Whos on your coaching Mt. Rushmore? | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Whos on your coaching Mt. Rushmore?

Status
Not open for further replies.
UConnWingman said:
Dean Smith absolutely deserves to be on this list. If anything, take Bob Knight off of it, but not Dean.
Expand ...
Eh. 11 Final Fours and 2 titles in 36 years at UNC. He was an innovator and a good game coach, but he had too many teams flame out.

Calhoun, in contrast, had 3 titles, 4 Final Fours in 26 years at UConn. Knight had 3 titles, 5 final fours in 29 years at Indiana.
 
UConnWingman said:
Not including Dean Smith on the the Mt. Rushmore of CBB coaches for not winning enough titles is pretty much on the same track as not including Ted Williams on the Mt. Rushmore of baseball for not having won a World Series. The guy was the epitome of head coaches, and if you were to poll the current D1 coaches, I'd guess he'd win "most revered" by a landslide. That's got to speak volumes..
Expand ...
Ted Williams' job was to hit the baseball. He did that incredibly well.

Dean Smith's job was win titles. He did that very well, but not as well as the 4 others people mentioned.

The HOF can elect unlimited numbers of people. A Mt. Rushmore can only do 4 people. It isn't apples to apples.
 
UConnWingman said:
Not including Dean Smith on the the Mt. Rushmore of CBB coaches for not winning enough titles is pretty much on the same track as not including Ted Williams on the Mt. Rushmore of baseball for not having won a World Series. The guy was the epitome of head coaches, and if you were to poll the current D1 coaches, I'd guess he'd win "most revered" by a landslide. That's got to speak volumes..
Expand ...

I guess it all depends on your qualifications for the mountain. There are arguments for K, JC, Knight, Dean to be the four but Wooden and Rupp also are deserving. If he hadn't left for the Celtic stint, Pitino may have had a strong claim as well.

I'm partial to JC, Knight, K and Wooden. Dean would be my fifth because in the end I feel the other four were at least as good all around coaches and they have the championships.

If you are talking cultural importance, Dean would probably replace JC.
 
UConnWingman said:
Not including Dean Smith on the the Mt. Rushmore of CBB coaches for not winning enough titles is pretty much on the same track as not including Ted Williams on the Mt. Rushmore of baseball for not having won a World Series. The guy was the epitome of head coaches, and if you were to poll the current D1 coaches, I'd guess he'd win "most revered" by a landslide. That's got to speak volumes..
Expand ...

How does this comparison make sense? An individual baseball player has a far lesser impact on his team's success than does a college basketball coach. He's responsible for the entire roster, as well as honing their skills and utilizing them properly.
 
.-.
UConnWingman said:
Dean Smith absolutely deserves to be on this list. If anything, take Bob Knight off of it, but not Dean.
Expand ...

Knight was an incredible coach... Three titles and usually he did not get the best talent b/c many could not or would not play for him. The game passed him by near the end but him and JC are very, very similar. Knight was clearly more of a bully, but both were fiery, stubborn, and usually got their way.
 
Wooden
Coach K
Knight
Calhoun

Dean Smith's legacy will soon be tainted. He needs to be left off. Same for Boeheim, even though he shouldn't even be in the discussion.
 
CallMeBruce said:
How does this comparison make sense? An individual baseball player has a far lesser impact on his team's success than does a college basketball coach. He's responsible for the entire roster, as well as honing their skills and utilizing them properly.
Expand ...

You guys need some perspective. If Dean Smith isn't on the Mt Rushmore of coaches, A) it means this site has some pretty shortsighted people, and B) I'm glad you guys didn't vote on the actual Rushmore. You'd probably find a reason to knock off Teddy Roosevelt.

Wooden
Smith

Then you can have some guys below them. Redesign the thing, but Smith deserves way more credit than you're giving him.
 
UConnWingman said:
You guys need some perspective. If Dean Smith isn't on the Mt Rushmore of coaches, A) it means this site has some pretty shortsighted people, and B) I'm glad you guys didn't vote on the actual Rushmore. You'd probably find a reason to knock off Teddy Roosevelt.

Wooden
Smith

Then you can have some guys below them. Redesign the thing, but Smith deserves way more credit than you're giving him.
Expand ...

I wasn't even commenting on Smith being on there, but there are certainly arguments to be made for at least four other guys being above him. I was just point out how stupid your comparison to Ted Williams was.
 
huskyblooz said:
Watch Michael Jordan's last game and tell me Dean is better than Knight.
Expand ...

If you're going to judge a career that Dean Smith had down to one game...Then let's pull up the video on the halftime speech where Bob Knight shoved a bunch of toilet paper full of excrement into a player's face. Knight was a psycho, period.
 
.-.
If you're going all time, it's

Naismith
Allen
Wooden
K

If you are talking the Modern Era (post 1976), it's

K
Knight
Calhoun
Smith

If you are talking the 64+ tournament Era (post 1984) and you should unless you are one of those people who wax poetic about the dead ball era in baseball, it's:

K
Calhoun
Pitino
Smith (for now) Izzo is next up if he wins another title.
 
CallMeBruce said:
I wasn't even commenting on Smith being on there, but there are certainly arguments to be made for at least four other guys being above him. I was just point out how stupid your comparison to Ted Williams was.
Expand ...

Stupid? People were shortchanging Dean for not having won enough titles. Kind of you know, how people erroneously cite Ted Williams (or Ernie Banks) for never having won a WS. It's a lame argument when you're pointing out the overall effectiveness of a coach/athlete. Dean Smith won 3 titles. He took them to the FF 11 times. But there's more to coaching than winning titles. There's what he brought to the game. The Four Corners offense which basically caused the NCAA to go to a shot clock, The way his players, after scoring, point to the guy who passed them the ball (which even the NBA picked up), the quick huddle of teammates prior to free throws, etc. These are things Smith brought. He transcended the game.

I love me some Calhoun...but yeah, he's not Dean Smith.

By the way, Dean Smith graduated something absurd - something like 95% of his players. And in his will, everybody who ever played for him was gifted $200 to go have a good night out.
 
Hard to think Wooden when dissing Geno. Both dominated/dominate when the rest of their bb world lacked/lack a multitude of competitive teams. Same with Rupp!

Speaking of Dean Smith, it will be interesting to watch how the NCAA dances around his legacy given the information that they have regarding when the scandal of bogus classes began. They will minimize this aspect and the media will as well. We need our heroes not to have warts.

JC
Pitino
Izzo
Knight
 
UConnWingman said:
I love me some Calhoun...but yeah, he's not Dean Smith.

By the way, Dean Smith graduated something absurd - something like 95% of his players. And in his will, everybody who ever played for him was gifted $200 to go have a good night out.
Expand ...

Smith was a great man and contributor to the game most of his work is pre 1985. His two titles are now in question as is that graduation rate. I don't care about how his estate was settled.

If its just about coaching, Calhoun matched and exceeded Smith in many areas without the benefit of being an early actor or being part of the Naismith-Allen line.

If a Final Four meant winning 2 games in an era when there wasn't nearly the competition is equal to winning today, then I find fault with that analysis. Rupp isn't worth considering for these reasons.
 
UConnWingman said:
Stupid? People were shortchanging Dean for not having won enough titles. Kind of you know, how people erroneously cite Ted Williams (or Ernie Banks) for never having won a WS. It's a lame argument when you're pointing out the overall effectiveness of a coach/athlete. Dean Smith won 3 titles. He took them to the FF 11 times. But there's more to coaching than winning titles. There's what he brought to the game. The Four Corners offense which basically caused the NCAA to go to a shot clock, The way his players, after scoring, point to the guy who passed them the ball (which even the NBA picked up), the quick huddle of teammates prior to free throws, etc. These are things Smith brought. He transcended the game.

I love me some Calhoun...but yeah, he's not Dean Smith.

By the way, Dean Smith graduated something absurd - something like 95% of his players. And in his will, everybody who ever played for him was gifted $200 to go have a good night out.
Expand ...

Do you seriously not understand how much less control a left fielder has over a baseball team's ability to win championships than a head coach does over a college basketball team's ability to win championships? Williams didn't win because his teammates weren't as good as DiMaggio's and Mantle's, and the Yankees were loaded for most of his career. What was stopping Smith? He recruited all the players, developed them, and coached the games. If the team doesn't win, that's 100% on him.

That he was a nice guy who graduated players means very little in terms of ranking him as a basketball coach.
 
.-.
Calhoun was a fantastic coach, who took a sleeping giant all the way to the top. But don't kid yourself: if it wasn't Calhoun, it would've been somebody else. Connecticut was just itching to explode onto the scene as a member of the Big East, while being a couple hours from the media capital of the world. Hell, if you could ask coach Calhoun himself, he'd just say "I'm just flattered to have my name mentioned in the same sentence as Dean Smith's".
 
UConnWingman said:
Stupid? People were shortchanging Dean for not having won enough titles. Kind of you know, how people erroneously cite Ted Williams (or Ernie Banks) for never having won a WS. It's a lame argument when you're pointing out the overall effectiveness of a coach/athlete. Dean Smith won 3 titles. He took them to the FF 11 times. But there's more to coaching than winning titles. There's what he brought to the game. The Four Corners offense which basically caused the NCAA to go to a shot clock, The way his players, after scoring, point to the guy who passed them the ball (which even the NBA picked up), the quick huddle of teammates prior to free throws, etc. These are things Smith brought. He transcended the game. I love me some Calhoun...but yeah, he's not Dean Smith. By the way, Dean Smith graduated something absurd - something like 95% of his players. And in his will, everybody who ever played for him was gifted $200 to go have a good night out.
Expand ...

You aren't seriously bringing up academics as a feather in Dean Smith's cap are you? Been following the news lately? All that crap started under him - and who knows what he might have getting away with before that.

To me, there are arguments for and against him as a coach. For long term consistent excellence, he's up there with the best. Maybe deserving of the top four. UNC was a top 10 team for the better part of 20 years. That's hard to do. For achieving what he should with the teams he had, his resume comes up a little short. I thought about Bobby Cox as a comparison - had the best team in baseball for a decade and won once - but that's selling him short since Cox gets little respect. Maybe Don Shula is better - did get to the winning circle twice (consecutively) but came up short for 12 years with Marino and is probably behind some combination of Lombardi, Noll, Belichick, Parcells, Landry and Walsh.

Smith's two titles are remembered more for what the other guys did (Brown to Worthy, Webber timeout) than what UNC did, fairly or unfairly. But that makes it hard to consider either of those wins a signature coaching achievement.
 
CallMeBruce said:
Do you seriously not understand how much less control a left fielder has over a baseball team's ability to win championships than a head coach does over a college basketball team's ability to win championships? Williams didn't win because his teammates weren't as good as DiMaggio's and Mantle's, and the Yankees were loaded for most of his career. What was stopping Smith? He recruited all the players, developed them, and coached the games. If the team doesn't win, that's 100% on him.

That he was a nice guy who graduated players means very little in terms of ranking him as a basketball coach.
Expand ...

What I seriously don't understand is how the comparison deserves to broken down in such an extreme fashion. But to play your game, assuming it's 100% on the coach for a team's failure to win it all is kind of an asinine thing to say. Did Rollie Massimino coach his team to shoot 80% from the field the night they beat Georgetown? Did Jim Calhoun coach Scott Burrell's pass to Tate George? Coaches do their thing, and players do theirs.
 
Gurleyman said:
You aren't seriously bringing up academics as a feather in Dean Smith's cap are you? Been following the news lately? All that crap started under him - and who knows what he might have getting away with before that.

To me, there are arguments for and against him as a coach. For long term consistent excellence, he's up there with the best. Maybe deserving of the top four. UNC was a top 10 team for the better part of 20 years. That's hard to do. For achieving what he should with the teams he had, his resume comes up a little short. I thought about Bobby Cox as a comparison - had the best team in baseball for a decade and won once - but that's selling him short since Cox gets little respect. Maybe Don Shula is better - did get to the winning circle twice (consecutively) but came up short for 12 years with Marino and is probably behind some combination of Lombardi, Noll, Belichick, Parcells, Landry and Walsh.

Smith's two titles are remembered more for what the other guys did (Brown to Worthy, Webber timeout) than what UNC did, fairly or unfairly. But that makes it hard to consider either of those wins a signature coaching achievement.
Expand ...

Shula is twice the coach Parcells was. Please note: Parcells never won jack without Belichick's dominant defense.

Yes, I follow the news, and what we know is that the scandal is proven to go back 18 years. Dean Smith retired in 1997, or 18 years ago. I'm not absolving him, but the numbers seem to do just that.
 
UConnWingman said:
Shula is twice the coach Parcells was. Please note: Parcells never won jack without Belichick's dominant defense. Yes, I follow the news, and what we know is that the scandal is proven to go back 18 years. Dean Smith retired in 1997, or 18 years ago. I'm not absolving him, but the numbers seem to do just that.
Expand ...

You didn't read closely enough. Scandal goes back to 1993.

Shula never won except with that one core group of players and coaching staffs in two straight seasons. Super Bowl XXV was perhaps the greatest coaching job in Super Bowl history. Parcells won with his back up QB against a heavy favorite - held the ball for 40 minutes.
 
The line was 7 points, and Hostetler was probably the best backup QB in the NFL at the time (he'd been Simms' backup for several years). You can also credit Belichick's defense to holding the Bills to only 19 points, as well.
 
.-.
UConnWingman said:
What I seriously don't understand is how the comparison deserves to broken down in such an extreme fashion. But to play your game, assuming it's 100% on the coach for a team's failure to win it all is kind of an asinine thing to say. Did Rollie Massimino coach his team to shoot 80% from the field the night they beat Georgetown? Did Jim Calhoun coach Scott Burrell's pass to Tate George? Coaches do their thing, and players do theirs.
Expand ...

Right, but Smith and Calhoun are the ones who recruited those players and put them in those spots. Yeah, there's still some luck involved, but Williams wasn't also the Red Sox GM and manager. He wasn't teaching guys how to hit or pitch. He didn't decide the lineup or rotation. He just played baseball, and baseball is a particularly difficult sport for an individual player to impact.
 
Calipari, Coach K, Lappas, Jarvis

And 3 trucks full of explosives
 
UConnWingman said:
The line was 7 points, and Hostetler was probably the best backup QB in the NFL at the time (he'd been Simms' backup for several years). You can also credit Belichick's defense to holding the Bills to only 19 points, as well.
Expand ...

A job made easier by the fact that the Bills only had the ball for 20 minutes. Certainly Belichick deserves a ton of credit - the whole coaching staff does. But the head coach is the guy in charge. Parcells took over a franchise that was reeling, developed them into a playoff team right away, built a Super Bowl team within five years, and won a second with one of the greatest staff-wide coaching performances in NFL history. It wasn't like they took advantage of turnovers or fluky plays - there were no turnovers and the closest thing to a lucky break was a long missed FG.

Hostelter was an unproven back up - little big game experience. At the time, no Giants fans were saying, "it's ok - Jeff's got this." Certainly not after beating SF without a touchdown. They were also using a past his prime Ottis Anderson who they picked up off the scrap heap and Rodney Hampton - a change of pace guy with younger legs - was out. The Giants got that patchwork unit to hold the ball for 40 minutes, eat up 10 on one touchdown drive alone, and, yes, slowed the Bills down on D - Belichick made the Bills run more than they wanted. It was a staff-wide coaching success story.

For what it's worth, Parcells also took the Pats to the Super Bowl quickly after taking over there. That wasn't a hollow achievement.
 
If you guys wanna be tricky, you can run at em' with a Calhoun.
 
UConnWingman said:
Calhoun was a fantastic coach, who took a sleeping giant all the way to the top. But don't kid yourself: if it wasn't Calhoun, it would've been somebody else. Connecticut was just itching to explode onto the scene as a member of the Big East, while being a couple hours from the media capital of the world. Hell, if you could ask coach Calhoun himself, he'd just say "I'm just flattered to have my name mentioned in the same sentence as Dean Smith's".
Expand ...

These are broad, and i feel, baseless statements.
Did you ask JC the question?
What makes you think UConn w/o JC would have been different from DePaul, BC, PC etc?
Because CT is a couple hours away from NYC? so isn't PC and BC (also Boston is a media giant in itself) - Chicago isn't a hub?
I'm not saying JC is JC himself (or am I?!!) but what he did at UConn is nothing less than spectacular.
 
gtcam said:
These are broad, and i feel, baseless statements. Did you ask JC the question? What makes you think UConn w/o JC would have been different from DePaul, BC, PC etc? Because CT is a couple hours away from NYC? so isn't PC and BC (also Boston is a media giant in itself) - Chicago isn't a hub? I'm not saying JC is JC himself (or am I?!!) but what he did at UConn is nothing less than spectacular.
Expand ...

St Johns is in NYC and is still waiting for their first. Their recent coaching legend went to one FF.

Or you can look at Rutgers - just not without protective eyewear.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,190
Messages
4,556,230
Members
10,441
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom