I live in Chicago and my greatest experiences as a sports fan revolved around the Bulls’ dynasty of the nineties. I’m really not against the Zenmeister. I actually like the guy.
Is it his fault that he was hired to coach the Bulls when he was? Or that the Lakers came calling when they did? What coach in his right mind is going to turn down either one of those gigs?
My point is that to measure him based on his ring collection and career win-loss record is misleading. Does anyone honestly believe that the Bulls would not have won those championships anyway?
And if he had coached any other team during that period, he, in all likelihood, would not have gotten the tap on the shoulder to take over the L.A. Shaqkobes either.
He’s certainly not a bad coach. He does seem to be able to win when he has the best talent to work with and I suppose there is some merit to that. But how much can be told about the skill of a driver who tends to win races when he has the fastest car?
That being said, Red Auerbach had some nice talent to work with as well, although he was a strategic pioneer who changed the way the game is played.
The bottom line is that no coach is going to win without outstanding talent. The best measure of a coach is whether he can make the whole of his team greater than the sum of its parts.
Maybe the best a coach can do in today’s world is to somehow convince his players to play as a team. He seems to have generally been able to do that, Kobe Bryant’s occasional periods of one-on-five play notwithstanding.
He may not be the most overrated coach in sports history but he certainly has lived a charmed life as one.
And don’t look now but his Lakers have the best record in the league.
Whether they have the most talent is debatable.
We're going to send you the most entertaining Los Angeles Lakers articles, videos, and podcasts from around the web.
6 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete