games. It's pretty hard to argue with the rings, the longevity and the Championship games. He belongs where he is.

I have a serious issue with Joe Gibbs being placed above Coach, though. His regular season W-L record of 154-94 (.621) is awesome and his three rings with three different QB's rightly put him in Canton. But, IMO, he tarnished his coin with his failed "comeback" and, while it was an official season, one of his Lombardi's was won in a strike shortened year. I don't see how he's placed above BB.

Coach's stats over 224 regular season games now stand at 138-86 (.616), three rings and four SB's (he's now won more games than Lombardi coached and nearly as many games as John Madden coached). With another ring, he belongs ahead of Landry and Noll because he accomplished what he did in the Cap/Free Agency era. I think he would slot nicely right behind Paul Brown and Papa Bear on the list as it stands today.The only force standing between him and a unanimous first round election to Canton are the Spygate haters, whatever else he does.

 

[jmt57]

If you ask me, he took great 50 coaches from the 4 major pro sports, and a couple college coaches, ranked his top five or ten, and threw the rest up there arbitrarily. Frankly, I doubt I will cite this article for any major research I will be conducting anytime soon.

From the first paragraph of the article: "as selected by a panel of 118 Hall of Famers, championship coaches and other experts."

There's a few rankings I disagree with (e.g., Paul Brown and Bill Walsh should be higher in my opinion), but this isn't some hack writer throwing together a list without any thought. Here's the list of voters, you can blame them: Who helped SN pick the 50 greatest coaches? - Sporting News staff reports - General - Sporting News