• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Graybeard

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Foresthill, California

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  1. Aha, we're arguing different things. My argument was never that a great coach could take a mediocre team to win championships. Obviously without the talent on a team to get it done no coach can win a championship. May argument was actually the reverse of this in that a mediocre, (and actually I even conceded that Jackson was more than mediocre he was good but not great) coach could take his team to a championship if the team was good enough. Which I believe to be the case with Jackson and the Bulls/Lakers. No amount of arguing will get me to believe that a team has to have a GREAT coach to win a championship. Sometimes good is good enough, depending on the talent of not only the team in question, but the quality of opposition.
  2. Ah, I think I see where we got crossed up here. I don't think we have the same meaning of "turning them around". I probably should have made myself more clear initially but I meant turning them around to a championship, or at least championship contending team. Not just one with a winning record, or a brief visit to the playoffs. As far as the OP. Scroll up a little and you'll see where the OP is actually the Bulls fan posting in support of my thoughts on Jackson and the Bulls. I'm thinking he's probably not overly pissed.
  3. Lets say I buy into your definition of a great coach. Now tell me how that relates to Jackson. Do you honestly think that Jordan put up the numbers he did because Jackson brought it out of him at all? Or was it MJ's talent and drive that allowed him to single handedly take over a game and play on a whole different plane than anyone else on the court? Making his teammates a lot better than they actually were in the process. It didn't take greateness to coach this team, sorry. Jackson didn't make any revolutionary changes in the game of the Bulls or MJ. He was a good coach who watched Jordan lead his teams to championships. Talk all you want about Detroit being one of the best teams when Bowman took over but they COULD NOT get it done, pretty much in the position that San Jose is in now, and most likely would not have if not for him. It was him changing the whole mindset of the team, especially with Yzerman, and making them a defense first team that got them over the top and continues to make them the great team they are to this day. How many coaches in any sport do you think have the insight to take someone like Yzerman who was a scoring machine and ask him to stop scoring so much and play some defense? The guy was putting up numbers that dwarfed anyone who wasn't named Wayne or Mario had done at the time, and his coach asks him to slow down? He could have let him just go on scoring goals and losing playoffs (Therrien and Crosby come to mind). And after coming to the realization that it needed to be done, he managed to convince a young future hall of famer who had been lighting up every goalie in the league to go along with it. The plain and simple truth is, if it wasn't for both Bowman's plan, and Yzerman's willingness to buy into it and sacrifice personal glory for his teams benefit, the Red Wings would not be the team it is today. Thank God Babs came along and has the same mindset or this great team could have faded away to being just another team that finishes near the top but never gets it done in the playoffs. Contests over who has more rings or not aside. Things like this are what really define to me what a great coach is. Wins, losses, stats, of course these mean something, but what did a coach actually DO to make it happen?
  4. No contradiction whatsoever. My first post was too general and I clarified it and expanded it later. Wilson increased his team's standings but did not turn them around and take them on to win anything. Not a presidents trophy, not a stanley cup, not a conference championship. He made it into the playoffs, good for him. But on a great team, just getting to the playoffs is not considered an accomplishment. The fact remains, the Sharks have had an abundance of talent the last few years, especially with the addition of Thornton, and still couldn't quite get it done. Not because they weren't good enough, because, IMO at least, they underperformed. So yeah I can go along with him being a good coach. You can't convince me that he's great.
  5. No, a good coach takes a struggling or mediocre team and makes them good. A great coach takes a struggling or mediocre team and makes them great, takes them to championships. I didn't completely brush him off or say he wasn't a good coach. Just not on the same level as Bowman. My apologies to the OP for derailing the thread as well, but it was a good discussion.
  6. Actually he couldn't handle their egos. I'm not saying anyone could have. These are spoiled prima donna superstar punks (thank god that is an animal that frequents the NBA instead of the NHL) who have been worshipped and coddled since they were in high school who are now also millionaires. But saying he controlled their egos is crazy. They were out of control and it caused a team that could probably have dominated the league from that day until this one to come apart. They won in spite of their egos, not because Jackson controlled them. As far as bringing this years team to the finals, kudos to him. Now lets see if he can get the job done against a better team in Boston. If he does (without too much help from the refs) then I will have a lot more respect for him.
  7. My point is, Jackson didn't have to bring out the talent in his players, he just had to stay out of Jordan's way. Jordan was a once in a lifetime talent. Bowman had Yzerman who was a great player and an unbelievable leader but he was not the Jordan of hockey. As you say, I don't follow basketball near as much as hockey but if the Bulls of that era had some adversity to overcome I'd like to hear from a basketball fan what it was. The closest thing I can think of is Rodman being an ass all the time. But even while being the drag queen that he was/and is, he still owned the boards for the Bulls. Also, not only was Chicago lead by MJ a team for the ages, who was their competition at the time? If my memory serves they were kind of between the Lakers and the Pistons great teams so their competition was really a notch or two below. Ron Wilson may be a good coach, maybe. Definitely not a great one. He may be good at running drills in practice or developing plays or something but he's proven he can't get his guys to perform where it matters. He'll get ground into dogmeat by the Toronto fans/press. Unlike San Jose who seems to be overjoyed just to have a team that gets to the playoffs the people in Toronto are going to want some results. Out here hockey is a distant third when it comes to where people care about sports. They're passionate about it in Toronto to say the least. I wouldn't wish that job on my worst enemy. Even with the all-star team that Detroit had in '02 they still needed great coaching to get over the top because not since the days of Gretzky has there been such a disparity in teams talent as there is almost always in basketball. Love them or hate them (and a good share of us here hate them) the '02 Avalanche were damn near equal to Detroit in talent. In the NBA teams become completely dominant over the league and tend to stay that way for sometimes long stretches. Be it the Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, or Spurs, it seems like one team completely runs away with it for a while until they pass the torch on to another team. There are a lot of back to back or more wins that are much more rare in hockey. Jackson rode a couple of those waves. As far as basketball fans and Jackson compared to hockey fans and Bowman, I'm not so sure. Living in California now I know a lot of basketball fans, including Lakers fans and from what I've seen and heard from them, there is not the same kind of feelings for Jackson in basketball as there is for Bowman in hockey. If a basketball fan even knew who Bowman was, I'm not sure many of them would rip anybody for comparing Jackson to him. I could be wrong but I'm not seeing it. Of course not all hockey fans will agree with us about Bowman either. The nitwit bandwagon fans in Pittsburgh boo'd him before a game before the announcers reminded them that he won for the Pens too.
  8. Does he look like a seventies porn star in real life like he does in pics? With that hair and oversized shades.
  9. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. When I look at a coach I'm not so dazzled by rings. Besides just winning championships I just don't see the comparison. Bowman worked the officials like no coach before or since. His scouting was unparalleled. He could bring the best out of his stars, completely changing their game to his style to make a winning team. Taking losing or mediocre teams and turning them around is a sign of a great coach. True the greatest coach in the history of the sport couldn't win anything without talent. But what he COULD do is bring out that talent in the players he had. Make draft picks that other teams completely overlook that turns his team into an enduring powerhouse. Even picking up the right free agents to round out our your team for the win. Besides that, there is talent, and then there is TALENT. Jordan was the Gretzky of basketball and ANY coach who didn't win with him in his prime should be run out of town. Who was it that coached Gretzky and Messier to all those championships? I forget right now because it doesn't really matter. My eight year old son could have been behind the bench and they still would have won. The same thing can be said for Jackson's championship teams, IMO. There was also some coach for the Dallas Cowboys who won with Aikman, Smith, and an offensive line that opened holes you could drive a bus through. Undeniable a great team. A good coach perhaps, but not one for the ages. Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Ronny Lott and company had someone behind the bench too. Not that it mattered much. How about the Lakers when they were truelly a dynasty. Showtime with Magic, Kareem, Worthy? Good coach, but it's the players who were truelly great. Yes this can be said to some extent in any championship team, but some are just so overloaded with talent they will make any decent coach look better than they are. I'm not picking on Jackson, I'm just saying he's not the same caliber as a Bowman, or a Parcels for that matter. As you say, Bowman was a God when it comes to coaching. Very few have that status. A good share of people who follow the NBA and not hockey would probably look at you with a blank stare if you said Bowman. Generally you're either an NHL fan or you don't know jack s*** about it. I couldn't really care less about how basketball fans look at it. Lastly, as far as how I could compare or not compare Bowman to Jackson when they are apples and oranges? 100% agree. That was kind of my point. I wasn't the one who brought up that comparison to begin with.
  10. A little off topic here but you made me choke on my coffee so I need to respond Jackson is NOT the Bowman of basketball. Bowman took a perpetually losing team formerly known as the "Dead Things" and turned them into the dynasty that the Red Wings are today. Jackson was carried by the greatest basketball player on the planet to some titles. Once Jordan was done in Chicago, Jackson was done. From there he went to riding the Lakers bandwagon on the backs of Shaq and Kobe. Add to the fact the he coaches teams with the dominant players of the era, the officiating in the NBA is rather suspect when it comes to the Lakers and what they can get away with. Phil Jackson may be a decent coach who can win with enough talent but he is not in the same league as Bowman. In the fact that he has a lot of hardware like Bowman, yes. In coaching ability, not even close.
  11. Nice. Get your ass handed to you in a debate so you resort to personal attacks. "Sullying the integrity of Wings fans" omfg too funny. How about a rebutal of anyones argument instead of personal attacks or YOU put a sock in it.
  12. Brett Hull, skate, crease. Refs blowing games, series, playoffs with bad calls/non-calls is not unheard of.
  13. I don't understand why Orpik doesn't get more love. Gonchar got all the hype coming into the series and played good, but not great hockey for the series. Orpik was like an uncaged animal back there. I think there were times that he hit every single one of our players on the ice, on the same shift. I don't have a clue how he played in the regular season but I was impressed from what I saw in the playoffs. As far as not making great passes to get the puck up ice, I would lay that on the forwards more than the D-men. They got almost zero support from their forwards who were constantly racing up ice hoping to get the long stretch pass. Orpik (or any Pens D-man for that matter) would do better if he had forwards like ours who are always supporting the D. For that matter Gonchar might actually have Norris potential if he got a little help from his forwards. There are a lot of teams in the East who would improve with this guy on their blueline.
  14. In a perfect world, yes. In this case, not a chance. It's true the refs SHOULD be a non-factor, but almost noone in the hockey world believes that of the finals this year. Biased or just plain bad, there is no denying the refs were a major factor in the series and were very close to being an even bigger one. If not for a spectacular play by Osgood the Pens tie it up and possibly win in overtime and get a chance at taking the series in game seven. All this because the refs handed them a six on four and then refused to take it away by not calling three blatant penalties. The Datsyuk trip, the stick slashed of of Lilja's hands, and his stick getting swept away once it is loose. All those calls are automatic if the officiating is even halfassed. So it's ok to make calls with 90 seconds left in the game if they're in the Pens favor, but not with 20 seconds in the game if it goes against them? Wtf kind of standard is that? Games have been won and lost with less than 5 seconds on the clock so their is absolutely no good time to let obvious penalties go uncalled because of time left in the game. You can look back at this and say so what the Wings won anyway. I'm fine with that if that's your opinion. But to say that the officiating was fine and dandy just because the matchup was lopsided enough for the Wings to overcome the officiating is crazy in my book. Bad is bad, and the officiating, for whatever reason, was the worst that I and a great number of other long time hockey fans have ever seen throughout a series. Now that so many commentators, writers, and others around hockey have come out and said they believe the officiating stunk, it's no longer valid to say that the complaints are just coming from a bunch of Red Wing homers.
  15. Let's get our bids in on Hossa and Orpik. The two best Pens of the series if you ask me.