Larry Brown is a Better NBA Coach than Phil Jackson
Debate Rounds (4)
While it is true, Larry Brown didn't always have the best teams to lead, However, in the 2001 NBA finals, both Larry Browns and Phil Jackson's teams clashed, with the Lakers (Jacksons team) beating the 76er's (Brown' team) 4 to 1. You can't argue that he had a crappy team, because if he did, they won't have made the finals. The 76er's also finished 1st in the Eastern Conference which proves my point further.
Lets compare the starting lineups. At the time, the only all star the Lakers had was Shaq, Kobe was still developing, so he hadn't reached his potential. They also had Rick Fox, Robert Horry, and Derek Fisher. All these guys are just supporting players.
The 76ers had Allen Iverson, arguably the greatest point guard/shooting guard at the time. Dikembe Mutumbo, a legendary shot blocker, who was capable of handling Shaq. So, if you ask me, The 76ers actually had more all stars, if I compare the players. However, that didn't correlate to a NBA title, which shows that Larry Brown was able to do a better job coaching than Phil Jackson.
Also let's wind the clocks forward to June 2004, when Larry Brown led the Detroit Pistons against Phil Jackson's Lakers: Brown's Pistons were heavy underdogs and outclassed the mighty Lakers, winning in Five Games. The Pistons finished 3rd in the East and Brown led a squad of castoffs to the Promised Land. Guys like: Rasheed Wallace, Chauncey Billups and others who many felt would not make it in the NBA. Brown connected with those players and not only led them to a Title in 2004, but back to the Finals 2005, only to lose to a man he mentored, Gregg Poppovich and his San Antonio Spurs in Seven Games.
I would just like to remind Pro that since he is the instigator, the BOP is on him to prove that he is a better coach than Phil Jackson.
I think Pro may have misunderstood me. I said Kobe Bryant was still developing. Not the team. Pro also says that the 76ers weren't all that good anyways, which is why they lost. This shouldn't matter, because Pro is trying to prove that Larry Brown was a better coach. If the 76ers got past all the teams in the Eastern Conference, then why should they falter when it came to the Lakers? To go to 2004, Larry Brown certainly did a good job coaching, but the Pistons had certainly had the better lineup, compared the the Lakers, even better than me comparing the 76ers to the Lakers. Billups was better than Fisher, Tayshun Prince was better than Rick Fox, and Rasheed Wallace was alot better than the aging Karl Malone.
I would give the slight edge to Kobe and Shaq, but Shaq and Kobe were having problem in and off the court. Which correlated to their poor team play. If Larry Brown was as good as Pro says he was, he would have helped the Pacers get far in the playoffs, which they didn't. After 2004, his sucess with with the Knicks and Bobcats weren't to pretty, and his Bobcats tenture ended prematurely due to him being fired.
Jackson on the other hand, fared much better. After SHAQ left after the 2003-2004 season, the team only struggled for 2 seasons, before making the playoffs in 2006-2007, for the next 4 years the team made it to the finals.
Con argued that Brown did not lead the Pacers deep into the Playoffs during his tenure as head coach. In the four years Brown served as head coach: he missed the playoffs only once (his final year in '96-97) and was eliminated in the First Round in the 1996 Playoffs. The other two seasons, Brown led the Pacers to the Conference Finals, losing to the New York Knicks in 1994 and the Orlando Magic in 1995.
Con also argued Brown did not have any success in Charlotte. Brown spent two full seasons in Charlotte, and although he parted ways with the team 28 games into the '10-11 season, Brown led the Bobcats to their first playoff appearance, in franchise history, 2010 with a mediocre lineup headlined by D.J Augustin, Gerald Wallace, and Boris Diaw. Brown was also amassed in a circus in his one season with the New York Knicks, battling players, especially Stephon Marbury, and having to battle with the Front Office, headed by Isiah Thomas and James Dolan. Brown would also take a struggling L.A. Clippers team to the Playoffs in both seasons he served as head coach.
As I conclude I again thank my opponent for this highly interesting debate. Throughout his career, Larry Brown has shown he can do less with more. From his recent short lived successes in Charlotte, to his two Finals runs in Detroit, to his improvement of stars such as Reggie Miller or Allen Iverson, there is no doubt Larry Brown "The Ultimate Vagabond", who did more with less, is better than Phil Jackson: a man who inherited Michael Jordan from Doug Collins and the Shaq and Kobe Lakers when he arrived in L.A, while on his way to Eleven World Championships.
I thank my opponent for this debate
So to finish of my debate, I'ill rebute Pro's arguments.
So far, Pro has based his arguments on the fact that Larry Brown didn't have better players. Even though that argument itself is very arguable (see my earlier argument), this doesn't correlate to Larry Brown being a better coach. There are many factors that could affect the teams performance. Team trainers, assiantant coaches, veteran teamleadership, team chemistry also play a factor, and Pro didn't mention these factors in his argument.
The 2004 Pistons had very good team chemsity and this also lead to them winnning the chanpionship. Since, the BOP is on Pro, It is not required of me to prove that. Howver, I'll do it just in case. Kobe Bryant has been known for not playing co-harmoniously with other players. So, I think we can team chemsitry didn't play a factor. Also, another point I would like to bring up is Kobe's playing style. Kobe has been critizied for being a ball hogger, and taking a numerous number of shots. In fact, he holds the record for the most shots missed by an NBA player. Jackson however, utilized Bryants style of play, and implemented it in a way the team could suceed far in the Playoffs. Not my teams get far in the NBA, when the team constantly depends on one player.
Con argues that Brown brought the Bobcats to the playoffs. Keep in mind, that the Eastern Conference is not as competitive as the Western Conference. If the Bobcats were in the Western Conference, they would have placed 11th. Also, the Bobcats were swept 0-4 in the first round.
Its true, Brown lead the Clippers towards the playoffs, but if you look at the record, you can see a 45-37 record isn't that impressive, but rather mediorcre.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.