PDA

View Full Version : Phil Jackson


Clarkmeister
06-15-2005, 12:36 PM
I just went into the Chicago Tribune archives and pulled up the predictions prior to the 1993 season - the one where they lost Michael.

Of the 4 beat writers, the average prediction for that year was 42-40. They finished 55-27 and were basically a bad call from going to the NBA finals.

The following year, the consensus was 40-42, this after they lost Horace Grant in addition to Jordan. That year, they finished 47-35.

The year he took over the Lakers, the team lost All-Star Eddie Jones. He took a worse team than Del Harris got swept with and won the NBA Finals.

He's been so dominant that there are only two other active head coaches who have won an NBA Championship.

Anyone who suggests Phil is "overrated" is smoking somme serious stuff. Give the man his $10mm. He's worth every penny. The best ever, including everyone.

namknils
06-15-2005, 12:38 PM
Good post Clark. I agree with you completely.

TheWorstPlayer
06-15-2005, 12:41 PM
I think PJ is a complete genius and the second best coach of all time. But I'd still rather have a coach who smokes a cigar after winning a championship.

swede123
06-15-2005, 12:44 PM
I agree that Jackson is a great coach, and he sounds like a pretty cool guy as well. But Clark, did you happen to catch his interview yesterday where he tried to backpedal out of an earlier comment? Originally he had said that the current Laker roster is bad, but yesterday he "clarified" by stating that he only meant that the roster is bloated with too many players.

Come on Phil, just be honest with us here - you really don't have that much to work with. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Swede

tinga81
06-15-2005, 12:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who suggests Phil is "overrated" is smoking somme serious stuff. Give the man his $10mm. He's worth every penny. The best ever, including everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are right, on so many levels. he is a proven winner.

I loved watching that man lead the Bulls to their titles. I almost couldn't believe it when I heard he was coming back. The Lakers, and their fans, should be happy to have him back. I wish the Bulls would of thought to bring him back after the Scott Skiles fiasco last week.

fnord_too
06-15-2005, 12:50 PM
Damn straight!

Ser William
06-15-2005, 12:56 PM
Phil Jackson is a very good coach, but best coach ever? Red Auerbach might respectfully disagree with you. For reference:

Red Auerbach Career Stats (http://www.celticstats.com/coach/redauerbach.html)

While Jackson's total stats are slightly better, Phil Jackson has coached teams that have had the 2 best players in the league on them, for every single year of his coaching career (minus 2). And for those 2 years where MJ was making a fool of himself playing baseball, he still had Pippen to build a team around. Let's not forget that Pippen was named one of the top 50 players of all time. And they brought in Toni Kukoc, who at the time was definitely an above average player.

If you look at Red's stats, it's even more impressive considering he never had the best player in the league on his team (unless you want to make that argument for Russell, but most people concede that Wilt > Russell). His stats are downright insane if you only consider the years after he acquired Russell.

Clarkmeister
06-15-2005, 01:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Phil Jackson is a very good coach, but best coach ever? Red Auerbach might respectfully disagree with you. For reference:

Red Auerbach Career Stats (http://www.celticstats.com/coach/redauerbach.html)

While Jackson's total stats are slightly better, Phil Jackson has coached teams that have had the 2 best players in the league on them, for every single year of his coaching career (minus 2). And for those 2 years where MJ was making a fool of himself playing baseball, he still had Pippen to build a team around. Let's not forget that Pippen was named one of the top 50 players of all time. And they brought in Toni Kukoc, who at the time was definitely an above average player.

If you look at Red's stats, it's even more impressive considering he never had the best player in the league on his team (unless you want to make that argument for Russell, but most people concede that Wilt > Russell). His stats are downright insane if you only consider the years after he acquired Russell.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that Jackson's stats are better *at all* shows how dominant he's been. It's so much more difficult to win in a cap-constrained 30 team league with 4 rounds of playoffs than to win in a TEN team league with 2 rounds of playoffs.

Plus, having 2 top 10 players and a bunch of scrubs is far more difficult to win with than a lineup consisting of 4-5 Hall of Famers who all play with each other every year for forever.

Not close.

Ser William
06-15-2005, 01:10 PM
The quality of the NBA has slid into the gutter since the late 80's. 30 teams vs 10 teams means there are 20 teams too many. Have you seen the Clippers play? Do you think it was merely coincidence that Miami almost won it all this year (Shaq + D Wade) - and probably would have if those 2 guys hadn't been injured.

It will be very interesting to see what Phil can do next year. If he can take that team to the finals then I will tip my cap once and for all to him.

sam h
06-15-2005, 01:11 PM
I agree that Jackson is a good coach and probably worth the money. I'm not sure he's better than Auerbach or Larry Brown.

I will say that the Lakers' first championship team was better than the Del Harris version. Eddie Jones was not an elite player at that point anymore and he was just taking minutes and shots away from Kobe, who made a big leap in between those years (partly probably due to Phil). That was a clear example of addition by subtraction, especially given that they had other swingmen who were great role players like Harper and Fox, as well as other outside shooters like Rice and Horry who were logging lots of minutes.

I agree, however, that he did a great job with those Bulls teams when Jordan was gone.

MoreWineII
06-15-2005, 01:44 PM
If by great, you mean he has the respect of his players and he lets them play, then okay. All those guys are smart, but only a handful are able to get their players to listen. Phil's one of those. And he's made himself that way by taking jobs where he had good opportunities to win and establishing a track record that demands respect. So you have to give him credit for that - he's definitely smarter than a lot of NBA people.

But honestly, I think "coaching" has little impact on the success of an NBA team. Those guys have been playing ball for 15-20 years, you're not gonna teach them anything they don't already know. You think S.A. is a winner because of Popp? I don't. But I think Popp ALLOWS his team to win by trusting them and by not being a control freak. That's the downfall of a lot of these guys, imo, they take themselves way too seriously. They want to micromanage everything and that in turn gets the players all out of synch and disinterested.

If a coach has a good team and he sits down on the bench and stfu's, he's gonna win. That's what I think Phil does so well, you don't see him running around yelling out plays and [censored] and generally making a fool of himself.

Is that really great "coaching"? You could probably make that argument.

I realized I'm kind of contradicting myself here, but not really. By "getting players to listen", I mean getting them to stay interested and focused. That's about the extent of "coaching" an NBA coach can do, imo.

holeplug
06-15-2005, 01:51 PM
Jackson and Auerbach are 1 and 2 IMO all time. The are similar since they had the best players on their teams and did what they were supposed to do..win championships with them. This is a no brainer move for the Lakers.

Their roster does need a major overhaul though. They really need a PG and several big men to add around Kobe and Odom.

M2d
06-15-2005, 01:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure he's better than Auerbach or Larry Brown.

[/ QUOTE ]
Larry Brown has won how many titles?

Aytumious
06-15-2005, 01:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that Jackson is a good coach and probably worth the money. I'm not sure he's better than Auerbach or Larry Brown.

I will say that the Lakers' first championship team was better than the Del Harris version. Eddie Jones was not an elite player at that point anymore and he was just taking minutes and shots away from Kobe, who made a big leap in between those years (partly probably due to Phil). That was a clear example of addition by subtraction, especially given that they had other swingmen who were great role players like Harper and Fox, as well as other outside shooters like Rice and Horry who were logging lots of minutes.

I agree, however, that he did a great job with those Bulls teams when Jordan was gone.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only player you mentioned who wasn't on the Del Harris team is Ron Harper. Jones certainly was not washed up as you make it sound since he ended up having his best years after LA and was one of the top defenders at his position for many years. LA lost both Elden Campbell and Jones from that team. That was a hell of a starting 5 and Phil would have done more than Del Harris.

Aytumious
06-15-2005, 02:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If by great, you mean he has the respect of his players and he lets them play, then okay. All those guys are smart, but only a handful are able to get their players to listen. Phil's one of those. And he's made himself that way by taking jobs where he had good opportunities to win and establishing a track record that demands respect. So you have to give him credit for that - he's definitely smarter than a lot of NBA people.

But honestly, I think "coaching" has little impact on the success of an NBA team. Those guys have been playing ball for 15-20 years, you're not gonna teach them anything they don't already know. You think S.A. is a winner because of Popp? I don't. But I think Popp ALLOWS his team to win by trusting them and by not being a control freak. That's the downfall of a lot of these guys, imo, they take themselves way too seriously. They want to micromanage everything and that in turn gets the players all out of synch and disinterested.

If a coach has a good team and he sits down on the bench and stfu's, he's gonna win. That's what I think Phil does so well, you don't see him running around yelling out plays and [censored] and generally making a fool of himself.

Is that really great "coaching"? You could probably make that argument.

I realized I'm kind of contradicting myself here, but not really. By "getting players to listen", I mean getting them to stay interested and focused. That's about the extent of "coaching" an NBA coach can do, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't think that Scott Skiles had a major impact on this years Bulls team? How about the Lakers, who had finished the season on an enormous downswing since they had their coaching problems?

Good coaching is a huge part of basketball since it is such a team sport. The coach needs to get all his players to accept their roles and play winning basketball -- which is not easy given the massive egos of these players -- and nobody I have ever seen does that better than Phil Jackson.

shant
06-15-2005, 02:11 PM
Trust me, we're happy here in LA. Phil is the [censored].

stankybank
06-15-2005, 02:11 PM
word.

Aces McGee
06-15-2005, 02:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
That was a hell of a starting 5 and Phil would have done more than Del Harris.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't the only one to do this, but it keeps coming up, so...

If we're trying to determine Phil's place in the pantheon of NBA coaches, comparing him to Del Harris isn't the way to go. It doesn't matter what he did compared to what Harris did with the same team.

-McGee

Aytumious
06-15-2005, 02:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That was a hell of a starting 5 and Phil would have done more than Del Harris.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't the only one to do this, but it keeps coming up, so...

If we're trying to determine Phil's place in the pantheon of NBA coaches, comparing him to Del Harris isn't the way to go. It doesn't matter what he did compared to what Harris did with the same team.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm obviously not comparing Jackson to Harris as a measure of Jackson's greatness. The point I made was in response to the points that were made in the other persons post.

sam h
06-15-2005, 02:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Larry Brown has won how many titles?

[/ QUOTE ]

Titles won is only one piece of evidence in assessing a coach. You obviously have to look at what they've done relative to the talent they've had and Larry Brown has always gotten a tremendous amount out of limited talent. You also have to face the fact that we are a bunch of people sitting at computers who don't necessarily understand all intricacies of the game and thus that expert opinion matters. And in polls of players and general managers, Brown has been routinely named the best coach in the league since the early 90s.

RicktheRuler
06-15-2005, 02:37 PM
Surprisingly, you are 100% correct here sir. Sorry we can't argue.

RicktheRuler
06-15-2005, 02:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
While Jackson's total stats are slightly better, Phil Jackson has coached teams that have had the 2 best players in the league on them, for every single year of his coaching career (minus 2). And for those 2 years where MJ was making a fool of himself playing baseball, he still had Pippen to build a team around. Let's not forget that Pippen was named one of the top 50 players of all time. And they brought in Toni Kukoc, who at the time was definitely an above average player.

If you look at Red's stats, it's even more impressive considering he never had the best player in the league on his team (unless you want to make that argument for Russell, but most people concede that Wilt > Russell). His stats are downright insane if you only consider the years after he acquired Russell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't read the responses to this, so maybe someone already got to you. The above is total nonsense. Red had the best teams by far for a long period of time.

RicktheRuler
06-15-2005, 02:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that Jackson's stats are better *at all* shows how dominant he's been. It's so much more difficult to win in a cap-constrained 30 team league with 4 rounds of playoffs than to win in a TEN team league with 2 rounds of playoffs.

Plus, having 2 top 10 players and a bunch of scrubs is far more difficult to win with than a lineup consisting of 4-5 Hall of Famers who all play with each other every year for forever.


[/ QUOTE ]


Well looks like Sparky got to you. You're on fire Clark.

RicktheRuler
06-15-2005, 02:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
But honestly, I think "coaching" has little impact on the success of an NBA team.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect you haven't played basketball at any level.

sam h
06-15-2005, 02:44 PM
I should have said that Eddie Jones was never an elite player, which is the case. Lots of guys in the NBA can score 18 points a game if you give them enough shots. He was an above average defender but not a great one, and he was too small to defend 3s which created problems trying to play him and Kobe together. Very few guys are really difference makers who can create their own offense and also contribute to all facets of a game like Kobe. Jones was a good player who blocking the progress of a much better player. Replacing his minutes with Ron Harper or Rick Fox was a small price to pay for smoothing Kobe's emergence. Thus --> Addition by subtraction.

Turning Stone Pro
06-15-2005, 02:45 PM
He's never won anything without two elite players at the top of their game. Even if you don't count Pippen as elite, Jordan equals two by himself.

Clark . . . I've come to the conclusion that you're just not that smart . . .

TSP

Ser William
06-15-2005, 02:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Haven't read the responses to this, so maybe someone already got to you. The above is total nonsense. Red had the best teams by far for a long period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best teams. Yes. No argument there. In large part because Red was a great coach. My post never said anything else. What it DID say, was that he didn't have THE best player. Like Michael in his prime. Or Shaq in his prime.

Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Tommy Heinshohn are all hall of famers but if you look at their stats I'm guessing a large part of that was because they played on championship teams, not because individually they were great. Russell was regarded as one of the best defensive centers of all time but most people would agree that Wilt Chamberlain was the better player.

andyfox
06-15-2005, 02:52 PM
"consisting of 4-5 Hall of Famers who all play with each other every year for forever"

Russell, Cousy, Sharman, Havlicek, Sam Jones, Heinsohn, KC Jones.

andyfox
06-15-2005, 02:55 PM
"He's never won anything without two elite players at the top of their game."

How many did Jerry Sloan win when he had Malone and Stockton at the top of their game? There are many other examples that could be cited.

Your Mom
06-15-2005, 05:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
He's never won anything without two elite players at the top of their game. Even if you don't count Pippen as elite, Jordan equals two by himself.

Clark . . . I've come to the conclusion that you're just not that smart . . .

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice how no other coach with the same players won any championships? TSP, you are wrong.

Clarkmeister
06-16-2005, 01:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The quality of the NBA has slid into the gutter since the late 80's. 30 teams vs 10 teams means there are 20 teams too many. Have you seen the Clippers play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, forget about how many more people play basketball now than then. Routine scrubs like Caron Butler would be dominant in the 1960's. There are more teams because there are more players. But anyways, this is just a math problem. It is more difficult to beat 30 teams and a 4 round playoff than 10 teams and a 2 round playoff. Or do you think that it was tougher for Doyle Brunson to beat a 30 person WSOP field because it wasn't "watered down".

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it was merely coincidence that Miami almost won it all this year (Shaq + D Wade) - and probably would have if those 2 guys hadn't been injured.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet somehow, no one else has won (or really even come close) to winning an NBA title with Shaq, Kobe, Jordan or Pippen. Yet somehow Phil makes it look so easy everyone is like "duh".

[ QUOTE ]
It will be very interesting to see what Phil can do next year. If he can take that team to the finals then I will tip my cap once and for all to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

They missed the playoffs by a wide margin. It would be a huge improvement for them to even make the playoffs, let alone win a first round series. I think your expectations are a little high.

Clarkmeister
06-16-2005, 01:57 AM
"Coaching" is whatever one does to maximize your players' potential.

Clarkmeister
06-16-2005, 02:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That was a hell of a starting 5 and Phil would have done more than Del Harris.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't the only one to do this, but it keeps coming up, so...

If we're trying to determine Phil's place in the pantheon of NBA coaches, comparing him to Del Harris isn't the way to go. It doesn't matter what he did compared to what Harris did with the same team.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

But, since critics suggest that "anyone" could've done what Phil did, it is extremely relevant that Neither Del Harris (who *was* NBA Coach of the Year once) nor Doug Collins could. And does anyone doubt that injuries or no that Phil would've gotten Miami past Detroit?

Clarkmeister
06-16-2005, 02:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And in polls of players and general managers, Brown has been routinely named the best coach in the league since the early 90s.

[/ QUOTE ]

I call bullsh!t. Link?

Clarkmeister
06-16-2005, 02:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Eddie Jones was never an elite player, which is the case. Lots of guys in the NBA can score 18 points a game if you give them enough shots. He was an above average defender but not a great one,

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon. We can quibble about what elite means, but he was certainly a hell of a player for a #3 option. He was an all-star his last two years in LA and made the NBA Defensive 2nd team three years in a row. He was never a hall of famer, but you are selling him way way short.

Clarkmeister
06-16-2005, 02:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"consisting of 4-5 Hall of Famers who all play with each other every year for forever"

Russell, Cousy, Sharman, Havlicek, Sam Jones, Heinsohn, KC Jones.

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad. It's amazing he was able to sneak past 10 whole teams with that pitiful lineup.

Clarkmeister
06-16-2005, 02:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Surprisingly, you are 100% correct here sir. Sorry we can't argue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, snap!

Clarkmeister
06-16-2005, 02:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haven't read the responses to this, so maybe someone already got to you. The above is total nonsense. Red had the best teams by far for a long period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best teams. Yes. No argument there. In large part because Red was a great coach. My post never said anything else. What it DID say, was that he didn't have THE best player. Like Michael in his prime. Or Shaq in his prime.

Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Tommy Heinshohn are all hall of famers but if you look at their stats I'm guessing a large part of that was because they played on championship teams, not because individually they were great. Russell was regarded as one of the best defensive centers of all time but most people would agree that Wilt Chamberlain was the better player.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are basically saying "boo hoo, while Phil had the best player in the league, poor Red was stuck with *settling* for 5 of the 15-20 best players in the league." /images/graemlins/smile.gif

tech
06-16-2005, 02:12 AM
I agree. However, if he does it THIS time with THIS team, I will be convinced that he has some sort of supernatural power.

Aytumious
06-16-2005, 02:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I agree. However, if he does it THIS time with THIS team, I will be convinced that he has some sort of supernatural power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well next year there is basically no chance for them to win it all, but within 5 years it is certainly a possibility.

sam h
06-16-2005, 02:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I call bullsh!t. Link?

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot find a place where such polls are collected. This is just my recollection over the course of many years. I do remember, however, that Jackson won in some polls too. But Brown has regularly topped the ones I've seen.

sam h
06-16-2005, 02:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
C'mon. We can quibble about what elite means, but he was certainly a hell of a player for a #3 option. He was an all-star his last two years in LA and made the NBA Defensive 2nd team three years in a row. He was never a hall of famer, but you are selling him way way short.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably am selling him a bit short, but I think my point still holds. The Lakers got better getting rid of Jones because (a) it allowed Kobe to more fully emerge (b) Jones couldn't guard 3s which made playing him and Kobe together problematic and (c) because they had great role players who were swingmen. Sometimes you just need parts that fit better, not just parts that are individually better.

Aytumious
06-16-2005, 02:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
C'mon. We can quibble about what elite means, but he was certainly a hell of a player for a #3 option. He was an all-star his last two years in LA and made the NBA Defensive 2nd team three years in a row. He was never a hall of famer, but you are selling him way way short.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably am selling him a bit short, but I think my point still holds. The Lakers got better getting rid of Jones because (a) it allowed Kobe to more fully emerge (b) Jones couldn't guard 3s which made playing him and Kobe together problematic and (c) because they had great role players who were swingmen. Sometimes you just need parts that fit better, not just parts that are individually better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible Phil would have started Kobe at the 1 since he prefers larger point guards, Kobe had the ball skills to bring the ball up court and the defensive skill to guard the one, and also because the triangle is not an offense that requires a point guard to orchestrate the offense.

TStoneMBD
06-16-2005, 03:51 AM
I remember when Phil moved to LA years back. I argued with a friend of mine about how Phil Jackson is the best NBA coach of all time and will mold LA into a Dynasty. He thought I was insane and ever since I have rooted for LA just to be proved right about Jackson. I had deep respect for Kobe in the past, but after the past year I see him in new light. Regardless, I will be rooting for LA to retain championship form as long as the Phil factor hangs in the balance.

Go Phil! You rock bro.

Clarkmeister
06-16-2005, 11:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
C'mon. We can quibble about what elite means, but he was certainly a hell of a player for a #3 option. He was an all-star his last two years in LA and made the NBA Defensive 2nd team three years in a row. He was never a hall of famer, but you are selling him way way short.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably am selling him a bit short, but I think my point still holds. The Lakers got better getting rid of Jones because (a) it allowed Kobe to more fully emerge (b) Jones couldn't guard 3s which made playing him and Kobe together problematic and (c) because they had great role players who were swingmen. Sometimes you just need parts that fit better, not just parts that are individually better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd contend that the obvious reason the Lakers got better with less talent (Phil being the greatest ever) is a far more likely reason than coming up with convoluted reasons why it was a good thing to lose an all-star and all-NBA defensive player.

Turning Stone Pro
06-16-2005, 12:33 PM
Well, that is a valid point and one I did not consider.

TSP

keats
06-16-2005, 12:48 PM
Although I somewhat agree with you, basing whether a coach is good or not based on what "writers" picked them to be is dumb. If this what the case every coach in the NFL is the gratest of all time when they turn a team around for a year. All in all I think it will be interesting to see how Phil does with a team that doesnt have championship level talent.

ChicagoTroy
06-16-2005, 05:14 PM
Yep, and I think the only person who can keep LA from getting another title within two years is Kobe Bryant. Even Michael F'ing Jordan deferred to Jackson, and he was a terror when it came to dictating play. Kobe wants to win, he just wants to take 50% of his team's shots more.

Look at the rosters and records of the Bulls and Lakers before and after Jackson's arrival, and any talk of players being responsible for the success should evaporate.

Lucky Longshot
06-16-2005, 10:19 PM
I'd like to see some research on Larry Brown's teams. How did they do the year before he arrived? How did they do the year he left? College & NBA. There's plenty of teams to choose from. Anyone willing?

Larry Brown took the friggin' Clippers (and they didn't have today's talent) to the playoffs. I think that's basically a championship to a Clipper's fan.


I never saw Red's teams in person, but I've been an avid bball fan since the 90's & IMO Larry Brown is the best coach of the last 15 years.

Clarkmeister
06-17-2005, 03:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Although I somewhat agree with you, basing whether a coach is good or not based on what "writers" picked them to be is dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't base it on that, I merely provided it as evidence. It's especially relevant evidence in light of the fact that Phil-bashers suggest he never succeeded with a team that didn't have the best player in the league, and that he never had to coach a "mediocre" team. He has and he's done extremely well. The preseason predictions by the team beat writers is merely evidence supporting that assertation.

bottomset
06-17-2005, 04:01 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haven't read the responses to this, so maybe someone already got to you. The above is total nonsense. Red had the best teams by far for a long period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best teams. Yes. No argument there. In large part because Red was a great coach. My post never said anything else. What it DID say, was that he didn't have THE best player. Like Michael in his prime. Or Shaq in his prime.

Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Tommy Heinshohn are all hall of famers but if you look at their stats I'm guessing a large part of that was because they played on championship teams, not because individually they were great. Russell was regarded as one of the best defensive centers of all time but most people would agree that Wilt Chamberlain was the better player.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are basically saying "boo hoo, while Phil had the best player in the league, poor Red was stuck with *settling* for 5 of the 15-20 best players in the league." /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

agree 100% with you Clark

why not start the predictions for the Lakers for next year

45-37 8th or 9th in W.C.

Clarkmeister
06-17-2005, 04:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]


why not start the predictions for the Lakers for next year

45-37 8th or 9th in W.C.

[/ QUOTE ]

They'll make the playoffs for sure barring something totally unforseen (losing Odom or Kobe getting hurt). I'll withold a record prediction til I see what the roster looks like on opening day.

Daliman
06-17-2005, 04:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I just went into the Chicago Tribune archives and pulled up the predictions prior to the 1993 season - the one where they lost Michael.

Of the 4 beat writers, the average prediction for that year was 42-40. They finished 55-27 and were basically a bad call from going to the NBA finals.

The following year, the consensus was 40-42, this after they lost Horace Grant in addition to Jordan. That year, they finished 47-35.

The year he took over the Lakers, the team lost All-Star Eddie Jones. He took a worse team than Del Harris got swept with and won the NBA Finals.

He's been so dominant that there are only two other active head coaches who have won an NBA Championship.

Anyone who suggests Phil is "overrated" is smoking somme serious stuff. Give the man his $10mm. He's worth every penny. The best ever, including everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, time for my obvious rebuttal.



[ QUOTE ]
Of the 4 beat writers, the average prediction for that year was 42-40. They finished 55-27 and were basically a bad call from going to the NBA finals.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll admit, I was as surprised as anyone that they played as well as they did that year, but the fact of the matter is, the Eastern conference as a whole sucked then, just as it does now. Also, does this "Bad call" give them a free pass past the Eastern conference finals, because it happened in the 2nd round. /images/graemlins/confused.gif You can also just as easily say id they *had* won that series the Knicks were one miracle 3 pointer "from going to the NBA finals"

[ QUOTE ]
The following year, the consensus was 40-42, this after they lost Horace Grant in addition to Jordan. That year, they finished 47-35.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but they DID add Toni Kukoc the year before, who was a very good 3rd scorer and ballhandler the bulls sorely needed, and while my searching can't come up with the exact #'s, I'm oretty sure the bulls had a 9-1 run there near the end of the year when Jordan came back, so I'd be willing to bet the Bulls were BARELY over .500 AT BEST b4 MJ returned. I notice you didn't mention in this year that the bulls didn't win the title. Probably because that would stick you in the Catch -22 of MJ wasn't fully back yet/The bulls didn't have the right players quandary; If you say MJ wasn't ready, was he ready when he famously dropped the double nickel on the knicks in about his 4th game back? If they didnlt have the right mix of players, isn't PJ a good enough coach that one rebounder/defender makes all that difference? He let a rookie, a 2nd year player, and a castoff make him look bad.(actually, the better team won, plain and simple).


[ QUOTE ]
The year he took over the Lakers, the team lost All-Star Eddie Jones. He took a worse team than Del Harris got swept with and won the NBA Finals.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and Glen Rice, Robert Horry, Ron Harper, and AC Green were ALL window dressing. All were picked up the same year PJ came to town. Also, Kobe was entering his 4th season having just turned 21 and finally starting to come into his own. You kinda forgot to mention all that. Also, what about last year? Buss brought in Malone and Payton, and while Malone WAS injured for most of the playoffs, the old Zen master just couldn't get the team together enough to win the whole thing again.

[ QUOTE ]
He's been so dominant that there are only two other active head coaches who have won an NBA Championship.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds great, means nothing. PJ himself is great at dismissing other coaches' accomplishments, like when the Spure won in the strike shortened year, he called it and asterisk chamionship, because the full year wasn't played. Last I checked, the full PLAYOFFS were played. I can't imagine he was saying the players needed those additional 35 games on the back end to get in top form.....

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who suggests Phil is "overrated" is smoking somme serious stuff. Give the man his $10mm. He's worth every penny. The best ever, including everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit, I've never liked PJ, so my analysis IS biased, but this is akin to saying that Sam Jones was the best small forward ever, because his teams won 11 titles. HEre's an intersting quick list for you, of who I think are the best players at their position, all-time

C Wilt Chamberlain 2 Titles
PF Karl Malone Zero Titles
SF Oscar Robertson (played guard, but essentially a small forward) 1 title
SG Michael Jordan 6 titles
PG Magic Johnson 5 titles

Now, that's a fairly inarguable list, but notice 3 of the best of all time have nowhere NEAR as many titles as the leader at their position. It was joked early on after MJ's first return after the Bulls lost to the Orlando Magic that, "The bulls never won a title without Scott Williams"

Well, the bulls never won the title without Phil Jackson, but as shown, that is hardly the point. I'll say this with ZERO doubt in my mind; Phil Jackson never won a title without having the best player in the league AND a top 5 player sidekick.

NOW we will see how good a coach he REALLY is.

Daliman
06-17-2005, 04:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Plus, having 2 top 10 players and a bunch of scrubs is far more difficult to win with than a lineup consisting of 4-5 Hall of Famers who all play with each other every year for forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, so I guess all-star players such as BJ Armstrong, Toni Kukoc, Horace Grant, Glen Rice, Ron Harper, Gary Payton, Karl Malone, Dennis Rodman, and great clutch players like Robert Horry, and Jim Paxson were "scrubs"

Daliman
06-17-2005, 04:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"He's never won anything without two elite players at the top of their game."

How many did Jerry Sloan win when he had Malone and Stockton at the top of their game? There are many other examples that could be cited.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why is that?

Gee, any chance because THE WESTERN CONFERENCE IS CONSTANLY LOADED AND THE BULLS WERE WINNING!

Daliman
06-17-2005, 04:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's never won anything without two elite players at the top of their game. Even if you don't count Pippen as elite, Jordan equals two by himself.

Clark . . . I've come to the conclusion that you're just not that smart . . .

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice how no other coach with the same players won any championships? TSP, you are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Daliman
06-17-2005, 04:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That was a hell of a starting 5 and Phil would have done more than Del Harris.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't the only one to do this, but it keeps coming up, so...

If we're trying to determine Phil's place in the pantheon of NBA coaches, comparing him to Del Harris isn't the way to go. It doesn't matter what he did compared to what Harris did with the same team.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

But, since critics suggest that "anyone" could've done what Phil did, it is extremely relevant that Neither Del Harris (who *was* NBA Coach of the Year once) nor Doug Collins could. And does anyone doubt that injuries or no that Phil would've gotten Miami past Detroit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, considering he couldn't do it LAST year with a better team, yes.

rtrombone
06-17-2005, 06:06 AM
Nice post. I love debating with intelligent people.

Phil Jackson is, in the words of his own stooge Charley Rosen, a "closer." He excels at taking teams loaded with talent and getting them not to squander it. Many have praised his ability to handle superstars with huge egos and get them to play championship ball.

Jackson may be the greatest closer in sports history. He certainly has the best track record. But this is only one aspect of coaching.

In Chicago he had the great fortune to have a Michael Jordan who was just entering his prime. How good was MJ? He's widely considered the greatest player ever, yet one can make the argument that he's underrated. All these comparisons to current stars (and the much-hyped search for the next Jordan) are ludicrous.

Jackson's success in L.A. is more of an indictment of Del Harris than a testament to the Zen Master's genius. In the year or two before Jackson arrived, all you heard on sports talk radio shows was, "Fire Del Harris and the Lakers will win a championship." The Lakers did, and they did. Once again, Jackson had the great fortune of having an absolutely dominant Shaq and a Kobe who was just coming into his own.

Besides, in his second year in L.A. Jackson didn't do a damn thing during Shaq and Kobe's destructive feud. It was Jerry West (whom Kobe greatly respects) who stepped in and got the two to reconcile, however briefly. It was immediately after this meeting (which went unreported in the press for the most part) that the Lakers went on a terrific run, culminating in their second title under Jackson.

Jackson had two decent years with the Jordan-less Bulls. That's hardly enough to judge how good of a coach he is with less than championship talent.

Look at what Larry Brown has done with so many teams, both good and bad. His squads always improve during his tenure, without exception. Remember what Chuck Daly did with the formerly pathetic Nets, who were on their way to being legitimate contenders before Drazen Petrovic's untimely death.

In the end, the true measure of a coach is how much he gets out of his players. A superior coach can beat you not only with his players, but with yours, too. Take any of the other "great" coaches and give them Jackson's Bulls and Lakers teams. Do they win as many titles? Then give Jackson Larry Brown's Clippers or Chuck Daly's Nets or Larry Bird's/Rick Carlisle's Pacers or Pat Riley's Knicks or Riley's Heat. Does Jackson do as well?

Phil Jackson is a good closer. As long as people like you proclaim him to be the greatest ever, though, he will always be overrated.

Ser William
06-17-2005, 10:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
But anyways, this is just a math problem. It is more difficult to beat 30 teams and a 4 round playoff than 10 teams and a 2 round playoff. Or do you think that it was tougher for Doyle Brunson to beat a 30 person WSOP field because it wasn't "watered down".


[/ QUOTE ]

So let's say we take the best 10 teams in the league this year.

Phoenix
San Antonio
Miami
Dallas
Detroit
Seattle
Houston
Sacramento
Denver
Chicago

Then take out some of the worst players on each team and add in:
Kobe Bryant
Kevin Garnett
Paul Pierce
Allen Iverson
Jason Kidd
Vince Carter
Stephon Marbury
Jermaine O'Neal
Lebron James
Michael Redd
etc

For starters, Detroit doesn't even make the playoffs in this league. So much for math.

The other day, Bob Cousy was interviewed on WEEI Boston and he was asked the question about comparing players from todays era with those of his time. He responded that he had been asked this question a million times before and it's not really fair to compare players of different eras. But he did say, that he felt playing in a 10 team league was much more demanding. There are no easy games, no Clippers or Hornets or Hawks. The intensity was at a peak for every game where the last place team in the league could easily upset the best team on any given night.

I definitely feel Phil Jackson is a top 5 coach but my argument was that I don't think you can categorically call him the best coach of all time.

andyfox
06-17-2005, 11:28 AM
"THE BULLS WERE WINNING!"

The defense rests.

Clarkmeister
06-17-2005, 11:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But anyways, this is just a math problem. It is more difficult to beat 30 teams and a 4 round playoff than 10 teams and a 2 round playoff. Or do you think that it was tougher for Doyle Brunson to beat a 30 person WSOP field because it wasn't "watered down".


[/ QUOTE ]

So let's say we take the best 10 teams in the league this year.

Phoenix
San Antonio
Miami
Dallas
Detroit
Seattle
Houston
Sacramento
Denver
Chicago

Then take out some of the worst players on each team and add in:
Kobe Bryant
Kevin Garnett
Paul Pierce
Allen Iverson
Jason Kidd
Vince Carter
Stephon Marbury
Jermaine O'Neal
Lebron James
Michael Redd
etc

For starters, Detroit doesn't even make the playoffs in this league. So much for math.

The other day, Bob Cousy was interviewed on WEEI Boston and he was asked the question about comparing players from todays era with those of his time. He responded that he had been asked this question a million times before and it's not really fair to compare players of different eras. But he did say, that he felt playing in a 10 team league was much more demanding. There are no easy games, no Clippers or Hornets or Hawks. The intensity was at a peak for every game where the last place team in the league could easily upset the best team on any given night.

I definitely feel Phil Jackson is a top 5 coach but my argument was that I don't think you can categorically call him the best coach of all time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This whole post to me shows a fundamental lack of understanding by Bob Cousy, similar to a poker playing looking at Moneymaker and saying it was "easier for him to win than for Doyle to beat 30 players because now it's watered down".

First, the there is a 200% increase in the number of teams, 30 vs 10. Do you seriously believe there hasn't been more than a 200% increase in the number of available players??? Of course there has. It may well be a 1000% increase. It was worth no $ back then, there were few European or African American players playing, and it was basically a minor-league sport. The league is in many respects *more concentrated* in talent than it was back then.

Even ignoring that though, the fact that beating 9 opponents and not 29 is easier still holds. You can do exactly what you suggest, but there will still be a best team and a worst team in that scenario. It's not like everyone would suddenly be .500. And the best team, if it so happens to be put together the right way, would *stay* the best team for forever because there was little movement of players between teams. It's not.

As an aside, is it harder for a WNBA team to win the title than an NBA team? Of course not. Same reasons.

I grabbed a random Celtics winning season. 1965.

9 total teams.

Boston 62-18
Cincinati 48-32
Philly 40-40
NY 31-49

LA 49-13
St. Louis 45-35
Baltimore 37-43
Detroit 31-49
SF 17-63

There are only 3 teams in the entire league above .500! Contending that it's more difficult to get through that regular season with the premier lineup relative to today's situation is simply incorrect. More competition and more teams, especially in light of increased player supply and less stable rosters necessarily means a more difficult path to a Championship. No disrespect to Bob Cousy, but he's wrong.

goofball
06-17-2005, 12:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, is it harder for a WNBA team to win the title than an NBA team? Of course not. Same reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the WNBA is full of chics.

Daliman
06-17-2005, 04:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"THE BULLS WERE WINNING!"

The defense rests.

[/ QUOTE ]

On what? The Bulls were MJ, not PJ. No one will EVER look back at the Bulls run and say,"it never would have been possible without Phil jackson"

Daliman
06-17-2005, 04:08 PM
You respond to HIS rebuttal, but not mine?


Bah.

I'd like to hear your responses. I already admitted I never cared for PJ.

Patrick del Poker Grande
06-17-2005, 04:09 PM
Wrong forum (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=sportevents&page=0&view=co llapsed&sb=5&o=), Sir N00berry!

holeplug
06-17-2005, 06:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]

I'll admit, I was as surprised as anyone that they played as well as they did that year, but the fact of the matter is, the Eastern conference as a whole sucked then, just as it does now.

[/ QUOTE ]

The conferences were more close in talent back in 1994 as a whole then they are now.

Daliman
06-17-2005, 06:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'll admit, I was as surprised as anyone that they played as well as they did that year, but the fact of the matter is, the Eastern conference as a whole sucked then, just as it does now.

[/ QUOTE ]

The conferences were more close in talent back in 1994 as a whole then they are now.

[/ QUOTE ]

God no. Back then, in the west, you had San antonio,Golden state, Houston, Portland, Phoenix, Utah and Seattle all perennial 50-game winners, and there would almost always be 2 60-game winners over there.

The east was the Bulls, the knicks, and sometimes the Cavaliers/hawk/Magic. That's all. And I don't think any of them other than the bulls ever won more than 60 games.(oops, Orlando did).

It loos like over this specific 4 year period, the East had 3 60-game winners,(and a 72) and 11 50 game winners, but the west had 5 60 game winners, and 13 50 game winners.

1992-1993

New York Knickerbockers 60 22 .732 -
Boston Celtics 48 34 .585 12
New Jersey Nets 43 39 .524 17
Orlando Magic 41 41 .500 19
Miami Heat 36 46 .439 24
Philadelphia 76ers 26 56 .317 34
Washington Bullets 22 60 .268 38
Central Division W L Pct. GB
Chicago Bulls 57 25 .695 -
Cleveland Cavaliers 54 28 .659 3
Charlotte Hornets 44 38 .537 13
Atlanta Hawks 43 39 .524 14
Indiana Pacers 41 41 .500 16
Detroit Pistons 40 42 .488 17
Milwaukee Bucks 28 54 .341 29

Western Conference
Midwest Division W L Pct. GB
Houston Rockets 55 27 .671 -
San Antonio Spurs 49 33 .598 6
Utah Jazz 47 35 .573 8
Denver Nuggets 36 46 .439 19
Minnesota Timberwolves 19 63 .232 36
Dallas Mavericks 11 71 .134 44
Pacific Division W L Pct. GB
Phoenix Suns 62 20 .756 -
Seattle SuperSonics 55 27 .671 7
Portland Trail Blazers 51 31 .622 11
Los Angeles Clippers 41 41 .500 21
Los Angeles Lakers 39 43 .476 23
Golden State Warriors 34 48 .415 28
Sacramento Kings 25 57 .305 37


1993-94 Standings

Eastern Conference
Atlantic Division W L Pct. GB
New York Knickerbockers 57 25 .695 -
Orlando Magic 50 32 .610 7
New Jersey Nets 45 37 .549 12
Miami Heat 42 40 .512 15
Boston Celtics 32 50 .390 25
Philadelphia 76ers 25 57 .305 32
Washington Bullets 24 58 .293 33
Central Division W L Pct. GB
Atlanta Hawks 57 25 .695 -
Chicago Bulls 55 27 .671 2
Cleveland Cavaliers 47 35 .573 10
Indiana Pacers 47 35 .573 10
Charlotte Hornets 41 41 .500 16
Milwaukee Bucks 20 62 .244 37
Detroit Pistons 20 62 .244 37

Western Conference
Midwest Division W L Pct. GB
Houston Rockets 58 24 .707 -
San Antonio Spurs 55 27 .671 3
Utah Jazz 53 29 .646 5
Denver Nuggets 42 40 .512 16
Minnesota Timberwolves 20 62 .244 38
Dallas Mavericks 13 69 .159 45
Pacific Division W L Pct. GB
Seattle SuperSonics 63 19 .768 -
Phoenix Suns 56 26 .683 7
Golden State Warriors 50 32 .610 13
Portland Trail Blazers 47 35 .573 16
Los Angeles Lakers 33 49 .402 30
Sacramento Kings 28 54 .341 35
Los Angeles Clippers 27 55 .329 36

1994-1995
Orlando Magic 57 25 .695 -
New York Knickerbockers 55 27 .671 2
Boston Celtics 35 47 .427 22
Miami Heat 32 50 .390 25
New Jersey Nets 30 52 .366 27
Philadelphia 76ers 24 58 .293 33
Washington Bullets 21 61 .256 36
Central Division W L Pct. GB
Indiana Pacers 52 30 .634 -
Charlotte Hornets 50 32 .610 2
Chicago Bulls 47 35 .573 5
Cleveland Cavaliers 43 39 .524 9
Atlanta Hawks 42 40 .512 10
Milwaukee Bucks 34 48 .415 18
Detroit Pistons 28 54 .341 24


Western Conference
Midwest Division W L Pct. GB
San Antonio Spurs 62 20 .756 -
Utah Jazz 60 22 .732 2
Houston Rockets 47 35 .573 15
Denver Nuggets 41 41 .500 21
Dallas Mavericks 36 46 .439 26
Minnesota Timberwolves 21 61 .256 41
Pacific Division W L Pct. GB
Phoenix Suns 59 23 .720 -
Seattle SuperSonics 57 25 .695 2
Los Angeles Lakers 48 34 .585 11
Portland Trail Blazers 44 38 .537 15
Sacramento Kings 39 43 .476 20
Golden State Warriors 26 56 .317 33
Los Angeles Clippers 17 65 .207 42

1995-1996
Orlando Magic 60 22 .732 -
New York Knickerbockers 47 35 .573 13
Miami Heat 42 40 .512 18
Washington Bullets 39 43 .476 21
Boston Celtics 33 49 .402 27
New Jersey Nets 30 52 .366 30
Philadelphia 76ers 18 64 .220 42
Central Division W L Pct. GB
Chicago Bulls 72 10 .878 -
Indiana Pacers 52 30 .634 20
Cleveland Cavaliers 47 35 .573 25
Atlanta Hawks 46 36 .561 26
Detroit Pistons 46 36 .561 26
Charlotte Hornets 41 41 .500 31
Milwaukee Bucks 25 57 .305 47
Toronto Raptors 21 61 .256 51

Western Conference
Midwest Division W L Pct. GB
San Antonio Spurs 59 23 .720 -
Utah Jazz 55 27 .671 4
Houston Rockets 48 34 .585 11
Denver Nuggets 35 47 .427 24
Dallas Mavericks 26 56 .317 33
Minnesota Timberwolves 26 56 .317 33
Vancouver Grizzlies 15 67 .183 44
Pacific Division W L Pct. GB
Seattle SuperSonics 64 18 .780 -
Los Angeles Lakers 53 29 .646 11
Portland Trail Blazers 44 38 .537 20
Phoenix Suns 41 41 .500 23
Sacramento Kings 39 43 .476 25
Golden State Warriors 36 46 .439 28
Los Angeles Clippers 29 53 .354 35

Kevin
06-22-2005, 08:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I just went into the Chicago Tribune archives and pulled up the predictions prior to the 1993 season - the one where they lost Michael.

Of the 4 beat writers, the average prediction for that year was 42-40. They finished 55-27 and were basically a bad call from going to the NBA finals.

The following year, the consensus was 40-42, this after they lost Horace Grant in addition to Jordan. That year, they finished 47-35.

The year he took over the Lakers, the team lost All-Star Eddie Jones. He took a worse team than Del Harris got swept with and won the NBA Finals.

He's been so dominant that there are only two other active head coaches who have won an NBA Championship.

Anyone who suggests Phil is "overrated" is smoking somme serious stuff. Give the man his $10mm. He's worth every penny. The best ever, including everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me preface by saying that I spent the first 28 years of life in Indianapolis, so by nature, I am programmed to hate the Bulls, Jackson, Jordon, Mr. Coattails Pippen, etc. (My wife's neighbor growing up was Karla Knafel (Jordan's mistress with whom he had the legal battle with) but that is another story for another thread).

Larry Brown made a winner out of the Clippers which should be the end of the argument. They were bad after he left so Larry = 10-15 wins. He took a moribud Pacers franchise that had never won a playoff series and a few years prior had to have a telethon to keep the team in Indiana - and took them to back to back Eastern Conference Championship with such studs as Derek MacKey, Reggie Miller, and Rik Smits. He took Philly to the finals and made AI an MVP. The rap on him was that he could take a bad to a decent team and make them good, but couldn't make them champions. So, with Detroit, he took a good team and made them great.

I wish that I could discount the 93-94 season for Jackson, but that was a pretty good coaching job. 94-95 was a better indication (IMHO) of his true ability - saved only by #45 getting his sea legs back.

In 97-98, if 7-4 Smits could win a tip against the 6-4 person he was jumping against, I am confident that the Pacers win game 7. (My heart talking, man did I hate those Bulls teams).

I know that Phil lost Jones, but Kobe was improving exponentially. I remember in game 4 when he took over the game after Shaq fouled out against my beloved Pacers, it was a Jordanesque coming of age. He wasn't ready for that performance the prior year - so it wasn't Jackson > Harris, it was Kobe 99/2000 >>>>> Kobe 98/99.

Jackson was the best. The best at picking the right job at the right time with the right stars at the right stage of their careers. If Phil coached Vancouver during those years and won 35 games instead of 25 would he had been lauded with the same praise? (Man, I can't stand Jackson and his all-star teams).

So, if he can get LA to 45 wins and a first round win is he worth 10 million? I say no. He needs to wait another couple of years and find a team on the brink with a superstar on the rise who would win for anyone and cash in on the genius title again.

I know that I am scarred and skewed, but I believe that you are skewed the other way with the U of I , Bulls, everything Illinois /images/graemlins/smile.gif love. Hail Pacers, Hail Hoosiers, a pox to all in the state to the west!

Cheers,
Kevin