Not Hiring Phil Jackson as Head Coach Will Prove to Be Smart Choice for Lakers
Jackson is a Hall of Fame coach who played an important role on five NBA championship teams in Los Angeles, most recently in 2010, but he wasn't the right fit for this current Lakers roster.
His triangle offense would not have worked well this time around since the Lakers have more players that need the ball in order to be successful than when Jackson coached the team from 2005 to 2011.
The Lakers should have hired Phil Jackson to replace Mike Brown.
Not only is the triangle offense the wrong type of scheme for this Lakers squad, it's a very complicated one that takes quite a long time to understand and thrive in.
Several of the Lakers' best players, such as center Dwight Howard, point guard Steve Nash and forward Antawn Jamison, have never played in the triangle offense. Therefore, it would be foolish to make them learn this new system with the regular season already underway.
If the Lakers wanted Jackson, the best time to hire him would have been over the summer. This would have allowed the team's new players to learn the triangle offense at practices throughout training camp and the preseason.
Mike D'Antoni's previous experience with Steve Nash, plus the fact that he has known Kobe Bryant and his father for quite some time, helps make him a good fit for this group of Lakers players.
Bryant and Howard also are familiar with D'Antoni from their time with the United States Men's Basketball Team at the 2008 and 2012 Summer Olympics (although Howard did not play in 2012).
Jackson is a phenomenal coach and could still be a great fit for a team that needs a veteran coach with championship experience. However, if he wants to run the triangle wherever he goes, it's going to be difficult for teams to hire him in the middle of a season.
The Lakers need great performances on a nightly basis from Nash and Howard to win the NBA Finals in June, and D'Antoni's offense will give the purple and gold a better chance to be successful than Jackson's triangle.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?